Throughout history wars have been fought in the name of religion, as one religion sought to establish that it was the true religion, usually by destroying 'the infidels' who belonged to another 'false religion'. Even within religions, such as the Christian church, wars have been fought, and people hunted down and burned at the stake for the sake of preserving 'the purity of the true faith'. As well people have always asked 'which is the true religion'.

     After enduring a history of intolerance and bloodshed in the name of religion, it is understandable that today as our society seeks harmony and tolerance between faiths, the notion has become popular that 'all religious truths are equally valid', and in essence 'all religions just represent different paths to the same goal'. It is unacceptable to question this new doctrine and those who do risk being branded as intolerant and out of step with the spirit of the times.

     Now before discussing whether or not 'all religions are equally true' it is necessary to define what we mean by 'truth' as it relates to religion and spirituality. As an example of what I mean, consider the following statement. 'The Great Lakes are full of water.' This statement is 'true' and here I am going to ignore the subtle reflections of philosophy, and just take a pragmatic approach. Certain philosophers, such as Hume, might wish to suggest that we say that 'the Great Lakes are full of water' out of 'habitual conditioning'. Is there anyway to 'prove' that tommorrow the Great Lakes will be found to be full of orange juice? Now when I say I am going to be pragmatic, I am saying that the Great Lakes have never been found to be full of orange juice, and over the course of thousands of years have always been found to be full of water, will in all probability be found full of water tommorrow and the day after that, so then for my purposes it is safe to say that it is a truth to state that the Great Lakes are full of water.

     Next I will give a name to this type of 'truth' and call it a fact which can be determined objectively. This type of truth can often be compared to religious 'truth' and it is usually suggested that certain scientific facts are 'objective truths' and religious beliefs are entirely subjective. If it is true that religious beliefs are entirely subjective then it might be suggested that all such opinions are 'equally valid' or even that all such opinions are equally invalid, therefore, since the beliefs of religion are a matter of human opinion all religions are basically the same. They are all possess the same degree of validity or invalidity, and it will be insisted, in any case it is impossible to determine whether a religious truth is a truth, and objectivity proves to be of no use in judging religious beliefs.

     Now let me relate an example from my personal experience. On my Navigation tips page and on my story page I deliver my testimony concerning certain experiences I had starting when I was twelve and then again when I was fifteen, in Banff National Park in Canada, and again and again from that time up to the present time. Now, if you watch my animations, you should be able to understand what I mean when I say that right from the first time I saw these flying craft, it was made unmistakably clear to me that I was witnessing a craft of some sort, and that there was an intelligence at work behind the scenes.

     Now the phenomena we know as 'UFOs' have this much in common with religion and spirituality, in that it is a widely held belief that 'belief in UFOs' is a 'matter of opinion'. Furthermore it is 'impossible' to come to a conclusion as to whether or not such craft actually exist in an objective way. You might be able to understand that to me, you can make a statement about a 'UFO' (as they are called) similar to any statement you could make about the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are full of water. What people call a 'UFO' is a type of space craft, piloted by intelligent beings. Sometimes they are like two soup bowls placed together, maybe about 12 to 15 feet across and 6 or 7 feet high at their highest point. Sometimes they are white disk or ball shaped objects. They can hover silently. They have a glow like those glow in the dark toys, and sometimes you can see three symmetrical craft hovering in a straight line formation, each one with a different color, but that same peculiar 'glow in the dark' type of illumination. They can accelerate upwards suddenly at great speed, disappear to a pin point and then they are gone, in mere seconds. And so on.

     The Great Lakes are full of water. This is what a 'UFO' is like. This is not mere speculation on my part, not simply some highly subjective 'belief' that I hold about these craft, rather my statement is based on what I have observed for myself many times, and I describe on my story page, others have witnessed these things with me. And as I point out on my page titled UFO Watch I am looking for some people who would be interested in spending some time at the lake with me next summer to see these craft for themselves. I call this 'a spiritual retreat'.

     It is of great interest to me how, on the one hand, people will insist that my beliefs are 'subjective' and I have even been called insane, but at the same time it is extremely difficult to get anyone to go out with me on a 'UFO Watch'. Consider the following examples. In the spring of 2000 certain churches colluded together to have me locked up in a mental institution. I offered to take those churches out with me to see these objects, I made a specific point of extending this invitation to ministers, and they refused. That however did not stop them from pouring scorn on my testimony, and they probably still insist that I am mentally disturbed. Now a question. Just who is being 'objective' and who is being 'subjective' in this case, and why is this happening? I have successfully taken people out to see these objects, but have found myself deserted quickly when results are produced as promised. I have watched time and time again as people 'block out' all knowledge of what they have seen, and then, to my amazement, make what I consider to be a show of going back to their normal life, as though nothing had changed, and all things remained the same. This is the consistent pattern of behavior I have observed over time, and it is very revealing in so many ways.

