Someone here

As I mentioned in another thread ..I'm bisexual. Which means I'm emotionally and sexually attracted to both males and females. It's easy and socially acceptable to date a girl as a guy ..however it's not easy to date a guy in my society. Homosexuality is considered a sin in my country (india). And I don't want to suppress my gay side .today I allowed myself to look at nude pictures of attractive men and I allowed myself to get aroused by it . But I want to build a healthy relationship with a guy . How do I go about dealing with my gay side ? Thanks.

If those who commit evils and violence zealously with the intent they are doing 'good acts' [ihsan] their divine duty for Allah in accordance to what is in the Quran, WHO ARE YOU, me or any one to judge they are wrong?? The critical point here is only Allah can have the final say. Problem is Allah will not communicate to humans directly and will not appear on Earth to make a judgment on whether who is right or wrong. Allah will only make a judgement on Judgment Day. In reality Allah [God] do not exists at all. So, as long as the evil elements in the Quran exists as divine words and commands, SOME [not all] Muslims who are evil prone will be inspired by those evil elements. To them, they are influenced and compelled to do what is expected of them as per the Quran and unfortunately there are evil elements in the Quran to lead these people to commit evils [they deemed in as good]. In general, those who strive [jihad] for the cause of Allah [sabil] in fighting and killing non-Muslims under conditions of zulimu, fasad, etc. are given greater rewards than other Muslims. Allah had condemned the coward Muslims for staying at home and not migrating to fight when Muslims abroad are oppressed and taken advantage of.

Clear, but still not answering the question posed (Which was my point.) I asked why do people defend Islam. My general answer was that people tend to defend attacks on groups of people. Like I said above, we don't all think Muslims condone beheading any more than we think all Christians think homosexuality is a sin. Given that most of us don't really understand the religion of Islam we find it very hard to say anything about it because we (in the west) have a Christian tradition that runs right through our society (and I doubt many of us even speak Arabic either!) It does not matter whether we believe this or that, it is still a prominent factor in western society. We don't really need to be educated about Christian traditions and culture because in the western world we've been brought up in the heart of it. Then we have minorities in our nations (Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, or whatever) and we, being rational people, understand that what other people do on the other side of the world does not represent what our neighbours do and think. Some people forget this and become consumed by hatred. It is quite normal to be consumed by hatred via associating. If a man with one arm murders your family in front of you, you'll likely carry around a psychological profile of all one-armed men in a very negative light even if you understand the irrationality of such a prejudice. This is why I see people being very quick to try and make people see past blind hatred and embrace reason. I don't see it simply as a case of sticking up for what you think is right (not quite sure why you'd stick up for something you thought for wrong so imagine you erred in your writing? Many scholars have gone over the Quran and generally I have heard that the interpretation is a big deal. I am not sure why it is more significant than with the Bible (cannot remember the argument now), but that was a repeated theme I remember reading about.

I can agree that religious institutions have an agenda. People who believe in whatever they believe do so for many different reasons. If you are repressed you use it as a force to oppose repression, if you are scared of death you use it as a comfort, if you have many questions that cannot be answered or tackled you rely in the "faith" of assuming there is a higher order and purpose. These people are quite obviously vulnerable to manipulation and religious institutions have taken advantage of this numerous times in human history. There is no conclusive proof in a matter like this. To think so is to fall into a dogmatic belief. What we can do is a have a considered and balanced discussion about what feeds evil institutions.

Not all Christians are evil either, nor Buddhists. Most certainly some are, and some will murder just as some Muslims. I do understand what you are saying in regard to "religion" as a whole. My qualm is purposefully attacking Islam. If the oil was in India no doubt we'd be talking about Hindu and Buddhist suicide bombers. If the religious roles were reversed and the west was not in power then the Christians would be suicide bombing. The problem is not the specific religion, the problem, as I see it, is that nations which are down-trodden turn to any peace of hope they can find. Some people prey on this and recruit fundamentalists (the specific religion doesn't really matter - note; not even Buddhism escapes this phenomenon). If there was no religion then there would be some other ideology to put to work, maybe nationalistic tendencies, basically some cultural difference, be it language, race or whatever. If we are asking what religions are more prone to being manipulated into hatred, then yes, Islam is probably quite high up there, but I wouldn't put it higher than Judaism or Christianity. They are, as I've said already, pretty much cast from the same mold.

