--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Richard J. Williams" > <willytex@> wrote: > > > > jim_flanegin wrote: > > > I'd like to hear your definition of Buddha. > > > > > Which Buddha? > > Any ol' Buddha. My logic was that to deny the existence of God while > following someone who because of their perfected nature (what I would > call their Divine nature) gave birth to a religion, didn't make sense > to me. > > Then after exploring what we meant by "God", I decided it wasn't the > contradiction I had first thought, more an issue of perception and > that being a completely personal thing, is not up for debate as far as > I am concerned. Everyone perceives God differently, even those > choosing not to believe in His/Her existence. >
Atheists might become fully enlightened--"one-with-God"--and remain atheists. Why? Because what they call "God" and what God actually might be, might be so far apart as to make no sense if they try to assign the label "God" to whatever they become one with.
