NationStates Jolt Archive

Someone has finally articulated what I have always felt about "religion" ... this guy (http://www.cwg.org/main.php?p=About&sub=Books), in a series of books called "Conversations With God."

Here are some excerpts from one of these "conversations:"


Return to spirituality. Forget about religion.

That statement is going to anger a lot of people.

Why do You say, forget religion?

Because it is not good for you. Understand that in order for organized religion to succeed, it has to make people believe they need it. In order for people to put faith in something else, they must first lose faith in themselves. So the first task or organized religion is to make you lose faith in yourself. The second task is to make you see that it has the answers you do not. And the third and most important task is to make you accept its answers without question.

If you question, you start to think! If you think, you start to go back to that Source Within. Religion can't have you do that, because you're liable to come up with an answer different from what it has contrived. So religion must make you doubt your Self; must make you doubt your own ability to think straight.

The problem for religion is that every so often this backfires -- for if you cannot accept without doubt your own thoughts, how can you not doubt the new ideas about God which religion has given you?

Pretty soon you even doubt My existence -- which, ironically, you never doubted before. When you were living by your intuitive knowing, you may not have had Me all figured out, but you definitely knew I was there!

It is religion which has created agnostics.

Any clear thinker who looks at what religion has done must assume that religion has no God! For it is religion which has filled the hearts of men with fear of God, where once man loved That Which is in all its splendor.

It is religion which has ordered men to bow down before God, where once man rose up in joyful outreach.

It is religion which has burdened man with worries about God's wrath, where once man sought God to lighten his burden.

It is religion which told man to be ashamed of his body and its most natural functions, where once man celebrated those functions as the greatest gift of life!

It is religion which taught you that you must have an intermediary in order to reach God, where once you thought yourself to be reaching God by the simple living of your life in goodness and in truth.

And it is religion which commanded humans to adore God, where once humans adored God because it was impossible not to.

Everywhere religion has gone it has created disunity -- which is the opposite of God.

Pretty soon you even doubt My existence -- which, ironically, you never doubted before.

I'd never doubt your existance eut :fluffle:

Oh, and this anti-religion thing is too close to a religion for my likings. I say don't bother with any religion, major or minor. Decide yourself on your own beliefs, and then maybe have a look and see if there are any religions that agree with you, if only to get to know people of a like mind to yourself.

Oh, and not suggesting you haven't done this Eutrusca ;)

I don't have much experience with organized religion --none from the inside, only a cursory glance from the outside --but what little I have seen is not reflected in that attitude (in the OP).

I'd never doubt your existance eut :fluffle:

Oh, and this anti-religion thing is too close to a religion for my likings. I say don't bother with any religion, major or minor. Decide yourself on your own beliefs, and then maybe have a look and see if there are any religions that agree with you, if only to get to know people of a like mind to yourself.

Oh, and not suggesting you haven't done this Eutrusca ;)
LOL! I've never really doubted your existence either Ifreann! :fluffle:

What you suggest is essentially what I have done. Almost had to "bulid" my own, as a matter of fact. Haven't darkened the door of a church in so long that my family would collectively faint if I did so! Heh!

I would say that such line of thinking applies to some religions, not all, and not the best known. It certainly applies to the thinking of writers like those Scribes who created the Torah, or Augustine (I've often remarked that he was the first self-help book writer, as he uses the exact same method), or Muhammed. But I don't think it applies to lesser-known theologians like Maimonides, Aquinas, or Al-Farabi, whose work attempts, and surprisingly to a large extent succeeds, at creating theologies that are also rigorously logical and reasonable rather than based on the Power of the Deity Compelling You.

I would say that such line of thinking applies to some religions, not all, and not the best known. It certainly applies to the thinking of writers like those Scribes who created the Torah, or Augustine (I've often remarked that he was the first self-help book writer, as he uses the exact same method), or Muhammed. But I don't think it applies to lesser-known theologians like Maimonides, Aquinas, or Al-Farabi, whose work attempts, and surprisingly to a large extent succeeds, at creating theologies that are also rigorously logical and reasonable rather than based on the Power of the Deity Compelling You.
[ sound of ominous thunder in the background ] "Worship Me because I said so!" :D

Sounds like Martin Zender (http://martinzender.com/), author of "How to Quit Church Without Quitting God: 7 Good Reasons to Escape the Box (http://martinzender.com/zender_book_splash_intro.htm)"

http://www.starkehartmann.com/tabloid2.JPG

I'm not keen on his personal eschatology (quasi-millenalist), but the books are an interesting (and FUNNY) read.