@Preety_India lol that was a question not a statement

So, no religion is not to blame. Human stupidity and greed is generally to blame for humanities evils. Not any god or devil, just plain old people thinking they know better than others and rallying people (wittingly or not) to their own personal "crusade" against X, Y and/or Z ??

If you ask a Muslim in the west about how people aren't allowed to criticise them I wouldn't blame them if they laughed in your face. Almost all we hear about Muslims is critical, scary, othering. From misogyny to terrorism. Just look at the news,. Think of the last 10 times you heard or read the word 'Muslim', I'll bet nearly all were in negative contexts. Some of the criticisms are true about some Muslims, and there's usually the standard disclaimer it's only some Muslims, but the problem is that's almost all we hear about them. And this has consequences. Not only hate crimes and discrimination, but when you're a member of a community which feels stigmatised and looked upon as a threat, it can push some people towards alienation and resentment. Fuel the attitudes people accuse them of. This is why thoughtful people try to counter the tide of negative portrayals of Muslims, to bring balance and sensitivity to an issue which requires it. Then these people are categorised as hypocrites and 'regressive' for not talking about Muslims like some stereotype Other. The OP pretty much parroted the usual memes, summing up the exactly wrong way to have a thoughtful discussion about this.

The real conclusion is Islam is partly very evil which is evident by the evil laden verses in the Quran that inspire some Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence which is empirically evident. So those who are blinkered by the above unsound syllogism, do take note of the truth based on empirical evidences, do detailed analysis and rationalization. I strongly recommend all non-Muslims and even Muslims to read the Quran thoroughly and understanding its various elements, i.e. good and evil.

Muslims insist their holy texts, i.e. the Quran of the present are exactly word for word what was originally revealed to Muhammad via Gabriel from Allah. Christians believe the doctrines [not necessary word for word] are exactly what God had revealed to Jesus. Non-believers will dispute the above points but it has no relevance to believer who will follow what God said in the holy texts literally. Note the Principles of Being a Believer; Though not mentioned explicitly, a Christian and Muslim is a believer who has entered into a spiritual contract [covenant] with God and Allah respectively with the following terms; 1. Believers will believe in God and his son, messenger in Islam. 2. Believers will believe in the message of God, Bible, Quran 100%. 3. In return, God promise believers eternal life in Paradise. Since there is a contract, the believer must comply with all the terms and conditions as stipulated in the holy texts and no where else. As such a Christian must follow what is in the Bible 100% to the best of one's ability. A Muslim must follow what is in the Quran 100% to the best of one's ability. Regardless of what the holy texts said, all of God's command are taken to be good. Not obeying the commands of God would be a sin and the possibility the believer will not end up in Paradise and could end up in Hell. Note the modern Arabic dictionary define 'jihad = holy war'. This is not what Allah meant in the Quran, 'jihad' in the Quran is merely mean struggle or strive. But there are many verses in the Quran which directly and indirectly condone and inspire Muslims to fight and kill non-Muslims. In the Quran, there are verses [objectively verifiable] which exhort Muslims to hate and fight non-Muslims as evident by ISIS' view above. Now all Muslims has signed a contract with Allah to obey the Quran, so if the Quran mention the Muslims must fight and kill non-Muslims under certain conditions [zalim, fasad, etc.] [note the 6 reasons given in the earlier post], then Muslims are contractually obligated to do in accordance to the terms of the contract. This is the simple operation of the Law of Contract! Those Muslims who do not comply with the commands and words of Allah - where they can - are committing sins and in the eyes of Allah. The majority of Muslims who do not obey Allah's commands in the Allah are being more inclined to human moral values rather than Quranic values and ignorantly has failed to comply with the terms of the contract they have signed with Allah. As for Christians, within the NT which contain the terms of their contract with God, there is an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. love your enemies, love this and love that.. etc. So to comply with the term of their contract, they must love their enemies instead of fighting and killing them. So those Christians who had killed their enemies, they are likely be reprimanded by God on Judgment Day and God may be lenient if they have justified non-premeditated reasons. I had made comparison between Islam and Christianity and there is obviously a significant fundamental difference in their treatment of non-believers. I have singled out Islam based on this difference regarding the contractual terms. Additional point; I mentioned the Quran, but the existing of the majority of Muslims insist the Ahadith [worst in term of evils and violence] is also an critical addendum to the terms of contract with Allah. As such Muslims are obliged to comply with the terms in the Ahadith which condones hatred and violence against non-Muslims. The above is truth which I can substantiate with verses from the Quran and Ahadith as an when necessary. One advantage I have is there is solid empirical evils and violence committed by SOME Muslims who are evil prone and inspired by evil laden verses in the Quran. I have no problem changing my mind if you can prove I am wrong.

