One Religion Can't Be Declared The Correct One

Lets get to the real point here,we have a right as human beings to defend our lives by taking anothers if needed,but we are born with no right to defend an IMAGINARY DIETY,assuming the birthright to individualism translated into a religous belief and defended as such,this is nonsense.

We have no right to defend our belief system as if it were our life,we have no right to kill others who would strive to convert believers of our imaginary idealism into believers of their imaginary dietys.

The concept of forgiveness based on a "vote"by our own supporters is like a rigged election.

Forgiveness begets sin,forgiveness is a religous concept that couldnt exist without religous beliefs because they made it up,humans can only choose to forget,there is no natural thing as forgiveness.

To forgive is unnatural and impossible unless you are already somehow damaged.

If we create a pretend world by surrounding our idea with many many people who we convince to support our beliefs ,we begin to manifest that pretend world into reality,and this is really what happens,we create our own version of reality.

This has nothing to do with a concept like god.This is a total gang mentality designed to create and eventually be forced to initiate conflict between humans.

Religons longevity is because of its core connections to government and industry,historical connections.

The only way to find the one true religon is to remove money and power and influence from religons and let the people just "find"their way to the one they prefer instead of being indoctrinated or "sold"on it .This would truly lead us through attrition and truth to the one true religon,because it would quickly assimilate the others.

This is what we want and need and this is the natural evolution of religon,but there are powers that benefit from us not finding each other this way,they hide the fact that ALL religons have really just been different streams leading to the same river.

Religons purpos was to naturally bring humanity into the same reality,instead we are letting the internet do this,there is danger there,we truly do NEED religons,we just need to clean them up like we need to clean up society,religous institutions are supposed to be a reflection of the societys that create and maintain them,this is true after all.

We will not throw out the baby with the bath water,we will keep religons available for humanity,but we will never accept the reality of any religous belief offereing support,acceptance,or forgiveness for the killing or the endorsement of killing another human being under any circumstances.

We will foster a healthy environment for religon so we can be led to our natural conclusions as a global group called humanity.Hopefully before we see Industry and government powers lead our religons into the real armageddon,one we cant "pretend"our way out of.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Any can can declare anything they want. Whether or not it's illogical, PC, or just stupid, stupid.

reply to post by Cuppy


We only have the right to use lethality if our very life is in danger---not our life style or personal choices.

I am aware we all have the personal freedom of will to defend what we choose,but one day I wish for a global democracy that humanity is born into and supports which precludes this anti-humanitarian perspective of individuality being translated into a birthright to kill people if we choose with no humanitarian conscience.

If Anonymous created a global cyber-list of evry human on Earth and a cyber -State that we could enact this list through we could begin to make global changes outside of our local governments without actually,changing anything directly in our country itself.This is the key to global unity,putting a name to the human no matter where on Earth they are located and giving a voice to the name so it can be heard and then giving a vote to voice,this is how we will bring the world together in the micro-future,like right now .

Either Religons join together and lead humanity as one global spiritual entity or the Internet will create its own leadership as it has obviously been doing at such a swift pace that it has already eclipsed the power of the largest single religous doctrine on Earth.

Personally I say we need religons and also religous diversity,religons all need free will based on a global democratic moneyless humanitarian environment to thrive in,one that creates a dynamic where money and fiscal influence neither helps nor hinders the growth and maintenance of your religon.

In this manner all religons will be given absolutely even ground and for the first time since humans were created we will have a chance to see the true value and power of all of todays religons as they naturally and smoothly meld together through attrition into one global humanitarian spiritual belief system or perspective,a universal perspective if you will.

This is the only path through which all religons can have 100% faith that their particular doctrine is the one to take humanity all the way to one true god or if their current doctrine has done its job and brought them to the position where they can truly begin the final leg of their search for the true one god as defined by humanity as a whole,a truer definition and asolution of god could never exist,for the cumulative viewpoint of humanity is the crucible by which we manifest our humanitarian reality,if we are ever to manifest god ,the true god it will require a global focus,then god will actually appear and be real as the day is bright,but we all need to have a true global belief system sifted and refined layer after layer as only a true equalising of doctrines today can accomplish.

Therefore we need to find a way to garner the support of at least one but preferably two doctrines for this perspective,then we need to show all religons how and why they were taken on the path they have been on and why they have all seemingly reached the end of the path together at the same time.

We can use all of the historical doctrines together because this is how they originated this must be how they naturally end ,as one,as everything in nature.

The catalyst must be true,simple and willing to give of themself,and this future is easily obtainable---support is neded however because the path to becoming an entity as big as todays major doctrines are CANNOT be travelled without creating untold hardship for millions and millions of humans globally,so we need to hitch-hike on the already existing framework of a repentant or of a forward thinking progressive accountable doctrine,this is the only true humanitarian path and is the natural and easies fastest path.

A movement called Global Reliance ,that combines the scientific realities we have seen develop in terms of paralell science existing when old doctrines were originally created and concieved of,with the very real spiritual needs and choices of humanity today as we exist,we need to continue on the path to a global consciensness as we seem to be doing,we need to give all religons true freedom to exist and to either prosper and thrive in growth or dwindle and flame out as their beacons become un-needed as the path has been followed as far as needed to humanity.

