shh... hush hush

i wanna say something, something ive been wanting to say. i am shelled in the coat of PVC aura, just two layers, no more than that. it will not protect me from the bombs, the stones the firey joss sticks, but boy will it make me hot. yeah hot. dehydrating hot, but the other meaning i wouldnt mind either.

being effectively unable to construct comprehensible paragraphs of verbose arguments, i will list out little crumbs of what was a cookie of my thoughts. a forceful, stronglyworded warning though:

THE FOLLOWING ARE MERE RUMINATIONS ON MY PART. IT IS NOT MY DESIRE TO INSULT OR ATTEMPT TO QUESTION ANYONE'S BELIEVES (maybe attitude, yes) FEEL FREE TO COMMENT THOUGH.

on buddhism:
- the central idea of removing oneself from all earthly emotions (ie. love, family bonds).
- really, being a nun / monk is a form of escapism (why not read scripture at home?)
- is action really that conclusive a determination of one's qualities?

on religion:
- if all that we want is the road to happiness, does it matter which path we take - be it the rickety bridge or the pebble-paved sidewalk? we do not alienate fellow travellers because of their choice of roads, so why do so for people with different beliefs?
- the globe identifies continents, countries, but not streets and towns. is the bible not another form of the handy globe?
- it is my opinion (and i am entitled to having opinions) that religions were invented (hold the gasoline and rocks) to provide a support for Man in terms of explanations and reason. we are essentially little creatures living in a big, unknown world. reassurance and a yardstick make things easier.
- perhaps it is true that the more you love something, the more you are selfish, and possessive of what you own. ditto for religions. perhaps that explains why some people just simply cannot open their minds to other possibilities and opinions. maybe they fear that inquisition and influx of information might erode their trust and inject ideas (check out them i s!) against what they love the most. just a thought, but remember, once upon a time, the brightest scientists all agreed that the earth was flat.
- if the essence of all religions is love, why then, is the same love not extended to all? instead, it is often canned and rationed, given out to members of the VIP club, and other plebians tagged as 'foolish'

on atheists and Omelias:
- infuriated by the unfairness and brutal treatment of the THING, they declared that it was wrong. WRONG!! the THING should not be made to suffer, even though the sole suffering of the boy brought happiness for the entire town. inhumane! they cried. i would never want someone to do that for me! but it is strange, for someone did. Jesus was cruxified to atone for our sins. Jesus is the little boy in Omelias, the little boy is he. and the few people who walked away from Omelias, they were the atheists. they refused to let the boy suffer and they put their beliefs into action, if it meant being exposed to the pain and unhappiness of the REAL world (TM) (aka burning in ever lasting hell).
- perhaps the concept of hell only applies to those who believe in it? or is it only a more complicated manifestation of the ostrich syndrome?
- buddha, allah and jesus were all human. have we not chosen to name it as a religion we would have established a patriachy.