Are Some Religions More Correct Than Others?

''Religion,'' and ''a set of provable facts'' are two different things; different concepts. Religion operates on faith. Knowledge is something you learn by observation. How can you even find out if a religion is correct or not, if you can't prove or disprove it?

NOW, some INTERPRETATIONS of some religions are not as CONDUCIVE to the fulfillment of the diversified field of goals that are in accord with the principle of lifeward progression; and THAT can be construed as ''some religions are more correct,'' but that's not what's really going on.

Each person is a human, and each person is different from all the others...for the most part. Is one person more human than the others? *just let go of that Rob Zombie song for a minute* Am I, as a human, more correctly/ more accurately ''human'' than other humans? F*ck no! I'm a human. Being diverse is part of being human. Being different is a quality of being human. All these others need to be here, too, since their humanity is connected to my own.

Behold! The End Draws Nigh!

HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2007

Scenario 1:
Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck's gun rack.
1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his own shotgun to show Jack.
2007 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again... Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario 2:
Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2007 - Police are called and SWAT team arrives -- they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario 3:
Jeffrey will not be still in class, he disrupts other students.
1957 - Jeffrey is sent to the Principal's office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2007 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario 4:
Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a spanking.
1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.
2007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.

Scenario 5:
Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1957 - Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock.
2007 - The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario 6:
Pedro fails high school English.
1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.
2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by the state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files a class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is then banned from the core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

Scenario 7:
Johnny takes leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.
1957 - Ants die.
2007 - ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents -- and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated. Johnny's dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Scenario 8:
Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

Murphy's Law only applies if you believe in it. Right? Then belief is not ''true or false,'' but ''good or bad.''

1.) Disregarding ''absolutes'' such as mathematical facts, belief is the cause and creator of perception and reality.

2.) Each person believes a different thing.

3.) Then there is no such thing as a misconception.

• a.) ''According to your belief, it is done unto you.''

• b.) ''As a man thinks in his heart, so will he be.''

• c.) ''the thing I have dreaded has come upon me!''

4.) What we choose to believe is never ''true or false;'' since those labels apply to knowledge, while faith/belief is like reaching out your arm to accomplish a task. Belief accomplishes something, while knowledge accepts what it is told. Can the incipient workings of faith be ''false?'' I reach out my arm and grab a light switch with my finger, and flick it ''ON.'' The lights turn on. Is my hand false? How would that even make sense? Beliefs accomplish something--always. They begin things. Knowledge, observed conclusions can be false. The quest for knowledge, shunning faith is all the while fueled by a faith that faith is invalid.

Seeing has NEVER been believing;
Faith has never been dependent upon proof
Faith produces its own proof.
Belief has nothing to do with an intellectual deduction.
Beliefs are measured by the merit of the things they elicit.
Belief/faith is a moral issue, not an intellectual one.

''Emancipate yourself from mental slavery''

If you're not happy, why not? You've been trying to be happy, trying to chase down your contentment...That causes stress, and you'll never ''catch it,'' anyway. Life is a reflection of our thoughts/beliefs/actions; it's no good to chase contentment because that brings to life the reflection of lacking and poverty. You have to BE the contentment. Chasing it only underscores the truth that it is far from you.

First, distance yourself from the strivings that cause you nothing but stress and a fistful of wind. The problem starts when we try to reason with our happiness, as though it were a logical issue: ''if only I could get this, surely I will be happy.'' And when it isn't working out, we try more desperately to get it. More stress. The more we strive for happiness, the more unhappiness we heap onto ourselves. You didn't really want all that extra stuff; All you really wanted was the contentment you thought was attached to it.

So let it go. Be like the tree in the wind. It's flexible and happy. All that it needs to be happy and to thrive is right there with it. Don't be so rigid that the smallest upset breaks you. Everything you need to be happy is everywhere with you.

KFC, don't give in! We need you to stick it to the little man!

Totally not swayed by this, especially because it's from PETA. That's just how it's done. Of course, making sport of the birds and pre-slaughter breaking wings and legs is unnecessary. That doesn't make it wrong to consume chickens.

