So to treat all humanity as one... beings on this Planet have to step above religions and all live in the Mode Of Goodness ...peace and harmony with all.
Extraterrestrials Message to beings on Planet Earth:
Extraterrestrials are concerned about humanity on Planet Earth and the direction they are heading. That they need to do a better job at preserving the integrity of the Earth, living in harmony with the planet as well as operating from a higher level of consciousness. Working on oneself was very important, meditation, inner peace and personal development were/are a key player to help bring about a better world. Humanity operating not from a place of judgement, ego, greed, selfishness, competition and service to oneself, but from a place of compassion, love, empathy, cooperation and service to others was a big part of the extraterrestrials message.
At the moment beings are heading to their own destruction and extraterrestrials have seen beings destroying their planets and hence a warning to beings on planet earth to change their ways
Spiritual Advancement must come above Advancement In Technology but on this planet at the moment advancement in technology is leading advancement in spirituality hence could cause destruction of this planet and heavy loss of humanity.
Awakening is happening but at a slow pace as still a lot of changes need to be made.
At the moment a virus that does not exist ..a vaccine that kills is screwing up beings on this planet and at the same time causing happyness to some namely the cabal... illuminati.. elite.
Replies
Neithet is 'race' nor 'ethnicity'. These are non-dichotomies when war is the question. In WWII, Chinese could not join Japanese against Americans merely because they look similar. This is a non-issue in serious wars. Similarly Britons united with Africans to chase away Dutch in South African gold mines. Every conflict, from slavery to major wars were never divisible into simplistic 'this race vs that' or 'this religion vs that'.
But perhaps the best example is Somalia. Somalia is one of the most homogeneous countries in Africa. It is composed solely of Muslim Somalis. According to the simplistic understanding of conflicts, Somalia should be the most peaceful country in Africa. However, of course the opposite is the case! So the 'religion' and 'ethnicity' makes no sense. The pple who made the error of balkanising sudan and eritrea did so with a monument example standing infront of their noses. What a shame!! The carefull curving out of Somalia such that it is composed of one 'ethnicity/race' and one religion contributes zero towards its peace!!
But what if we see in terms of resources? Then everything begines to make sense. Somalia is composed of fertile regions, such as around Juba River, surrounded by hostile regions, just like middle east etc. It is just like in Israel where naively, we can think that the major issue is Arab vs Jews or Judaism vs Islam. But this is crap as such differences are not perculiar to the region. The main issue is the asses to the western most part of Palestine, near Mediterranean Sea. Historically, if you are kicked to the hostile east, then you fight! If ethnicity, tribe or religion doesn't work to rally fighters behind you, then clans and/or minor sects in religion does. So religion is, more accurately, a war weapon.
Out Of The Night That Covers Me (Invictus)
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
The polytheistic or pagan Arabia was never united. It was always at war with each other. Islam did help to unite Arabia and enabled it to concure the 'world'! Earlier on, jewish priests had tried to unite Israel and Judah using monotheism. Similarly, latter Romans tried to impose a single religion in an attempt to unite the Roman world. Indeed one can say many of those who peddled monotheism intended to unite the people!
So statements like 'religion divides' is too simplistic as it generalizes a lot. More accurately you should say 'multiplicity of religions can divide'. But then multiplicities in general can divide. Multiplicities of political opinions can divide, e.g. the 'pro-dynasty' vs 'pro-republic'. This is to say that the aspect of religion thay cause divisions ( i.e. multiplicity) is the aspect of it that is not different from secularism as 'multiplicity' is not peculiar to religion. Neither is multiplicity avoidable. We should figure out a way of uniting despite of multiplicity. Once we do that, we automatically see that there can be religions without divisions, hence that religion divides is not necessarily true.
Maybe the below links can help.
What IS Religion?
https://truthbook.com/urantia/topical-studies/religion#:~:text=Reli....
What is Faith? -
https://truthbook.com/urantia/topical-studies/faith#:~:text=Faith%2....
