"Dangerous practice to infer my views based upon the posts of someone who claims to agree with what I post, John Hardly."

Well, I read that'n through about seven times (perfect number, donchaknow) and still don't understand.

"BTW, what say you to my "narrow view" that one religion does not trump another? Could it possibly be "real" (the word you keep using to make these fine distinctions) that Buddhism does, in fact, trump Christianity? That what you are defining as "real" simply means "your reality" and not "all reality"?"

Read that'n through a few times and all I can do is try to answer what I think you mean.

Yup, I think it's possible that Buddism could trump Christianity -- I don't believe it does, and I live my life according to my sense that the opposite is true. I'm aware that I live by faith -- that I accept what I can know and that I know that I don't know everything.

I ascribe to accepting the empirical. I also don't assume that everything that seems to be fact is fact. I also accept that even within my belief structure I show a certain trust in sources of information -- I may try to be choosy about my sources, but, ultimately I have to accept that I cannot test everything in life -- that I must trust somewhere.

But I also believe that most people are in the same boat -- we are all source dependent because it is not possible to know everything empirically.

Take news for instance. This is one reason why the left and right are so polarized -- we now each have incotrovertable sources to prove each of our sides in the political debate.

Of course we know this isn't logically possible, but since we cannot actually empirically test everything we are resposible for knowing (as citizens) we run our tests on our sources because we cannot test the facts themselves.

That's why it's critical to "hold your own guy's feet to the fire". For a conservative, it should shake him to the extent to which he values it as a source, everytime he catches Rush Limbaugh in a lie. Similarly, it should matter to a liberal, to the extent that they value him as a source, everytime Michael Moore lies.

All this to say that this thread is FULL of statements that imply an intimate knowledge of empirical truth (not a bunch of second.......or third......or fourth hand information from prejudiced sources).......from a bunch of folks stuck at home with nothing better to do on a weekend than post on an internet forum (hardly likely to be the source of incontrovertable truth). It's interesting to share views and hear how others think -- but this has been one decidedly arrogant thread as a whole. Very little "I think" and lotsa "It is".

Gotta go. I have a few worlds to save before dinner.