>>>>>>>>>>Pity for me that I'll never reach the first level. <g>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You should never say never. I didn't reach the 1st level until I was 21-22 years old. The probelm is that nobody can teach you that you have to open your mind yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Einar,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I know I already replied to this one, but I feel an urge to reply in a different way now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Your reaction has irritated me quite a bit. First, it sounds asif you think you understand the meaning of life. (Well, good for you, but don't rely on it too much.) And you were quick in understanding, being only 21-22 years when you had your insights. Moreover, you are arrogant enough to tell others what's wrong with them: they can't yet open their mind. I assume you're refering then to openness to the idea that God exists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I feel irritation because you picked me out to try to convert. And I don't want to be converted. Do you understand this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Peter,
>>>>>>>I like your 2nd answer better <bg>.
>>>>>>>I do understand the meaning of life. It is written and is readily available for everyone to read.
>>>>>>>I think I "blomed" late in life. Most Christians belive at an earlier age than 21-22 years of age.
>>>>>>>Yes sometimes I am arrogant, but I am not telling you what is wrong with you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I do understand that you don't want to be converted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But you tried it once. So, now I have the right to try to convert you once also:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>'Never say never' to the idea that one day you will discover that the bible is just one book out of many, and full of lies, the biggest one the idea that there indeed is a God.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well I have to (and I did) discard that idea in order to be a Christian.
>>>>
>>>>But it's your right to step out of that community. You do know that, don't you?!
>>>
>>>I could but what pleasure would that give me <s>
>>
>>So, you're in it just for the pleasure. That sounds quite egoïstic.
>
>No, you turned my (retorical) question around (I forgot to put a questions mark behind the sentence but it is still a question). The reason I posed the question to your question was to bring us back to where this all started (Nadya's post dealing with pleasure). There would have to be a very compeling reason for me to choose to cease being a Christian.
>
>Am I a Christian just for the pleasure it gives me? The answer is: No
>Is it egoistic to be a Christian? Hmm good question, meditate on that I will. My first instinct is to say no, but I only thought about it for about 2 minutes.
>Am I egoistic? Sometimes yes, but I hope most of the time I hope I am able to put egoistic reasons aside when I make my decisions.
>Is it human nature to be egoistic? The answer to that is Yes.

Some (scientific) theorists indeed base their hypotheses on the idea that egoism is mankind's nature. But others state that altruism is also really found in mankind, so their hypotheses are based on the idea that both egoism and altruism exist. And other theorists have abandoned both words and try to explain human behavior without using these (motivational) constructs. So, in the end we can choose any point of view and we can say that we are backed up by scientists. (I'm talking about social scientists now.) Problem is that our opponents can too. And this implies that we have to know the arguments and experiments too, rather than just the names of the scientists. Moreover, because all parties have their validating experiments, it is hard to say that the others are plainly wrong. In those cases it is indeed searching for trouble if one party says that the other parties can never, no way be right. But forget about egoism.

Meditation, as far as I know, is a state of being awake, but nevertheless not-thinking. So, please don't meditate on any question. Rather, think about it.

A good question: What would your belief be, if you was (to be) born 1000 miles up north, 3000 miles to the south, 4000 miles to the west, 6000 miles to the east, 100 years back, 3000 years back, 1000 years in future?