Religion-for self or for GOD?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
Good question Kumar!
For me it is a response to a yearning within. What am I yearning for? I don't know exactly, but it is something to do with the core of my (and all) Being. Perhaps I'm seeking a Oneness behind all things. Perhaps just looking for something dependable, trustworthy and benign in a fickle, unjust, transitory World.
I do this for me - it seems the most worthwhile purpose a human can have. However, that yearning that leads me on, I believe comes from that Oneness we call God/Nature. It is mutual.
well said "Diogenes´ Dog". I feel the sudden need to elaborate a little further.
Religion was made by man, not by God. God gave us Love, not religion.
Ok, so you have love someone right? If you have, you should know that is impossible for love to be imposed, it has to be voluntary.
You cannot pay a girl to love you, and she will honestly love you with all her heart, there is no such thing.
God created love, God is love, He is not a person who rules over us, he is indeed the incognisible. Imagine how a more evolved being would see us, like monkeys. Do you believe you can teach the misteries of God to a chimp? neither can we understand God.
Although we cannot understand God completely, he gave us LOVE. Like the sunflowers in a prairy, or a swan swimming graciously in the lake, they speak of love.
God is Light, that creates life and Reign over all things with love. The thing is, if there is light, there is also the lack of Light (Darkness).
God give us free will to choose the good or the bad mentality, Light or Darkness, some people choose to believe there is nothing after we die and the bad mentality takes over them, but that is what all the Masters have come to prove them wrong.
God Love us, but we need to love him back voluntarily, because there is no other way for love. I repeat: Love is not imposed, but it is voluntary.
It must unconditional love, there is no: "Yes, I love my neighbour but.(enter excuses, wicked imaginations, etc)". But it is as Jesus said: "Love others as I have loved you". "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you". (Matt 5:4).
That is the way of the true salvation of your soul.
Religion was made by man, not by God. God gave us Love, not religion.
Ok, so you have love someone right? If you have, you should know that is impossible for love to be imposed, it has to be voluntary.
You cannot pay a girl to love you, and she will honestly love you with all her heart, there is no such thing.
God created love, God is love, He is not a person who rules over us, he is indeed the incognisible. Imagine how a more evolved being would see us, like monkeys. Do you believe you can teach the misteries of God to a chimp? neither can we understand God.
Although we cannot understand God completely, he gave us LOVE. Like the sunflowers in a prairy, or a swan swimming graciously in the lake, they speak of love.
God is Light, that creates life and Reign over all things with love. The thing is, if there is light, there is also the lack of Light (Darkness).
God give us free will to choose the good or the bad mentality, Light or Darkness, some people choose to believe there is nothing after we die and the bad mentality takes over them, but that is what all the Masters have come to prove them wrong.
God Love us, but we need to love him back voluntarily, because there is no other way for love. I repeat: Love is not imposed, but it is voluntary.
It must unconditional love, there is no: "Yes, I love my neighbour but.(enter excuses, wicked imaginations, etc)". But it is as Jesus said: "Love others as I have loved you". "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you". (Matt 5:4).
That is the way of the true salvation of your soul.
Why do you say your god is a he?
How?
Thanks.
Oneness can be on salvation/nirvana, when all bondings and modifications are converted/mixed into origional "one". That may be the extreme of religion's suggestions for humans somewhat like conversion of whole universe into energy on big-bang. God/nature may initiate us to convert into oneness, whereas society just opposite. But suppose, if religion improve and purify our personalities and characters, will it not aid to society?
in short - both
in the beginning stages one performs religious acts for the sake of one' self or extended self (family, community, nation etc) and in the perfectional stages one performs religious acts simply for the sake of god (completely bereft of tinges for name, fame, adoration and distinction, what to speak of wealth, family prestige and power)
But GOD is said to be omni-potent almighty and a cause to all happenings.
Will love not be an initiation to bonding, whereas GOD may desire ultimate goal for humans-- salvation/nirvana (free from all bondings/modifications)?
Wives??
HE is said to be indescribable. I doubt HE gave us love to others as a bonding but might have given loving HIM or atrraction towards HIM.
In view of GOD is omnipotent, free will looks bit doubtful.
Correct but voluntry towards HIM, though HE is said to be omni-preasent.
Everyone may want to go to heaven, but who want to die?
