Theory on happieness

[James_S_Saint]

However, were mandatory happiness put in place by some government, because of some unified theory of happiness, to me, that just ruins real happiness.

Well, as I said before concerning the monastics, if it isn’t working, then it isn’t the solution, it isn’t what was being sought, a theory that actually DOES work, not something just implemented to obtain sufficient satisfaction to avoid rebellion.

As my signature states, “..MOMENTUM of PURE..”

Well, we’re both on the same page, about being happy with God (and His family, for me). Only, after ignoring God during my young manhood, I don’t want to do that since in '70. I wound up catastrophically unhappy by ignoring Him.

Don

And therein lies the problem. It was not sufficient for me to be in my own personal Heaven as long as the world is still filled with misery. And as long as it is filled with misery, it won’t allow me my personal Heaven either. It’s a catch 22 situation.

But that just further justifies the beckoning for the solution, which requires the belief that a solution exists.

Actually I already know the solution. That is my problem. I know what isn’t being done. What I don’t know is what I could do to change anything about it. But o well.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Who gauges what “is working” and what is not, and why?

There are no wasted prayers or efforts.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Who gauges what “is working” and what is not, and why?

The “who” that counts is Reality/Truth/God. But obviously each person must make their own assessment. If one understands what the word means yet thinks he is unhappy, then he is very probably right.

There are no wasted prayers or efforts.

I can’t agree to that. A prayer to a false source for wisdom could be a serious waste. An effort to oppose one’s life (evil) would be a waste.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Well, if we are through arguing over whether a “unified theory of happiness” can exist, let me propose one.

To cause happiness, one merely needs to remove, without destroying life;

1. Indecision
2. Discomfort

But there is only one way to do that eternally and it just happens to be very Jesus related. The reasoning behind the principles that Jesus taught are not obvious to the uneducated. That is why faith is needed. But the lack of understanding of his design does not constitute an error in it. To go much further with detail would be to reveal some of what Jesus taught but merely never got recorded. I don’t know what the Catholic stance on such teaching is because I can’t see which reason the Church doesn’t proceed with what Jesus taught.

But the immediate question is whether you can see that removing those 2 concerns would necessarily cause happiness… …?

 

[donsnow]

Well, if we are through arguing over whether a “unified theory of happiness” can exist, let me propose one.

To cause happiness, one merely needs to remove, without destroying life;

1. Indecision
2. Discomfort

But there is only one way to do that eternally and it just happens to be very Jesus related. The reasoning behind the principles that Jesus taught are not obvious to the uneducated. That is why faith is needed. But the lack of understanding of his design does not constitute an error in it. To go much further with detail would be to reveal some of what Jesus taught but merely never got recorded. I don’t know what the Catholic stance on such teaching is because I can’t see which reason the Church doesn’t proceed with what Jesus taught.

Hi, James,

I guess our Church wisely sticks with teaching what was documented in the Holy Bible.

But the immediate question is whether you can see that removing those 2 concerns would necessarily cause happiness… …?

Right now, I can’t see much of anything. I have a headache, congestion in bronchial tubes and sinus; and am very grumpy. I’ll be back in a day or so, when I feel better.

Don

 

[donsnow]

Well, if we are through arguing over whether a “unified theory of happiness” can exist, let me propose one.

To cause happiness, one merely needs to remove, without destroying life;

1. Indecision
2. Discomfort

But there is only one way to do that eternally and it just happens to be very Jesus related. The reasoning behind the principles that Jesus taught are not obvious to the uneducated. That is why faith is needed. But the lack of understanding of his design does not constitute an error in it. To go much further with detail would be to reveal some of what Jesus taught but merely never got recorded. I don’t know what the Catholic stance on such teaching is because I can’t see which reason the Church doesn’t proceed with what Jesus taught.

But the immediate question is whether you can see that removing those 2 concerns would necessarily cause happiness… …?

Good evening, James,

Thank you, for your patience.

Now, to answer your question. Although, on the one hand, I can see where removing indecision and discomfort could alleviate unhappiness (but, no guarantee of that); on the other hand, I can see no guaranteed happiness as a result of removing those. Or, were you referring to unguaranteed happiness? (Which is what we all already have, on earth.)

I really think that artificial environments cause more problems than remedies. And, to tinker with a human personality is an attempt to impose, in my mind, an artificial emotional environment.

Don

 

[StrawberryJam]

The “who” that counts is Reality/Truth/God. But obviously each person must make their own assessment. If one understands what the word means yet thinks he is unhappy, then he is very probably right.

