posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:39 PM
Still, so many of the world's religions are so similar in content. How closely do the different religious teachings have to match before you can
claim that there is but one religion for all practical purposes? Just hours ago I remarked on another post about how similar the proclamations of
Islamic Fundy's are to Christian Fundy's. The thread had to do with earthquakes being blamed on promiscuous women by an Iranian cleric. If the
results of many religions are a brain-dead acceptance of such ludicrous proclimations then could we not make a convincing argument that, although the
details of their respective dogmas may not be in complete agreement, the end results are the same?
Might we not then further argue that this specific "end result" could conceivably be the shared goal of these religious philosophies, or, at the
very least, the desired result of how these philosophies are introduced to humanity by certain ruthless types? Finally, if the "end results" are the
same, can we honestly claim that there is any quantifiable difference in these religions? Does it really matter if your savior is called Jesus or
Mohammed if your religion reduces you to an easily manipulated tool for authority figures? Isn't the true face of a One World Religion the blind
obedience that it invokes in its adherents irregardless of their specific rituals and sacriments?
I would claim that, for all intents and purposes, the One World Religion is already here, dividing humanity into rediculous cults that are then set
against each other in senseless conflicts that result in endless death and suffering for the devotees and riches and power for the high priests. Dr.
John Lilly once stated that Religion is not about salvation but control. It is my belief that he was correct in his summation. If the real goal of
most religions is the subjagation of the human mind and spirit to a higher human order then how, exactly, can they be said to honestly differ?