culture, religion and language

[Stramash]

. Fascist they are :twisted:

Gollum speaks!!!!!

for my choice of words you chastise me :shock: Gollum is more befitting those who hide in the cave of religious hypocrisy.

Eagle my friend, you misunderstood my post; It was merely an observation of the gollumlike syntax, not a criticism of your philosophy (which I usually agree with)

Agree totally with the point, just a bourbon inspired observation on how you said it!! 8)

realized that just too serious response, although I am inside my cave today and kinda pale.

paint those cave walls dude...

who knows who wil find it in 4000 years...

[Stramash]

Or is it when the resident multi-culturalist gets all up in arms about anything that anyone states about "third world" or "pre-industrial" or whatever the PC term of the month may be and then turns around and trounces on anyone who is Christian because, well, that culture is open in the PC world for any kind of assault.

[Mazzy]

I'm usually a big advocate of freedom of expression so long as things are done with a minimum of intelligence in order to foster a constructive public debate...

BWAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAH

Now that is good humor. I dont think that I have seen any of this "constructive public debate" here on TF. It's mostly one side razzing the one person or the other.

TF is mostly pick a side and dig in or sit back and watch and ask for "popcorn." Constructive debate? Is that when that Xanax guy posts his muslim apologies or the incoherent Hotel guy types random letters, numbers and symbols as posts? lol Or is that when the resident peacenik wannabe lawyer from Australia decides that he wants to post racist stereotypes and diatribes against Americans. lol Or is it when the resident multi-culturalist gets all up in arms about anything that anyone states about "third world" or "pre-industrial" or whatever the PC term of the month may be and then turns around and trounces on anyone who is Christian because, well, that culture is open in the PC world for any kind of assault. Oh, I know it's when mickey mouse gets on here to show us all how many times he can add the word "f*ck" to a post and still seem (to himself) clever.

Intelligence? Constructive? Debate?

Please show me an example of "constructive public debate" on TF.

That is one of the funniest posts I've seen here.

:oops: Well I've gotta plead guilty here, I've always been a bit of an idealist... (well ok, more than a bit...)

[Stramash]

Or is it when the resident multi-culturalist gets all up in arms about anything that anyone states about "third world" or "pre-industrial" or whatever the PC term of the month may be and then turns around and trounces on anyone who is Christian because, well, that culture is open in the PC world for any kind of assault.

Interesting that you picked that particular bit for a response. lol

well if I was wrong, I apologise, but since I often criticise Christianity, thought that bit might be aimed at me, though make no apologies for pointing out and criticising 2 millenia of hypocrisy...(though will apologise for over generalising on ALL Christians...)

[eagle]

. Fascist they are :twisted:

Gollum speaks!!!!!

for my choice of words you chastise me :shock: Gollum is more befitting those who hide in the cave of religious hypocrisy.

Eagle my friend, you misunderstood my post; It was merely an observation of the gollumlike syntax, not a criticism of your philosophy (which I usually agree with)

Agree totally with the point, just a bourbon inspired observation on how you said it!! 8)

realized that just too serious response, although I am inside my cave today and kinda pale.

paint those cave walls dude...

who knows who wil find it in 4000 years...

i thought it sounded more like Yoda.

well I'm kinda on another planet also

[Stramash]

. Fascist they are :twisted:

Gollum speaks!!!!!

for my choice of words you chastise me :shock: Gollum is more befitting those who hide in the cave of religious hypocrisy.

Eagle my friend, you misunderstood my post; It was merely an observation of the gollumlike syntax, not a criticism of your philosophy (which I usually agree with)

Agree totally with the point, just a bourbon inspired observation on how you said it!! 8)

realized that just too serious response, although I am inside my cave today and kinda pale.

paint those cave walls dude...

who knows who wil find it in 4000 years...

i thought it sounded more like Yoda.

well I'm kinda on another planet also

with the possibility of upsetting JayaII,

(hope the tunes are good on that planet)

[Stramash]

That's why I said it was interesting.