     I bring all this to your attention to make a first point about 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' as it relates in particular to these 'UFOs' as they are called by people. People are not always objective, when they should be objective, and it is often the case that people substitute subjectivity or their own 'wishful desires' for the truth when it suits them. As for 'UFOs' in particular, I strenuously object to the popular prevailing belief that a UFO is something that 'cannot be objectively understood'. People talk about UFOs and God in the same way. Both of these subjects are 'matters of opinion' and they go beyond what can be known or understood the way that 'facts' can be determined 'objectively'. I can truthfully testify that this statement as it is applied to 'UFOs' is completely false, and if you wish to understand what is going on in this place, you have to realize that people are driven by emotion and not reason or logic. This causes them to fail to be objective when objectivity is required. To then have it said that 'you can't be objective when it comes to these UFOs' is an affront to me, and an affront to the truth itself. It is an interesting 'catch-22' type of situation. And can we make the truth go away simply by refusing to believe the truth? Is what is 'real' or what is a 'fact' determined by what people 'choose' to believe. This is presumptuous to say the least, but as I have observed, this is how people often treat the truth. It is a game we play.

     Now let us discuss 'truth' in religion. Are all religious beliefs 'equally true'? Consider the following statements, and think for a moment of 'truth' as a 'fact' and not a belief, a personal preference, a subjective interpretation, or an opinion. Let us think of 'facts'. Are the Great Lakes full of water?

     Can both of the following 'facts' be 'equally true'. UFOs do not exist. UFOs do exist. Only one of these statements can be true. If one is a description of a matter of fact it excludes the other. I am not asking here whether one 'believes' in UFOs, because that is irrelevant. I am not interested if someone 'truly believes in their heart' that the Great Lakes are full of tomato sauce. Or that the earth is flat, and sits on the back of giant turtle.

     Consider the following descriptions of facts. Joshua Messiah was crucified and he rose from the dead. Joshua Messiah was crucified but he did not die on the cross, and his disciples nursed him back to health. Joshua Messiah never actually existed so he could not have really died on a cross. Joshua existed, and he died on a cross, and like any other person, he remained dead. Now setting aside what you 'believe' and thinking only in terms of facts, only one of the above statements can be true. Now in religion, just about anything can be 'true' and thus you will find it to be the case that people hold as personal belief all of the above statements, and many more that are not listed here. Given that all religious beliefs are 'equally true' it would then prove to be the case that all the above beliefs are 'equally valid' in the strange universe of 'religious belief' but in 'the real world' some things are 'true' and other things are therefore excluded. They are false. The Great Lakes are not full of tomato sauce. They are full of water, no matter what human opinion might be held on the matter.

     Next consider the following statements. Yahweh is God. Yahweh is not God, but rather some other god is God. Yahweh is not God, because there is no God. And perhaps you could add a few more items to the list. Not all of these statements can be statements of fact. If one of these propositions turns out to be a matter of fact, in the same way that the statement 'the Great Lakes are full of water' turns out to be a fact, then it excludes the others.

     Now let us return to the discussion of UFOs. UFOs are real. UFOs are not real. Now at this point people can take the same turn that people often take when it comes to discussing the existence or non-existence of God. They can insist that it is 'impossible' to determine whether or not 'UFOs' are real, in a factual sense, thus dispatching UFOs to the netherworld of human conjecture, sheer speculation, and opinion. I would beg to differ and then often I find it to be the case that no one wishes to find out for themselves whether or not these craft are for real, which indicates a strong preference for keeping 'UFOs' out in the netherworld of conjecture and speculation. We often just don't want to know, as if by 'not knowing' we can make a fact into an 'opinion' and this for powerful emotional reasons.

     As for Joshua Messiah, he is, as far as I can see, also dispatched out into the netherworld, the intellectual wilderness, with those UFOs. And God is out there too, safely out in the netherworld, in a place where God can be said to not exist. With all these things safely dispatched to the netherworld of subjectivity and personal opinion, people can now believe what they wish, and people believe so many things, and in the interest of 'harmony' we must all enter into a compact to 'believe what we wish' and even consider all these beliefs to be 'equally valid'. But I can testify, for example, that the 'belief' or 'opinion' or subjective evaluation which determines that 'UFOs' do not exist is in no way equal to the objective determination that I have made that these UFOs are very real, and that any other person could make for themselves if they were emotionally and intellectually willing to seek and accept the truth. This particular 'belief' is entirely worthless just as it would be worthless to insist that the Great Lakes are full of cabbage broth. A fact is a fact, and a belief always takes a back seat to this type of truth.

