‘Whenever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion. ( Archived) (21)

I'm sure you didn't make it up. Maybe it came from a different source?

We see in the books of Moses that God basically stops talking to the common man and there is an announcement about this and ever more it is either a chosen mouth piece speaking for God or an Angelic messenger delivering instructions, but God never speaks directly after Moses. Any talking about crucifixes back then would have been met with 'wuz dat?' Because the Romans were still a long time a coming. The Egyptian Ankh symbol of the time was about Egypt's religion, not the one God of the Hebrews. Crosses and crucifixions on them were of course known of by the time the Old Testament ended, but there was no mention of crosses and worshiping before them in the Old book. In the New Testament of course Jesus became very familiar with the Cross, but he did not speak of worshipping in front of them.

Why would he? Such use of the cross as a symbol of faith was 100s of years after he died. The early Christians used fish as their recognition symbol.

Prior to 325 AD the cross was the recognition symbol of the worshippers of the Indian God Mithra. It is in the 4th Century the time of Constantine we first see Christians adapting the symbol.

Therefore you find nothing about praying in front of the cross in the New Testament either, because it was about the life of Jesus and the cross had no significance until he died on it. Praying to the cross was hundreds of years in the future.

Hi Ken, I think that education and having choices (especially women) is the most important factor in not following religious rules blindly.

I agree with you. I think Wesley was hampered by a religious education himself coupled with the low state of general knowledge back then. While I give him credit for a lot of things, not the least of which being an attempt to analyze why the center of the churches wasn't holding, I think he was too close to the problem to view it from our perspective.

What he was discussing back then in his treatise was how with the acquisition of material wealth people were suddenly acquiring and displaying jewelry (which was prohibited by church canon back then), excessive travel and socialization with the wrong people (i.e., non-church goers), merriment at taverns, etc.

Today however with archivists and computers and historians and 1,000 other things we have a better understanding of many things he knew nothing of. Indeed the average 7th grader although possibly not fluent in 3 or more languages nor bible knowledge, probably overall has a much better grasp of many things than Wesley did. Humanities accumulated knowledge doubles every year and has been doing so for almost 3 decades. Our newest textbooks leave the printers already obsolete and should be replaced and revised every year. Indeed some colleges are moving to Internet only classes because textbooks just can't keep up with some subjects. The consequences of a general increase in knowledge for religions are serious. The more they dig in their heels and insist on mysticism and things that go bump in the night, while at the same time the leaders engage in unethical behavior that is suddenly now transfixed in spotlights, the less credible the whole concept becomes.
Religions provided a series of rules that allowed civilizations to form. Some religions did not allow that civilization to progress past certain points and those civilizations have either collapsed and only ruins are left where cities once were, or the civilization was permitted by the religion to continue to develop. We still have huge portions of the planet where religion still controls things while the general state knowledge and education of the populace is low. Wealth will come as the education increases, but of course the core concepts of the religion will increasingly come into question unless a reformation occurs. I think there can be little argument that the reformation of Martin Luther and Age of Reason both allowed the civilization to advance in new directions, while at the same time expanded the spread of knowledge. Of course wealth and a change in power bases also accompanied the new permissiveness. To me, blaming it all on wealth without looking at why and how the wealth came about is an over simplification that misses much.

I have no "money" and I enjoy my life BECAUSE God is in it. If that's your attitude, then you enjoy your little piece of heaven right here on this imperfect earth but when you die....where will your spirit live?
In lightness, forever in the presence of the God you profess not to need....or darkness? Let me guess............

But what if the other side is not as you have been told?

What if there is no afterlife? Then you will have squandered so much in the hope and expectation of an afterlife that doesn't even exist.

Further, what if the afterlife, if such exists, is much more like a hostile jungle than palaces of light, with things that eat souls that glow bright to lure them in like Viperfish at the bottom of the ocean?

What if the afterlife is just a gray formless void and you have no body, just slowly fading memories until you go out..

Maybe you're thinking of this story?
9 Jesus told this parable to certain people who had convinced themselves that they were righteous and who looked on everyone else with disgust: 10 "Two people went up to the temple to pray. One was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed about himself with these words, ‘God, I thank you that I'm not like everyone else—crooks, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week. I give a tenth of everything I receive.' 13 But the tax collector stood at a distance. He wouldn't even lift his eyes to look toward heaven. Rather, he struck his chest and said, ‘God, show mercy to me, a sinner.' 14 I tell you, this person went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee. All who lift themselves up will be brought low, and those who make themselves low will be lifted up."