Are Religions really about God????

[Bird123]

Perhaps, if one considers that religion is mankind's attempt to understand God.

Let's consider some real issues. Religions have holy books that they say come from God, inspired by God or from a messenger of God. Further, could anyone count how many people are claiming to speak for God, or telling you what God wants or telling you what choices you should make?

OK, let's look at the Real world where God's actions can be seen and can not be altered by mankind. Did God give you a message telling you how to live? No. Now, if God can give messages to these religious people, can't God send those messages to everyone? Next, did God give everyone His holy book? I didn't get my copy. Besides, God is so smart, wouldn't He just implant that holy book in our minds at birth? After all, why would God want printers, paper, and books that people could alter?

Perhaps, God has no rules at all. God doesn't want to intimidate or influence our free choices. Don't the consequences teach us whether our choices are good or not? Isn't mankind the only one attempting to rule?

Does it seem that God never does anything? Are people blind to God's action in favor of what they want to see? Let me give you a couple of God's actions so you can see just how God operates. First, since this is a physical world, God needs bodies to place souls into. For automation purposes, God leaves that up to mankind to do. Does God make a bunch of commandments and rules? No. God makes sex so good, everybody is doing it. It will never matter if religions or societies label sex as bad. The kids will keep coming. Second, since this world is a multilevel classroom. interaction is a key part of the learning process. Does God make a bunch or rules or commandments? No. If one avoids interaction, one grows lonely. Try staying away from everyone and not interact. I don't know anyone who can. Think about this. Isn't this High intelligence at work??

Clearly, God does not act like religions are teaching. Since religions are the creation of mankind, they are a reflection of mankind. Mankind is capable of Love and Kindness. That is reflected in religions. Mankind is capable of being greedy, judgmental, condemning, hating, controlling, ruling,intimidating and coercing. That is reflected in religions.

God must be above all those negative petty things because you see no action of them from Him.

This leads me to the question. If one is truly on the path to be like God, can one really follow religions? And religion seems to be the single greatest source people depend on to discover God. At some point, won't a person have to rise above the condemning, judging, controlling. hating, and such in order to rise to a High Level? Perhaps one can keep the Love and Kindness part and move on.

In conclusion, I don't see Religion is about God. I see Religion is about mankind. In the end, I see Religion is no more nor no less than a catalyst which brings out so many problems of mankind to the surface so they have to be dealt with. After all, when one thinks they have God's backing, they won't hold anything back. Look around, Isn't it all coming out?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

God makes sex so good, everybody is doing it.

Really?

Every last human on earth has sex?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Think about this. Isn't this High intelligence at work??

Or it could be the species that did not reproduce efficiently died off so we are only left with the ones that do.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

God must be above all those negative petty things because you see no action of them from Him.

You also do not see any of the good actions either.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

If one is truly on the path to be like God, can one really follow religions?

Seeing as the belief in and worship of a superhuman being is one of the most accepted definitions for religion I would say yes. Because if you believe in a god you are following a religion even if it is just one you made.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Perhaps one can keep the Love and Kindness part and move on.

You do not need religion for that part.

The better question is why do you need to draw from religions at all?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In conclusion, I don't see Religion is about God. I see Religion is about mankind. In the end, I see Religion is no more nor no less than a catalyst which brings out so many problems of mankind to the surface so they have to be dealt with. After all, when one thinks they have God's backing, they won't hold anything back. Look around, Isn't it all coming out?

If one lives their religion as part of their life, it becomes not only part of man-kind (everything is influenced by man kind) but of what some religions call god.

If you live your religion rather than define it in a specific category (mankind vs of god) it becomes more personal. It becomes a spiritual path, a lifestyle, ones life. Religion becomes Life.

Nothing political (unless thats what one basis their life on), its not limited in the gold walls. Its not restricted.

Its free flowing and acceptence of life and life's terms; andx if that involves god, than there is nothing wrong with that.

Mankind isnt a nasty word. My writing and sketching, my art, is becoming my prayers. Yes, I have to erase. Somethings smudge. I mispell. That is a part of life, my faih, my religion. It is not perfect.

Thats the beautiful of spirituality is that it is Not perfect. As such, we learn from it. If you are talking about the abrahamic god, when you take out religion (relationship and lifestyle of practice), what else do you have? Your loved ones are a part of religion. Creation. Friends. What you enjoy. Your prayers. Your holy books. Etc.

We are not trying to be perfect but learn and find strength through our imperfections. We learn to take out the word "sin" because that is not who we are. I am a pantheist and I believe "god" (for lack of a better term) is everything. Is life. The good and the bad.

So, if I take myself from the heart of everything and everyone I know from creation to people (if I take away religion) I have no life.

In that sense, how is religion Not of good? (Edit) Where does this right/wrong concept come of defining religion as a stinch (my words) of mankind? The church? Christianity? Paganism?