Chickens are not ''the same as people.'' They don't need the same treatment that we would, and that's one of the big problems with messages like this. These people try to personify the chickens, and make a chicken's death EQUAL with a human's. Wait, who drew that ''line?'' Well, what if someone ELSE wants to draw a different line, and say that it's only evil to eat people, but cows, pigs, and chickens are okay? Doesn't the ''other guy'' count, too?

Chickens have to be kept in a place where they can't pile up onto each other, since they frighten easily, and will kill each other by climbing on top of other chickens. The cramped quarters are for their own good. Their beaks are clipped because chickens are also prone to aggression and cannibalism. This is so they don't all kill each other, as well.

The bone breaking and ''making sport'' of them is not necessary, but think about it...WHO ELSE takes a job killing chickens, but those who can find at least a little enjoyment in it? I'm not saying that part of the slaughter is RIGHT, but it seems this video is using the ''shock factor,'' since they're betting that most people have no clue as to how chickens are raised and slaughtered.

This video is old, too. In a 2003 article, the issue is addressed:

''Bachelder "jumped on the corporate jet and flew to PETA's hometown of Norfolk," PETA's website crowed, acquiescing to five of PETA's eight demands. According to the organization's victory report, among other matters, Bachelder pledged to install cameras in all of KFC's 29 slaughterhouses by the end of next year, with a plan to audit the tapes monthly. KFC also agreed 1) to ensure that its suppliers would add stimulation devices to the perches in the chicken sheds; 2) to move quickly to kill chickens in electric stun baths rather than merely immobilizing them; 3) to implement humane mechanized chicken-gathering systems; and 4) to provide increased space for chicken housing. KFC promised to report back to PETA on a regular basis to verify its compliance.''

The whole thing can be found here: http://www.discovery.org/a/1515

''And so I genuinely felt obliged to call...'' ...you out.

I know, I know, ''it's just a picture, Mike!'' and I should ''chill out.'' But I couldn't help but think that some people accept this without any further thought on the matter. So here we go:



1.) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Before I get too far into that, let me preface with this: God is love. Forced love is no love at all. If God created no possible avenue for humans to choose evil, that would be God, forcing us to do what He wants. If God imposed His will for perfection on us, He would no longer be who He is. ''So you're saying that God has limits?'' I'm saying that God is bound by His love for us, and His intolerance of evil. He allows us to make choices, even if it breaks His heart that we choose our own destruction. God does not force anyone to do anything. This is not an issue of ability; but an issue of God giving us a chance to choose for ourselves.



2.) Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is the author suggesting that if God doesn't ''step in,'' and put a stop to all evil, that God, Himself, is evil? I suppose it could appear that way to some. But what if God forced each person to surrender all freewill to Him; and to do exactly as He wishes? He would have a bunch of ''robots.'' He wouldn't really have ''us;'' --that would be God, just taking what He wants. He could have a bunch of robots any time He wants, but what God really wants is us. This is why our ability to choose is so important. Malevolent? No. Heartbroken? Yes.



3.) Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

He is both able and willing. ''Then how did evil come to be?'' We are the ones God allowed to choose evil or good. Any evil in the world exists because we chose it. God doesn't force us to do anything.



4.) Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him ''God?''

He has given us sovereignty over our own destinies. He will eventually deliver us over to whatever it is that we have chosen for ourselves.



So? That still doesn't prove God exists!

Correct, but it does deconstruct this argument.





And about the comment at the end ''Atheists. Winning since 33 A.D.'' I can appreciate a good joke, and that was clever.

...Except the fact that this was actually the dawn of Christianity. Since Christianity is ''just one more theist religion'' to atheism, the dawn of Christianity is more accurately described as the point in time that atheism began to fail more and more, as time progressed to present day.

On a hike!!

Here are some pictures I took from these hills my friends from work and I took a hike on :-)

There were frogs, coyotes, avocado groves, eucalyptus trees, thorny plants, long, steep climbs, and ALL kinds of FUN! :-D