Why seek "God"?

[ananda]

I don't feel Jesus taught conformity, he spoke out about against conforming to the ways of the world.
Jesus did not speak of blind faith, His teachings are what we follow and this leads to a biblical faith.
Jesus spoke of the different types of love agape, phileo, and eros.
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 and lets not forget grace.
Jesus increased the law and in order to relate to the people he spoke to "where they live" to increase their understanding of laws that include mercy, justice and grace.
Jesus most certainly did teach a path that can be verified and it's not an easy one. Denying ones self and taking up His cross to follow Him.
If by Jesus teaching "more" you mean living an abundant life, then yes, but not sure that is what you were referring to. He also said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
Jesus wasn't a Pacifist? What makes you say that?

I don't wish for this to turn into an argument about Bible verses, so I'll begin by stating that I accept that your interpretations are valid for you, and I respect that.

My interpretations are based on my understanding of the following:

Conformity: To the ways of the Bible, and the word of its deity; no free inquiry.
Blind Faith: John 20:29, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Hebrews 11:1, 1 Peter 1:8, etc.;
Love being the supreme state: 1 Corinthians 13:13, 1 Corinthians 13:8, 1 Corinthians 14:1, 1 Corinthians 16:14, Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; Colossians 3:14; 1 John 4:7-9; 2 John 1:6;
Verification of the path: I've not experienced this, even after 30 years in Christianity;
More: e.g. more love, more life, more health, more wealth, etc. are all part of heaven's rewards;
Non-Pacifism: John 2:15; John 3:36; Matthew 10:34; Luke 22:36; Luke 19:27; Revelation 2:16; Revelation 19:15; Revelation 19:21; etc.

 

[Dwells]

I don't wish for this to turn into an argument about Bible verses, so I'll begin by stating that I accept that your interpretations are valid for you, and I respect that.

My interpretations are based on my understanding of the following:

Conformity: To the ways of the Bible, and the word of its deity; no free inquiry.
Blind Faith: John 20:29, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Hebrews 11:1, 1 Peter 1:8, etc.;
Love being the supreme state: 1 Corinthians 13:13, 1 Corinthians 13:8, 1 Corinthians 14:1, 1 Corinthians 16:14, Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; Colossians 3:14; 1 John 4:7-9; 2 John 1:6;
Verification of the path: I've not experienced this, even after 30 years in Christianity;
More: e.g. more love, more life, more health, more wealth, etc. are all part of heaven's rewards;
Non-Pacifism: John 2:15; John 3:36; Matthew 10:34; Luke 22:36; Luke 19:27; Revelation 2:16; Revelation 19:15; Revelation 19:21; etc.

I will just say this, you most likely looked for scriptures to support your viewpoint (as we all often do), but did you look for scripture to support mine?
Any way, I agree, this is not the thread to pursue this topic.

 

[ananda]

I will just say this, you most likely looked for scriptures to support your viewpoint (as we all often do), but did you look for scripture to support mine?
Any way, I agree, this is not the thread to pursue this topic.

I do not doubt that there are verses available which you can interpret in ways which support your position.

I am simply sharing some verses which support the perspective I shared, a perspective which - in my experience - were taught by the majority of churches/Christians, or were the general belief held by churches/Christians, which & whom I personally knew.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

If there was a supreme deity, having people write down "holy" books as the primary means of communication strikes me as the WORST possible way to communicate.
Not only will the meaning change ever so subtly from translation to translation, it will also invite all sorts of misunderstanding, doubt, confusion, and downright falsehood.

 

[ananda]

If there was a supreme deity, having people write down "holy" books as the primary means of communication strikes me as the WORST possible way to communicate.
Not only will the meaning change ever so subtly from translation to translation, it will also invite all sorts of misunderstanding, doubt, confusion, and downright falsehood.

Agreed, I made a similar argument in this post.

 

[Dwells]

If there was a supreme deity, having people write down "holy" books as the primary means of communication strikes me as the WORST possible way to communicate.
Not only will the meaning change ever so subtly from translation to translation, it will also invite all sorts of misunderstanding, doubt, confusion, and downright falsehood.

Well I believe religions can evolve, sometimes they even progress. Often it does take a set of fresh eyes and mind to see something hiding in plain site.
Science gets a pass when correcting itself, why shouldn't Belief Systems be allowed the same?

 

[dlamberth]

Well I believe religions can evolve, sometimes they even progress. Often it does take a set of fresh eyes and mind to see something hiding in plain site.