But these doctrines all must truly be presented with an equal playing field ,they must truly believe that their voices will be heard ,the melding would happen the very day we entered into a moneyless global society with a defined democratic humanitarian bill of global rights defining humanities one voice as the sole compass of our species direction.

Without war,without doubt,with equality and confident belief in the truacy of our perspectives.

God may be a baseless illusionary diety today,but by joining all of humanity through the natural purifying of doctrines through evolutionary spiritual transformation.

TextSo the whole evolution vs. creationism, deity vs. natural explanation debate boils down to the blind faith in the teachings of one of thousands of religions which have next to no evidence other than a story backing them, versus the most widely accepted scientific theory.

You left out the other factor to your equation which is that the teachings of science is also theory. You just stated it. If you were a biologist you have certain laws of behavior to obey with the materials that you work with. I give the biologist that much but not much else. You call that proven science but I call it proven science for the period that you are in. Can a biologist make a factual statement that the laws he is now observing were the same laws 15 billion years ago? Or maybe even 1 million years ago? Most all science agrees that the atmosphere has changed and core samples of the frozen arctic have verified some of this. Can a biologist produce proof that this universe is 15 billion years old? Can a theoretical biologist such as Leonard Susskind or Hawking produce proof that the universe created itself or needed no god? It is accepted in this scientific world and taught in most biology classes world wide.

Can a biologist declare with fact that mankind as we know it today evolved from a lower species? Yet not one of the scientists can tell you with any certainty where the material came from to have evolved in this self created universe or for that matter where the material came from for the universe to create itself. But why is it the same old cliche is parroted by the bible bashers as saying that science has facts but those stupid bible toters believe in an old book written by crazy people? Yet you ask a great philosopher or biologist, who learned from books also, just why their old timers were wrong and they call it progress or change. Some of them were as crazy as they are today. Good example is the flat earth. Today it is 15 billion years ago or the universe created itself or man came from a lower primate. All of this rolls off their tongues as though they know it for a fact.

The true Christian is being used by this scientific field to disprove a Creator simply because over 90% of the scientific world are ungodly. Being ungodly is something like "If I can't have it then you can't have it either" -- The white coated beaker boys do produce good things and we cannot deny that but there is a line that should be drawn as to say that they are not gods either. After all of this is dead then what? It isn't going to continue forever
as it is today. One of the laws that science does not talk about is the law of death. Every living organism will obey this law regardless how brilliant your mind is.The difference between them and me is that I believe in a everlasting life and they believe that they will be a cow chip in a barnyard one day. Think it over.

reply to post by one4all

TextLets get to the real point here,we have a right as human beings to defend our lives by taking anothers if needed,but we are born with no right to defend an IMAGINARY DIETY,assuming the birthright to individualism translated into a religous belief and defended as such,this is nonsense.

What if that imaginary deity is quite real? It may be imaginary to you but a fact to me. If my deity appears to me along with a hundred other people as a true physical entity would that mean all one hundred and one of us are delusional? Supposing that all one hundred of us were in a village of another five thousand and the other five thousand feel such as you do. The other five thousand would call us delusional and demand that this stop. How would you stop the delusional people from being delusional? Would we be expelled from the village? If expelled, the one hundred and one of us would soon grow in numbers. If not expelled we would also eventually grow in numbers. The solution would be to erase us from any influence at all. How would you do this? By force? I don't see how your theology could work.

There would be no need to defend any imaginary deity unless force was applied to erase the deity from our minds. If force is applied then you are saying that we have no right to defend ourselves from the intrusion put upon us. What would give the intruders the right to intrude and the defenders no right to defend? Am I understanding this wrong? Or are you saying that as an individual we have no right to proselytize our imaginary deity? In other words practice your own belief and leave it at home?

TextThe concept of forgiveness based on a "vote"by our own supporters is like a rigged election. Forgiveness begets sin,forgiveness is a religous concept that couldnt exist without religous beliefs because they made it up,humans can only choose to forget,there is no natural thing as forgiveness.

Then atheists do not forgive. Only people with an imaginary deity will forgive. Is this what you are saying? Don't you believe that there is an unwritten code of behavior instilled in almost all life forms? Forgiveness does not beget sin in my understanding simply because sin is a wrong doing that comes to both religious people and atheists. If you had a village of nothing but atheists then there would be no need for forgiveness because Atheists would have no religion and therefore no wrong doing among themselves. In other words an atheist cannot have forgiveness because it is a religious fallacy? Therefore an Atheist can not sin because sin begets forgiveness.

What I understand by your post is that if all religions would simply be erased then the world would be a world of people getting along with no more wars or killings. That lets "It Takes A Village" die. Everyone would eventually have to be an independent who does not influence another independent. Why? Because if the human race would not commingle how would anyone find a wife or husband? Who would set governments in motion? How would rules and regulations be formed? Would schools be formed and if so who would determine the teaching?

reply to post by TupacShakur


True religion:

James 1:27
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world

I was raised a Missionary Baptist and it has taken me DECADES to come out of the indoctrination. "religion' as it is defined by today's standards is just a construct of men, to control people's hearts and pocketbooks.