And so it says as much in the Bible? And you can see why they say abortion is wrong and homosexuality is a sin. Islam and Christianity have more in common than not. By all means talk about the evil of religious institutions. To single out Islam is utterly ridiculous. Am I sympathetic left? No, I have no sympathy for deluded individuals. My aim is to cut through the BS and start dialogue rather than cast around accusations. I know a little about Islam myself. I also know many Muslims see the "war" and interpret the words from Arabic as representing an inner struggle. Much like the Bible they take it metaphorically not literally (some get it wrong, much like those in the Bible belt who believe the world was created in seven days by some deity). Let us not forget these religious texts were written and put together LONG after the people involved had died. They no doubt hold some seed of the original persons involved, but they were used by religious institutions to gain popular favour. As a rational human being I believe the main personas involved had a great influence and inspiring affect on those around them. From this point I take what positivity I can from what remains of them and remember how they ALL generally preach peace, freedom and human worth. OF course due to political circumstances and cultural attitudes of the times it is clear that those issues have been imprinted upon the mythology of these people too. No doubt these individuals faulted also, I am sure they were aware of their own faults. What people protest against is singling out a group of people and demonizing them (also a popular tactic of Christianity). Your personal view of Islam and experience does not hold baring on everyone elses. That is probably why you fail to understand other views that are not "sympathetic", but are generally opposing sweeping statements made by individuals that paint a whole group of people as "evil".

disagree with your views; "western democracy and capitalism is the more primary problem" You cannot be that short-sighted when; 1. The terrible evils and violence from SOME Islamist started long before Western Democracy and capitalism. 2. Islamic terror started since 1,400 years ago when Islam was establish in the Middle East. 3. The Taliban, Boko Haram and Islam in essence is against anything which is not Islamic, e.g. education [note the case of Malala, and Boko Haram's mission]. 4. The genocides of the Yazidis, Armenians, Hindus has nothing to do with Western Democracy and capitalism. 5. Note the cultural genocides where historical sites, building, artifacts are destroyed for being not acceptable to Islam. Many give excuses for the current terror in blaming Western interventions but this is merely the secondary problem. Note this true real reason why true Muslims hate non-Muslims. This is what was extracted from ISIS's newsletter [mine].

From my perspective, the reason for the regressive left [re Islam] is due to Obama's placating to Muslims and allowing them to infiltrate the White House. In addition, the Islamist use their oil money to corrupt academia with their $$$ in donations of various universities in the US and around the world. This is why at present there is no room in most universities in the US for any one to give any speech where Islam is mentioned .

My position on the evils of Islam is as follows; 1. Obvious any individual who had committed crimes of any sort should face the respective Laws without exception. 2. But, no Muslims should be blamed as the primary cause for the evils and violence that is happening in the present. 3. The Muslims who commit evils and violence are the ones who are unfortunately born with an active evil propensity and are subliminally influenced by the evil verses from the Quran. 4. The primary cause for all Islamic-based evils and violence should be traced to the Quran in relation to the identified sets [not single verse] of evil and violent elements therein. So it is not Muslims at all but the primary cause is the ideology of Islam i.e. the evil and violent elements in the Quran to be proven objectively. 5. An analogy is like Hitler and Nazism in the Main Kempf. In this case it it is not the German people then who are at fault. The primary fault is Hitler with his perverted mind who started that evil ideology of Nazism. The cronies and gang who help Hitler to enhance his evil ideology of Nazism is also guilty

@Preety_India I think that if a group of people are being labelled as X and painted in a bad light then sensible people will speak up and say it is unfair to say that such a statement represents ALL people who associate with that group. Thankfully I do think the overall public are little more wiser to how political manipulation works and at the moment due to easy access to media sources we are seeing a backlash against the backlash. Are some people who call themselves Muslims evil? Yes, but not all. Are some people who call themselves Christians evil? Yes, but not all. Are some people who don't claim any religious position evil? Yes, but not all. That is all we really need to remember. The rest is simply due to religious institutions and governments agendas. As members of the public I think we should try to rise above sweeping statements about groups of peoples. Of course being human we are all going to fall prey to our own views and biases so the best we can do is guard against them and not be willing to either target groups of people or to defend groups of people. People are people, and people are different.