What does it mean for a religion to evolve, or to even progress?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Science gets a pass when correcting itself, why shouldn't Belief Systems be allowed the same?

Oh, I'd love for belief systems to embrace that kind of flexibility and self-correcting humility.
However, book religions are particularly hostile to this kind of mentality, as they usually treat their texts as sacred, flawless revelation that must never be questioned, revised, or interpreted differently.

 

[Chriliman]

Why do people seek "God"?

Buddhism explains our search in terms of dukkha (aka suffering, discontentment, displeasure, etc.). That is, because of dukkha, we seek out god(s), saviors, prophets, psychics, doctors, politicians, love, food, money, sex, sleep, entertainment, etc.

Why not address dukkha itself, as the Lord Buddha taught, instead of seeking to treat its symptoms? Dig out the roots (of dukkha), instead of endlessly snipping its offshoots.

Does dukkha include death?

 

[ananda]

Does dukkha include death?

I would presume that it is quite obvious that death can be experienced as dukkha ... especially if one harbors great ignorance, aversion, or attachment towards it.

 

[Chriliman]

I would presume that it is quite obvious that death can be experienced as dukkha ... especially if one harbors great ignorance, aversion, or attachment towards it.

Who or what saves people from dukkha?

 

[ananda]

Who or what saves people from dukkha?

Dispelling ignorance, attachment, and aversion brings permanent relief from dukkha. Practicing concentration, mindfulness, and jhana brings temporary relief.

 

[Chriliman]

Dispelling ignorance, attachment, and aversion brings permanent relief from dukkha.

So permanent relief from dukkha involves casting out what's false and accepting what's true? Sounds like what God already tells us to do, and in doing so, we'll have everlasting life with Him.

Practicing concentration, mindfulness, and jhana brings temporary relief.

What's jhana?

 

[ananda]

So permanent relief from dukkha involves casting out what's false and accepting what's true? Sounds like what God already tells us to do, and in doing so, we'll have everlasting life with Him.

No ... permanent relief from dukkha involves dispelling ignorance, attachment, and aversion. This is not the same as "casting out what's false and accepting what's true", although there is some overlap.

What's jhana?

Various high states of mental stillness which, when cultivated, quiets the storm and clouds of dukkha and allows the consciousness to see more clearly.

 

[Chriliman]

No ... permanent relief from dukkha involves dispelling ignorance, attachment, and aversion.

Is it about attaining a state of no feeling(freedom from feeling)?

This is not the same as "casting out what's false and accepting what's true", although there is some overlap.

I would think it would be good to know all truth and cast out all falsehood, don't you?

Various high states of mental stillness which, when cultivated, quiets the storm and clouds of dukkha and allows the consciousness to see more clearly.

Does seeing more clearly involve seeing what's true/real vs what's false? If so, this is what God already tells us to do.

 

[ananda]

Is it about attaining a state of no feeling(freedom from feeling)?

Nibbana is a state described as permanently blissful.

I would think it would be good to know all truth and cast out all falsehood, don't you?

If you mean acquiring wisdom to dispel ignorance, then I would agree.

Does seeing more clearly involve seeing what's true/real vs what's false? If so, this is what God already tells us to do.

Seeing more clearly involves discerning reality from illusion. I have no personal knowledge of a God telling me such things; however, I know for myself that wisdom acquired as a result of properly discerning reality dispels ignorance, and thus destroys dukkha.

 

[dlamberth]

... properly discerning reality dispels ignorance, ...

What does a "properly discerned reality" look like?

 

[ananda]

What does a "properly discerned reality" look like?

Knowing the nature of, and the laws governing, the various planes of reality.

 

[Chriliman]

Nibbana is a state described as permanently blissful.

If you mean acquiring wisdom to dispel ignorance, then I would agree.

Seeing more clearly involves discerning reality from illusion. I have no personal knowledge of a God telling me such things; however, I know for myself that wisdom acquired as a result of properly discerning reality dispels ignorance, and thus destroys dukkha.

So wisdom will eventually destroy all dukkha including death?

Christianity teaches that God's wisdom will do the same and that He works through us.

 

[dlamberth]

Knowing the nature of, and the laws governing, the various planes of reality.

I'm looking for deeper information, please Mostly what you gave are concepts.
What are those laws of Nature that are seen? And, as seen, what are the Laws governing the various planes of reality?