This came up in a discussion i was having... So i decided to ask the intelligent masses.

So if you believe that they all lead to God, lets dicuss why everyone is going to war/jihad with everyone else. what the problem is?!?

If you believe that there is only one way, tell us why you think so. You dont have to be specific on which way is the right way tho. just your thoughts.


thanks.

Poll result (38 votes) Yes. So many different religions, one God. (21 votes) Vote No. There is only one way. (17 votes) Vote

*****
Gina is out of control
I'm out of control
the whole--damn--party
--is--out--of control!
(c) White Bob
*****

people choose religions to find spiritually; a closer connection to god (or something greater than themselves, however you wanna call it).


religions are paths to finding that oneness with god.


so try and look at it like that.

That's mighty religious/doctrinaire of you.
Nah I'm just being facetious. But I don't question's
someone spiritual path unless I see it as destructive...
as far as religion... blah.

*****
Gina is out of control
I'm out of control
the whole--damn--party
--is--out--of control!
(c) White Bob
*****

i didnt mean your interpetation of god was wrong. what i was saying was that your interpetation of my post and what i was saying was wrong.

i didnt mean path as in traveling blah blah or however you took it. i meant to all RELIGIONS lead to god.

basically, our teaching (and my personal belief) is that only one path leads to God (Jesus Christ), however it is not written in stone that a person has to intellectually with their brain think this or understand this while on earth in order to have a chance being with God. anyone who is pure of heart can be with God in the end -- BUT, they're clearly going to have to ACCEPT Jesus upon "arriving" at least, or else they'll obviously not be with God.

true Roman Catholic teaching does not believe there was any specification about a cut-off date to being able to love God.

it's more about accepting heaven than heaven accepting you, but in order to accept heaven, you will have to be in the right frame of soul (which is believed to be more difficult without the proper faith and practices on Earth) and willing to accept and absolutley love with your whole entity everything that heaven is (the true God, Jesus, Hitler if he somehow made it there, Republicans, Democrats, Gay people etc). lol yes, true Catholic TEACHING insists you must love gay people even though you don't condone their gay behavior.


we also believe in a purgatory process, meaning if a person isn't ready or pure enough for heaven, but still have a kernal of goodness somewhere in them, they often go through a tailor-made purification process instead of having to be eternally damned to hell.

>basically, our teaching (and my personal belief) is that only
>one path leads to God (Jesus Christ), however it is not
>written in stone that a person has to intellectually with
>their brain think this or understand this while on earth in
>order to have a chance being with God. anyone who is pure of
>heart can be with God in the end -- BUT, they're clearly going
>to have to ACCEPT Jesus upon "arriving" at least, or else
>they'll obviously not be with God.
>
>true Roman Catholic teaching does not believe there was any
>specification about a cut-off date to being able to love God.

so no matter what, you can reach god, in the end, IF you accept jesus as your saviour. i get that.

>
>it's more about accepting heaven than heaven accepting you,
>but in order to accept heaven, you will have to be in the
>right frame of soul (which is believed to be more difficult
>without the proper faith and practices on Earth) and willing
>to accept and absolutley love with your whole entity
>everything that heaven is (the true God, Jesus, Hitler if he
>somehow made it there, Republicans, Democrats, Gay people
>etc). lol yes, true Catholic TEACHING insists you must love
>gay people even though you don't condone their gay behavior.

so you can be close to god regardless of what your religious status is, but the best way to get to god (or heaven) is thru the catholic church. i can respect that.

>we also believe in a purgatory process, meaning if a person
>isn't ready or pure enough for heaven, but still have a kernal
>of goodness somewhere in them, they often go through a
>tailor-made purification process instead of having to be
>eternally damned to hell.

a second chance. everyone deserves a second chance.


well, what about christianity. they believe in jesus too. just not with the emphasis on the virgin mary that ive noticed in the catholic church. is there any major differences on how you worship against those two?

>well, what about christianity. they believe in jesus too. just
>not with the emphasis on the virgin mary that ive noticed in
>the catholic church. is there any major differences on how you
>worship against those two?

thanks for the respect and questions.

first thing i'd want to point out is that Catholicism IS Christianity, and Catholics are Christians (there are a lot of self-righteous, or often just misinformed protestants who would claim that Catholics aren't Christian, but rest assured -- Catholicism is not only Christianity, its the oldest and most classic form that you'll find - the one every other newer form used to be a part of before breaking off)

second, there is a huge emphasis on the Blessed Mother, but not above God. we love and adore her, find a strong connection to God through her (not ONLY through her), and hold her up as the ideal of what the Church should be.

