A world without exclusive religions: Can we do it?

Expounding on the blame of the papacy Sun, can anybody really expect people such as the Medicis to have run Christendom in place of Christ? Doesn't that sound ridiculous? Just imagine how Christ would feel if a Borgia or some other blatantly worldly secular pope (or a pagan such as Constantine) decided to spout which parts of the NT were ok, and which were bad. All ok according to RC theologians who insist with the Peter is the rock fallacy. Mane, I and the writer of that response don't believe in "Baptism of the holy spirit" (Pentecostal heresy) we believe that all those saved by Jesus Christ our King receives the holy spirit at the moment of salvation, the only exception being of course Pentecost. I don't believe in Tongues as a modern day gift either (Satanic). I hope this isn't sounding too doctrinal for anybody reading this thread.


[edit on 15-3-2006 by Nakash]

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Nakash]

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy

Without religion, Bin Laden would have never brought the towers down. He wouldn't have been taught by someone to hate christians.

If he didn't hate Christians, he would hate some other group or someone else. A man like him is full of hate. Your statement is like saying Hitler wouldn't have been such a bad guy if he wasn't taught to hate Jews. He was psychotic and delusional. If it wasn't the Jews, it would have been some other group..........

That's purely speculatory. The fact of the matter is that he is full of religious hatred. Bin Laden hates the west and more specifically the christian west.

And Hitler wasn't psychotic or delusional, he was a genius of a man. I don't know of many psychotic or delusional men who have ever risen to power and taken the position as one of the most powerful men in the world.

Originally posted by Nakash
Expounding on the blame of the papacy Sun, can anybody really expect people such as the Medicis to have run Christendom in place of Christ? Doesn't that sound ridiculous? Just imagine how Christ would feel if a Borgia or some other blatantly worldly secular pope (or a pagan such as Constantine) decided to spout which parts of the NT were ok, and which were bad. All ok according to RC theologians who insist with the Peter is the rock fallacy. Mane, I and the writer of that response don't believe in "Baptism of the holy spirit" (Pentecostal heresy) we believe that all those saved by Jesus Christ our King receives the holy spirit at the moment of salvation, the only exception being of course Pentecost. I don't believe in Tongues as a modern day gift either (Satanic). I hope this isn't sounding too doctrinal for anybody reading this thread.


[edit on 15-3-2006 by Nakash]

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Nakash]

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is not something I would have understood as a seperate event from my coming to serve Jesus and believe on Him until I received the Holy Spirit in Dec 2003. I know exactly when it happened. I felt it. I had a physiological reaction to it. The scriptures were opened to me at that time. I can only speak to what I experienced and the fruit of that time has borne out over the last 27 months. Acts 8:14-17 and Acts 19:2-7 have very specific passages where disciples are discussing and imparting the Holy Spirit seperately from the point of belief in the Savior.

Originally posted by Nakash
Expounding on the blame of the papacy Sun, can anybody really expect people such as the Medicis to have run Christendom in place of Christ? Doesn't that sound ridiculous? Just imagine how Christ would feel if a Borgia or some other blatantly worldly secular pope (or a pagan such as Constantine) decided to spout which parts of the NT were ok, and which were bad. All ok according to RC theologians who insist with the Peter is the rock fallacy. Mane, I and the writer of that response don't believe in "Baptism of the holy spirit" (Pentecostal heresy) we believe that all those saved by Jesus Christ our King receives the holy spirit at the moment of salvation, the only exception being of course Pentecost. I don't believe in Tongues as a modern day gift either (Satanic). I hope this isn't sounding too doctrinal for anybody reading this thread.


[edit on 15-3-2006 by Nakash]

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Nakash]

Nakash I was raised Catholic and now only follow the Bible and no religion. I believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as it is Bibical. See Acts. Try to keep an open mind because we both know that you had to have one to become a Christian. See what the Word says. And no you didn't sound too doctrinal.

Originally posted by managerie
I will not argue with you further on this topic.

