The key to happiness lies not in endeavoring to be happy, but in giving up your right to happiness. When we seek anything as an end in itself that ought not to be an end we loose that which we seek. If we seek love for loves sake, we loose love. If we seek happiness for the sake of happiness we loose our joy. True happiness comes from being filled with joy. Joy comes from being filled with Christ. When we surrender our will to His we experience His life abundantly. All that is good is found in God. Scriptures says to seek first the
Often times we think that if our life could only be free of trouble or if only we could attain this one ideal we would arrive at happiness. In reality, if happiness isn’t found regardless of our circumstances, it will not be found when we have attained whatever it is we think we need. True happiness isn’t about living in a place where there are no trials or problems. True happiness is that which continues no matter the circumstances. It isn’t brought on by circumstances, but is sustained through circumstances for its substance is found in being in Christ.
Some think happiness will come by surrendering all desires. Others think it comes by attaining all desires and yet once attained they sink into despair for happiness was not reached. One only needs to follow the lives of the
The desire lingers unfulfilled for it was never meant to be fulfilled by looking to this world, but to heaven. This is why when Jesus taught us how to pray He said that we pray for the coming of the
C.S. Lewis put it best when he wrote, “If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world.”
18 comments:
karla said: The key to happiness lies not in endeavoring to be happy, but in giving up your right to happiness.
I don't think that anyone has the *right* to be happy....
karla said: When we seek anything as an end in itself that ought not to be an end we loose that which we seek. If we seek love for loves sake, we loose love. If we seek happiness for the sake of happiness we loose our joy.
Not sure about that. Its pretty difficult though. You need to know what happiness *is* before you go after it with much hope of actually attaining it.
karla said: True happiness comes from being filled with joy.
Isn't that just another way of saying that happiness is the feeling of happiness? Anyway I think that happiness is somewhat less that 'joyful' its more having a slight knowing smile on your face and a twinkle in your eye..
karla said: A life lived in service to happiness is a life lived for one’s own pleasure. It results in a selfish life, not a happy life.
A life lived in *service* to anything or anyone is, I think, not the best way to live....
karla said: True happiness isn’t about living in a place where there are no trials or problems.
True. We are problem solvers by nature. A problem free life is a very *boring* life.
karla said: True happiness is that which continues no matter the circumstances.
I agree - as do the Ancient Greeks.... [grin]
karla said: Some think happiness will come by surrendering all desires.
...and what is life without desire....? rather grey and bland I think...
karla said: Others think it comes by attaining all desires and yet once attained they sink into despair for happiness was not reached.
Because happiness cannot be bought through the acquistion of external things. They inevitably disapoint.
karla said: happiness is not found with more money, more fame, or more things.
Very true.
karla said: C.S. Lewis put it best when he wrote, “If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world.”
Thereby cleary showing that Lewis did not understand desire.... or logic actually... [laughs]
My first comment only got a portion of what I was attempting to say... got a little sidetracked :-)
I liked your post Karla, happiness & joy are great subjects to study. I think as for the modern church the "tactic" of bringing people to Christ is saying that this life is going to be so great, yet Christ says quite the opposite. Now this life is easier in some ways because of Christ, but in some ways it could be considered "harder".
"Isn't that just another way of saying that happiness is the feeling of happiness? "
I didn't mean to suggest that happiness was simply a feeling. I think it has to do with a way of thinking more so than feeling although it can produce feeling. I think joy is a better word for what many are looking for in "being happy."
"A life lived in *service* to anything or anyone is, I think, not the best way to live...."
We are all living in service to someone, if not someone else, ourselves.
I think Lewis understood far more than I many things.
Desire is desirable. Truly only desire for God is a desire that continues to burn and be fulfilled at the same time. The more you desire God the more you find Him and the more you desire, so you are able to experience both the joy of desire and the joy of it's fulfillment endlessly.
Chase, that's true. Life with Christ costs everything, but also gains everything. No doubt about that.
karla said: I think it has to do with a way of thinking more so than feeling although it can produce feeling.
Definitely. Happiness is a state of mind - a way of looking at the world, not just a feeling.
karla said: We are all living in service to someone, if not someone else, ourselves.
I don't agree. I think that being 'in service' is being on the wrong end of a power relationship. We may 'do' things for ourselves or others but this certainly shouldn't be in any way subservient. It's best I think to be as much as possible the captain of your own ship.
karla said: I think Lewis understood far more than I many things.
From what I've read of him I don't give him much credit as an adequate thinker never mind a great one!
karla said: Truly only desire for God is a desire that continues to burn and be fulfilled at the same time.
I find that the search for knowledge/truth does that....
"It's best I think to be as much as possible the captain of your own ship."
This is being in service to oneself. serving no one, is serving oneself. I'm not sure that's an admirable trait.
"I find that the search for knowledge/truth does that...."
That is because, believe it or not, the source of truth is God. So being a seeker of truth will lead to what I was talking about. Eventually that search will lead to Him.
karla said: This is being in service to oneself. serving no one, is serving oneself.
I don't agree. Or maybe its a matter of perspective or emphasis.... I'm not talking about being selfish.. or even being self-centred (although both are necessary in reasonable amounts). It's not about being the master of your own fate - which clearly we are not - its about being independent of mind and stoical by nature.
karla said: I'm not sure that's an admirable trait.
Actually I find independent people *very* admirable.
karla said: That is because, believe it or not, the source of truth is God.
