"a" or "the" true religion

[Ciel]

How about one truth filtered through many different channels, call these channels religion or religious aspiration. But above all one truth, filtered through many different interpretations corresponding to the many different personalities of life on earth. Therefore all religions carry the essense of truth according to their alignment of time, place and culture, as does humanity.
The realisation of ultimate truth is beyond all boundaries.

[Susma Rio Sep]

From our contributions here I think I am justified in drawing the conclusion that posters who have contributed do not ascribe to the idea that there is only one true religion, not as there is only one true person called, say, Julius Caesar.

On that basis which I think is concerned with numerically unique identity or in one word, unicity, it is safe from us here in this thread to say that there is no true religion, meaning -- to make it explicit, there is no one true religion.

What do you guys think? Can you accept the proposition that there is no one true religion?

But Chela says: "Even though I know the true religion, I cannot say, "This or that is the true religion."

The statement seems in a way quite categorical and it literally maintains that there is a one true religion; only Chela can't say which is the one.

And yet when I read the totality of his post, I get the certain impression that Chela is not very definite about there being one true religion; his inclination seems to be as I said there is no such one and only one true religion.

My purpose now is to draw a number of propositions that we all can profess without any hesitancy.

And the first one, though not first in logical order, is the following:

[b]There is no one true religion.

That proposition saves all people seeking the true religion from the anxiety that they might never come to the one true one.

So for my own equanimity, I am dispensed from that quest which I think is also impossible at least from my own part, considering that I don't have the resources.

Consider this analogous situation, if there is only one true religion:

You are lost in a forest during a snow storm, and there is only one way to get out and head for the town, moreover you have only so much time and strength until you freeze to death.

But we are assuming that religion is critically important for this life and for the ultra biological world if any there be.

So there are still other propositions to formulate, perhaps like this one:

[b]Religion is not necessary for this life nor for the ultra biological world if any there be.

AT this point however, let us just see whether we can all agree that there is no one true religion.

Pachomius2000

09-01-2004 06:13 PM Chela

How can we express this? I am not able to.

Even though I know the true religion, I cannot say, "This or that is the true religion."

It is not difficult to find the connections between any two religions. So, to think one "true" doctrine is exclusive is nothing more than ignorance or pride or deceit by the misguided sectarians. I have studied religion in its methods taught by those who are considered authorities on the matters, and I must say that the only reason they are considered authorities is do the precise fact that they appeal to the lowest common level of understanding. There is nothing wrong with that, just do not get caught up in the hatred of those who have yet to understand; but we must be even more careful of those that we do not understand (even though we think we understand perfectly, which is the exact cause of our misunderstanding).

How can someone who has never experienced anything but the rigid materialism (so adored by society) of our modern day speak about the Heavens and God and Angels?

It is incongruent. It is absurd!

They say, "That is not what that passage means, look, all these other scholars agree that it means this..." Silly people! You will not find the meaning of those texts in the remains of some 2000 year old village! You will find the true meaning of that passage in meditation, you will live it, then you can teach it to others! Why do people look for the Heavens in the mud of the earth? Don't we know that Heaven is internal?

The true religion is life itself.

True religion is nothing but the great Reunion with That Which We Came From. Truly, if you want that, then a Will of That must exist. That is to say, everyday one should strive to be a better person than they were in the day past. If one is can do this, then nothing will stop that one from perfection.

If everyone was reunited with their location of departure then religions would be nothing more than a fading thought...

24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (King James Bible, Matthew)

People believe the false teachings will come with a title, "Writings of the False Prophet," or something silly of that like. The true aspect of this quote is in reference to those beliefs you already hold, to those unbreakable dogmas that you already believe to be true. People believe that the false teachings will not be told by someone with a Bible in their hand. We think that if someone mentions the Christ then they are speaking in the name of the authentic Christ, but do not be fooled. The most popular false teachings are taught by those who believe in them, but have never witnessed them.

By knowing the false religion you will know the true religion.

[Susma Rio Sep]

The preceding post was published on 091304; it is now in my part of the world 092204.

I am asking people here to tell me if they can be comfortable saying clearly this statement:

There is no one true religion.

If people cannot say that comfortably, then I guess they don't agree with me, namely, they maintain that there is only one true religion.