That's good, because there's never been any argument. You call yourself a "follower,"but not only do you essentially ignore what Jesus himself said, you disemble and talk about "double meanings,"and the need to interpret the Gospel through the "Holy Spirit."

Here, you apparently missed this part, for which there are no double meanings and no need for the Holy Spirit to let you off the hook:

And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, "One thing
you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the
poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come,
follow me."

In simple language, you rationalize, make excuses and even COMPLAIN about the hardships you've gone through. Sure, you want all the perks, like being "forgiven,"and getting to go to Heaven, but when it the going gets tough, you whine and have the audacity (bordering on blasphemy) to say that Jesus didn't mean exactly what he said.

You say the Internet is the best way to reach people and preach the Gospel, but what good is it when you can't even follow the Gospel, yourself. Some example you are. Some "follower." I'd like you to show me where Jesus said you should find the easiest way to spread his word. He was always very clear, again, that it would be hard, harder, and hardest.

Look. This isn't some little game we're talking about here, you know. This is a fundamental philosophy addressing the very nature of cosmic existence. Life, and death and beyond. It's not about how hard things are for you or the way you choose to interpret something that is as straightforward as your nose. Life is hard all around, for everybody. And we like to own things, like warm beds and computers and cars. But here is a guy, who you claim to be your savior, your spiritual guide for all eternity who you love more than anything, and you can't even bother yourself to do as he specifically says.

I don't understand that.

Tsk tsk. Naughty naughty. You know what he said about people who are lukewarm. Oh... maybe you don't. I guess I shouldn't assume.

Here's a hint:

Originally posted by managerie

Originally posted by Nakash
Expounding on the blame of the papacy Sun, can anybody really expect people such as the Medicis to have run Christendom in place of Christ? Doesn't that sound ridiculous? Just imagine how Christ would feel if a Borgia or some other blatantly worldly secular pope (or a pagan such as Constantine) decided to spout which parts of the NT were ok, and which were bad. All ok according to RC theologians who insist with the Peter is the rock fallacy. Mane, I and the writer of that response don't believe in "Baptism of the holy spirit" (Pentecostal heresy) we believe that all those saved by Jesus Christ our King receives the holy spirit at the moment of salvation, the only exception being of course Pentecost. I don't believe in Tongues as a modern day gift either (Satanic). I hope this isn't sounding too doctrinal for anybody reading this thread.


[edit on 15-3-2006 by Nakash]

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Nakash]

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is not something I would have understood as a seperate event from my coming to serve Jesus and believe on Him until I received the Holy Spirit in Dec 2003. I know exactly when it happened. I felt it. I had a physiological reaction to it. The scriptures were opened to me at that time. I can only speak to what I experienced and the fruit of that time has borne out over the last 27 months. Acts 8:14-17 and Acts 19:2-7 have very specific passages where disciples are discussing and imparting the Holy Spirit seperately from the point of belief in the Savior.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are two different things. All Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit at conversion. But consider this:

(KJV) Luke 11:11-13 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

This is referring to an increase or baptism of the Holy Spirit. Bread, fish and eggs (food) are vital for physical life, and the Holy Spirit is vital for spiritual life.

As to the OP's question, there is no way to rid the world of religion. As you can see from the above discussion, there are many different belief systems in just Christianity alone. Organized religion in Christianity is man's attempt to reach out to God. God's attempt to reaching out to us was to send His Son. Organized religion is just a way of getting together goups of people who believe the same thing. Some believe in a being greater than themselves, while other believe in only themselves.

One definition for religion is: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. So using this definition, what religion are you?

You want to rid the world of all the religions you don't like, yet you can't even follow the simple directions of WHERE to post a thread?

Moved to theology as the only conspiracy is that there is a group of people refusing to post their personal views threads OUT of ATS.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Enkidu

Originally posted by managerie
I will not argue with you further on this topic.

That's good, because there's never been any argument. You call yourself a "follower,"but not only do you essentially ignore what Jesus himself said, you disemble and talk about "double meanings,"and the need to interpret the Gospel through the "Holy Spirit."

