>There is no conflict - in the sense that one can rationally examine the claims of the various religious systems.

One can rationally examine anything :).

>I suspect that you and I are a lot closer in our opinions about religion (in general) that most would suspect.

I, however, suspect that we'd come to disagreement as soon as we came closer to one in particular, eh?

>1. Religion, defined as a formalized presentation of "the truth", more often than not, does more damage than good and is designed to mentall, emotionally ans spiritually control. Not good.

But each religion defines good in its own terms. So this is relative.

>2. The historic christian position teaches that God wants a personal RELATIONSHIP with each human, man or woman, all being equal in His eye. It teaches us to test and examine and prove all things (i.e. use our minds). Good.

Under the assumption that this god guy actually exists as anything more than just an idea, yes.

>Religions, per se, have all-too-often caused more harm than good. The reason is that they tend to presume to be able to do for the individual what only God can do for the individual. They lose sight of their original first mission (in the case of christianity, leading men to Christ) and their first mission becomes their own survival and aggandizement.

Comes from that need to expand. They all grow hierarchies, organizations, politics and other nasty protuberances.

>I don't at all hate Catholics but I do think that many of their teaching are not correct. I could say the same for pretty much all of the various segments of christianity.

Yes, with the omission of "pretty much".

>That doesn't mean that the claims of christianity are false (or correct for that matter). Rather it misses the point and sidesteps the issue.
>
>Historic christianity (as defined by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer) is "the Bible plus nothing", but even that being open for examination.

Ah, here we are. Bible is riddled with contradictions, ergo you do have to avoid logic if you want to accept it, and if you want to examine it yourself, you'll be branded as a heretic by just about anybody capable of heating up a branding iron. There are interpreters galore, and they'll be happy to guide you, asking only absolute obedience (and money) in return.

>No, Christianity, properly understood DEMANDS one use their minds and encourages questions and research. Anyone who says, "Don't ask questions, just believe", should be seen as improperly representing Christianity.

Ah, but last time I did this, you vanished. The question was: how many people did this god guy create? A number, please, no general statements.

>That there (most certainly) are groups (sects, churches, organizations) that purport to speak FOR God in no way is a proof that God cannot speak for Himself.

This is USA, the country where the middleman is king. We can only argue what came first, hen or egg, i.e. is the abundance of various churches here a consequence of the general will of the people to support the middlemen, or is it the general will of the people to support so many various priesthoods the reason why there are so many middlemen.

>So, your reaction, in my opinion, is partly correct. There are many religious systems that are not logical.

Yes, all of them.

>The historic Christian position is not one of them.

So, is it not a religious system at all, or what?

>But remember, don't use what men say it is. Go find out for yourself. Just understand the difference between 'religion' and 'relationship' and that will help you to sort out what does not have value and what does.
>
>The historic Christian position most certainly can and will stand up to scrutiny while all others will not. Understand that as a christian I would no more want you to take my word on this matter than the man in the moon - just do honest research is all I'd ask.

Haven't we tried this before?