Catholics do NOT worship her, but once again, there are so many misinformed people (including Catholics), that i'm not surprised that anyone would think that.

we pray to Mary as a way of being with Mary, side by side, before God. we have an understanding that God's love and work doesn't exist in a vaccuum, and that family, relationships, work and intention of others, and all that community family stuff is the reality of how God expresses and vessels his love (in ADDITION to everything from and to Him directly).


the worsphip and belief differences between Catholics and protestants (i use a lowercase "p" not out of disrespect, but because it's not a name of any specific group) are too many for me to name here, but i'll give some examples.

DIVORCE: Catholicism is much stricter when it comes to justifying divorce and granting anullments

CRUCIFIX and the SIGN OF THE CROSS: i don't know about every single post-Catholicism form of Christian, but for the most part, protestants believe we put too much focus on Jesus' execution and suffering, where as we see supernatural salvation and inconceivably immense love in his crucifixion. for us, the blood and screams and tears and pain is NOT the focus. it's the reality of how much He loved us and references to the cross are symbolic of the precise MOMENT of our salvation and Satan's crushing defeat. its not a mutilated flesh fetish.

STATUES and IDOLITRY: protestants believe we pray to statues and thus worship false idols. Catholics will often pray THROUGH statues (using something to focus on) and symbols that are tangible to our senses TO the real soul (the statue isn't itself God). also, Catholics believe that if something is blessed, then there is a unique and sacred presence of God (through God's blessing) with that item that has no holiness of its own. protestants believe its all hogwash and we're worshiping things.

PRAYING and WORSPHIPING: this is where confused symantics come in. when you pray to God, that is ONE part of worshiping, but "praying to" other beloved souls (Mary, Saints) is NOT worship. you're really calling on them and sharing with them in the way God designed His creatures to love and work with one another. it's often more like praying WITH them, or asking them for assistance in something (God gave us purpose and usefulness - we don't suddenly have that stripped from us and become robotic watchers when we die - everyone gets to play a role in God's goodness). but WORSHIP is an entirely different and arguably MUCH deeper thing. Worship is us surrenderring, and supernaturally "melding with" our loving source of existence who is (thankfully) God, and manifesting His divine intention for us to join with Him in an amazing stream of -- pure God. When we become intimate with God (in a number of ways), that is our very SOURCE, and is something totally different that showing our family (saints, mary, etc) love. now...i've even seen the term "worship" sometimes used as something that is different from the classic, truest meaning of worship -- by Catholics. even high-up Catholics. but that's where language translation, lazy shorthand, and symantic confusion comes in. dictionaries, and languages aside, the form of the word "worship" that represents the thing that is supposed to be reserved for God and only God IS reserved for ONLY GOD in Catholicism, no matter how many times a word might be used for a different meaning.

EDIT: one other thing is the Bible. protestants don't believe Catholics look to the Bible as we should. Catholics do look to the Bible, but also believe 2 important things: God continues to speak, and if everyone is meant to JUST read the Bible for themselves as their exclusive understanding of God there will be millions of different understandings and (since there's only one truth) millions of confused and incorrect people. Catholics believe one needs divine guidance, the kind of guidance that would be supplied through the direct appointed descendants of those God himself told to build His his church. perfect example of why Catholics believe in having a God-blessed authority on His word and will: lauryn hill and "brother anthony" lol (i love lauryn, i only tease with some truth)

if you really would like to get into the details of Catholic teaching, i'd recommend going to the source: www.vatican.va

you can look up anything whatsoever to do with Catholicism, and find information and deeper explanation on it.

real Catholics don't molest people, hate gays, pray to rocks, or worship fellow creatures.

I've never had someone explain Catholocism to me in a way that I could understand. I get it now. Thanks.

✁---cuthear-----

www.kinkythought.com

close-minded free-thinkers suck

on the catholic church. i appreciate the time you took to write that.

caring enough to read all that and show interest in my beliefs.

!!

<--- The lovely Ms Hill when she wasn't thrown off.