Here, you apparently missed this part, for which there are no double meanings and no need for the Holy Spirit to let you off the hook:

And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, "One thing
you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the
poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come,
follow me."

In simple language, you rationalize, make excuses and even COMPLAIN about the hardships you've gone through. Sure, you want all the perks, like being "forgiven,"and getting to go to Heaven, but when it the going gets tough, you whine and have the audacity (bordering on blasphemy) to say that Jesus didn't mean exactly what he said.

You say the Internet is the best way to reach people and preach the Gospel, but what good is it when you can't even follow the Gospel, yourself. Some example you are. Some "follower." I'd like you to show me where Jesus said you should find the easiest way to spread his word. He was always very clear, again, that it would be hard, harder, and hardest.

Look. This isn't some little game we're talking about here, you know. This is a fundamental philosophy addressing the very nature of cosmic existence. Life, and death and beyond. It's not about how hard things are for you or the way you choose to interpret something that is as straightforward as your nose. Life is hard all around, for everybody. And we like to own things, like warm beds and computers and cars. But here is a guy, who you claim to be your savior, your spiritual guide for all eternity who you love more than anything, and you can't even bother yourself to do as he specifically says.

I don't understand that.

Tsk tsk. Naughty naughty. You know what he said about people who are lukewarm. Oh... maybe you don't. I guess I shouldn't assume.

Here's a hint:

For those of you listening from our home audience, what you are seeing in this man Endiku (named for a diety in Mesopotamian mythology) appears to be what Revelation 12:10 calls "the accuser of the brethren" who accuses the saints before the throne night and day.

To that spirit, I say "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus".

I will answer one last time for the sake of others who need to understand.

When Jesus spoke to the man and said that he needed to sell all he had and give it to the poor and come and follow him, it was addressed specifically to that man. God, who knows all mens hearts, saw the love of money and things that was in this mans heart and it was necessary for that man. In the epistles, since you've read them, you can see specific allusions to the property over which people were stewards. For example, in Acts, it talks about how the churches banded together and held all their possessions in common. Not possible if everyone has sold all that they had. So your accusation is foolish. It's about as foolish as the people who take Revelation 3:10, written to the church of Philadelphia, as being a statement that all believers will be raptured away before the tribulation. It was written to the church of Philadelphia, not all believers.

In Luke 14:33, Jesus did make it clear that all believers need to "renounce" all that they had in order to be His disciple. This word does not mean to sell or no longer have in possession, it means rather that, since we are bond servants, we are not owners. Jesus is and he is entitled to whatever he wants. Much of what I had in valuables in the past three years has been sold off, but, see you want to stack the deck in your discussion.

You accuse me of doing nothing. I tell you what I have done and you immediately accuse me of complaining. That is a typical strategy for the biggest accuser. I answer your initial accusation and there is another that follows seconds later.

Next, When I say that Jesus had more than one meaning, I never said that he didn't mean what He said. I have come to understand just how clearly Jesus meant EXACTLY what He said down to the very verb tenses used (critical, I've found). What I did say was that He uses symbolism and parable that are keys to unlock propbecies throughout the old and new testament as well. His use of symbolism in everything He said is so profound and engineered that it boggles the mind as the rest of scripture opens up. The parable of the Good Samaritan (the entire plan for the church age), the parable of the fig tree (end times), the turning of water into wine (how Jesus takes the word we put into people and turns it into His spirit within the believer) all have underlying meanings. That was intentional and the Lord makes it clear that He speaks in parable so that He and only He can unlock them to those He chooses (Matthew 13:11-13).
He did this intentionally and you have demonstrated a complete failure to understand this point.

About the need for the Holy Spirit guiding us, the New Testament clearly says:

1. The letter kills, but the spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6)
2. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come (John 16:13)
3. 1 John 2:27 also says about the same thing about the Holy Spirit guiding you.