I agree with your opinions on Chrisitanity by the way. What I find "interesting" is the fact that you seem to go out of your way to explain the same offenses when they are committed by other cultures.

For example. Muslims. Interesting picture. Reminds me of a Hijab or even a Burqa. You know that bit of cloth that frees Muslim women.

Why apologize for Muslims when they commit the same offenses as Christians. In some cases, the Muslim world is committing the same offenses (stoning women for adultery, trying women for crimes against chastity) that Christians stopped committing hundreds of years ago. BUT when Muslims do it," it's ok. They're really OK people. They just don't know any better. It's their culture." lol That is rich. It's hilarious. Or people deny it is happening altogether. I guess it doesn't really affect you. So it's easy to sit back and not judge.

Muslim being the most obvious example.

I'm sure now you'll ask me if I have an anti-Muslim bias. You can't help it. It's a knee jerk reaction by now.

And someone will call me a racist even though Islam is comprised of every race known to the Earth.

It's easy to sit and watch the house that's on fire down the street. You can sit back and watch it and wonder in amazement at how fast it goes up and how much the insurance is gonna pay. Etc Etc. Different story when it's your house on fire.

I have NEVER been an Islamic apologist - like most religions, INDIVIDUALS have twisted a message of love to one of hatred. To me, they are 2 sides of the same coin; whether priest, mullah, pope or ayatollah, man has twisted supposed words of god into their own vision.

What they have in common is a patriarchal oppresive doctrine more inclined towards personal or political gain than a spiritual one.

If you can quote one post where I have espoused or defended Muslim doctrine, I will stand you a bottle of Woodford (which I know you are partial to)

[Stramash]

It's not doctrine that you defend. It's when one sits there and says that they should be allowed to practice their racism and debasing practices as concerns women and non-Muslims in the West. It's when someone criticizes Islam and your first reaction is "oh, he has an anti-Muslim bias." That's a PC term if I ever heard one. I state the exact same criticisms about Islam that you state about Christianity. Your criticisms are acceptable. BUT, I have an anti-Muslim bias. lol Do you not see what you are doing there?

I merely suggested you had an anti-Islam bias, I did not state it. If you are referring to my initial stance on FGM, I will remind you again that I changed my thoughts on that.

I have many crticisms of Islam, enough to fill several posts. But Islam is a peripheral part of my world, while I have been witnessing the hypocrisy of Christianity since childhood, so it is natural that it will be my first target.

In my ideal world, neither of these religions would exist, but, if that was rhe case, I am sure something equally abhorrent would fill the vacuum.

It's not the word of god I have a problem with; it's how man interprets those words for his own purposes that I hate with enthusiasm.

[Stramash]

It's not doctrine that you defend. It's when one sits there and says that they should be allowed to practice their racism and debasing practices as concerns women and non-Muslims in the West. It's when someone criticizes Islam and your first reaction is "oh, he has an anti-Muslim bias." That's a PC term if I ever heard one. I state the exact same criticisms about Islam that you state about Christianity. Your criticisms are acceptable. BUT, I have an anti-Muslim bias. lol Do you not see what you are doing there?

I merely suggested you had an anti-Islam bias, I did not state it. If you are referring to my initial stance on FGM, I will remind you again that I changed my thoughts on that.

I have many crticisms of Islam, enough to fill several posts. But Islam is a peripheral part of my world, while I have been witnessing the hypocrisy of Christianity since childhood, so it is natural that it will be my first target.

In my ideal world, neither of these religions would exist, but, if that was rhe case, I am sure something equally abhorrent would fill the vacuum.

It's not the word of god I have a problem with; it's how man interprets those words for his own purposes that I hate with enthusiasm.

I agree with you as regards religion.

Again, why ask the question? What are you implying? What does it mean? "Do you have an anti-Islam bias?" Were you next going to call me an "Islamophobe?" lol

No. I merely asked if you had an anti-Islam bias. A simple no would have sufficed, rather than inaccurate and vitriolic accusations of political correctness and pro-Islam feelings.