LOOK WHOS RAPPIN NOW
http://www.myspace.com/quil215

humans as a whole are fallible. we constantly change and make mistakes... and i dont think ANYONE on this planet can be trusted ALL of the time.


unfortunately, humans have proven over time that we can be pretty cruel. nice and giving as well. but there is a lot more bad going on in the world than good (sadly).

i dont know. i think religion comes from the fact that we really inately believe that there is something greater than all of us and everything here. that something (holy or whatever) created this universe and ALL of us for a purpose. we all want to believe that we have a purpose.


and on and on and on. but i dont wanna sound odd or preachy.

God isn't.

_______________________________

IMMORTAL TECHNIQUE
PUBLIC ENEMY
THE COUP
DEAD PREZ

WAKE UP MY NIGGAZ!!!!!!!!!!!!

do you mean atheist view on things?

I don't believe that we live forever. It seems contrived, just like this "I'm watching you 24/7 so don't fuck up"-God. When I die I don't want to exsist anymore. Period. No stupid holding hands and kissing with the goodie-goodie - when I die, I want to DIE.

-Otto

My religion and my relationship with my creator are two totally different things. First of all my religion is non-existant;however, my creator and I communicate constantly. The terms belief, spirituality and religion really need to be overhauleed

i forgot to offer the non-religion view on things. it kinda falls in with the first option tho. sorry.


but even without religion, you still see a path to something greater, right? so is religion invalid in your position? non-beneficial?

To expand what I said before I'm not religous however my way of life is I.S.L.A.M. I make that fundamental division because it is possible for one to lose their religion;however,it is impossible to lose or have one take my way of life. To illustrate, one could argue that my religion is driving(my current occupation) and/or being a husband-father-brother-etc. All of those things could too easily be gone/taken tommorrow which goes to show the fickle nature of religion no matter how liberally it is defined. So to answer your question,NO, RELIGION offers nothing however having STRUCTURE does offer certain benefits(subjective to the individual). I think ppl too often try and treat the two as the same and this is were confusion lies.

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

so is the view you see the science creation theory?


no god at all?
nothing before or after life or death?

yeah, that's it. no god concept, no afterlife, no eternal soul. you die, and your light goes out. we're not special creatures, we're just animals. sorry, i know you think you're special.. but no.

oh and i don't buy into that 'intelligent design' crap either.

show me the empirical evidence, basically.

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

what's the fallacy in believing in that? did you come to that over time or have you felt that way since childhood?

i think every organic thing has a soul/spirit within it. even, say, rocks....they were created over time by different natural elements, etc...

hell, even plants respond to energy--ppl talking to them, prayer...

i can't imagine seeing the world without spirit in it.



~~~~
~*~musical revolution~*~

"The world was warned about this...The CIA calls what happened in London today "blowback." It is wrong, it is heinous, it is murder plain and simple, and it was as predictable as the sun rising in the East." ~Wm Rivers Pitt

where there is life and awareness, there is something beyond mere random matter.

i might personally draw the line at rocks (i don't think they're anything beyond dead matter), but thankfully, i haven't been given the stick to draw lines with.

but if you have life, you have something that matter alone cannot give you, especially by accident. if you believe that, you have more blind faith than i do and would be dangerous to the devil if measure of faith was focused toward God.

the idea of spirit energy could be related to wavelengths of energy that we don't have the faculties to be consciously aware of, let alone measure and see.

i don't rule out the possibility of some processes that we don't know about

but what i do rule out is that these things are linked to the religious idea of 'God'

and the particular thing i take umbrage with is the idea that humans have an 'eternal soul', whereas animals do not

that's some arrogance right there

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

>and the particular thing i take umbrage with is the idea that
>humans have an 'eternal soul', whereas animals do not
>
>that's some arrogance right there

i find that arrogant as well.

i definitely believe that animals have spirits and are very special...basically a sort of native american/indigenous view of it.

i think we all have animals we relate to, etc. i've always felt connected to them. and they respond to me.