Also, I never said the internet was the best way to reach people. That is the nature of what you are trying to do - looking for some way to twist what people say so you can accuse them of something. I simply said it is one of the ways to reach people. In this forum, I try to answer the questions of those who are genuinely seeking and interested and hopefully, be able to make the way clearer for them to come to Jesus.
I can do that for anyone in the world who is here. It sure saves on the jet lag. When the Apostle Paul was on his missionary journeys, he availed himself of the technology of the times to spread the Word - walking, riding horses or donkeys, and writing letters. So, when 1000s of people can hear the good news on the web, you would have me ignore this use of technology to reach a lost world and walk from city to city. Will you let me use paper to write, or should I stick to papyrus? Got it!

Lastly, your whole viewpoint talks about the harshness of this impossible struggle to follow Jesus. It is difficult at times, but the work He does in us makes it all possible and we can thrive under His leadership. Matt 11:29-30 "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Hebrews talks about that continual rest (sabbatismos) that we enter in our abiding in Him and letting Him do the work in us to conform us to His image (2 Cor 3:18) and do His works.

As for loving the perks, my troubles really began in this world when I started following Jesus seriously. It says through great tribulation, you will enter the kingdom of heaven. The soul that suffers is done with sin.
I moved here to California knowing even beforehand that LA would be destroyed in the next couple of years and I would be right in the middle of it ministering to the survivors in the wreckage. I've collected, at Jesus leading, key pieces of rescue equipment, food, medical supplies, for just this event. I knew it as I was driving across country to live here. The tribulation will soon start in the next couple of years in which many of us will be martyred for our faith. I guess these are some of the perks you think I am after.

Your approach here has been overly harsh and accusatory. This has happened to me before. The spirits recognize one another. The Holy Spirit within me has recognized other believers without a word spoken. Likewise, one whom I have never met face to face has an irrational anger or hatred of me without cause.

Who was a believer or "Christian" who hurt you in the past? You seem to have some serious ax to grind here and you seem very willing to take scripture out of context, twist words of what people say, and accuse before the throne of God to do it. In your mind, I guess we're all like that person. It must have really been painful for you. I am sorry that someone hurt you. It wasn't me.

You have little time to repent of this. You are so wrong here. Turn to Jesus and He will forgive. The trouble in the world is just beginning.
In the meantime, I rebuke the spirit that controls your attitude and accusations.

Surely all of the arguments about the relative merits and drawbacks of organised religion are academic - the removal of all systems of religion from our global society would not preclude us from commiting acts of kindness, goodwill and selflessness, or even from believing in God (whichever one) and the prophets and their teachings (be it that of Jesus/Isa, Moses/Musa, Mohammed, Siddhartha Gautama, Guru Nanak - anyone).

However, it would remove every last shred of division and hatred that religion has caused and continues to cause, and indeed threatens to tear our world apart. I think that would be a good thing.

I do agree with a lot of the thoughts that have been raised in the forum, however guys can we put personal religious belief's aside. I am sure there will be a lot of difference here as it is a very broad subject. It would be great if different aspects of this subject was discussed rather than just talking about Christanity. [Nothing wrong about it though], but this I think is not a part.

I think religion on a whole needs to be visited.

Can I ask those who are interested and this is to start the discussion again,

What is religion?

What does it stand for?

What areas does religion cover?

What are the pros and cons of following the religion that one believes?

What gains do I as an individual gain from following a religion or God? [though i think i have mentioned a fair bit on this]

Would I be immoral if I did not follow a religion or did not believe in God?

Will I go to Heaven or Hell for not following God/Satan?

The forum raised the question on religion and i gave it a good thought. It is a tricky question at first as religion is something which some of us hold close to us. My initial response was it will not work. However, on giving it a bit of a thought, i did have a few question, which i have put forth for all to discuss.

I would like to add, that, i have obviously not yet moved away from the thought that the God of All of US [for those who believe] from any religion wishes the best.

Just thoughts guys, please feel free to challenge any of the questions or add comments as this is an open forum and any statements passed even negative adds thought to the discussion.

Cheers

Originally posted by knowledge23
What is religion?

Superstition. Legislated with social politics.