Looks mostly correct. But whether performing religions in the perfectional stages is for the sake of aiding GOD or his sake of going towards GOD?
Good question. Whether Force is He or She?
well, god by definition is not dependent or requiring any one's assistance, so that idea can be dropped.
Also a person who is at the perfectional stage of religion has practically already attained god by dint of their purity.
The reason such a person performs these acts is because they have an unsurpassed pure love for god
another question is whether there can be a force bereft of a source .... (is it sufficient to talk of the "force" or the "forceful")
????
kumar: I am puzzled as to why you and others are continuing to associate Nature and god,
if you point is that they are the ying and yang or the positve and negative, then it would make sense, but I can see that, that isn't the case from the replies recieved from other posters, you do understand that Nature and god are mutually exclusive, natural and unnatural, sorry supernatural.
you say this,Diogenes dog said:
and seem to contradict it with this, you want to be at one with nature, but you dont like the world nature formed, makes no sense.Diogenes dog said:
so all the evil things written about god, are lies.?wisdom seeker said:
you know this how?, how did you learn this?wisdom seeker said:
then how do you know so much.wisdom seeker said:
yes like the cancer in a childs head or the aids in children in africa, oh so much love.wisdom seeker said:
oh so the children who have terminal illnesses chose them, ah I see.wisdom seeker said:
where! some links please.wisdom seeker said:
is jesus god?(he never existed anyway, but for aguement sake, we'll continue)because if jesus is god whats he doing in a religious book creating a religion. go figure!wisdom seeker said:
Last edited:
I think you are reasonably correct. Such love can be towards GOD not otherwise,unless we consider all beings and things are GOD, considering GOD is considered omni-present.
????
Frankly, I written this to make describable sense as people still understand and calculate nature but GOD is indescribable.
Personally, I think that most religious adherents practice their religion for selfish reasons: they wish to look pious to their peers.
The perception of piety is important in the attainment of status, particularly where other forms of status achievement are limited to material wealth or are unavailable (such as election to public office, promotion to authority in a job, etc.). Piety can stand in for these achievements in their absence, giving status to the practitioner.
But, as these forms of achievement become available, the religious adherent continues to show piety as a way of further separating himself (or herself) from peers of the same status. It isn't often possible to obtain the best rims for the best car; the highest public office; or the highest position in your place of employment. But, by adding piety to your attained status, you can further separate yourself from your peers by another notch. The result is: we're both managers in the same company, but I'm more pious than you; we're both city councilmen, but I'm more pious; we both have nice cars and the bling, but my bling includes a bigger cross of more precious metal than yours.
Displays of piety range from the little fish emblem on the back of a car to the bible on the desk at work. Some people are satisfied by showing minimum piety: they have a single fish or a bible available at work. Others work it: they have two big fish with a bunch of little fish, bumper stickers that profess their belief and devotion, they never leave without their crucifix around their neck (the bigger and more valuable the better), they have their bible open and highlight verses, and they insert religious phrases and terms into daily conversation when they can. They quote endless passages of their favorite religious mythology to make their points on message boards.
And for all their display of piety, they still have no more access to their god than the most heathen of atheists.
How wrong you are Skin, Jesus says "no man comes to the Father but by me," and I know that to be true, how 'bout you?
Hey Skin, why do you keep preaching Atheism, only a fool says that they're cannot be a Creator.
Hey Skin, why do you keep preaching Atheism, only a fool says that they're cannot be a Creator.
Last edited by a moderator:
What is your evidence that Jesus said anything? You can't provide any without citing biblical mythology, so we can almost dismiss this bit of doctrine as irrelevant, except that it demonstrates the point I made above that there are those that make a scene of their alleged "piety" by quoting scriptures and passages from their favorite mythical sources.
Atheism isn't being "preached." I'll leave that for the religiously deluded. I'm merely inquiring and providing my opinion based on observation. The opinion I offered above is in no way empirical nor do I offer it as such, its pure anecdotal observation and I offer my opinion on the alleged piety of others as a thought experiment for the rationally minded, that they, too, might see if they observe similar characteristics in their encounters with those that allege to be pious.
Finally, I don't think I can be quoted as ever having said "there cannot be a creator." I challenge you to find that quote or retract your ad hominem characterization. I realize you'll do neither, of course, since when you cannot rationally argue a point, it suits you to resort only to ad hominem remarks.