     Objectivity has a place in religion and spirituality and more and better service is done for the human race by struggling to bring people into acceptance of truth of this type than in simply throwing in the towel and agreeing to go along with our modern paradigm that states that every possible opinion and speculation under the sun is 'equally valid'. Truth in this way is just whatever it is. It just is what it is and religion must concede and give way to the truth. Religion and religious beliefs do not dictate truth, nor is anyone under obligation to accept religious speculations are a type of 'valid truth'. These sorts of speculations for which religions have always been so famous are born of human emotionalism and this is not a source of truth but rather a product of a type of willfulness at worst, a willfulness that has damaged the earth for ages, and will continue to do so as long as people have no real respect for genuine truth when they find it, but prefer the dogmatism and entrenched speculations of religion instead. Whatever proves to be true must be accepted as truth, and when religion stands in opposition to this principle, no matter what the name of the religion might be, then religion and the religious are clearly setting themselves up as enemies of the truth and as hostile to the best interests of the human race, and there is no need to learn to 'tolerate' such conduct, nor is it required that one learn to go along with the suggestion that such evil conduct among religious people is 'an equally valid form of truth'. It is really a form of stubborn rebellion against truth and common decency and I truly abhor such conduct.

     Let us consider the church as an example of what I mean. Churches will say, 'I truly believe with all my heart that the Bible is infallibly inerrant, wholly and completely in all its parts, and that it is the one and only final and authoritative WORD OF GOD.' I will point any interested readers to my pages critiquing the Bible where a completely objective analysis can be made which proves that no matter what someone might 'believe' the previous statement is false. It is not a description of a fact, something easily demonstrated. And as a belief when it is compared to the factual truth, this 'belief' takes a definite back seat to the truth, and when compared to the actual truth, it is a completely worthless religious dogma. As such it is harmful and deleterious to human health to promote such a dogma and to attempt to twist the human mind so as to enable a person to be able to accommodate a lie in the place where truth was meant to reside. I hate seeing churches work diligently in an attempt to destroy truth in this way, and I am always dismayed and perplexed at how to deal with the results such efforts always produce - a psychologically damaged person, who, having learned to accommodate falsehood in the place where truth belongs, has developed the type of moral damage that makes every other type of wrongdoing and hypocrisy possible. The damage done often seems almost impossible to reverse and it is this damaged morality that is responsible for the history of crimes and damnations practiced by the church throughout the ages. By opening the door to immorality in the form of a lie ever other sort of cruel conduct then finds a home in person conditioned by such a 'religious' practice. I do not accept this 'religious belief' as 'equally valid' and furthermore I struggle against it and will continue to struggle against it until I either drop dead or get crucified for trying. To do otherwise is indicative of a cruel, unconcerned apathy that I want no part of in myself. I want to stay alive on the inside and I want to stay morally and spiritually intact, and I want the same thing for others.

     To insist on truth in religion is to run the risk of being called 'narrow minded' or branded 'intolerant'. But, if people were willing to be reasonable about these things, objective instead of subjective, then they would realize that to be willing to accept the truth, whatever it might be, is to have a truly open mind, and to stubbornly cling to falsehoods and speculative belief is to have a narrow, closed mind. To resist truth or censor truth or dispatch truth to the netherworlds is the polar opposite of being open minded. Such conduct is fueled by emotionalism, it is not rational conduct, and to then label the results of such behavior 'an equally valid truth' is not only an insult to the truth it is a display of contempt for the wholeness and the spiritual and psychological health of humanity.

     The modern prescription for religious feuding is to regard all 'beliefs' are equally valid, but really it is the unreasoning irrational nature of human belief, the preference for prejudices and speculation and subjective interpretations which is responsible for the feuding and violence in religion. The cure is not to accept subjective beliefs in the place of objective truth, nor is it found in assigning a fictional 'validity' to falsehoods and speculations, but rather the highest purpose is to join the struggle to bring the human race to the type of spiritual and intellectual maturity that recognizes the difference between a prejudiced opinion or sheer speculative theorizing and a matter of fact. In this type of maturity true open minded ness is found and those who have matured to this level of spiritual development will be devoid of the anger and prejudice that have so often been the product of religion and spirituality in human societies. The Truth shall set you free!