Return to: Home | Blogs | The Faith Column

11 comments from readers

FreedomLand
26 November 2008 at 00:29

"...a Supreme Being that has continually sent divinely-inspired ‘Messengers’ – or 'Manifestations of God' - to impart to humanity the knowledge and spiritual impetus for its social evolution..."

In a world of excessively heirarchical religions (all male-dominated), can there be a religion which is God's religion and not man's? It is refreshing to find one which has "no clergy and very few formal rituals", thank goodness. Its almost like Confucianism.

Puting aside the pompousness of the "holy" Roman empire, how many of us have appreciated NOT living under some kind of imperialistic regime, whether it be of church or of state? How many man-made religions quickly overlook the fact that God lives in the Hearts of each and every one of us?

But it is not so much that "God is one" but that we are all one in God - or, we are all part of God's Creation. If there were ever any "chosen ones", it was never that anyone was excluded. So, as we are all part of this Creation, why shouldn't "god" send us inspiration and teaching in various ways to help us to progress?

Of course, that IS the problem. There are some on Earth who do not want others to progress. Thus they deny any concept of spiritual progress in others and put themselves upon high to be worshipped and bowed down to. As a result, they also prevent their own spiritual progress so how can such as these ever espouse to running a church/religion for God?

Thus we have many of mans' religions but few of God's religions. The more there is a heirarchy and the more there is authoritarianism, the more peoples' spirituality is usurped by preoccupation with ceremony and banging of cymbals and blowing of trumpets (or expensive organs) for their own amusement. The there is the hypnotic false message that you are all unworthy miserable little sinners..... and that we have constructed a "hell" just for you, uhh..... and only we can save you.

gnuneo
26 November 2008 at 06:08

God does not require a religion.

baldev
26 November 2008 at 19:13

Men, powerful men, have sabotaged religious ethos for greed.

The path of Bahaiism is probably the same pathway that all beliefs were until the dictation of " men power" desecrated peaceful and loved laden religion to what we see today.

Will this ever end, will the next coming of Gods messenger make a difference ?

" sarab Ka date ek hai, dusar nahina koe"

sayeth Nanak..."we are of the one Lord, no one is of the other".

Naz thank you, your wisdom I pray travel far and wide.

Mauxito
26 November 2008 at 19:13

@ gnuneo

Rigth, God does not require a religion.

But human, need it.

gnuneo
26 November 2008 at 21:33

mauxito: yes, humans generally "need" to have a belief system, a personal way of structuring the various values they experience in their daily lives. Interestingly, the more "beliefs" they hold, the less they tend to experience Reality directly, and the more interpretative their experiences/lives become.

not particularly profound btw, just basic Taoism.

it can be seen therefore, that this "need" for Religion, is actually the greatest obstacle to direct experience of Reality itself - and surely there can be few greater concepts of God than that of True Reality?

to summarise, not only therefore is the claim to be "The Religion of God" hubris in the extreme, it is also a pure oxymoron.

organised religions are little more than tax-exempt cults.

Aiya-Oba
28 November 2008 at 15:19

The greatest one, is the everlasting One, in every possible one.-Aiya-Oba (Poet/Philosopher).

gnuneo
28 November 2008 at 20:41

"singularity". The undefinable word.

FreedomLand
29 November 2008 at 08:58

Uhh, at it again, eh, gnuneo? The perfect "singularity" is NOT undefineable despite assumptions based upon past erroneous or limited knowledge.

As we are told, the big bang was the origin of the Universe. The human race and all other 'living' things on this Earth evolved from some kind of supposed biological soup. Thus our puny beginnings are far distant from the original Creation.

Such thought horrify the religious as they are still utterly pre-occupied with (a) their own fragile and pathetic egos, and (b) their utter fear of the ultimate Truth about themselves. Thus they ever contrive religions to make "god the creator" in their own image - as a means of limiting Its potential.

Sadly for them, "god" is not a man but a woman. What is worse is that she is black! Some South asian religions know this but still deny it as they (the men) ever put their women "to the test" instread of themselves. Actually, though, "god" is neither as It exisited along with Its Cosmos before petty human 'life' was created AND evolved here on Earth.

gnuneo
30 November 2008 at 23:42

for such an "enlightened" person, FreedomLand, you do rather seem permanently angry. Not that i disavow anger myself, or argue there is not ample cause for it in general, but you *could* try being a little more focussed on *what* you are angry about.

i don't really see why what i write causes you to be so fuming - indeed, we seem to agree on the basics of a great deal. However, to answer your points:

"The perfect "singularity" is NOT undefineable despite assumptions based upon past erroneous or limited knowledge. "

as far as i am aware, Physicists have still not managed to hammer out a definition of "singularity", indeed the term, as Stephen Hawking said, refers to a process/state that where all 'normal' conventions in physics are reversed, chewed up, and spat out. So unless matter have changed in recent years since i last perused the data available (please feel free to update me if you have better data), the term "Singularity" is still undefined... and thus by Scientific definition 'undefinable'. Matters may change on that, i agree.

"As we are told, the big bang was the origin of the Universe. The human race and all other 'living' things on this Earth evolved from some kind of supposed biological soup. Thus our puny beginnings are far distant from the original Creation."

and so...? What's your point?

"Such thought horrify the religious as they are still utterly pre-occupied with (a) their own fragile and pathetic egos, and (b) their utter fear of the ultimate Truth about themselves. Thus they ever contrive religions to make "god the creator" in their own image - as a means of limiting Its potential."

and *i* am one of those "religious types pre-occupied with my ego"? Oooh, the outrage! LOL, perhaps i'll get Brown involved to soothe my wounded feelings... :)

but as it happens i tend to agree, although with the HUGE proviso that this does not cover ALL 'religious' persons, or indeed religions.

gnuneo
30 November 2008 at 23:52

FYI QM states that all conceptions of externalities (such as God(s)ess(es) are projections from the individual Selves.

"Sadly for them, "god" is not a man but a woman. What is worse is that she is black! Some South asian religions know this but still deny it as they (the men) ever put their women "to the test" instread of themselves. Actually, though, "god" is neither as It exisited along with Its Cosmos before petty human 'life' was created AND evolved here on Earth."

thank you for the update, however i try to always remember that saying "God is X" is generally continuing the flaw that i mentioned above - the projection thingie? Saying "God(s)ess(es) can be understood as X" however leaves open new interpretations, and avoids such pitfalls as you dropped yourself into with that entire paragraph.

btw, GAIA can be understood as being generally female, although has a male aspect that can also be anthropomorphised, whilst the Universe is generally masculine (as it is expansionary), although also has a female aspect that can be anthropomorphised.

i don't think either the Universe or GAIA recognises skin colour as any kind of determinant however! LMAO :D

nawawimohamad
14 December 2008 at 09:25

God is one but there are many religions, many are man made, and mostly false. But surely there is a true one.