I guess it is because there is one group that is very noisy and aggressive. This why some of the left are redefining themselves as the Progressive Left as opposed to the very noisy and aggressive 'regressive left'. What I find disturbing with this regressive left is their drive and desperations to stop all sort of expressions, and critiques of Islam when it is Islam-in-part that would not hesitate to kill and rape them wherever the opportunity arise for SOME Muslims to do it in the name of Islam. Another point is there are NOT many [except a few] on the left who are condemning the stupidity of these regressive left.

A characteristic I notice in people in general is defensiveness. It does not matter if you are on the left or right or in the middle. Why are people, generally, defensive? I think people are because they want to be right or righteous. Who does not want to have the superior point of view? We all want to be the top dog in our own estimation. So, the question is what is the best point of view? If you lean left it is probably associated with socialism (in various forms), religious tolerance, economic interdependence, environmentalism, freedom of speech, social welfare, governmental regulation, more egalitarian characteristics, Etc. If you lean to the right your governmental preference is probably more authoritarian – capitalistic sovereignty, prefer authoritarian religions, less government regulation & environmental protection, oppose welfare and gun regulation, more individualistic characteristics, etc. These are generalized characteristics – not hardened fast rules. Most people are a hybrid of these attributes in various combinations – centrist – center right – center left. So people on the left tend to want freedom of expression, people on the right tend to want a form of censored expression. I think this is generally true – so what does it mean? It means lefties want everyone to have their point of view expressed - even views from the far right. Do people on the right want freedom of expression? No – they do not. Is Islam a tolerant religion? No – it is not.

I live in India. I think that the radical left supports Islam because they have an insulated western view of the world whereby the west are actors and all other people are acted upon, Muslim immigrants are minorities and the radical left feels compelled to defend all minorities and the Muslim nations are the result of Western imperialism, radical Islam and etc of which the radical left believes do not represent Islam or the Muslim population of the world. This further pushes the narrative that Muslims are victims, just the same way that feminists say that men are victims of the patriarchy because it restricts their freedom and punishes them for being different ie we are not able to express our feelings and we are expected to behave in a masculine way or conform to masculine ideals, with regards to Islam the radical left seems equally inconsistent about who exactly the state of Islam represents and who is responsible for it. Men are victims, women are victims, refugees are victims and there is nobody left to blame and this is not really exclusive to the west either. Obviously everyone recognises that "radical Islam" is a problem but the question is how does this relate back to the everyday Muslim? Are the majority of Muslims just law abiding people with similar philosophies, ideals and dreams to anybody else or are they hardcore misogynistic, anti-liberal and hateful people who willingly subscribe to a destructive ideology. Is the ideology itself even hateful or has it been hi-jacked by violent extremists. This is the complexity surrounding the issue of Islam and while I think the radical left have gone too far, it is difficult to take a strong stance on Islam without taking it on a case-by-case basis, the religion consists of too many people for a clear cut answer.

Is it Very simple? it's because they live in countries were Christianity is the dominant religion, and many powerful and wealthy people are christian. In other words Christianity is a strong religion with much influence, it should be able to take a punch or two. Remember that when you are criticizing Islam, no one in Muslim majority countries will hear you. Instead the one who get the criticism are the mostly poor, uneducated muslim minorities in christian-dominated countries.

I used to be in a constant state of dissatisfaction... I never truly enjoyed the things i supposedly enjoy doing because they were never as good as i imagined them to be and while i was doing them i'd be thinking if what could be better... As a simple example... When i listen to a song i love while travelling or whatever, i never actually finish it and experience the whole track. Instead im skipping through large parts of great songs in the hope that i'll enjoy the next one even more... Since ive started meditating and incorporating mindfulness into my life this is slowly changing... I recently went on holiday with an old friend and i made and effort to experience every moment of that trip... I got so much more out of it that way. This would not have been possible without mindfulness...

