Well of course you could find very good and reasonable arguments individualism and against my claim that they want people to think alike. But I was not saying that about them as much as about the basic human natures within their framework as offered.

You see I think it would be awesome for them to find a healthy and thriving success in their instilling their values in people. I am only addressing what they have not, and in my opinion, about human natures pitfalls in all religion.

You said: Perhaps I would not want to expand it at all, just as a platform of activism.

Now you are pointing toward many of the good things that have come through every religion, the activisms that helped humanity to put a blunt point on it and not to be confused with the destructive activisms.

I am not trying to debunk this as a religion. Hell I even give my acceptance to many smart atheists in conversation because there are right where they need to be, I think there is a lot to learn there for the right person.

What I have a problem in showing often is that any religion that sells itself to people through claiming to be better as their way of being different than another in it’s basic design flawed.

We need first examine our needs for them to remain more at the helm of our minds than at the stern of a potentially oppressive political system that Will arise within it if left to the course of all other religions.

I am a minister. Not a debunker, I seek the freedom of will and the harmony of us all and even if I do it in my own odd ways.

I think I would agree with everything you wrote.

I am not saying that their ideas are flawed but the context of their ideas are when combined with what we know of human nature and as compared to the freedom of an individual human nature. We have to deal with our complexities and multiple individuals that need each other to survive and thrive in love and within the slight contradiction to the need of our individually to express our hearts. Our political nature is where we are in conflict.

You see the individual and the social body have and innate contradiction in needs. There are always contradictions to deal with; otherwise life would be a breeze and we would all love each other without political recourse. LOL

I think it's pretty silly to debate just about anything, unless it has direct personal impact on the inquiring or debating person.

I remember one night while in my early 20's sitting at a bar with some friends talking about 'whatever'. As I was leaving, the bouncer says to me; 'you guys solve the problems of the world?' I replied; 'only as far as they affect me.'

I often wonder what people see in debates. There are obviously those who are intellectually challenged by the idea of a competetive conversation, but then there are those who merely think they are and believe they are underachieving in life with what they do. There is a line in the story about 'Serpico', the New York city cop who refused to go on the take. In the story there is a scene of Serpico and his girlfriend at a party. The girlfriend is introducing him to her friends, she say (I'm paraphrasing); 'this is Jim, Jim is a scientist who is working as a mechanic.' She introduces many of the guests like that. Serpico, who of course had been introduced as a police officer to everyone says to his girlfriend; 'let me ask you something, why is it, all your friends are something other than what they are?' It's a good question.

Then there are those who want to be like their hero's in life and like to try and mimic them.