--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@>
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.
>
God The Concept vs. God The Reality.