Thanks guys for the great helpful responses. this exact thing today while hiking in some beautiful scenery. Restlessness and higher expectations for something that I, based on past experience, should be loving every second of. On longer hiking trips (3+ days) I noticed this is pretty much non-existent. I've also noticed this sensation disappearing after long bouts of drawing, reading, converstation, cuddling, etc. which leads me to the conclusion that it's due to our short attention span. If i want to counter this, i gotta teach my brain to disregard instant gratification and relearn the value of a delayed reward. These things would be great ways to rewire my eward system: -Draw a huge, detailed drawing. It doesn't matter if it looks like shit, I'm keeping my mind on a single task long enough to complete something This is my take on the sensation, and some things that may help my brain rewire itself to move away from my short attention span that is likely causing it. Hope it helps! Thanks again.

Im driven. I push myself, i set standards & goals and see them through regardless of the obstacle, even if the obstacle is myself. I have a level of aggression inside of me that pushes me to reach my goals by any means necessary.. often times the motivation is misplaced as well, where i find myself pushing my limits in order to promote an image of myself for others to view. The source of motivation is what bothers me most, i do things to please others or to fulfill my need for stimulation when deep down i know i should be doing them to please myself. I dont think that i was ever told to behave this way, but something registered with me early in life to "be better" than everyone else, to be the best at everything i do.. i think its a fear of judgement from others, but im still working on that... Meditation works very well for me. im just now learning to adopt the role of "the watcher" in attempt to view my thoughts in meditation, however i tend to latch on to them more often than not and they lead me to a day dream state instead of that of the observer. How can i observe more and direct myself towards mindfulness during meditation? I try to follow my breath throughout the day to practice a waking meditation as i perform day to day tasks, but often this inst enough on its own. Thanks for your attention to this, i really appreciate your input.

How ?

I have been thinking about this today and wondering about how the material circumstances in which each person lives contribute to happiness or well being. It may come down to the material conditions of finance or physical health. I am aware that I have previously had a thread on attachments and that there have been threads on meaning, relating to subjective and objective aspects of life. I don't think that anyone has raised this specific question though. The trigger for me thinking about this was when the boy who lives in the room next to mine remarked how my room was such a mess. He showed me his and I saw how neat and tidy it was. For example, mine has a torn curtain provided by the landlord while he has put up net curtains. I have chaotic heaps of clothes on the floor because my drawers are full of papers and he definitely doesn't have piles of books all over. It lead me to think of the way rooms or homes may be symbolic of mental states. I think that my neighbour was trying to help as he offered to help me organize mine. The point of my little funny story is how material circumstances relate to inner states of mind. Do the circumstances affect happiness or vice versa? It is likely that Maslow's hierarchy of needs which range from the physiological to the social and those of self actualisation come into play. Each person is unique but everyone has certain basic needs. I don't know how people who are homeless manage to endure and it must involve a lot of resilience. Also, aspects of mental health are affected by physical health and factors such as poverty. It is likely that a person who is depressed but in better material circumstances can endure suffering more 'comfortably' than an impoverished person. The cognitive behavioral school of psychology suggests that human beings do not simply experience emotional distress on the basis of experience but on how they think about it. There is some truth in that but material factors impinge on this. For example, a person with poor physical health may experience an event differently from someone in good health. Also, the experience of one's own body plays a part in psychology. In particular, how one sees oneself physically when looking in the mirror is likely to influence the tone of one's experience of reality. I am not wishing to see this question as simply being one of social psychology but as one with far reaching implications, such as poverty and political factors. Climate change does come into it too because extreme environmental factors of weather impact on wellbeing, just like being without food affects the mind and cognitive processes. So, I am raising the question of material circumstances in relation to happiness. The basis of this is because happiness is sometimes seen more in terms of being able to transcend the physical as a philosophical state of mind. I am wondering about this and how it may be negotiated in the worst conditions and how it relates to pleasure and lack of it. Any thoughts on the topic and the main questions raises here

During a period of self reflection I decided to be very honest with myself and pursue my own inner truth. At the time I believed that it was always better to pick truth over happiness. As I kept digging eventually I discovered that this preference was a lie and even somewhat of a paradox. As a general heuristic picking truth over happiness is close to optimal. If you choose truth you may be able to add happiness and retain the truth. If you choose happiness the truth will likely later destroy that happiness. But if you keep digging you eventually come to the last treasure chest containing the final truths. You open the box and you discover a choice where you can take one additional truth and that truth is such that if you accept it no being will ever have happiness again. Do you choose it simply because it is true? I would not. Initially that created discomfort for me as it implies that I may have already made such a choice. But that itself is a truth I am still willing to accept. If you still think you would choose otherwise I am left wondering whether you left one more thing in the box than I did.