Are they saying then that theirs is the one true religion, also?

Vajradhara used to be a Baptist, trained to be a preacher or pastor but never ordained one, and according to his own description never worked as one either -- correct me though if I am wrong.

Now, he is a Buddhist and even I gather learned Pali or is it Sanskrit? to go deep into Buddhism. (Let's see now, Nibbana is Pali but Nirvana is Sanskrit, right?)

Maybe Vajradhara has now found the one true religion which is Buddhism, the school he ascribed to, of course, and of course again for himself, that is.

So, do we have people here who can be comfortable reciting that statement above:

There is no one true religion.


A bit of humor before ending this post.

There was a priest starting to read the Bible in chant before the congregation, "A brave woman who will find...?" And he kept turning the pages of the Bible he was using to find the location for that text, meanwhile repeating again and again: "A brave woman who will find...?"

After futilely trying to get to the place for that text, he finally stopped singing, "A brave woman who will find...?" and sang instead:

"And I have not found her."

Amen to that, and have a good day.

Pachomius2000

[Quahom1]

"There is no one true religion, save the taking care of orphans and Widows..."


I don't think fault can be found in that "religion" Sus. Do you?

v/r

Q

[Lady_Selune]

Hi all,

It my humble opinion there is a true religion. It is the one that fills you heart with the certain knowledge that the path you take is the correct one for you.

Religion is a tool by which we find our path to our God(s). Since none of us are the same I think it is foolish to think that we could all find the same path by which to get there.

Some religions are threatened more then others but the fact remains, when you find the religion that fills you and answers your need, then it is for all intents and purposes the one and only true religion for you.

When you are part of a religion and do not feel comfortable with it then its clear you have not found your true religion yet and should continue to seek the path.

I know that this sounds like a cop out, but it really is that simply to say. It is by no means the easy to do. I didn't know the true religion for me for many years. I was lucky that I finally found the religion that fills me completely. Many are not, many don't chose to even look becuase it takes to much time or effort on thier part or would require them to look at things that they just don't want to.

But in the end, no, I do not agree that there is no true religion.

[Ciel]

So can we say, true religion is ones own direct connectiveness to ones own God.It's possible if we understand how the many claim their own. and how source and consciousness in world mind creates substructure through universal form. As grains of sand in the realisation that they originated from something much greater than themselves.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Quahom1, thread post #19

"There is no one true religion, save the taking care of orphans and Widows..."

I don't think fault can be found in that "religion" Sus. Do you?

v/r

Q

Taking care of widows and orphans is like doing the work of the Red Cross or the Medicins sans Frontieres folks.

Do you think that it is a religion, unless the doer aspires to some returns from the ultra biological world, say, some god or some cosmic system like that in Buddhism where Nirvana is achieved -- whatever that is, though they look forward to it as to the bliss of beatific vision among medieval Christians.

Anyway, I understand that for you effectively there is no one true religion.

In effects, for you, doing good to widows and orpans is one way of having a true religion or practising one; and there are several ways to doing good to widows and orphans, and analogous people.

Some Christian missionaries in my place have gotten in trouble with the kind of good they do for and with widows and orphans -- certainly you don't ascribe to that kind.

As to widows and orphans, they might not object, if they are otherwise derving some benefits for keeping body soul together.


Here is my own drafted definition of religion:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power favorably toward himself.

So, in my definition of religion, doing good to widows and orphans is not a religion, it is what I would call a philanthropy.

No, I have nothing against philanthropy even with rewards from human societies in terms of praise and awards.

MY purpose is to fine-tune my own ideas of religion. And to me philanthropy without expectation of rewards from the ultra-biological world is not religion as people would understand religion, which is what I would think they do, that is, the concept of religion stated above.

Pachomius2000

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Lady_Selune, thread post #29

Hi all,

It my humble opinion there is a true religion. It is the one that fills you heart with the certain knowledge that the path you take is the correct one for you.

Religion is a tool by which we find our path to our God(s). Since none of us are the same I think it is foolish to think that we could all find the same path by which to get there.

Some religions are threatened more then others but the fact remains, when you find the religion that fills you and answers your need, then it is for all intents and purposes the one and only true religion for you.