What does it stand for?

Man's long-standing state of general uncertainty and innate mortal fear.

What areas does religion cover?

One's supposed 'worthiness' in the eyes of God and in the esteem of one's community. It has a lot to do with self-esteem.

What are the pros and cons of following the religion that one believes?

The pros are: having the choice to follow the path to God which suits one's unique soul (personality), cultural and social harmony within one's social scope of self.
The cons are: the ever-present danger of following the religion of the group rather than using it as a guide to seek out one's own path, false security and an inappropriate idea of being 'better' in God's eyes than those who follow another religion.

What gains do I as an individual gain from following a religion or God?

I have to answer this in two parts:
Following a religion might gain one relief from feeling alone--it harbors one in a group of like minded souls and therefore gives the feeling of 'belonging.'
Following God will gain a person true enlightenment and actual, permanent, relief of earthly suffering (while still on earth, that is--to follow God is the chance to know God now--instead of waiting until one dies and leaves this plane.)

Would I be immoral if I did not follow a religion or did not believe in God?

Morality has nothing to do with believing in God. Each religion, while generally similar, has it's own subset of morality. But morality is a social mechanism which works on Ego. Ego is what dies when one seeks the life that comes from God.

Will I go to Heaven or Hell for not following God/Satan?

If heaven is the afterlife and hell is the grave, then the answer is no. We all have an afterlife--what we do here determines what we will be in that afterlife, but we have all been saved from the grave equally.

I would like to add, that, i have obviously not yet moved away from the thought that the God of All of US [for those who believe] from any religion wishes the best.

I'm in your camp. I believe there is but one God--creator of all of us--rescuer of all of us--Father to all of us.

Religion serves as a spark to initiate one upon their path toward their Creator--but when religion substitutes as a 'family,' so to speak, here on earth, that is exclusive, in any way--that precludes our basic understanding that the family of man is global and all-inclusive.

I don't know of many psychotic or delusional men who have ever risen to power and taken the position as one of the most powerful men in the world.

What about Dubya?

But seriously, there is a very thin line between genius and insanity!

Oh, Excitable_Boy, I was thinking of that, too, as I read it! Great minds think alike, genius or insane. ('') Off topic, but noticed the Pre quote. He is one of my son's heroes.




[edit on 16-3-2006 by desert]

Nice information.

To support your statement, on the topic of belief i thought it would be a good idea to go to the roots of this topic. I found this interesting article and as you have clearly explained it does have roots in our fear.
here

It is a small article but one which is worthwhile a read.

I agree to the point that there are a number of faces to the One God, and people respect their own sentiments to believe in him.

quote: What does it stand for?
Man's long-standing state of general uncertainty and innate mortal fear.

I agree to the point of mortal fear. As every things that begins must end, so is life. I agree to a certain extend that mortal fear is a factor but it cant be what religion stands for. I do agree to the statement about the sense of belonging, but isnt the path of God to be the one which is done alone?

I think excluding the ones who for the name of religion follow God would feel a sense of belonging and grouping. I dnt think that is the case. Has to be something more to it.


quote: What are the pros and cons of following the religion that one believes?
The pros are: having the choice to follow the path to God which suits one's unique soul (personality), cultural and social harmony within one's social scope of self.
The cons are: the ever-present danger of following the religion of the group rather than using it as a guide to seek out one's own path, false security and an inappropriate idea of being 'better' in God's eyes than those who follow another religion.

Couldnt have said it better. On the cons aspect however, looking better in Gods eye should not arise. The path is drawn and it is drawn on the line of belief. I dnt think those who truely follow His path think about what God would think of them. They know that they are naked infront of the creator and their actions will decide their faith. For those who want to satisfy their conscious, the points explained says it all.

quote: What gains do I as an individual gain from following a religion or God?
I have to answer this in two parts:
Following a religion might gain one relief from feeling alone--it harbors one in a group of like minded souls and therefore gives the feeling of 'belonging.'
Following God will gain a person true enlightenment and actual, permanent, relief of earthly suffering (while still on earth, that is--to follow God is the chance to know God now--instead of waiting until one dies and leaves this plane.)