What do they have in common? They "practice", they Live, they Believe, and they find their meanings of worship or reverence.

That is religion. How is that wrong? (Or as you say, part of mankind)?

I dont see mankind as negative.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Perhaps, if one considers that religion is mankind's attempt to understand God.

That doesn't apply to all religions.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Firstly one has to define God. Many cultures define God as undefined and beyond the material senses.
Some see God as male, others as female and while others as genderless. Some see him as the creator and others as one who is creation and dissolution as well.
While others see him as only God, others as evil and the rest as a mix of both.
Some give him physical forms. Sometimes as animals, sometimes as half man half beast and sometime as a human.

In my opinion, The supreme force is simply the Truth, the unchanging reality, the primordial energy that though shapes the cosmos still remains the same.

water though changes form ice to water to vapour, still remains two volumes of hydrogen and one volume of oxygen.
Similarly, all things in this cosmos are but fragments of the greater existence, including living and non living.

It is said that in the beginning there was Purusha (consciousness) and Prakriti (energy) that combined together to form the cosmos with heat, water, air, matter and empty space.
Later in conscious living beings it created the 5 senses.
(Religiously speaking)

Beyond this body there lies the Self, that is the soul, a fragment of the supersoul, that remains unchangeable and indestructible.
Which in a way would make all living beings God himself.
And the life forces, the sun, moon, stars, water, rivers, plants, animals, the rain, wind, etc... Are equally sacred and is the changing manifestations of Prakriti that molds the cosmos with time.
He takes personal forms like Narayana, Shiva, Kali... Narsimha, Nataraja, Ardhanarishvara, etc. But their self is realized and they see the Truth even though bound by material bodies.

That's my definition of God.

But some also define it as their ancestors, as extra terrestrial advanced life forces like the Devas of Hinduism, a single all powerful God that helps mankind like Allah, the embodiment of pure good, love and compassion, like Avalokiteshvara.

There are atheistic philosophies that at least reject belief in a personal God such as Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, etc.
For Buddhists meditation is the key to open the doors of consciousness. Their ultimate Goal is a state free from suffering and rebirth.

So, All paths may lead to God ot not, depending on who God is.

 

[Ingledsva]

*
Personally, I believe all religious dogma is man made.

One does not need religion - to be Spiritual.

*

 

[Bird123]

Really?

Every last human on earth has sex?

The Earth's population keeps increasing. Is there really a need to say every single person. The system works.

 

[Bird123]

Or it could be the species that did not reproduce efficiently died off so we are only left with the ones that do.

Yes, perhaps that could be said. On the other hand, the need for interaction would not necessarily increase the survival rate.

 

[Bird123]

You also do not see any of the good actions either.

Don't you? Perhaps a wider view is needed.

 

[Bird123]

Seeing as the belief in and worship of a superhuman being is one of the most accepted definitions for religion I would say yes. Because if you believe in a god you are following a religion even if it is just one you made.

There are beliefs and there are facts. Beliefs are important to patch the gap of the missing facts. If beliefs did not exist, we would lock up just like my old computer. Should one really be content with beliefs. Some are. I am one who values facts. You state God to be nothing but a belief yet that is your belief. Do you search for facts or are you content just as people of religions, with beliefs. Sometimes those who search for truth discover what they search for.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

The Earth's population keeps increasing. Is there really a need to say every single person. The system works.

Then why did you say that everyone has sex?

 

[Bird123]

You do not need religion for that part.

The better question is why do you need to draw from religions at all?

Yes, you are right. My comment should be understood as if you take anything from religions that the love and kindness parts would lead on to a higher rather than lower level. Since religions are all man made, Love and kindness can be learned even through one's own choices. Religion is not needed.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Yes, perhaps that could be said. On the other hand, the need for interaction would not necessarily increase the survival rate.

Yes it does, it introduces another mechanic for genetic variance.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Don't you? Perhaps a wider view is needed.

I see humans doing god in the world, I fail to see any god doing anything.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

There are beliefs and there are facts. Beliefs are important to patch the gap of the missing facts. If beliefs did not exist, we would lock up just like my old computer. Should one really be content with beliefs. Some are. I am one who values facts. You state God to be nothing but a belief yet that is your belief. Do you search for facts or are you content just as people of religions, with beliefs. Sometimes those who search for truth discover what they search for.

If you want to go into epsitmology.

There are two self-evident facts for me and a several highly probable things coming from those, everything else is judging the probability of it being true or not.

 

[Valjean]

Religion is about tribal cohesion and solidarity. It's about a common world-view and mythology. It's about consensus on proper behavior and values. It gives us meaning and significance.
It can't justify itself logically or stand up to critical analysis, but it maintains the social status quo. That's its function.