When you are part of a religion and do not feel comfortable with it then its clear you have not found your true religion yet and should continue to seek the path.

I know that this sounds like a cop out, but it really is that simply to say. It is by no means the easy to do. I didn't know the true religion for me for many years. I was lucky that I finally found the religion that fills me completely. Many are not, many don't chose to even look becuase it takes to much time or effort on thier part or would require them to look at things that they just don't want to.

But in the end, no, I do not agree that there is no true religion.

My proposition is not there is no true religion.

It is instead there is no one true religion.


Do I read you correctly then from your whole post that there is a true religion for everyone satisfied with his own religion.

Can you consequently also accept the logical conclusion that since everyone has his own true religion, there is no one true religion?

From my own part, I tend to maintain that there is no one true religion, or there are all kinds of true religions for people individually or for each person insofar as his religious aspirations are satisfactorily met; but there is no only one true religion like there is only one true Julius Caesar.

Pachomius2000

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Ciel, thread post #21

So can we say, true religion is ones own direct connectiveness to ones own God.It's possible if we understand how the many claim their own. and how source and consciousness in world mind creates substructure through universal form. As grains of sand in the realisation that they originated from something much greater than themselves.

I honestly have difficulty in understanding your post, dear Ciel, but nothing to blame on you. It's my own limitation.

However, I seem to see that you have a different approach to the question of "a" or "the" true religion.

I guess you observe that in Christianity, Islam, and very probably also in Judaism, there is a very hot topic about which is the true religion or true faith or true church.

Every so often I pass by a church belonging to the Bible Baptist denomination. And there is a sign outside saying that its church or its denomination is the only true church of Jesus Christ. I could be wrong in what I read; please correct me then.

The Mormons claim to be the one true church of Jesus Christ, or something to that effect. But are they not divided into at least two factions?

And of course we are all aware that the Vatican Roman Catholic Church claims to be one and only true religion, faith, church for mankind.

My point is this: we must understand true religion not from the standpoint of some criteria from beyond the biological world, but from the standpoint of what people are comfortable in terms of their psychology for a religion.

Thus all talks about only one true religion always have this one premise, that there is a cosmological immutable order for religion beyond human biology and psychology, like for example in monotheistic religions it is God conceived as possessing choices which are permanently fixed from all eternity, or like in Buddhism with its unchangeable metaphysics of continual rebirths until Nirvana is attained and then no more rebirths (but up to the present I still can't grasp what that Nirvana cosmos is all about).

In the concrete, religion is like cuisine or even like hairdo or even just like couture. There is no one true cuisine, no one true hairdo, no one true couture; but people need food, every critically; also prefer to have hair than go bald; and to present standards of decency and aesthetics go about clothed than glaringly naked.

Pachomius2000

[Ciel]

Susma,thank you for your reply.
It appears you already have the answer. Interesting comparison to the materialistic of clothing and food and aesthetics. Yes, all are clothed by the subtle form of the religion of their own choosing. So can we take it one step further.........Only God is naked, yet bathed in radiant light, and feeds the self with wonder and awe, if we can also stand naked before God in the understanding that it really doesnt matter whatever name we choose to call our self chosen religion, except that it is one of honour, love and respect for each other and our creator to help create a better world. On earth religion is chosen by the aesthetic sense of inner self, a reflective quality of higher self in direct connection. I have often felt how would it be to throw all the historic learnings away so that humanity can stand naked in the essential essence of all the many diverse religious cultures untill they find their own, for it is the one that reflects their wholeness and completeness. They are at one with themselves and God, and having no further need to search for the reason why they are here the world can move on to build a life of aesthetic quality that progresses and elevates all.

[Lady_Selune]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Do I read you correctly then from your whole post that there is a true religion for everyone satisfied with his own religion.

Yes you do. Eveyone has one true religion. Sometimes it takes them awhile and alot of soul searching to find it. But for the purpose of this conversation, yes.

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Can you consequently also accept the logical conclusion that since everyone has his own true religion, there is no one true religion?

No and yes, let me explain. No, I do not accept that to be true, in that for me there is one true religion, for you there is one true religion. Simple as that. Yes, I do agree in that I think what you are getting at here is not the actually belief but more of a physical thing. I.E. of all the religions of the world only one can be true.