To place an example would be easier to explain my point. A lone person sitting at home, having dinner, watching TV, how would his belief in religion raise a sense of belonging? I believe Karma is true but i dnt think we have any solid proof it is existence. What we do here, we pay here before we leave. The silent hand of God touches us all.

There is no Ego as you have so nicely put it. I agree there cant be an Egoist person who could successfully capture God's grace. But again, we do not have any solid proof. As per the religious books Love is the key to all and the key to unlock his door and an egoistic person fails to love others but himself, hence theoratically correct.

I would like to add that you have provided a great amount of information with a lot of questions which a lot of us would have faced. Please do take the statements as positive statements to put my point through and at no time would i like to reflect myself as an unreasonable critic.

Thankyou again for your thoughts.

Cheers

Originally posted by deadboi
Can you please tell me what book you speak of?

The book of the way.

sun matrix
Please educate me on when the Catholic Church came into existence as they seem to trace their lineage right back to Peter.

So? Thats what they beleive. The office of the Pope grew out of the bishopric of Rome. What used to be the orthodoxic metropolitan bishop of rome is now the Pope. The RCC doesn't technically exist until after the Great Schism, though I'd agree that it starts to form before that. However, this is all long after there were no more emperors in Rome. And Constantine was never bishop of anywhere.

Doesn't sound like a very Christian thing to do.

Only a few people calling themselves christians, such as jesus and the apostles, were pacifists like in the gospel. So, despite what any book says, if the majority of christians and christian history is one of violence, then why say the crusades are unchristian???

Enkidu
Cool or not, it's true. I've read the New Testament

Why do you take that minority collection of gosepls and letters to be authoratative?

nakash
I'm tired of hearing this old crusades straw man

Too bad, its a part of the history of christianity, it was done by pious christians, sanctioned by the christian churches, and done largely to reclaim access to christian holy sites. It was an action of christianity, as christianity, for christianity.

I'm Protestant, I'm being blamed for persecution my ancestors suffered, doesn't that sound outrageous?

Since Protestants didn't exist, they've clearly got nothing to do with the crusades, except insofar as they are christians. What you are saying is like saying that protestants have nothing to do with jesus, because they weren't around at the time.
Besides, the protestant churches have more than enough blood on their prayer-clasped hands too, such as the 100 Years war, anglican attacks on catholics, and an extensive history of missionary work and all the rest.

The Catholic church isn't Christian, it is a pagan, superchurch system

Catholics beleive in jesus christ as lord, and thus are christian. Considering them pagans because of decorations is silly, and trying to disavow oneself of the brutal history of christianity by saying 'those particular guys were evil heathens', is ironic and somewhat hypocritical.

Masses for the dead, indulgences, crusades.....where can you pin these concepts in the NT? Answer: YOU CAN'T!!

So what?
The new testament is a collection of books claiming to be by various apostles that was more or less approved by groups of men who had to study them and pick and choose what was authentic and what was not, whether it was bishops and metropolitans doing the picking or local 'house preists' choosing to read from specific texts at mass.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Try to keep an open mind because we both know that you had to have one to become a Christian.

So, on the one hand, the popes are evil pagans because there are statues in churches, but on the other hand, a person becomes a follower and beleiver in christ because some water was dumped on their head? Thats paganistic, that a magical ritual will cause a change in the person physically that marks them as a member of the cult/group.

Originally posted by knowledge23
Nice information.

Thanks--it's the product of much observation, contemplation, and personal epiphany.

It is a small article but one which is worthwhile a read.

Thanks for the link! I'm going to read after I post this.

I do agree to the statement about the sense of belonging, but isnt the path of God to be the one which is done alone?

It is. I guess I must clarify my personal jargon--I totally see 'religion' as a group thing--any searching for God on a personal level falls far outside the scope of religion, from my view. The solitary seeker is he who dwells in the 'wilderness.' Religion is the 'cities.' (biblically speaking)

I think excluding the ones who for the name of religion follow God would feel a sense of belonging and grouping. I dnt think that is the case. Has to be something more to it.