Sounds like Martin Zender (http://martinzender.com/), author of "How to Quit Church Without Quitting God: 7 Good Reasons to Escape the Box (http://martinzender.com/zender_book_splash_intro.htm)"

http://www.starkehartmann.com/tabloid2.JPG

I'm not keen on his personal eschatology (quasi-millenalist), but the books are an interesting (and FUNNY) read.
Hmmm! Might have to put those on my list! :)

I share the same thoughts of religion as you do, Eut. But I don't share your sense of spirituality. At least I don't think so. I think I am more of a humanist, though I should be careful of applying that label to myself when I'm not too sure of what it really means to be a humanist. But at any rate my 'sprituality' is inward looking.

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with you, Eut. I think there probally is a higher power, but all of this "Worship Christ, or thou shall burn for an enternity!" is nonsense.

Someone has finally articulated what I have always felt about "religion" ... this guy (http://www.cwg.org/main.php?p=About&sub=Books), in a series of books called "Conversations With God."

Here are some excerpts from one of these "conversations:"


Return to spirituality. Forget about religion.

That statement is going to anger a lot of people.

Why do You say, forget religion?

Because it is not good for you. Understand that in order for organized religion to succeed, it has to make people believe they need it. In order for people to put faith in something else, they must first lose faith in themselves. So the first task or organized religion is to make you lose faith in yourself. The second task is to make you see that it has the answers you do not. And the third and most important task is to make you accept its answers without question.

If you question, you start to think! If you think, you start to go back to that Source Within. Religion can't have you do that, because you're liable to come up with an answer different from what it has contrived. So religion must make you doubt your Self; must make you doubt your own ability to think straight.

The problem for religion is that every so often this backfires -- for if you cannot accept without doubt your own thoughts, how can you not doubt the new ideas about God which religion has given you?

Pretty soon you even doubt My existence -- which, ironically, you never doubted before. When you were living by your intuitive knowing, you may not have had Me all figured out, but you definitely knew I was there!

It is religion which has created agnostics.

Any clear thinker who looks at what religion has done must assume that religion has no God! For it is religion which has filled the hearts of men with fear of God, where once man loved That Which is in all its splendor.

It is religion which has ordered men to bow down before God, where once man rose up in joyful outreach.

It is religion which has burdened man with worries about God's wrath, where once man sought God to lighten his burden.

It is religion which told man to be ashamed of his body and its most natural functions, where once man celebrated those functions as the greatest gift of life!

It is religion which taught you that you must have an intermediary in order to reach God, where once you thought yourself to be reaching God by the simple living of your life in goodness and in truth.

And it is religion which commanded humans to adore God, where once humans adored God because it was impossible not to.

Everywhere religion has gone it has created disunity -- which is the opposite of God.

I've been saying that for years, but nobody listens. Except my cat. My cat understands. *nod* :(

Hmmm! Might have to put those on my list! :)
Little Sample:

Reason Four:

JESUS CHRIST WOULD NOT "GO TO CHURCH" OR JOIN A RELIGION

Whenever someone tells me that they "got religion", I send them a sympathy card and a coupon for Pepto Bismol. Religion is the enemy of good digestion. This is not to mention what it does to your social life. First, religion takes away your fun, because you are certain God is watching your private thoughts on a giant screen. God can't believe how bad you are. You're an ill person. "A sicko," God remarks to a nearby angel. Then He shakes His white, hairy head, strokes His long, flowing beard, and wonders aloud to those at His right hand: "Where did I go wrong with (INSERT YOUR NAME HERE)?"

Religion is man standing on his head for God. The truth is that God is standing on His head for man. But people in religions are too busy doing their thing to even notice that God is doing His.

Unless Jesus wore a robe, a beard, a name tag, and turned water into a non-alcoholic beverage, He would receive the right foot of fellowship in nearly every Christian church in America.

"He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised and we did not esteem Him." (Isaiah 53:2-3)

Enter Jesus, with His big ugly nose and thin lips, His spindly hands and gangly stance. He comes to teach on His accomplishments at the cross. If the people could recover from His embarrassing appearance, they would certainly not tolerate His teaching. That would be the beginning of his slow death - His heralding of the cross and what it meant for all sinners. He would say, "God has allowed us to know the secret of his plan and it is this: He purposed long ago in his sovereign will that all human history should be consummated in Christ, that everything that exists in Heaven or earth should find its perfection and fulfillment in him."*

That would seal his fate, because Christians will not share their heaven with sinners. That's that, and their minds are made up. For Jesus, it would be just like in the old days, except the persecution would be cleaner. Larry would call Him into the pastor's office and say, We really don't want you coming here any more.