Why do you find it so difficult to just agree with a point I make (as I have done) without attempts as oneupmanship??

[farang_subson]

I have NEVER been an Islamic apologist - like most religions, INDIVIDUALS have twisted a message of love to one of hatred. To me, they are 2 sides of the same coin; whether priest, mullah, pope or ayatollah, man has twisted supposed words of god into their own vision.

The apologetics are right there. You assume that Islam and other religions are essentially based on "love", and there's some sort of pure, transcendent message that humans have twisted. Questionable at best, IMO.

In any case, the original argument is silly. One might as well argue that atheism, cold climate, or cheese consumption is the true driver of an efficient, law-abiding society.

[Stramash]

I have NEVER been an Islamic apologist - like most religions, INDIVIDUALS have twisted a message of love to one of hatred. To me, they are 2 sides of the same coin; whether priest, mullah, pope or ayatollah, man has twisted supposed words of god into their own vision.

The apologetics are right there. You assume that Islam and other religions are essentially based on "love", and there's some sort of pure, transcendent message that humans have twisted. Questionable at best, IMO.

In any case, the original argument is silly. One might as well argue that atheism, cold climate, or cheese consumption is the true driver of an efficient, law-abiding society.

well I apolgise, but I do believe that most religions DO have a message of love at their roots. It's how MAN has interpreted that message to his own ends...

Whether Koran or bible, there is a message of understanding at the core...

the fault lies with man...

[Loburt]

I have NEVER been an Islamic apologist - like most religions, INDIVIDUALS have twisted a message of love to one of hatred. To me, they are 2 sides of the same coin; whether priest, mullah, pope or ayatollah, man has twisted supposed words of god into their own vision.

The apologetics are right there. You assume that Islam and other religions are essentially based on "love", and there's some sort of pure, transcendent message that humans have twisted. Questionable at best, IMO.

In any case, the original argument is silly. One might as well argue that atheism, cold climate, or cheese consumption is the true driver of an efficient, law-abiding society.

well I apolgise, but I do believe that most religions DO have a message of love at their roots. It's how MAN has interpreted that message to his own ends...

Whether Koran or bible, there is a message of understanding at the core...

the fault lies with man...

But it is MAN who has created religion.

[Stramash]

I have NEVER been an Islamic apologist - like most religions, INDIVIDUALS have twisted a message of love to one of hatred. To me, they are 2 sides of the same coin; whether priest, mullah, pope or ayatollah, man has twisted supposed words of god into their own vision.

The apologetics are right there. You assume that Islam and other religions are essentially based on "love", and there's some sort of pure, transcendent message that humans have twisted. Questionable at best, IMO.

In any case, the original argument is silly. One might as well argue that atheism, cold climate, or cheese consumption is the true driver of an efficient, law-abiding society.

well I apolgise, but I do believe that most religions DO have a message of love at their roots. It's how MAN has interpreted that message to his own ends...

Whether Koran or bible, there is a message of understanding at the core...

the fault lies with man...

But it is MAN who has created religion.

prove it... :wink:

[Loburt]

Well, let's look at the Koran, seeing as Islam seems to be the focus of discussion.

There seems to be little doubt that it was Muhammad, a man, who dictated the Koran.

Muhammad says it is the word of G-d.

But there is no proof that I can see of that. Maybe it is true. That is a matter of faith.

The only evidence that appears to exist is that a man recited this.

So if we are going to get into the prove it game, then the onus is on religion to prove it is anything other than man made.

:wink:

[Stramash]

Well, let's look at the Koran, seeing as Islam seems to be the focus of discussion.

There seems to be little doubt that it was Muhammad, a man, who dictated the Koran.

Muhammad says it is the word of G-d.

But there is no proof that I can see of that. Maybe it is true. That is a matter of faith.

The only evidence that appears to exist is that a man recited this.

So if we are going to get into the prove it game, then the onus is on religion to prove it is anything other than man made.