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

From my own part, I tend to maintain that there is no one true religion, or there are all kinds of true religions for people individually or for each person insofar as his religious aspirations are satisfactorily met; but there is no only one true religion like there is only one true Julius Caesar.

I tend to be much more careful about how I view this subject. For example, me for there is only one true religion. I could think that everyone else has it wrong (and have come across many who do beleive that way) but I chose not to be so narrow minded and realize that there are many paths that lead to the same place.

For example, we are all going to Wal-Mart. I take one route, you take another. Does the route matter so long as we both get there? We both go to the same one and only place.

[Ain_Soph]

Interesting topic. To me religion is a highly personal experience. One mans trash is another mans treasure.

In order for there to be "a" one true religion I would think there would have to "a(n)" ultimate truth. Instead of posting how I feel about truth, im just gonna quote Krishnamurti.

Is there such a thing as Truth apart from personal opinion?

Is it that we are all so terribly personal? What I see, what you see, is the only truth? My opinion and your opinion are the only facts we have? That is what the question implies, that everything is relative. So goodness is relative, evil is relative, love is relative. And as everything is relative -that is, not whole, complete truth- then our action, our affection in personal relationship is relative, and can be ended whenever we like, whenever it doesn't please us, and so on. That is the implication of this question.

Now is there such a thing as truth, apart from personal opinion, personal belief, personal perception? This question has been asked by the ancient Greeks and Hindus, and by the Buddhists. And it is one of the strange facts about Eastern religions that doubt was encouraged. To doubt, to question. And in Western religions, this is rather put down. If you doubt, it is called heresy. So apart from personal opinions, perceptions, experiences, which are always relative, one must find out for oneself whether there is a perception, a seeing, which is absolute and not relative truth.

Now how are you going to find out? If we say that personal opinion, personal perception, is relative, and there is no such thing as absolute truth, then truth is relative. And our behavior, our conduct, our way of life will accordingly be relative, casual, not complete, not whole, and therefore fragmentary. And we are trying to find out if there is such a thing as truth that is not just personal opinion, personal perception.

If this question is put to you, how would you find out if there is truth that is absolute, complete, which is not just relative and always changing with the climate of personal opinion? How does your mind, the intellect, or thought find out? Does this interest you? Because here you are inquiring into something that demands putting aside that which is false. That is the only way to proceed. For if we have an illusion, a fantasy, an image, a romantic concept of truth, or of love or whatever, those are the very barriers that prevent us from moving further.

Can one honestly investigate an illusion? Does the mind live in illusion? Or do we have illusions about everything, about people, about nations, about religion, about God? How do illusions come into being? How does one have an illusion, what is the root of it? What do we mean by the word illusion? It comes from the Latin, ludere, which means "to play". So the root meaning is to play, to play with something that is not actual. The actual is what is happening, what is actually taking place, whether it is called good, bad, or indifferent. And when one is incapable of facing what is actually taking place in oneself, then to escape from that is to create illusion.

So if one is unwilling or afraid to face, or wants to avoid, what is actually going on, that very avoidance creates an illusion, a fantasy, a romantic movement away from what is. Can we accept that as the meaning of the word illusion, moving away from "what is", and go on from there?

The next question is: can we avoid this movement, this escape from actuality? So then we ask, what is the actual? The actual is that which is happening, the actual responses, ideas, the actual belief, the actual opinion you have. And to face that is not to create illusion. Have we gone this far in our investigation? Because otherwise you can't go further.

So as long as there are illusions, opinions, perceptions, based on the avoidance of "what is", these must be relative -There must be relativeness. This is bound to be so when there is a movement away from the fact, from what is happening, from "what is". In understanding "what is", it is not your personal opinion, not your personal perception that judges "what is", but actual observation of "what is". One cannot observe what is actually going on if you say my belief dictates the observation, my conditioning dictates the observation. Then it is avoidance of the understanding of "what is".

I wonder if we've got it. Are we doing this? Actually doing it-seeing, perceiving what is actual, your actual belief, your actual sense of dependency, your actual competitiveness, and not moving away from but observing it? That observation is not personal. But if you say "I must", or "I must not", or "I must better myself", then it becomes personal and therefore relative. Whereas if we can look at what is actually taking place, there is then complete avoidance of any form of illusion.