*(Eph 1:9-10 JB Phillips)

Ok, other than the personal savior bit, what's not to like? :D

I'm a sicko, yeah, sounds about right.

I go to church but I've always tended to be independent of them when it comes to any kind of theology. God left us free will for a reason, buggered if I lose it to a bunch of old farts who haven't evolved their ideas since Gallileo.

On the other hand, you can always believe in a god who hates everybody and everything, and shake your fist triumphantly at the end of the day saying "HAH! Didn't beat me today, asshole!"

On the other hand, you can always believe in a god who hates everybody and everything, and shake your fist triumphantly at the end of the day saying "HAH! Didn't beat me today, asshole!"
Ah, theodicy.

Martin embarks on a point-by-point refutation of the doctrine of eternal torment. Never has so much been explained for so many in so few and simple words

From Martin Zender goes to Hell: ([Sarc Smilies] added for context)

The Christian version of the mind of Christ is a mind that miraculously justifies the eternal torment of beings created in the image of God, for whom Christ died. It is a mind that justifies the never-ending agony of those once loved by the Deity. But wait. A special feature of the Christmind is the ability to consider the tormented as still loved. How can this be? In heaven, God’s direst wrath is but a newer, higher manifestation of His love. As I said, all of this is miraculous. What new thoughts can the mind of Christ accomplish? Many. For this is an elaborate, divinely-altered mind to which the endless pain of a mother or father becomes “the glory of God.” It is an amazing new mind to which the ceaseless cries of a son or daughter become comforting evidence of “the righteousness of God.” Everything is more refined in heaven, you see. On this old, decrepit earth, the pains of our family cause us pain. Not so in Gloryland. There, love is perfected. Everything is new and improved. In heaven, we will look upon the agony of those we once nurtured with a kind of holy satisfaction. I wish I could describe it better for you. It will be quite lovely. Isn’t it wonderful that we have this to look forward to? :rolleyes:

Before the coming of Jesus, no one could go to hell. Why? Because no one can refuse a cross when there is no cross to refuse. After the cross, however, most the world is doomed because of the near-universality of rejecting it. The doomed will say, “Um, no thanks,” and be damned. These three words, then, “Um, no thanks,” and God’s hands are tied, and down go the majority of mankind. But if no one refuses Jesus, then no one goes to hell. Agreed? But we all know how many people are going to hell. Millions. Millions, because Jesus came, the multitude saw, and the multitude turned away. Looking at this squarely, my conclusion is that the worst thing that ever happened to humanity, the very worst thing that could have happened to it, was the coming of Christ. Before Him, everyone was safe. After Him, the race is on probation, dangling by a thread over a cauldron of ceaseless torture. Is this what you believe? :rolleyes:

If God exists and doesn't believe that man should belong to organized religions, then the main point of your post "spirituality but not religion" is right.

If God doesn't against, there seems little point for spirituality in the sense that it is commonly understood. Though a minority might believe that some sort of spirit might exist without the presence of a higher being.

If God exists and he wants man to take part in religion, then your main point is wrong.


The rest of the post is unsubstantiated rhetoric. It's clear that you don't understand religion, nor are you willing to even look for any good that may have come out of religion. You learned about the crusades and inquisition in history class, you hear about churchs on the news, you browse religious texts only to look for things to use against them.

What does this provide? An extremely lacking view of religion. Do you know why religious people are religious? Do you know the "official reason" why the Catholic Church, the protestant churchs, the Islamic churchs, etc believe that they are necessary? You haven't demonstrated that you do. If you don't know them, how can you refute them? And if you can't refute them, how can you convince people that spirituality and not religion is the way? Come back when you have a more complete understanding of religion and I'll at least respect what you have to say.

Saying things like "religion keeps people from thinking" is an opinion - and not a very strong one considering some of histories greatest thinkers were religious.


All in all my favorite part was this:
"In order for people to put faith in something else, they must first lose faith in themselves."

You (or the article, I guess) makes it sound as if faith is some sort of physical currency of which a person can only have so much.

"Yeah, I think I'd like one faith in God, one faith that my chair wont give in on me when I sit down, and... oh damn, I don't have enough faith for myself."

I think of myself as a beast for I do not think my natural self is wrong. I feal that I was born functional. If I thirst, it is becuase i need water, If I hunger it is becuase I need food, If I am sleepy it is becuase I need rest. I do not accept the suggestion that I am some how being tricked. That it is good discipline to ignore what my mind and my body tell me.

I agree with much of what the auther you quoted has said about religion. And with a small twisting logic I can see much of what he said the truth really is. I have never met God. Why should I believe any god is there?