~~~~
~*~musical revolution~*~

"The world was warned about this...The CIA calls what happened in London today "blowback." It is wrong, it is heinous, it is murder plain and simple, and it was as predictable as the sun rising in the East." ~Wm Rivers Pitt

like oh shit--- i've said something that lex disagreed with?

i'm either wrong, or i didn't explain myself fully

heh

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

u know i loves you, porgy

*grin*

the claims against intelligent design and nature needing a not-bound-by-science, supernatural moment to kick it off.

basically, scientifically, it has been argued by many many scientists (people who's whole lives revolve around their passion for SCIENCE) that the argument against intelligent design is the greater leap of faith.

so if you want to talk about evidence, i'm going to need some evidence that a realm (nature) that insists on everything having a starting point and every motion needing a previous motion to set it off can be started in all it's motions without a previous motion.

from there, you can tell me how natural selection favors a species with ALMOST all the complex parts of an eye in place (but still not actually ready to see yet) and how so many different species that branched out from the original awareness-and-life-giving accident all end up randomly mutating these almost identical useless gooey things on their faces, and all just happen to be randomly spared during natural selection for other reasons every single generation within the kajilion years it takes for that thing to suddenly go from useless to the moment of relaying light to the brain in a way such that it becomes a tool for sight. meanwhile, for all those creatures, the brain is going through a similar random currently-useless-for-survival molding process to be able to receive AND INTERPRET signals from these way-in-the-future eyeball things, and these random brain mutations are all happening with the same creatures more or less that have been luckily (pure luck) getting spared with these useless gooey things on their faces. talk about having to not only start with a shit load of blind faith in a process, but then having to multiply it ON itself everytime another step comes in. you have some SERIOUS faith my friend.

>basically, scientifically, it has been argued by many many
>scientists (people who's whole lives revolve around their
>passion for SCIENCE) that the argument against intelligent
>design is the greater leap of faith.

Name one (not Behe)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your nerd jokes mean nothing to me. I gotta go keep it real."

- Riley Escobar

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your nerd jokes mean nothing to me. I gotta go keep it real."

- Riley Escobar

it's pseudoscience. secular thought wrapped up in the cloak of 'science'. and- the major flaw from a scientific viewpoint-- it isn't falsifiable.


ID is trying to put a roadblock on the questions that we can ask. like, "up till this point, we know how these things came about, but after that it's all been designed and we shouldn't question it"

the idea that some things such as eyes are just too good to have been the result of incremental adjustment.. it's way too simplistic.

here's a good refutation of Behe's 'eyeball' argument that you just summarized- aka Irreducible Complexity, or IC.
from wikipedia;

Critics of ID point out that the IC argument only makes sense if one assumes that the present function of a system must have been the one that it was selected for. But the concept of co-optation or exaptation, in which existing features become adapted for new functions, has long been a mainstay of biology. Many purported IC structures have functional subsystems that are used elsewhere. ID advocates have often reacted to this by trying to define an "IC core", or by changing the number of parts required for an IC system. Critics have claimed that these instances of "moving the goal posts" show that IC is not a clear concept that can be objectively applied. While Behe has considered co-optation, he rejects it as unlikely, which critics contend is an unwarranted dismissal.

The IC argument also assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary, and therefore could not have been added sequentially. But something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary. For example, one of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the IC clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales, demonstrating that it isn't essential for a clotting system. Many purported IC structures can be found in other organisms as simpler systems that utilize fewer parts. These systems may have had even simpler precursors that are now extinct.

Perhaps most importantly, potentially viable evolutionary pathways have been proposed for IC systems such as blood clotting, the immune system and the flagellum, which were the three examples Behe used. If IC is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, it should not be possible to conceive of such pathways—Behe has remarked that such plausible pathways would defeat his argument. It has also been claimed that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that IC can evolve. ID advocates respond by saying that proposed models for the evolution of IC structures are not detailed enough, or cannot be tested. They also dismiss such computer simulations as being fundamentally flawed and biologically unrealistic.



baasically;; go read Richard Dawkins' book, "A River Out Of Eden". it's a nice, easy introduction to evolutionary theory, well-written and accessible, and it's worth checking even if you feel it goes against your faith.

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

"Is it not one father that all of us have? Is it not one God that has created us? Why is it that we deal treacherously with one another?" --Malachi 2:10

if we all have one father (like your sig said), do you think its possible to show respect and love to our one father in different ways maybe?

Most people can only look at the world from one perspective...and only from the Earth or their speck of earth. Really, we can't even know the universe, so how are we to answer the question you posted? People go to war to fight over this tiny planet called Earth when they know there is more out there and that is because their realities and beliefs are tied to lies. Reality, as they experience it, conforms to their beliefs about how it is. If people believe their world to be hostile, it will conform to that picture and throw up ample proof of danger and hostility to justify their position.

