God gets subjectivity through them.
But anyway as far as all these religions go, all I see is that they were started around the words that these people supposedly delivered from God, by the survivors and successors, God didn't start them. And how can we be sure that God was the source of their insight anyway as the only basis for the claims of divine insight are made by themselves or their followers and epigones. And because it was their successors, there already is a second or third (in the case of Paul the Apostle) degree of separation.
Take for example the Nativity story of Jesus. Jesus himself was a baby so how would he have known except through what he was told. The story has all the elements of a story that a mother tells to a small child about how he came to be, and if it is wonderful it is because such stories are wonderful. Mothers have to keep their children entertained, and back in those days it had to be with fantastic stories. Many, many, mothers say that God brought the child. Is she going to really tell her son how she got pregnant? Many say their child is a king. In Nepal mothers call their boys their little Raja. Then they populate the stories with talking animals and angels, giving birth in a manger which may will have happened, kings and wise men, frankincense and so forth. I've watched mothers in villages in Nepal tell their children just such stories with all kinds of elaboration, and their children were enthralled and want to hear them again and again. Jesus's followers were simple men, the story was good, so why should they have not believed it? My feeling is that though the religions tend to be ruled by men, many of the stories they tell come from the mouths of the mothers of the prophets, which is why they touch all of us so strongly.