I can’t agree to that. A prayer to a false source for wisdom could be a serious waste. An effort to oppose one’s life (evil) would be a waste.

Don’t agree to any statement made, just as I won’t.

What do you really mean by an effort to oppose one’s life?

Some made efforts knowing they would die.

Broad brushing is hampering your attempts to convince anyone that you have some special knowledge unrevealed by the catholic church, and the martyrs and saints.

Please disclose where you get all this superior knowledge from.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Evening Don

I submit that if you are alive and are not unhappy, then you are at a state of happiness although perhaps not as happy as you could be. Granted there is that null state of neither happy nor unhappy, but that state is not very stable and it takes very little to move into happiness if there is no remaining force toward unhappiness. I was proposing a guaranteed lack of unhappiness with those two concerns.

There are simple ways to add to happiness once the forces against it are removed. But don’t jump into the presumption of things being imposed on you. I am talking about what conditions are necessary for the state to exist, not how one person can force the state onto another (that would be an entirely different issue).

Since joy is the perception of progress, once unhappiness is removed, all that is required is anything to give that perception of progress. Almost any normal activity would accomplish that as long as that activity did not involve re-instituting indecision or discomfort.

To me the big difference between Buddhism philosophy and Jesus’ philosophy is that in Buddhism, it is proposed that if one merely removes the cause of unhappiness, enlightenment will naturally occur. Jesus pointed out that to clear the field was not sufficient as “weeds” would surely grow into the field if nothing more favorable was planted. The issue has always been one of what to plant in the field that would not instill unhappiness eventually. But that can be answered these days in far more detail than what has been noted in Scripture.

Btw, the Catholic Church has not merely taught only what is in Scripture. That would be a bit pointless. The Pope does not merely stand up and spout Scripture, but applies what is said to situations. What is the point of knowing something if the knowledge is never going to be applied. When applying an understanding, details get generated. Abortion issues would be an example. I don’t think Scriptures pointed out anything specific about abortion, thus someone with understanding must look at the issue and properly apply Scriptural concerns. What I would propose is very similar. It is not based from Scripture, but more from metaphysics (the real kind) but happens to agree with Jesus all the way down the line.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Evening Don

I submit that if you are alive and are not unhappy, then you are at a state of happiness although perhaps not as happy as you could be. Granted there is that null state of neither happy nor unhappy, but that state is not very stable and it takes very little to move into happiness if there is no remaining force toward unhappiness. I was proposing a guaranteed lack of unhappiness with those two concerns.

There are simple ways to add to happiness once the forces against it are removed. But don’t jump into the presumption of things being imposed on you. I am talking about what conditions are necessary for the state to exist, not how one person can force the state onto another (that would be an entirely different issue).

Since joy is the perception of progress, once unhappiness is removed, all that is required is anything to give that perception of progress. Almost any normal activity would accomplish that as long as that activity did not involve re-instituting indecision or discomfort.

To me the big difference between Buddhism philosophy and Jesus’ philosophy is that in Buddhism, it is proposed that if one merely removes the cause of unhappiness, enlightenment will naturally occur. Jesus pointed out that to clear the field was not sufficient as “weeds” would surely grow into the field if nothing more favorable was planted. The issue has always been one of what to plant in the field that would not instill unhappiness eventually. But that can be answered these days in far more detail than what has been noted in Scripture.

Btw, the Catholic Church has not merely taught only what is in Scripture. That would be a bit pointless. The Pope does not merely stand up and spout Scripture, but applies what is said to situations. What is the point of knowing something if the knowledge is never going to be applied. When applying an understanding, details get generated. Abortion issues would be an example. I don’t think Scriptures pointed out anything specific about abortion, thus someone with understanding must look at the issue and properly apply Scriptural concerns. What I would propose is very similar. It is not based from Scripture, but more from metaphysics (the real kind) but happens to agree with Jesus all the way down the line.

James, abortion is clearly wrong per scripture if you bother to read it. Start with Jeremiah, and we can debate that issue in any forum of your choice since it needs it’s own thread.

You are wrong again friend.

 

[donsnow]

Evening Don

I submit that if you are alive and are not unhappy, then you are at a state of happiness although perhaps not as happy as you could be. Granted there is that null state of neither happy nor unhappy, but that state is not very stable and it takes very little to move into happiness if there is no remaining force toward unhappiness. I was proposing a guaranteed lack of unhappiness with those two concerns.