:wink:

Lo was merely stating fact. While empirical evidence agres with what you say, can we with all certainty deny there is anything more to it??

Religion has always been a construct of man's fears, superstitions, hopes and dreams.

Am not saying there is 'anything' out there, but in the tradition of hedging ones bets, I am not refuting it either.

(mind you, if there is a hell, am on a one way ticket :wink: )

[Loburt]

No, we can't say with certainty that there is nothing more to it.

[Ngairo]

No, we can't say with certainty that there is nothing more to it.

.......other than fiction.....

[sunsnow]

LIEBE: I do like a lot of your original post, interesting question. But it seems that this topic has spiralled into the Christianity and Islam twists instead of doing this kind of intercultural, religious comparisons that you started. Well, I am now in limited time and can't really comprise any response of my own this time.

[English_Bob]

Let's do a straw poll - who amongst us has religion? What denomination are you?

I was raised a Christian and later left the church after I found it posed more questions than it answered.

For a long time I was an atheist.... then I became an agnostic.

Now I find I WANT to believe in something... I look around the world, at all the incredible diversity and wonder if it can all be the product of evolution.

Wouldn't it be great to discover there really IS someone taking care of us? That there IS a purpose to our lives and that after death we will be together again with loved ones?

How about the TFers on here? What do you believe in?

[MisterMatlock]

Let's do a straw poll - who amongst us has religion? What denomination are you?

I was raised a Christian and later left the church after I found it posed more questions than it answered.

For a long time I was an atheist.... then I became an agnostic.

Now I find I WANT to believe in something... I look around the world, at all the incredible diversity and wonder if it can all be the product of evolution.

Wouldn't it be great to discover there really IS someone taking care of us? That there IS a purpose to our lives and that after death we will be together again with loved ones?

How about the TFers on here? What do you believe in?

Protestant Chrisitan, Presbyterian. Haven't been in a church in many a moon. Just not a big fan of organized religion. Although, I HAVE considered attending church again. Girlfriend wants me to attend mass, but I don't think I'm ready for a leap THAT big. hehe

[PeeMarc]

While cleaning out my bookshelves on the weekend, I picked up 'Conversations with God (book 1) and read it again. It is filled with interesting ideas, such as...

GOD: "Everything your heart experiences about God tells you that God is good. Everything your teachers teach you about God tells you God is bad. Your heart tells you God is to be loved without fear. Your teachers tell you God is to be feared, for He is a vengeful God. You are to live in fear of God's wrath, they say. You are to tremble in His presence. Your whole life through you are to fear the judgement of the Lord. For the lord is "just," you are told. And God knows, you will be in trouble when you confront the terrible justice of the Lord. You are, therefore, to be "obedient" to God's commands. Or else.

Above all, you are not to ask such logical questions as, "if God wanted strict obedience to His Laws, why did He create the possibility of those Laws being violated?" Ah, your teachers tell you--because God wanted you to have "free choice." Yet what kind of choice is free when to choose one thing over the other brings condemnation? How is "free will" free when it is not your will, but someone else's, which must be done? Those who teach you this would make a hypocrite of God.

You are told that God is forgiveness, and compassion--yet if you do not ask for this forgiveness in the "right way," if you do not "come to God" properly, your plea will not be heard, your cry will go unheeded. Even this would not be so bad if there were only one proper way, but there are as many "proper ways" being taught as there are teachers to teach them.

Most of you, therefore, spend the bulk of your adult life searching for the "right" way to worship, to obey, and to serve God. The irony of all this is that I do not want your worship, I do not need your obedience, and it is not necessary for you to serve Me.

These behaviors are the behaviors historically demanded of their subjects by monarchs--usually ego-maniacal, insecure, tyrannical monarchs at that. They're not Godly demands in any sense--and it seems remarkable that the world hasn't by now concluded that the demands are counterfeit, having nothing to do with the needs or desires of Deity.

Deity has no needs. All That is exactly that: all that is. It therefore wants, or lacks, nothing--by definition.

