religious-diversity

The argument against faith is all based upon the rigorous analysis of the scriptures, and not upon the objective observation of the actual individual sensation of faith. Historical experiences of the Kingdom of God gave rise to all the scriptures in the world, but the scriptures themselves don__ account for the actual globally prevalent psychological element of faith or divinity in the human mind. Faith is a natural evolutionary trait of the human mind, selected by Mother Nature as an internal coping-mechanism.

A religious individual may most gloriously carry out his or her own rituals, as a part of his or her cultural identity, but the moment, that person starts to build a wall of separation between the self and the rest of humanity, coaxed by the textual commands of a scripture, the healthy religiousness turns into dangerous fundamentalism, which is a threat to both the self and the society.

The point is, being a Christian does not mean hating or belittling the non-Christians. Being a Muslim does not mean hating or belittling the non-Muslims. Being an Atheist does not mean hating or belittling the religious people. In a civilized society, diversity in religious orientation should be the reason for celebration, not the cause for hatred and differentiation.

A true religious person should not think that __y religion alone is the right path and other religions are false._ Other religions are also so many paths leading to the same domain of transcendental bliss.

It's about religious acceptance, it's no longer about religious tolerance.

The book-learned preacher who carries the badge of authority, is by no means religious.

If to a person religion means reading books and obeying every single word from it without the slightest bit of reasoning, then such perception would only bring destruction upon the person and the world. Also there are people who use the words from those books to justify their own filthy actions. Let__ take a conservative Muslim, for example. Say, the conservative Muslim male Homo sapiens (I won__ call such creature a human, regardless of the religion, since his action here shows no sign of humanity) is found to be beating his wife. Now, if someone says to him __his is wrong_, he would naturally reply, __his is a divine thing to do, my book says so_. Now, if a Christian says __y book is older, so you should stop obeying your book and start obeying mine_, there will come the Buddhist, and say, __y book is much older still, obey mine_. Then will come the Jew, and say, __y book is even older, so just follow mine_. And in the end will come the Hindu and say __y books are the oldest of all, obey them_. Therefore referring to books will only make a mess of the human race and tear the species into pieces.

A religion that demands absolutely irrefutable obedience, is anything but religion.

Religion doesn't divide the society. The humans reading the wrong books to understand religion, do.

You can reach the roof of your house by stone stairs, by wooden stairs, by bamboo steps or by a rope. Likewise, there are diverse ways of experiencing the Absolute Divinity _ the Ultimate Oneness. In fact, in that blissful state of oneness, you and God are one and the same thing.

Sophia could just as well have gutted me. In Allah's name, I drank beer for you. I dismantled my entire value system of holding Allah's word above all for you. I reinterpreted my Islamic teachings to justify being with you.

Tolerance is NOT acceptance. And that's the problem with ALL religion. It teaches acceptance only for those who believe exactly as you do, and at best, tolerance for the rest of us "sinners." Sorry. Not acceptable.

Religion, as it is generally taught all over the world, is said to be based upon faith and belief, and, in most cases, consists only of different sets of theories, and that is the reason why we find all religions quarrelling with one another.