Well, I think it boils down to man's herding nature, need for company, approval of others (which, of course, on the egoistic level is the bricks laid to build 'self-esteem'--the reflection of our outer self in the eyes of our companions), and a backwards sort of humility which keeps us from trusting our own soul and instead placing our faith not in God (who is within each of us) but in those who say they are authorized by God on our behalf (clergy, etc). Many don't believe they can really know, but they believe those who say they know, and so much is lost in the chasm that develops in between.

On the cons aspect however, looking better in Gods eye should not arise.

Indeed--the solitary seeker realizes this at some point in the journey. But then again, is not that very idea (however deeply it is subconsciously submerged) the underlying pathos of the denominational strife that exists within religions and between religions?

For those who want to satisfy their conscious, the points explained says it all.

Good point! The conscience is a necessary mediator for the ego's self-serving
agenda--if not for considering others because of the twinges sent by conscience we would not consider anyone at all, except for how it might benefit self.
But, at the same time, a conscience which is percieved as something which must be satisfied, basically silenced, somehow--instead of something that is a trainer and guide in the development of true philanthropy--is a strong ally for religion in its dysfunctional form. The conscience is not a squeaky cog or a hungry emotion, it is a teacher given to serve in our personal spiritual education.

A lone person sitting at home, having dinner, watching TV, how would his belief in religion raise a sense of belonging?

I see what you are pointing out--that is precisely where my line of differentiation is drawn: those who seek out religion seek outside themselves. Those who seek within themselves have little use for the dictates of religion (and all religions have constraining boundaries--for actions and even thoughts).

Please do take the statements as positive statements to put my point through and at no time would i like to reflect myself as an unreasonable critic.

You didn't give me any kind of negative/critical energy, at all! Thanks for considering my words in the same spirit with which I formed them...

Off topic, but noticed the Pre quote. He is one of my son's heroes.

Mine too! How old is your son??

Originally posted by Nygdan
So, on the one hand, the popes are evil pagans because there are statues in churches, but on the other hand, a person becomes a follower and beleiver in christ because some water was dumped on their head? Thats paganistic, that a magical ritual will cause a change in the person physically that marks them as a member of the cult/group.

How can you call baptism an occult ritual? Water baptism is when a person gets submerged in living water (depending on what church u go to) in order to relieve them of sin. Baptism in no way automatically makes you a christian, it is only one of the steps in becoming closer to God. Jesus himself states clearly that a person who becomes baptised can still go to Hell. Baptism is in no way a "magic ritual", it is a spiritual and symbolic representation of your love to God.

Of course some of the popes aren't evil pagans because there are statues in the church. Some of the popes are evil pagans because they falsely accused innocent people of heresy (then executed them by the hundreds of thousands) in order to get their land and wealth afterwards, they kill scientists and philosiphers such as Galileo who are later proven to be right, they claim to have a direct connection to God even though they are completely wrong on their judgement half the time, they revise and edit the bible according to what suits them, they start "holy wars" (oxymoron anyone?) in order to gain more land and wealth, and they are worshipped as idols even though that's against one of the ten commandments!! Jesus Christ warned us of "False prophets that come in sheep's clothing, but are ravenous wolves inside." That, Nygdan, is the freakin reason why some of the popes are evil!!

Nygdan, again I agree with you, Baptism is simply a symbolic rite, not magic. Same for the Lord's supper. These two rituals were transformed into the typical "magic" you'd see in paganism rather than solemn rituals with powerful symbolisms concerning important doctrines of Christianity. The wafer does *not* turn into Jesus Christ, that's Egypt's bread God, not the passover lamb. Baptism is a symbolic rite, not some magic water splashed on your head giving you divine powers of some sort. This sounds like a "oh big deal" argument to a lot of people, but the difference is vital, it is crucial. Many people were burned up or tortured in the Dark ages because of this difference, it *IS* a big deal.