Please, please, PLEASE get in touch with us and let us know if we're inspiring or annoying you, if you have questions or comments, or just to say hi! We may even stop in and see you at some point!

Tuesday, May 29, 2012


Today I was reading a series of essays called "Bahai" by Horace Holly. One of the quotes I found there, and I'm paraphrasing here, was "to not find the Christ in Muhammed or the Buddha is to not find the Christ in Christ." I had to think about it for a while, and then, like a wave, a seriousness washed over me. The idea that someone who holds their religon as pure and infallble truth so much that all others must be completely dissimilar and utterly false... it's so narrow. I have a father. My friend has a father. We both have fathers. They are both our fathers. But my father does not negate my friend's father. Why is this the case in religion? Why does it all have to be so tied in? Why don't people respect the fact that we are each given a path to discover, and when we discover that, it's ours alone. It doesn't belong to a tradition, a family, a church, or a congregation. It doesn't belong in Scientific Law. Nobody can ever own what we discover, what we learn and what we choose. This being said, how on earth can we ever presume that our idea, our single awareness of what is, must, out of the billions of us currently here and the billions we've buried since time began, that your singular comprehension of the way things are must be right?  I think it's safe to say that everyone has an idea, and their idea comes from many places. Many people may have very similar ideas, but is it all the same, so much as to say it's right? Is it even remotely noble to kill for those ideals, or even to keep people in a "free" country from being truly free based on who they love?

Something to think about.

Post a Comment