There are simple ways to add to happiness once the forces against it are removed. But don’t jump into the presumption of things being imposed on you. I am talking about what conditions are necessary for the state to exist, not how one person can force the state onto another (that would be an entirely different issue).

Since joy is the perception of progress, once unhappiness is removed, all that is required is anything to give that perception of progress. Almost any normal activity would accomplish that as long as that activity did not involve re-instituting indecision or discomfort.

To me the big difference between Buddhism philosophy and Jesus’ philosophy is that in Buddhism, it is proposed that if one merely removes the cause of unhappiness, enlightenment will naturally occur. Jesus pointed out that to clear the field was not sufficient as “weeds” would surely grow into the field if nothing more favorable was planted. The issue has always been one of what to plant in the field that would not instill unhappiness eventually. But that can be answered these days in far more detail than what has been noted in Scripture.

Btw, the Catholic Church has not merely taught only what is in Scripture. That would be a bit pointless. The Pope does not merely stand up and spout Scripture, but applies what is said to situations. What is the point of knowing something if the knowledge is never going to be applied. When applying an understanding, details get generated. Abortion issues would be an example. I don’t think Scriptures pointed out anything specific about abortion, thus someone with understanding must look at the issue and properly apply Scriptural concerns. What I would propose is very similar. It is not based from Scripture, but more from metaphysics (the real kind) but happens to agree with Jesus all the way down the line.

Good morning, James,

For a guaranteed state of happiness, with the removal of indecision and discomfort, I think that some activity of a positive nature would be necessary. I think the amount of positive activity varies from person to person, considering different abilities, etc.

Well, the Church doesn’t impose any theory on anybody. As long as we remain true to doctrine and Church teachings on the faith, hope and charity, we are free to accept or dismiss different details pointed out by science.

Well, my joy has come from the perception of accomplishments, which the world may not recognize and which in no way are progress. Ie, I’m maintaining my present level and am not losing any more ground in my life.

That Jesus and Bhudda have different teachings is a good point. That there is planting of something needed, after clearing the weeds is very important. That’s part of what I meant by positive activities (mental and physical), in my first paragraph.

Yes, I believe that Christian scripture has much to say about today’s different issues, although scripture may not specify any of today’s issues. And, like StrawberryJam said, abortion would be another thread, but it’s a good example of your point.

Don

 

[James_S_Saint]

Morning Don.

Society typically PRESUMES a design and then insists that people conform to it. What if that design was also what people wanted to do? It normally isn’t because such designers have trouble figuring out how to design such a society. It isn’t a simple task. But from the need to have a society, semi-functioning societies get formed and from that all of the problems you mention come to be.

IF society forces a set path upon a person regardless of the person’s desire, then misery ensues.

IF a person does whatever their desire dictates, society is destroyed (there are no banks, schools, stores, hospitals,… needs are not met).

The trick is to form a society wherein the people are doing what they desire, but also doing what a society would need. Such is a dual/split priority and thus is extremely hard to create, but not impossible.

If you were doing exactly what you desired to do, would you care if you were called a robot? The idea of being just a robot is offensive because it implies that you are not free to do as you choose. It implies that you are held against your will, even that you have no will of your own. But that is a fear based on an assumption that is only an assumption, not a true necessity of reality.

The entire issue is one of being afraid of being confined, a fear of having a need but being kept from the freedom to pursue it. Such a fear has a justification, but fear does not dictate truth of a situation, it rather distorts the perception of it.

The ideal society does not dictate, but inspires. It inspires in the direction that best suits all of the people involved. Such a design is already on the tables. It does not demand compliance. It displays the hope involved in compliance and allows for choice to decide in a harmonious direction. It is assured that such a choice will be made only because it (the design) has considered every possibility and compensated for all of them. It is “Holy”. “Every knee shall gladly bend.” But not because it had to, but rather because it wanted to.

The end result of such a design is that the people get to do exactly what they desire and a society functions in harmony at the same time. Every person is happy.

 

[donsnow]

Morning Don.

Society typically PRESUMES a design and then insists that people conform to it. What if that design was also what people wanted to do? It normally isn’t because such designers have trouble figuring out how to design such a society. It isn’t a simple task. But from the need to have a society, semi-functioning societies get formed and from that all of the problems you mention come to be.

IF society forces a set path upon a person regardless of the person’s desire, then misery ensues.