If you choose to believe in a God who somehow needs something--and has such hurt feelings if He doesn't get it that He punishes those from whom He expected to receive it--then you choose to believe in a God much smaller than I. You truly are Children of a Lesser God."

[PeeMarc]

And this....

GOD: "If you believe that God is someone omnipotent being who hears all prayers, says "yes" to some, "no" to others, and "maybe, but not now" to the rest, you are mistaken. By what rule of thumb would God decide?

If you believe that God is the creator and decider of all things in your life, you are mistaken.

God is the observer, not the creator. And God stands ready to assist you in living your life, but not in the way you might expect.

It is not God's function to create, or uncreate, the circumstances and conditions of your life. God created you, in the image and likeness of God. You have created the rest, through the power God has given you. God created the process of life and life itself as you know it. Yet God gave you free choice, to do with life as you will.

In this sense, your will for you is God's will for you.

You are living your life the way you are living your life and I have no preference in the matter

This is the grand illusion in which you have engaged: that God cares one way or the other what you do.

I do not care what you do, and that is hard for you to hear. Yet do you care what your children do when you send them out to play? Is it a matter of consequence to you whether they play tag, or hide and seek, or pretend? No, it is not, because you know they are perfectly safe. You have placed them in an environment which you consider friendly and very okay.

Of course, you will always hope that they do not hurt themself. And if they do, you will be right there to help them, heal them, allow them to feel safe again, to be happy again, to go and play again another day. But whether they choose hide and seek or pretend will not matter to you the next day, either.

You will tell them, of course, which games are dangerous to play. But you cannot stop your children from doing dangerous things. Not always. Not forever. Not in every moment from now until death. It is the wise parent who knows this. yet the parent never stops caring about the outcome. It is this dichotomy - not caring deeply about the process, but caring deeply about the result - that comes close to describing the dichotomy of God.

Yet God, in a sense does not even care about the outcome. Not the ultimate outcome. This is because the ultimate outcome is assured.

And this is the second greatest illusion of man: that the outcome of life is in doubt.

It is this doubt about ultimate outcome that has created your greatest enemy, which is fear. For if you doubt outcome, then you must doubt Creator - you must doubt God. And if you doubt God, you must live in fear and guilt all your life.

If you doubt God's intentions - and God's ability to produce this ultimate result - then how can you ever relax? How can you ever truly find peace?

Yet God has full power to match intentions with results. You cannot and will not believe in this (even though you claim that God is all-powerful), and so you have to create in your imagination a power equal to God, in order that you may find a way for God's will to be thwarted. And so you have created in your mythology the being you call "devil". You have even imagined a God at war with this being (thinking that God solves problems the way you do). Finally, you have actually imagined that God could lose this war.

All of this violates everything you say you know about God, but this doesn't matter. You live your illusion, and thus feel your fear, all out of your decision to doubt God.

But what if you made a new decision? What then would be the result?

I tell you this: you would live as the Buddha did. As Jesus did. As did every saint you have ever idolized.

Yet, as with most of those saints, people would not understand you. And when you tried to explain your sense of peace, your joy in life, your inner ecstasy, they would listen to your words, but not hear them. They would try to repeat your words, but would add to them.

They would wonder how you could have what they cannot find. And then they would grow jealous. Soon jealousy would turn to rage, and in their anger they would try to convince you that it is you who do not understand God.

And if they were unsuccessful at tearing you from your joy, they would seek to harm you, so enormous would be their rage. And when you told them it does not matter, that even death cannot interrupt your joy, nor change your truth, they would surely kill you. then when they saw the peace with which you accepted death, they would call you saint, and love you again.

For it is the nature of people to love, then destroy, then love again that which they value most."

[PeeMarc]

And just one more excerpt... because it is quite relevant to this discussion...

Right and Wrong are Relative Terms

GOD: "There?s nothing ?wrong? with anything. ?Wrong? is a relative term, indicating the opposite of that which you call ?right.?

