Do religions represent God?

[Tonus]

The problem Ton is not whether I understand or not what evidence is.

It's only one of your problems, but it IS a problem. For example, first you say this:

I know very well what evidence is.

Then you immediately contradict yourself with your next statement:

It is rather you that do not understand why evidence is not given to anyone who can't hold such evidence.

Figure out what evidence is and what it means for something to be evident, and then we can work from there.

[Silver]

It never came in their mind that what religions say may be totally different from what God (if exist at all)
may think or say.

Good thing god does not exist, then.

[MTL]

I noticed that most people in the forum when talk about God both in the positive and negative take from what religions say.
It never came in their mind that what religions say may be totally different from what God (if exist at all)
may think or say.
I brought the attention to this failing time and time again but people keep on falling in the same trap so I
open a poll to see what they think regard all this.

Haven't read through the other responses, yet, but here's my response:

This concept has been my argument to my own religious family, for several years now:

I begin by pointing out that the Abrahamic religions equate "GOD" with "TRUTH"
but that in teaching their acolytes to not question their "Truth" that they might be in fact teaching those people to shut out any ACTUAL truth that God, should He actually exist, might have put out there for people to find;

For example, Homosexuality might very well be part of God's Design for the Universe,
...and Science might be the vehicle which God left us to discover His Design...
but that possibility doesn't fit in with their "TRUTH".

So therefore it is heresy.

Therefore,
should it someday be discovered that God's existence can be conclusively proven,
but, should it also be discovered that what His Nature actually IS,
is NOT, in fact, what the Religions of the world say He is SUPPOSED to be..

...then God Himself would be a Heretic.

In other words,

Religion does NOT serve God.

Religion serves Religion.

And, as I see it,

An individual cannot (with any degree of integrity)
serve BOTH God, and a Religion, at the same time.


Note:  All of this is not to say that I personally believe in God;
but I recognize you cannot convince believers to stop believing, nine times out of ten,
but if they are really interested in pursuing the service of God with any degree of integrity,
then this argument might, eventually, make them realize this:

THEY CAN KEEP THEIR FAITH IN GOD, WITHOUT NEEDING TO ASCRIBE A RELIGIOUS DOGMA TO THAT FAITH;
AND INDEED, MUST JETTISON ALL RELIGIOUS DOGMA, IF THEY ARE TO SERVE GOD PROPERLY, AT ALL.

I really have no problem with people who feel that there is a God out there.

What I take issue with is all the dogma people feel the need to clap onto God; all the parameters
about what He is, what He isn't, what He wants, what He doesn't want, etc.

The whole concept of "sin" is man-made, IMO,
and the only reasons religion exists is because:

A.   Human beings CANNOT STAND not having answers, to certain questions,
that they THINK that they need to have IMMEDIATELY; and cannot simply accept NOT knowing;

B.  Because human beings CANNOT ACCEPT that life simply isn't fair...they can't accept that the painting of their life depicts an ending in tragedy and injustice...so they simply make the canvas bigger still, so as to dwarf the tragedy their lives depict, and instead insert it into a larger picture....a bigger context, one in which justice is served.  They basically cannot accept the book ending on a sad note, so they write another chapter called "Eternity" which follows death, with two scenes: Heaven and Hell, to rectify what wasn't resolved to their satisfaction at the end of the "Life" chapter.

[Little Rik]

The problem Ton is not whether I understand or not what evidence is.

It's only one of your problems, but it IS a problem.  For example, first you say this:

I know very well what evidence is.

Then you immediately contradict yourself with your next statement:

It is rather you that do not understand why evidence is not given to anyone who can't hold such evidence.

Figure out what evidence is and what it means for something to be evident, and then we can work from there.

The contradictions that you see in my statements are only in your head (unfortunately for your head).  

---

It never came in their mind that what religions say may be totally different from what God (if exist at all)
may think or say.

Good thing god does not exist, then.

You don't get it Mael, do you?  

By posting in an atheist forum come natural to point out what the mainstream think.  
You never thought about that Mael, did you?  

---

I noticed that most people in the forum when talk about God both in the positive and negative take from what religions say.
It never came in their mind that what religions say may be totally different from what God (if exist at all)
may think or say.
I brought the attention to this failing time and time again but people keep on falling in the same trap so I
open a poll to see what they think regard all this.