Can we do this? You may agree verbally, but can we actually perceive our dependency, whether on a person, a belief, and ideal, or on some experience that has given us a great deal of excitement? That dependence will inevitably create illusion. So can we observe the fact that we are dependent?

So in the same way we are going to find out if there is such a thing as absolute truth -if you are interested in this, because this has been asked not only be the present questioner, but by monks who have given there life to this, by philosophers, by every religious person who is not institutionalized, but is deeply concerned with life, with reality and truth. So if one is really concerned about what truth is, one has to go into it very, very deeply.

First of all, one has to understand what reality is. What is reality? That which you perceive, that which you touch, that which you taste, when you have pain, and so on. So reality is sensation and the reaction to that sensation, the response to the sensation as an idea, and that idea is created by thought. So thought has created reality - the marvelous architecture, the great cathedrals of the world, the temples, the mosques, and the idols that are put in them, the images, all are created by thought. And we say, that is reality, because you can touch it, you can taste it, you can smell it.

So we are saying that all the things that thought has created -the knowledge, the acquisition of knowledge through science, through mathematics, and so on- are reality. But nature is not created by thought. That tree, the mountains, the rivers, the waters, the deer, the snake, is not created by thought; it is there. But out of the tree we make a chair; that's created by thought. So thought has created the actual world in which we live, but nature, including the environment, is obviously not created by thought. Then we ask, is truth reality? One perceives that thought has created the world in which we live, but thought has not created the universe. Thought can inquire into the universe. The cosmologists, the astrophysicists, pursue their inquiry through thought, and they will come to certain conclusions, certain hypotheses, and try to prove those hypotheses, always through thought. So thought is relative, and therefore, whatever it creates, in whatever directions it moves, it must be relative, it must be limited.

So the mind is no longer in illusion, that is the first thing. It has to hypotheses, no hallucinations, no delusions, it doesn't want to grasp something, or create an experience that it calls truth -which most people do. So the mind has now brought order into itself. It has order, there is no confusion due to illusions, delusions, hallucinations, experiences. So the mind, the brain, has lost its capacity to create illusions. Right? Then what is truth? That is, what is the relationship between reality -in the sense that we have explained- and that which is not created by thought? Is there something that is not the product of thought? Can we go on with this?

That is, are our minds now, sitting here under these trees, on a rather cool day, are our minds free from every form of illusion? Otherwise you cannot possibly find out the other. Which means -is your mind completely free of any confusion? So that it is absolute order. Because how can a confused, disorderly mind, a mind that is in turmoil, ever find what truth is? It can invent. It can say, there is truth, or there is no truth. But only a mind that has a sense of absolute order, a mind that is completely free from every form of illusion, can proceed to find out.

There is something rather interesting here, if you are interested in it. The astrophysicists, the scientists, are using thought to find out, going outward. They are investigating the world around them, matter, always moving outward. But if you start inward, the "me" is also matter -thought is matter- so if you can go inward, then you are moving from fact to fact. Therefore, you begin to discover that which is beyond matter. That's up to you.

This is a very serious affair; it is not just something for an hour one morning. One has to give one's life to this, not move away from life. Life is my struggles, anxiety, fears, boredom, loneliness, sorrow, my misfortunes, and all the regrets -all that is my life. I must understand that and go through that, not move away from it. Then, if you have gone through it, there is such a thing as absolute truth.

[Susma Rio Sep]

First, about Krishnamurti's thoughts, I honestly confess I am not so sure what exactly his position is in regard to my question whether there is only one true religion or there is no one true religion.

Do people here know of any software by which we can feed paragraphs after paragraphs of a writer's works for it to come out with brief statements on what his positions are and their scores on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 the highest.

Horror of horrors, we might see the computer churning out with inexorable logic conflicting statements from the same author -- which is more the case than that the computer is turning out rubbish.

That's always the trouble with people who write so profusely and so seemingly for me vaguely like you never really or I get to know precisely what their positions are.

(Something Bush is accusing Kerry for. But Kerry has come out now very explicitly attacking the war launched by Bush on Saddam Hussein and the occupation of Iraq. And predictably as Kerry and his people feared, Bush has harped on the lack of 'patriotism' in Kerry -- what with the U.S. at war, etc.)