Yet, what is ?right?? Can you be truly objective in these matters? Or are ?right? and ?wrong? simply descriptions overlaid on events and circumstances by you, out of your decision about them?

And what, pray tell, forms the basis of your decision? Your own experience? No. In most cases, you?ve chosen to accept someone else?s decision. Someone who came before you and, presumably, knows better. Very few of your daily decisions about what is ?right? and ?wrong? are being made by you, based on your understanding.

This is especially true on important matters. In fact, the more important the matter, the less you are likely to listen to your own experience, and the more ready you seem to be to make someone else?s ideas your own.

This explains why you've given up virtually total control over certain areas of your life, and certain questions that arise within the human experience.

These areas and questions very often include the subjects most vital for your soul: the nature of God; the nature of true morality; the question of ultimate reality; the issues of life and death surrounding war, medicine, abortion euthanasia, the whole sum and substance of personal values, structures, judgments. These most of you have abrogated, assigned to others. You don't want to make your own decisions about them.

?Someone else decide! I?ll go along, I?ll go along!? you shout. ?Someone else just tell me what?s right and wrong!?

This is why, by the way, human religions are so popular. It almost doesn?t matter what the belief system is, as long as it?s firm, consistent, clear in its expectation of the follower, and rigid. Given those characteristics, you can find people who will believe in almost anything. The strangest behavior and belief can be?has been?attributed to God. It?s God?s way, they say. God?s word.

And there are those who will accept that. Gladly. Because, you see, it eliminates the need to think.

Thinking is hard. Making value judgments is difficult. It places you at pure creation, because there are so many times you?ll have to say, ?I don?t know. I just don?t know.? Yet still you have to decide. And so you?ll have to choose. You?ll have to make an arbitrary choice.

Such a choice?a decision coming from no previous personal knowledge?is called pure creation. And the individual is aware, deeply aware, that in the making of such decisions is the Self created.

Most of you are not interested in such important work. Most of you would rather leave that to others. And so most of you are not self-created, but creatures of habit?other-created creatures.

Then when others have told you how you should feel, and it runs directly counter to how you do feel?you experience a deep inner conflict. Something deep inside you tells you that what others have told you is not Who You Are. Now where to go with that? What to do?

The first place you go to is your religionists?the people who put you there in the first place. You go to your priests and your rabbis and your ministers and your teachers, and they tell you to stop listening to your Self. The worst of them will try to scare you away from it; scare you away from what you intuitively know.

They?ll tell you about the devil, about Satan, about demons and evils spirits and hell and damnation and every frightening thing they can think of to get you to see how what you were intuitively knowing and feeling was wrong, and how they only place you?ll find any comfort is in their thought, their idea, their theology, their definitions of right and wrong, and their concept of Who You Are.

The seduction here is that all you have to do to get instant approval is to agree. Agree and you have instant approval. Some will even sing and shout and dance and wave their arms in hallelujah! That?s hard to resist. Such approval, such rejoicing that you have seen the light; that you?ve been saved!

Approvals and demonstrations seldom accompany inner decisions. Celebrations rarely surround choices to follow personal truth. In fact, quite the contrary. Not only may others fail to celebrate, they may actually subject you to ridicule. What? You?re thinking for yourself? You?re deciding on your own? You?re applying your own yardsticks, your own judgments, your own values? Who do you think you are, anyway?

And indeed, that is precisely the question you are answering."

[PJack]

And just one more excerpt... because it is quite relevant to this discussion...

Right and Wrong are Relative Terms

GOD: "There?s nothing ?wrong? with anything. ?Wrong? is a relative term, indicating the opposite of that which you call ?right.?

Yet, what is ?right?? Can you be truly objective in these matters? Or are ?right? and ?wrong? simply descriptions overlaid on events and circumstances by you, out of your decision about them?

And what, pray tell, forms the basis of your decision? Your own experience? No. In most cases, you?ve chosen to accept someone else?s decision. Someone who came before you and, presumably, knows better. Very few of your daily decisions about what is ?right? and ?wrong? are being made by you, based on your understanding.