Religion is never the main cause of conflict, I can assure you that. Rather, during conflicts, religion is weaponized just like a stone is weaponized. This does not mean the presence of stones is one of the main causes of wars on earth. Neither is ethnic or race differences ever the main cause of conflicts. Media creats a false picture of conflicts by often magnifying religious or ethnic aspects in conflicts. This is what many love to hear, to their shame. This is not a trivial thing as mis-diagnosis of cause of conflicts is a deadly mistake! This happened in Sudan where they thought of the conflict in a very superficial way. Just because the war was between the north and south, the major cause of conflict must be the difference between the religion and skin tone of the north vs south. They even made movies that seems to show that that is the root source of conflict. We now know that they were wrong! Religion or 'race' is never the main cause of conflicts. Grown up men don't just go and fight another man just because he looks different or because he worships facing north. What for?
What causes the seemingly religious or ethnic conflicts is the balkanization that comes with it. If, for instance, a land quarrel comes about, it can easily trigger a conflict amongst people of different religions. It might be argued that the land where a great mosque is standing actually belonged to christians and therefore the mosque should be destroyed and the land be given to christian. This is the characteristic of what causes what appears to be a religious conflict. In other words it is a difference that is not perculiar to religions or ethnic groups. People of the same family and the same religion can fight over a piece of land. The media foolishly over-highlight conflicts when it is between people of different religions or ethnicity, creating the false impression that the conflicts is rooted in religious or ethnic differences. Other crucial causes, like land disputes remains unresolved. When Eritrea and Sudan was curved out, it never ended the conflicts, because it was never the 'we don't want to be governed by the other ethnicity or religion' that was the main cause. The main cause was land disputes that creating a new country did not solve.
Conflicts are there even amongst animals yet they have no religions. If you try to steal honey from bees, or you step on the way of army ants, you will face it rough! A herd of rinos will 'join hands' to fight elephants over drinking water. Fight is a natural animal instinct. Religion is an artificial invention. Fights andconflicts were there way before religion was invented.
Humans can leave peacefuly with religions if they eliminate the true cause of wars and conflicts.
So it is NOT shia vs sunni. Rather, it is more accurately 'pro-dynasty vs pro-republic', a dichotomy which exists even without religion.
Islam as a theocracy is 100% as innocent from wars as any secular constitution. Or I may say that the aspect if Islam that facilitates/ define a war is the theocratic aspect and it is the aspect of Islam that does not differ in any way from secularism. Blaming Islamic theocracy for wars is on the same par with blaming US constitution for war just because the constitution spells out war, create armies, enhance loyalty and rallying behind the commander.
But religion is never the main cause of wars and conflicts. Religion is used to rally fighters behind a commander. So religion is used as a tool in war. You cannot blame religion for wars any more than you can blame guns for war. But that doesn't even capture it well. The role that religion plays in war is that of loyalty. Loyalty is important in war. But it is hardly wise to conclude that loyalty is the cause of war.
Don't let a fight by religiously zealous group confuse you that it is their religion that is the main cause of war. Hizballa, or Houthi, for instance, can be identified with Shia Islam. But this doesn't mean it is the religion that makes them fight. Infact it is not! These fighters mainly fight to defend their territories from foreigners. If a pastor punches your nose, it doesn't mean that it is his religion that made him do that, just because he is a pastor!
In shia vs Sunni conflicts, for instance, it is never the religion that is the main issue. The Shia and Sunni exists everywhere in the world but only in middle east do they conflict. What causes Shia-Sunni conflict is the thus implied governance, which is never the main point if Islam. What causes the conflict is the greed for power obtaining of which is helped by religion. If you change the population into shia's, you are also indirectly advocating to 'Ayatollahs' rather than 'kings'. So the ruling Arab sunnis will fight Shia groups. It is as simple as that! Greed for power and control of resources is the only cause of wars and conflicts. Religion is used just as loyalty or trust is used