Back to the question about the true religion or true religions, on my part, I will be precise, there is no one true religion, period.

So, for me I practise the religion I find myself most comfortable with, and which does not get me in trouble with the law, but enables me to get along well with everyone.

The trouble is not everyone is disposed to get along well with people like me, namely, those people very strong about their religion is the only one true religion. For example, Muslim fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists who are not happy to say the least with how the rest of mankind is not acting according to the will of Allah or God.

What to do? Education, of the mind and of the heart, the first to acquaint people with the facts of the world and man, and the second to instill in man the habit of tolerance of other people's religious ideologies and rituals -- of course on the assumption that they don't encroach on the rights of other people to get along in ordering their lives in the conduct of their religion.

In this respect I tend to favor an essentially secularist state which acts as a kind of referee in upholding on the one hand the freedom of religion and on the other to keep in check all the insane actuations from fanatical beliefs and observances.

Susma Rio Sep aka Pachomius2000

[Susma Rio Sep]

To talk about a or the true religion, I think it is necessary first to define religion. And here is my own drafted definition of religion:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

On that definition of religion, the true-ness of a religion or the religion has to consider the unknown power.

By unknown I mean not something that is not known at all, but something whose operations we cannot be certain of as regards whether it operates at all or how, where, when, and other incidentals of operation.

The existence of the unknown power is assumed or presumed on the basis of belief. That is why I state that religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power.

Believing therefore the existence of an unknown power, and remember by unknown I mean the operations -- not the very existence of the entity, we can now proceed to discuss whether there are true religions or there is only one true religion.

Now then, on my own drafted definition of religion, I maintain that there is no one true religion, but there are true religions. True religions are those that possess all the elements of my definition of religion.

At present my religion is not exactly any of the established church organized religions of Christianity, but I do have one, and it consists in the belief in a God Who is personal and can be related to and with, but whose reactions are not always favorable to my expectations but at times I believe to be in accordance with my expectations.

And I also incorporate in my own customized religion most of the broad purely doctrinal teachings and the traditional practical moralistic dictates of Christianity.


At this point I think the question of a or the true religion is not as inviting a topic for posters here to contribute to as I had hoped for. So I am starting a more concrete topic on Religion talk and lbm talk, lbm standing for loose bowel movement.

This topic in a new thread I hope will be more productive and certainly less susceptible to subtle confusions where I seem to notice that people tend to fail to attend to the minutiae of my meanings on a or the true religion.

Pachomius2000 aka Susma Rio Sep

[Susma Rio Sep]

I said in the preceding post that:

Believing therefore the existence of an unknown power, and remember by unknown I mean the operations -- not the very existence of the entity, we can now proceed to discuss whether there are true religions or there is only one true religion.

Now I am asking myself that having taking for granted that the unknown power exists and I call it God, and I consider Him to be possessed of personhood, then shouldn't I consult Him about His say on how He would want people or me in particular to relate to and with Him?

As a matter of fact I have been consulting Him, but He has not shown Himself up to the present to be interested in responding to me.

There are people who claim to have received His responses on how He wants to be related to and with. And they also claim to possess certainty as to His responding and as to the nature of the responses.

The sad fact is that the responses received by these people are conflicting. Witness how antagonistic among themselves are the believers in one God, namely, Judaists, Christians, and Muslim, and also within each faction there are groups also quarreling among themselves, to the point of killing each other.

The conclusion is that the unknown power and let us call it God is indifferent how humans relate to and with Him; or He prefers to let humans figure out what His responses are, and to sort them out so as to achieve if ever a workable concord of responses claimed by them to come from God.

So, in the silence of this God, it is up to each one of us who feel the need of religiion or of a God, to figure out for himself how to relate to and with Him.

And accordingly for my part I maintain that there is no one true way of relating to and with Him.

As to the maintenance of peace among individuals each claiming to possess his kind of true religion and to act out his own true religion, I can't see any solution except to call in the civil power of the state, which should for the sake of all people with their own kinds of true religions be purely secularist, and be punctual to tp knock the heads of people who get violent towards others in the name of their true religion, effectively making them change or adopt religious beliefs and practices more conducive to harmonious communal life.

Pachomius2000 aka Susma Rio Sep