This is especially true on important matters. In fact, the more important the matter, the less you are likely to listen to your own experience, and the more ready you seem to be to make someone else?s ideas your own.

This explains why you've given up virtually total control over certain areas of your life, and certain questions that arise within the human experience.

These areas and questions very often include the subjects most vital for your soul: the nature of God; the nature of true morality; the question of ultimate reality; the issues of life and death surrounding war, medicine, abortion euthanasia, the whole sum and substance of personal values, structures, judgments. These most of you have abrogated, assigned to others. You don't want to make your own decisions about them.

?Someone else decide! I?ll go along, I?ll go along!? you shout. ?Someone else just tell me what?s right and wrong!?

This is why, by the way, human religions are so popular. It almost doesn?t matter what the belief system is, as long as it?s firm, consistent, clear in its expectation of the follower, and rigid. Given those characteristics, you can find people who will believe in almost anything. The strangest behavior and belief can be?has been?attributed to God. It?s God?s way, they say. God?s word.

And there are those who will accept that. Gladly. Because, you see, it eliminates the need to think.

Thinking is hard. Making value judgments is difficult. It places you at pure creation, because there are so many times you?ll have to say, ?I don?t know. I just don?t know.? Yet still you have to decide. And so you?ll have to choose. You?ll have to make an arbitrary choice.

Such a choice?a decision coming from no previous personal knowledge?is called pure creation. And the individual is aware, deeply aware, that in the making of such decisions is the Self created.

Most of you are not interested in such important work. Most of you would rather leave that to others. And so most of you are not self-created, but creatures of habit?other-created creatures.

Then when others have told you how you should feel, and it runs directly counter to how you do feel?you experience a deep inner conflict. Something deep inside you tells you that what others have told you is not Who You Are. Now where to go with that? What to do?

The first place you go to is your religionists?the people who put you there in the first place. You go to your priests and your rabbis and your ministers and your teachers, and they tell you to stop listening to your Self. The worst of them will try to scare you away from it; scare you away from what you intuitively know.

They?ll tell you about the devil, about Satan, about demons and evils spirits and hell and damnation and every frightening thing they can think of to get you to see how what you were intuitively knowing and feeling was wrong, and how they only place you?ll find any comfort is in their thought, their idea, their theology, their definitions of right and wrong, and their concept of Who You Are.

The seduction here is that all you have to do to get instant approval is to agree. Agree and you have instant approval. Some will even sing and shout and dance and wave their arms in hallelujah! That?s hard to resist. Such approval, such rejoicing that you have seen the light; that you?ve been saved!

Approvals and demonstrations seldom accompany inner decisions. Celebrations rarely surround choices to follow personal truth. In fact, quite the contrary. Not only may others fail to celebrate, they may actually subject you to ridicule. What? You?re thinking for yourself? You?re deciding on your own? You?re applying your own yardsticks, your own judgments, your own values? Who do you think you are, anyway?

And indeed, that is precisely the question you are answering."

the idea of an omnicient God is not common among Asians/buddhists and yet is fundamental to Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions. I once had a room half-full of Thais and half full of Malaysians. I asked them: Does God know what you are thinking? I asked them to answer considering their own personal conception of God, not what anyone else might answer. The Thais said No, but the Malaysians said Yes.

[PeeMarc]

the idea of an omnicient God is not common among Asians/buddhists and yet is fundamental to Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions. I once had a room half-full of Thais and half full of Malaysians. I asked them: Does God know what you are thinking? I asked them to answer considering their own personal conception of God, not what anyone else might answer. The Thais said No, but the Malaysians said Yes.

Buddhism teaches that our answers are inside our own 'heart', therefore we are to be responsible for our thoughts and or actions in this life... to think for ourselves.

Most other religions teach that God (or someone else) has all the answers... outside ourselves. And that God, is 'watching and listening' to see if we 'get it right'

Personally, I prefer the Buddhist idea out if the two.