Most all religions that I know of speak of some kind of inevitable demise of or existence. Most anyone would agree that eventually the planet will no longer be here for us. It would be ignorant to believe that it would. The question is, can we escape the planet and find somewhere else to colonize before that time? It also IMO is vain to believe that with the size of the universe that we are the only life out there. After all, if it was created here, couldn't it be created somewhere else in the vast expanses of the universe? Why would we be the only creation of God? If he/she/it is all powerful, wouldn't he be capable of creating multitudes of life? I mean if God can keep up with all the millions of prayers being said here, why cant God keep up with millions of billions? So for someone who is religious to discount other life(aliens) is just a reflection of their doubt of their God's power. To not be willing to accept other than what has been taught to you is not a healthy mentality. How many Christians believe that heaven is waiting for them in the after life? Probably most, even though there is no concrete evidence of this in the bible. It does speak of a "resurrection", which most Christians will dismiss. It also states that there will only be 144,000 who will be lifted up to heaven. Yet again, most Christians believe that they will be one of those, or dismiss that also. When you are talking about millions of Christians who are alive today, that's not very many that will make it there. "And the meek shall inherit the Earth", does not state that there is a promise of heavens gates for all alive during the rapture does it? The problem with the timing of the assembly of the bible, as well as the writing of the books, is we don't know exactly who wrote all the books. There is debate over which books of John were written by what John. Also, Christians openly admit that a lot of understanding the bible is interpretation. Which means, your interpretation of somebody else's interpretation, of someone else's embellished (also openly admitted) recollection of the events supposedly documented. So if one where to say that the authors put their own "flare" on the story, as any writer would, who's to say that the miracles aren't simply just embellishments, that evolved during the 90 years before the book was completed? Also, 200 years after that date, a politician who apparently converted from paganism to Christianity, set over the comity to assemble the New Testament, he had final say in what went into it as well as what didn't. He organized Christianity as there was no organization to it prior to this. As well as married it to the existing Roman culture at the time in order to make it socially acceptable. Prior to this Christians were executed for practicing. It was common practice for converted Pagans to adopt their favorite God as the only God. As well as to adopt different practices as they saw fit. This is the reason for so many denominations with different perspectives on Christianity. Who, BTW, generally condemn(judge) each other for those differences. It is also common practice for complete doctrines to be based solely on scriptures to be taken out of text, melted to other scriptures and presented as having one uniform meaning. This is a very dangerous thing. How many of us have set through sermons to have 10 20 (or more) different scriptures extracted from many different books, without the text which accompanies it, and presented as having a certain meaning? After all, isn't this the very thing Christians do when defending/supporting their beliefs?