I would say that such line of thinking applies to some religions, not all, and not the best known. It certainly applies to the thinking of writers like those Scribes who created the Torah, or Augustine (I've often remarked that he was the first self-help book writer, as he uses the exact same method), or Muhammed. But I don't think it applies to lesser-known theologians like Maimonides, Aquinas, or Al-Farabi, whose work attempts, and surprisingly to a large extent succeeds, at creating theologies that are also rigorously logical and reasonable rather than based on the Power of the Deity Compelling You.

Not disagreeing with you here.. but I don't think that Aquinas can be considered a 'lesser-known' theologan than Augustine. I'd bet that he's more widely read.. Maimonides and Al-Farabi I can understand, since most people never bother to read outside the Christian tradition, but Aquinas's name would surely have top billing on the marquis, I think.

If God exists and doesn't believe that man should belong to organized religions, then the main point of your post "spirituality but not religion" is right.

If God doesn't against, there seems little point for spirituality in the sense that it is commonly understood. Though a minority might believe that some sort of spirit might exist without the presence of a higher being.

If God exists and he wants man to take part in religion, then your main point is wrong.


The rest of the post is unsubstantiated rhetoric. It's clear that you don't understand religion, nor are you willing to even look for any good that may have come out of religion. You learned about the crusades and inquisition in history class, you hear about churchs on the news, you browse religious texts only to look for things to use against them.

What does this provide? An extremely lacking view of religion. Do you know why religious people are religious? Do you know the "official reason" why the Catholic Church, the protestant churchs, the Islamic churchs, etc believe that they are necessary? You haven't demonstrated that you do. If you don't know them, how can you refute them? And if you can't refute them, how can you convince people that spirituality and not religion is the way? Come back when you have a more complete understanding of religion and I'll at least respect what you have to say.

Saying things like "religion keeps people from thinking" is an opinion - and not a very strong one considering some of histories greatest thinkers were religious.


All in all my favorite part was this:
"In order for people to put faith in something else, they must first lose faith in themselves."

You (or the article, I guess) makes it sound as if faith is some sort of physical currency of which a person can only have so much.

"Yeah, I think I'd like one faith in God, one faith that my chair wont give in on me when I sit down, and... oh damn, I don't have enough faith for myself."

Considering the religious views of histories greatest thinkers why would rigid religionists want to associate themselves with histories greatest thinkers? To use an example Pat Robertson may want to associate himself with Sir Isaac Newton if only we could forget the religious beliefs of Sir Isaac Newton.

Why is God, as described in the Bible, the one true God, and not Odin?
Why is Jesus the Messiah, and not Buddha?
What makes Christianity the true religion, and not Islam?

People have been inventing Gods, since the dawn of time, and since man first asked existencial questions of himself, "Why are we here?" etc..
Mankind has invented these Gods, to answer unanswerable questions, that cannot be rationally explained, becuase they likely have no logical answers.

Its a scary thought when you realize that there isnt any "powerful old man in the clouds, who watches out for you." No Viking God to carry you to Valhalla when you die...

So....we create myths and fables and call them divine.
This is much more comforting, and self-reassuring than the real alternative.

Return to spirituality. Forget about religion.

I'll never understand why people feel the need to separate these two words as if they necessarily describe different things. The "spirituality" referred to by most people who say, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual," is religion.

That statement is going to anger a lot of people.

Why do You say, forget religion?

Because it is not good for you. Understand that in order for organized religion to succeed, it has to make people believe they need it.

Oh look! The old bait and switch. It says "forget about religion," but then only makes an argument against organized religion. All religion is not organized religion.

In order for people to put faith in something else, they must first lose faith in themselves.

Bullshit. Faith in God means I have no faith in myself? That's news to me.

It is religion which has ordered men to bow down before God, where once man rose up in joyful outreach.

It is religion which has burdened man with worries about God's wrath, where once man sought God to lighten his burden.

It is religion which told man to be ashamed of his body and its most natural functions, where once man celebrated those functions as the greatest gift of life!

It is religion which taught you that you must have an intermediary in order to reach God, where once you thought yourself to be reaching God by the simple living of your life in goodness and in truth.

And it is religion which commanded humans to adore God, where once humans adored God because it was impossible not to.

Everywhere religion has gone it has created disunity -- which is the opposite of God.

No, it is human beings who have ordered and done all of these things - and it is human beings, and their wish to be told what to do instead of thinking for themselves, that have done all of this. It is the human wish to do things because of a reward (or not do them because of a punishment), something we should grow out of but so many do not, that has done this. Religion is a convenient excuse.