People put themselves and others in boxes before they even experience life or seek truth. They do not open themselves up to other paths out of fear.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

>Most people can only look at the world from one
>perspective...and only from the Earth or their speck of earth.
> Really, we can't even know the universe, so how are we to
>answer the question you posted? People go to war to fight
>over this tiny planet called Earth when they know there is
>more out there and that is because their realities and beliefs
>are tied to lies. Reality, as they experience it, conforms to
>their beliefs about how it is. If people believe their world
>to be hostile, it will conform to that picture and throw up
>ample proof of danger and hostility to justify their
>position.

people will fight, kill and die over things like god and religion because it is the only thing that they have ever known, been taught or influenced to believe. it is the very fabric of their existance, to some. to attack that is to attack their very soul. and so god can (will, and has) been used to justify some of the most barberic crusades. bush is a prime example.


>People put themselves and others in boxes before they even
>experience life or seek truth. They do not open themselves up
>to other paths out of fear.


most people are taught to fear ANYTHING different than them, rather to try to understand and appreciate the things that make us individuals. race, religion and money are all included in these things.


very intelligent post by the way.

>people will fight, kill and die over things like god and
>religion because it is the only thing that they have ever
>known, been taught or influenced to believe.

Yes and that is a shame IMHO. The universe is so much larger, even the planet is larger than what is right in front of us.

>most people are taught to fear ANYTHING different than them,
>rather to try to understand and appreciate the things that
>make us individuals. race, religion and money are all included
>in these things.

Indeed. I think there is a energy or power dynamic in motion right now that is creating imbalance and suffering for many people. It is this very reason that makes me seek out alternatives as far as spirituality (and philosophy) is concerned.

>very intelligent post by the way.

Thanks and peace to you.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

>>most people are taught to fear ANYTHING different than them,
>>rather to try to understand and appreciate the things that
>>make us individuals. race, religion and money are all
>included
>>in these things.
>
>Indeed. I think there is a energy or power dynamic in motion
>right now that is creating imbalance and suffering for many
>people. It is this very reason that makes me seek out
>alternatives as far as spirituality (and philosophy) is
>concerned.

most definitely

it's in the spirit of getting us to all live/love/work together...i think we're being tested.

but lots of folks ain't gettin the memo, unfortunately. enter more strife.


~~~~
~*~musical revolution~*~

"The world was warned about this...The CIA calls what happened in London today "blowback." It is wrong, it is heinous, it is murder plain and simple, and it was as predictable as the sun rising in the East." ~Wm Rivers Pitt

Because all dont teach us to deny ourselves, as Christ came and did!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your nerd jokes mean nothing to me. I gotta go keep it real."

- Riley Escobar

.

i was thinking along the lines of the same thing.

and Budha is dead. I follow the one who conquers death...for the one who has dominion over death, has dominion over life...

-Otto

Live long and prosper.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your nerd jokes mean nothing to me. I gotta go keep it real."

- Riley Escobar

>Live long and prosper.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

>and Budha is dead. I follow the one who conquers death...for
>the one who has dominion over death, has dominion over
>life...
>
>-Otto
So did Malcom , Martin , and Tupac.

DAMN!

The Lord if you wish...

-Otto

Pac dropped like 5 new albums and been in dozens of remixes and videos since he got shot - how's a dead man gonna do alla that?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your nerd jokes mean nothing to me. I gotta go keep it real."

- Riley Escobar

i think that seeing jesus' experience as completely unique and/or unattainable is one of the worst disservices christianity has done for its followers.

edit: for clarity's sake, i don't want to come off as being wholly anti-christian.

i only challenge folks to look deeper.

~~~~
~*~musical revolution~*~

"The world was warned about this...The CIA calls what happened in London today "blowback." It is wrong, it is heinous, it is murder plain and simple, and it was as predictable as the sun rising in the East." ~Wm Rivers Pitt

Than the fact that every man who has ever died is still dead, except Jesus?

Even lazarus died again...and his body decomposed. Jesus broke his body for us, and then rose up from the grave for us...

there is NOTHING deeper than that...

-Otto

....please stop that.

