Dear Belly,

«Believe it, I watched the fall of religion as it started»

It was not the fall of religion - it was the fall of organised Christian churches.

You do not need an organisation to be religious. You do not even need organisations to be a Christian: Jesus Christ had no organisation, you can follow him directly, or make an effort to.

«My God would not have declared workers being paid more for their only product, time and effort, was worse than ever»

Ever? What about slavery? has it not been rampant and now nearly eliminated?

Please look at the broader scheme: God's universe does respond infallibly to good effort, but the reward is not necessarily financial and not necessarily immediate in this lifetime.

That said, workers can be no less greedy than their bosses: having less money does not necessarily mean that they wouldn't like to have money at least as much. Should they all get more? including those who would spend it unhealthily or to harm others? including those who would gamble it away? including those who put no real effort at work, including those who do their own thing during the time they are paid for to work, in effect a form of stealing? including those whose work is not really useful and necessary, doing nothing good for the world other than serving their boss's ego and pockets? including those whose work actually harms others?

Also consider an employer who used to treat his/her employees badly, or perhaps even a slave-master, who died and now has to spend their next lifetime(s) under similar conditions as their former employees/slaves, experiencing for themselves the pain that they caused to others: would you consider this unjust?

Nevertheless, God's good work can also be performed by people, including by His servant, Belly of the Union, who unexpectedly storms in to improve working conditions. Please consider it a privilege: you have probably been serving God no less than church-goers!

Jesus said: "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

Belly,

"Too the reality all faiths, some more than others, are failing to prosper

Funny that I did a bit of research on the net and got the opposite answer.

Where do you get your information, out of your prejudice box?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-14/how-the-catholic-church-ruled-with-despots-in-latin-america/11214044
It was never my intention that this thread put any God on trial
Never that one relidgion should be targeted and others praised
Ise Mise brought the good deeds of the Catholic Church in to the debate
I counter with the link, free to read site, read it then tell me SOME religion, as practiced by some followers are not truly in trouble
Please understand, I do, true Christians [the same may be said for most faiths] sets out rules that are the best plan to live by
BUT ignore at your peril some have hijacked God,claiming he/she is a supporter of one side of politics
Combined with the news in the link religion is shrinking as people ignore the very teachings of their faith

To Belly.

I believe you when you ask about this topic of faith. "What do we do about it" kind of question without trying to harm those in each religion. At least that's what I get from this topic.

However, there are two lines of logic that I see that are battling each other out on this topic. I think taking a side on either can be deceptive because it feeds it's own argument instead of seeing the merit of the other one (or seeing other potential paths of reasoning).

The two lines of logic that I see are:

1) fairness to all religions. (Treating them all the same).
2) supporting one philosophy or another (whether it is one of the religions or a lack of religion philosophy). This logic aims to point out how one view is right and the others are not; or conversely to point out how the others are not right and leave it there.

I could be wrong, but by your comments it seems you're taking the first line of logic to treat all religions equally as if they are the same. In that light to support freedom of religion equally.

I want to warn you that both of the logical arguments have a weakness in either not seeking the truth about any perspective (because they are all the same anyways), or to not support freedom and liberty in the expression of all religions (because differentiating between them means supports some over the others).

It's just a thought and an observation on this debate over religion. Know the weakness of the over all argument.

(Continued)

(Continued)

A second thought is a practical approach to the issue of religious freedom. Let everyone be able to explore and express any religion (and lack of religion), but at the same time, when a person or an organization breaks the law or causes harm, then don't sit idly by out of support for freedom. If the laws stand firm for everyone, then all religions are equal in the face of the law. Just make sure the laws don't create a way for businesses or government offices to silence a person believing and practicing their religion by writing employee contracts restricting them outside of work. (Or firing them because of what they say on Facebook or Twitter).

" Jesus Christ had no organisation, you can follow him directly, or make an effort to."

He had a gang of 12, small but an organization just the same and at the Last Supper, He made sure that it would continue and grow.