Haven't read through the other responses, yet, but here's my response:

This concept has been my argument to my own religious family, for several years now:

I begin by pointing out that the Abrahamic religions equate "GOD" with "TRUTH"
but that in teaching their acolytes to not question their "Truth" that they might be in fact teaching those people to shut out any ACTUAL truth that God, should He actually exist, might have put out there for people to find;

For example, Homosexuality might very well be part of God's Design for the Universe,
...and Science might be the vehicle which God left us to discover His Design...
but that possibility doesn't fit in with their "TRUTH".

So therefore it is heresy.

Therefore,
should it someday be discovered that God's existence can be conclusively proven,
but, should it also be discovered that what His Nature actually IS,
is NOT, in fact, what the Religions of the world say He is SUPPOSED to be..

...then God Himself would be a Heretic.

In other words,

Religion does NOT serve God.

Religion serves Religion.

And, as I see it,

An individual cannot (with any degree of integrity)
serve BOTH God, and a Religion, at the same time.


Note:  All of this is not to say that I personally believe in God;
but I recognize you cannot convince believers to stop believing, nine times out of ten,
but if they are really interested in pursuing the service of God with any degree of integrity,
then this argument might, eventually, make them realize this:

THEY CAN KEEP THEIR FAITH IN GOD, WITHOUT NEEDING TO ASCRIBE A RELIGIOUS DOGMA TO THAT FAITH;
AND INDEED, MUST JETTISON ALL RELIGIOUS DOGMA, IF THEY ARE TO SERVE GOD PROPERLY, AT ALL.

I really have no problem with people who feel that there is a God out there.

What I take issue with is all the dogma people feel the need to clap onto God; all the parameters
about what He is, what He isn't, what He wants, what He doesn't want, etc.

The whole concept of "sin" is man-made, IMO,
and the only reasons religion exists is because:

A.   Human beings CANNOT STAND not having answers, to certain questions,
that they THINK that they need to have IMMEDIATELY; and cannot simply accept NOT knowing;

B.  Because human beings CANNOT ACCEPT that life simply isn't fair...they can't accept that the painting of their life depicts an ending in tragedy and injustice...so they simply make the canvas bigger still, so as to dwarf the tragedy their lives depict, and instead insert it into a larger picture....a bigger context, one in which justice is served.  They basically cannot accept the book ending on a sad note, so they write another chapter called "Eternity" which follows death, with two scenes: Heaven and Hell, to rectify what wasn't resolved to their satisfaction at the end of the "Life" chapter.

Mate.  

In your long post you deal with several issues.
If I would have to answer all of this in detail it would take me the time that I just don't have so I just answer the main point.
It is very important to know how religions started and why they do start in the first place.
Jesus, Shiva, Krishna, Buddha never intended to start religions.
In fact they were against religions and their dogmas.
They started spirituality not religions.
After their departure some followers change the rules and turn spirituality into religions with their invented dogmas about paradise if you follow them or hell if you don't but the issue goes a lot further than that and today spirituality is confined to few smart people who didn't fall in the trap.  

[MTL]

---

Haven't read through the other responses, yet, but here's my response:

This concept has been my argument to my own religious family, for several years now:

I begin by pointing out that the Abrahamic religions equate "GOD" with "TRUTH"
but that in teaching their acolytes to not question their "Truth" that they might be in fact teaching those people to shut out any ACTUAL truth that God, should He actually exist, might have put out there for people to find;

For example, Homosexuality might very well be part of God's Design for the Universe,
...and Science might be the vehicle which God left us to discover His Design...
but that possibility doesn't fit in with their "TRUTH".

So therefore it is heresy.

Therefore,
should it someday be discovered that God's existence can be conclusively proven,
but, should it also be discovered that what His Nature actually IS,
is NOT, in fact, what the Religions of the world say He is SUPPOSED to be..

...then God Himself would be a Heretic.

In other words,

Religion does NOT serve God.

Religion serves Religion.

And, as I see it,

An individual cannot (with any degree of integrity)
serve BOTH God, and a Religion, at the same time.


