Alchemist – you did enter another world. It’s almost a cult, some Churches worse than others. I personally believe in Jesus as history portrays him. As with any role model I admire Jesus/teacher/humanitarian. I’m skeptical about the Church and its intentions as I believe most churches don’t project the image that Jesus would've wanted had he indeed been the savior of human kind.

I’ve been to church gatherings in the AOG (scary – zombies everywhere) and Mormons (very scary – plastic faced glazed-over looks mostly with Utah accents). I have had to continually make ‘I am busy’ excuses to individuals from various religions at my doorstep offering to mow my lawn and provide pamphlets simply so they could talk at me for half the day. I was baptised and confirmed Catholic, went to a Christian Brothers school, my parents were married in a Catholic church and were later divorced.

There are illusions everywhere Alchemist but somehow it all seems very fascinating. One must ask – as with any element of recorded history – what’s the ultimate truth?

Rainier – yes they’re trying to convince themselves but why? Is it the desire for eternal life when there’s no empirical evidence to suggest that such a thing exists? Is it for a portrayal of self that looks good to others – Christianly as it seems. I suppose both – to live Christian life on Earth is to save oneself from social failure. And as we transcend time and space the strategies used to prevent ourselves from being un-Christian wear very thin – presenting themselves in the form of increasingly translucent defense mechanisms (I am a good person) that appear irrational to others – particularly non-believers. As we approach death we cling more dearly to these defenses and try more desperately to convince others. As people age they attend church more often – usually visits from relentlessly boring retirement villages and as our only saving grace becomes death we long for it and are indeed grateful for it.

I hope for all our sakes it’s all real.

FH, “God reserves the judgement right to Him alone ‘is judging on intent, hearts and deeds’.” Thats where I find the ambiguity.

That being the case, there would be no need for religion or belief systems. It would be irrelevant to what you follow, or believe. Your souls destiny would be according to the application of your life in both thoughts and deeds, (“god is seeing and all knowing”).

Wouldn't god view those that don't believe, yet lead an ethical life, be the first to be taken into the holy place, as they haven't needed the crutch of religion to be god like.

Would not god be pissed off with those that follow a god religion and constantly threaten others with damnation for not believing. And wouldn't god be pissed off, that those followers use his name to try and suppress other views and dismiss the realties of the world, his world.

If God is such a good understanding loving dude, wouldn't he care for non believers more, because they are not hell bent on forcing beleifs on others, but go about life in a sensible non destructive way.

If God is what the religious say he is, then he would have no need for religion or followers. I do believe that jesus was totally against religion and expressed that in a violent manner, just like non believers have to at times when confronted by the violence of religion

DFXK, you need to learn the reality of the world, Hitler was a devout christian, his speeches and writings are full of biblical quotes. Some of his closest allies were the European churches. “good created by Christianity would be erased.” Name one verifiable good, that christianity has created.

Tubley, “I personally believe in Jesus as history portrays him” if you believed in Jesus as history really portrays him, then you wouldn't believe in religion. History portrays him in a totally different way to what the religious portray, if you ever decide to study theological history, you would see whats real and whats fantasy

The alchemist,

It is refreshing to read some resoning on your part – for a while it was just a broken 76 rpm broken record.

By separating Jesus from God you can never see the whole picture, and the puzzle remains just that.

It is because we cannot reach to God’s standard of perfection that it is impossible to co-exist with Him with our imperfections.

This is where ALL religions fail. They are without exception a do it for yourself guide for perfection – that simply will never pass the test with God.

That’s why from the beginning of creation (bear with me) God promised a redeemer: the lamb that is to take our place and make us perfect in God’s eyes.

Jesus is the ONLY way to God. Any other system, rules, or religion does not comply. That’s why Jesus is the name above all names,… to whom every knee shall bow – yes even yours Al and FH, every tongue will confess his name, He is the One who is coming to judge the world.

But there is another way and anyone can jump the queue by accepting his free gift of salvation right now (before the big rush later) and that is what we call being born anew, jumping from definite death into life eternal. This way final judgement is by-passed.

So the key is Jesus and has always been Jesus,… going back to Abraham … but that’s for another time…

Tubley: Any person can be a fervent protestant/catholic/ or whatever and yet may not be a Christian.
There is Christianity and there is religion which uses un-Biblical practices and doctrines. Neither Christ or any of the Apostles wore pretty frocks [well not the males]. Nor did they have burning handbags nor even candles.
To the athiests and God-haters: First you need to have a good look around.
The eye, ear and nose [smelling] How could these organs come by chance? If mindless, directionless evolution "made and developed" them, they would have to be perfect right from the beginning. A creature could not hobble around with a part formed eye,ear or nose. To think this is absolutely and completely absurd.
Look at the rest of creation and see the need for a creator, then and only then go to this Creator in faith.
numbat

oh man, here we go again.

Completely off topic.

Numbat, firstly you make the erroneous assumption that the organs you describe are an end product, perfect, complete. All life is in a continual state of change.

Secondly there are numerous current world examples of varying degrees of sight, from the most efficient animal eyes, through to the simple ability of plant cells to detect the direction of the sun, with a multitude of variations between those two extremes. it shouldn’t take much of a stretch of the intellect to understand that a bacterium, living in the 'primordial soup', would have a great competitive advantage if it could detect the direction of sunlight and therefore more nutrients, better than other species. As mulitcelled organisms evolved, the cells best adapted to detection of light become more and more specialised through numerous generations. It is currently suggested (I will try and find the study on the net) that the time from a cells ability to detect the direction of light to evolve to the first specialisation of cells into a primitive lens (as a conservative assumption of the rate of mutation and their selection) is 140,000 generations. a short period of time considering the billion years between the first recorded single celled organism and the first recorded multicelled organism.

there are plenty of animals living today that have much more primitive sensory organs, and those that have much superior, to us humans. there is no need for the eyes of moles to evolve to a simillar resolution to ours. evolution compensates in different ways.

Alchemist, completely agree. Many people's (religious and otherwise) perception of the nature of god seems, despite st Francis’s philosophical propositions, to be profoundly anthromorphogical, the 'intelligent designer' being a prime example. The designer, as opposed to creator, is a contradiction of omnipotence.

Alchemist,

“If God is such a good understanding loving dude, wouldn't he care for non believers more, because they are not hell bent on forcing beliefs on others, but go about life in a sensible non destructive way”

You are probably right. In Islam ‘believers’ have more than seventy definitions, the minimum being ‘those who remove harm off the road fearing for the safety of others”.

“Would not God be pissed off with those that follow a god religion and constantly threaten others with damnation for not believing”.

Agree with your statement above with a distinct difference:
- Tolerable: when someone would believe their religion is the BEST way of worship.
- Problematic: If someone believes that their religion is and should be the ONLY way of worship. This reflects all the spectrum from lack of experience, lack of judgement even to lack of confidence in their own faith.

Each and every disaster throughout history had a ‘problematic faithful’ behind it. By the way and to clarify, even ‘no-religion’ is a religion.

Peace,