IF a person does whatever their desire dictates, society is destroyed (there are no banks, schools, stores, hospitals,… needs are not met).

The trick is to form a society wherein the people are doing what they desire, but also doing what a society would need. Such is a dual/split priority and thus is extremely hard to create, but not impossible.

If you were doing exactly what you desired to do, would you care if you were called a robot? The idea of being just a robot is offensive because it implies that you are not free to do as you choose. It implies that you are held against your will, even that you have no will of your own. But that is a fear based on an assumption that is only an assumption, not a true necessity of reality.

The entire issue is one of being afraid of being confined, a fear of having a need but being kept from the freedom to pursue it. Such a fear has a justification, but fear does not dictate truth of a situation, it rather distorts the perception of it.

The ideal society does not dictate, but inspires. It inspires in the direction that best suits all of the people involved. Such a design is already on the tables. It does not demand compliance. It displays the hope involved in compliance and allows for choice to decide in a harmonious direction. It is assured that such a choice will be made only because it (the design) has considered every possibility and compensated for all of them. It is “Holy”. “Every knee shall gladly bend.” But not because it had to, but rather because it wanted to.

The end result of such a design is that the people get to do exactly what they desire and a society functions in harmony at the same time. Every person is happy.

Good afternoon, James,

Well, yes, that’s the Holy Roman Catholic Church, right? Also, the kingdom of God. If that’s what you’re referring to, why discuss it as hypothetical?

Don

 

[James_S_Saint]

Good afternoon, James,

Well, yes, that’s the Holy Roman Catholic Church, right? Also, the kingdom of God. If that’s what you’re referring to, why discuss it as hypothetical?

Don

Is it working? – really?

It seems to me that it is missing something, waiting for something, perhaps to be a Bride for something, something else, different but very compatible.

 

[donsnow]

Is it working? – really?

It seems to me that it is missing something, waiting for something, perhaps to be a Bride for something, something else, different but very compatible.

Hey, James,

Yes, until Jesus Christ returns in his resurrected and glorified body his Church and kingdom on earth are incomplete. Like the body without the head. Like the bride, without the groom.

Don

 

[James_S_Saint]

Hey, James,

Yes, until Jesus Christ returns in his resurrected and glorified body his Church and kingdom on earth are incomplete. Like the body without the head. Like the bride, without the groom.

Don

Thus she is not the “unified happiness theory”, but waiting for it to come and “take her away”.

 

[donsnow]

Thus she is not the “unified happiness theory”, but waiting for it to come and “take her away”.

And, a really beautiful end to a wonderful love story. And a great beginning, to the next world.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Thus He who removes indecision and discomfort yet lives, is the Christ, the one for whom She prays and awaits.

I can tell you what that looks like, but I am just the messenger, to whom no one listens.

 

[donsnow]

Thus He who removes indecision and discomfort yet lives, is the Christ, the one for whom She prays and awaits.

I can tell you what that looks like, but I am just the messenger, to whom no one listens.

Well, James,

That’s so true.

Now, your second statement, when we began, the way you phrased your words put me off. I’m glad I stuck with our conversation, 'though.

Have a good night,
Don

 

[James_S_Saint]

Now, your second statement, when we began, the way you phrased your words put me off. I’m glad I stuck with our conversation, 'though.

Well my “unleavened bread” technique of communicating is not without cause nor purpose. Your willingness to be patient and seek past the “hard nose” appearance reports good of your character.

Moses had a similar situation and they asked of him why they had to partake in such unleavened bread; hard, dry, without fluff, hot air, and soft demeanor. He spoke “as it is” and without much eloquence. In matters pertaining to God, some things are just what they are and any attempt to soften them is deception. The Rabbinical priests are famous for softening, excuse making, and diverting what is often a simple question and truth. There are times for such leavening and times for unleavening.

 

[donsnow]

Well my “unleavened bread” technique of communicating is not without cause nor purpose. Your willingness to be patient and seek past the “hard nose” appearance reports good of your character.

Moses had a similar situation and they asked of him why they had to partake in such unleavened bread; hard, dry, without fluff, hot air, and soft demeanor. He spoke “as it is” and without much eloquence. In matters pertaining to God, some things are just what they are and any attempt to soften them is deception. The Rabbinical priests are famous for softening, excuse making, and diverting what is often a simple question and truth. There are times for such leavening and times for unleavening.

Good morning, James,

Thank you for explaining that.

Now, I’m done here.

'Bye on this one,
Don