.

that says Harriet Tubman was a proponent of the underground railroad, you'd believe it. You would believe it, not because you saw it, but becasue there were others who saw her and because their accounts were recorded in written history. 500 people saw Jesus ascend into heaven after being MURDERED on a cross....I take that for what it is...Read Lee Strobel's book: The Case For Christ.
It speaks with utter and incontrovertible logic based on a historical perspective, that Jesus was truly murdered, burried, and risen again.


-Otto

>It speaks with utter and incontrovertible logic based on a
>historical perspective, that Jesus was truly murdered,
>burried, and risen again.

Ha!....yeah...okay.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html



RealTalkInfinite

Like sunlight is "dead", like electricity is "dead", like the earth is "dead".

His physical material self is no more, his body has returned to the earth from where it came, but his spiritual self "died" long before his body because he was able to achieve enlightenment - he was able to rid himself of his self-identity and transend to the greater collective conciousness of the universe.

In essence, he can never really die because his energy is always constant, just in different forms.

was that he died...he is dead...period--Stop playing games.

-Otto

Buddhist theology isn't valid because you say so.

Shit. That's airtight.

was what started me thinking...."there's more to this than meets the eye..."

i've thought this way since i was a child. so it never seemed "odd" or conflicting to me. no one interfered with it (thank god).

as i got older & studied more, things just began to have names & become clearer. i found that others understood the same things. but my basic philosophy never changed.

we're all under the same sky....so how hard is it to concieve of one Great Spirit?

the diversity of Its manifestations, imo, is just proof of Its beauty and magnitude.

~~~~
~*~musical revolution~*~

"The world was warned about this...The CIA calls what happened in London today "blowback." It is wrong, it is heinous, it is murder plain and simple, and it was as predictable as the sun rising in the East." ~Wm Rivers Pitt

Jesus rose physically from the dead. Buddha is dead. You will be dead. I will be dead. The only way to eternal life, however, is through faith in Jesus, who will save us from our sins, provided we repent. Sins, are the only cause of death.

-Otto

not in the least.

imo, it only really makes sense if you view it as an allegory. not just the story of christ, but most of the rest of what's going on in the bible.

the more mystical traditions (e.g. gnosticism) take that into account.

for example: according the the gnostics, literalism is only the first level of knowledge. jesus' "resurrection" was never meant to be taken at face value.



~~~~
~*~musical revolution~*~

"The world was warned about this...The CIA calls what happened in London today "blowback." It is wrong, it is heinous, it is murder plain and simple, and it was as predictable as the sun rising in the East." ~Wm Rivers Pitt

That is anything but metaphorical. If Jesus is not risen, there is no hope for mankind who is trapped in the sewer of sin...

-Otto

doesn't rely on petty notions like sin/hell/etc to extort ppl into faith and/or right action.

but, do you.

Petty notions like sin?
Hell?

Petty?

I'm sorry, but you are so lost.

-Otto

they all got some of the story...every culture, but they twist it to fit their traditions, their customs their wants...

however, the foundation that Christ lied down, others arent comparable.

"love your neighbor as yourself",

How many of you or them, can honestly say, you put another before yourself?

and if its a problem for you...why?

-Otto

-Otto

depending on one's culture, upbringing, hell, even geographical location, different manifestations of the divine are going to make sense. and that's fine.

the key is to not get so caught up in YOUR definition that you negate and/or suppress the definitions of others. that's where fundamentalism, jihads, and all the rest come in to play.

how you pray isn't as important as the fact that you do it at all. sad to say they needed "science" to "prove" that, but there have been studies done.


~~~~
~*~musical revolution~*~

"The world was warned about this...The CIA calls what happened in London today "blowback." It is wrong, it is heinous, it is murder plain and simple, and it was as predictable as the sun rising in the East." ~Wm Rivers Pitt

i think, even with all the (really very small) differences in religions and cultures, they all aim for the same thing. a closeness and understanding of the universe as a whole.


i really like what you said. everything else really IS details. it really is.

misinterpret the meaning of "red", you're far more likely to have an enormous piece of solid metal smash into you at 40 mph or at least wind up broke or in jail.

.

it's a perfect analogy

no religion is grounded in solid, concrete facts. Meaning you HAVE to interpret them to understand them. There isn't any such thing as a "true" reading of any religion, even so-called fundamentalists empahasize certain teachings and gloss over others.

Traffic laws, however, are governed by concrete facts and laws.