[laughs] Oh, no its not........
karla said: So being a seeker of truth will lead to what I was talking about. Eventually that search will lead to Him.
I really wouldn't hold your breath on that one if I was you....
I'm not sure you would use the word stoic if you looked at it's etymology. But in its modern definition it means unaffected by pleasure or pain.
Regardless. . . being an independent mind, dependent on no one and nothing is what you see as an admirable goal?
Is it attainable? If we are a part of nature can we ever be free to be independent of it? I don't think you can prove that you aren't being controlled by your environment and that you can be an independent mind. I would suggest that the Christian worldview provides a greater independence for humanity through dependence on God than naturalism could ever produce. Christianity provides a framework that allows for humans to be in authority over nature, distinct from nature for we are created in the image of God and given authority over the natural world. We are given independence from nature. If there is no Creator we are merely a product of nature and are not independent from it.
karla said: I'm not sure you would use the word stoic if you looked at it's etymology.
I've studied them a bit at University & think that they have a lot going for them. When I get time I shall be researching them further.
karla said: But in its modern definition it means unaffected by pleasure or pain.
By and large yes - maybe not unaffected though... I think its more knowing and subtle than that. More recognising pleasure and pain for what they are - ephemeral phenomena.
karla said: Regardless. . . being an independent mind, dependent on no one and nothing is what you see as an admirable goal?
Very much so.
karla said: Is it attainable?
I believe so, yes.
karla said: If we are a part of nature can we ever be free to be independent of it?
We are only part of nature to the extent that we are biological beings with a long ancestory. However, we are first and foremost cultural beings. We can see things as they are and once we see clearly we can pick and choose how we react to our more animal moments. We will not be ruled by our passions or by our genes or by tribal affiliations.
karla said: I don't think you can prove that you aren't being controlled by your environment and that you can be an independent mind.
We are certainly being *influenced* by our environment but our self-aware nature gives us the choice whether or not we are controlled by it. People who merely react to their environment aren't really exercising their human abilities are they?
karla said: I would suggest that the Christian worldview provides a greater independence for humanity through dependence on God than naturalism could ever produce.
So.... You become independent by giving up your independence? Even for a religious standpoint that really doesn't make much sense!
karla said: If there is no Creator we are merely a product of nature and are not independent from it.
Actually we have made *ourselves* largely independent of nature. We have a natural background but have moved far beyond it over the last 10,000 years. We are no longer merely natural beings but cultural beings. Culture is now our natural environment.
Shortly we will have enough knowledge and expertise to manipulate our own genetics. Will we still be 'natural' beings after that? I think not. Once we can direct our own evolution - which will probably happen in our lifetimes and definitely within the next generations - then we will have left the 'natural world' for good I think.
"I've studied them a bit at University & think that they have a lot going for them."
When I looked it up it said that stoic comes from the Stoics who believed God determined all things and they were to be content in light of that. It all had to do with divine determinism. Which I wouldn't really agree that all is so fixed. Regardless, I was just thinking that term didn't suit your position.
Most things in Christianity are about giving away to keep. If you live for yourself you lose life, if you live your life for God you gain it. If you love for self-gain you don't know love, if you love sacrificially you gain love. You give away what you want to keep. If you want to be independent you become dependent on God. It works.
Also, I thought your position is that there is nothing beyond nature. So how could humanity ever be something other than a part of nature, if there is no something else to be part of?
I on the other hand maintain that there is a supernatural reality which affirms the natural and exceeds the natural. It gives meaning to the natural, but isn't limited by it.
karla said: It all had to do with divine determinism.
They where indeed very big on Fate - not something I'm a great fan of. Their ethics/way of life I found interesting though..
karla said: Regardless, I was just thinking that term didn't suit your position.
I've read some Seneca who was a Roman stoic. I found myself agreeing with his position on many things.
karla said: Most things in Christianity are about giving away to keep.
Well, I guess it makes as much sense as the rest of it... [grin]
karla said: Also, I thought your position is that there is nothing beyond nature.
I think you misunderstand me. I certainly do not believe in anything supernatural. But just because we're basically animals doesn't mean that we cannot move beyond our animal nature and become more than merely smart apes. That's where culture comes in.
karla said: So how could humanity ever be something other than a part of nature, if there is no something else to be part of?
We are more than the sum of our parts. We can move beyond our bilogical heritage because we can conceive of so much more. We can shape our own destiny and maybe even transcend biology itself. It's pretty much all up for grabs if we survive long enough to live up to our potential.
karla said: I on the other hand maintain that there is a supernatural reality which affirms the natural and exceeds the natural.
..and I maintain that such a thing does not exist.
"because we can conceive of so much more."
That's because we are meant for so much more and we are all striving to attain it. This world does not satisfy, because there is more.
karla said: That's because we are meant for so much more and we are all striving to attain it.
We are not 'meant' for more. There is no plan (divine or otherwise), there is no destiny, there is no fate - except what we make for ourselves (to probably misquote Sarah Conner).
karla said: This world does not satisfy, because there is more.
There is indeed more than this world. There's a whole *universe* out there....
"We are not 'meant' for more. There is no plan (divine or otherwise), there is no destiny, there is no fate"
But your not certain of that despite your emphatic language. Correct?
karla said: But your not certain of that despite your emphatic language. Correct?
Certain? No. Confident? Yes.
I can understand being uncertain. But I believe you think it impossible to be certain about anything. So I'm not sure confidence is attainable if there can be no certainty. But I can't argue with your feelings on the matter, if you are confident, you are confident.
Post a Comment