Note:  All of this is not to say that I personally believe in God;
but I recognize you cannot convince believers to stop believing, nine times out of ten,
but if they are really interested in pursuing the service of God with any degree of integrity,
then this argument might, eventually, make them realize this:

THEY CAN KEEP THEIR FAITH IN GOD, WITHOUT NEEDING TO ASCRIBE A RELIGIOUS DOGMA TO THAT FAITH;
AND INDEED, MUST JETTISON ALL RELIGIOUS DOGMA, IF THEY ARE TO SERVE GOD PROPERLY, AT ALL.

I really have no problem with people who feel that there is a God out there.

What I take issue with is all the dogma people feel the need to clap onto God; all the parameters
about what He is, what He isn't, what He wants, what He doesn't want, etc.

The whole concept of "sin" is man-made, IMO,
and the only reasons religion exists is because:

A.   Human beings CANNOT STAND not having answers, to certain questions,
that they THINK that they need to have IMMEDIATELY; and cannot simply accept NOT knowing;

B.  Because human beings CANNOT ACCEPT that life simply isn't fair...they can't accept that the painting of their life depicts an ending in tragedy and injustice...so they simply make the canvas bigger still, so as to dwarf the tragedy their lives depict, and instead insert it into a larger picture....a bigger context, one in which justice is served.  They basically cannot accept the book ending on a sad note, so they write another chapter called "Eternity" which follows death, with two scenes: Heaven and Hell, to rectify what wasn't resolved to their satisfaction at the end of the "Life" chapter.

Mate.  

In your long post you deal with several issues.
If I would have to answer all of this in detail it would take me the time that I just don't have so I just answer the main point.
It is very important to know how religions started and why they do start in the first place.
Jesus, Shiva, Krishna, Buddha never intended to start religions.
In fact they were against religions and their dogmas.
They started spirituality not religions.
After their departure some followers change the rules and turn spirituality into religions with their invented dogmas about paradise if you follow them or hell if you don't but the issue goes a lot further than that and today spirituality is confined to few smart people who didn't fall in the trap.  

*blink*

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

He told people what to do (worship Him) to get into Heaven.

He told them what was right and what was wrong (concept of "sin")

He rebuked them for their lack of faith.

He instructed His followers to go out into the world and tell others what He told them.

If that isn't starting a religion, then I don't know what is.


I am willing to allow for the possibility that there is a god.

I adamantly refuse to attach any degree of value to any earthly religion.


Anyone claiming to be the Son of God, or a Prophet, is suspect.


Jesus might have been a demon.

(But he was more likely to have either been a con-artist or crackpot....or fictional, altogether).


Being a "spiritual" person doesn't mean believing in fairytales.

I consider myself a spiritual person, but that doesn't mean pulling the wool over my own eyes.


I can allow for the possibility of God's existence, without placing any parameters onto that possibility, whatsoever.
I can accept whatever might be the reality....like, maybe God exists, and IS eternal...but we are not.

My "spirituality" does not hang on GETTING anything out of it, such as eternal life.

[Tonus]

The contradictions that you see in my statements are only in your head (unfortunately for your head).

Hey, you're the one who wrote them down.

[Little Rik]

---

Mate.  

In your long post you deal with several issues.
If I would have to answer all of this in detail it would take me the time that I just don't have so I just answer the main point.
It is very important to know how religions started and why they do start in the first place.
Jesus, Shiva, Krishna, Buddha never intended to start religions.
In fact they were against religions and their dogmas.
They started spirituality not religions.
After their departure some followers change the rules and turn spirituality into religions with their invented dogmas about paradise if you follow them or hell if you don't but the issue goes a lot further than that and today spirituality is confined to few smart people who didn't fall in the trap.  

*blink*

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

He told people what to do (worship Him) to get into Heaven.

He told them what was right and what was wrong (concept of "sin")

He rebuked them for their lack of faith.

He instructed His followers to go out into the world and tell others what He told them.

If that isn't starting a religion, then I don't know what is.


I am willing to allow for the possibility that there is a god.

I adamantly refuse to attach any degree of value to any earthly religion.


Anyone claiming to be the Son of God, or a Prophet, is suspect.


Jesus might have been a demon.

(But he was more likely to have either been a con-artist or crackpot....or fictional, altogether).


Being a "spiritual" person doesn't mean believing in fairytales.

I consider myself a spiritual person, but that doesn't mean pulling the wool over my own eyes.


I can allow for the possibility of God's existence, without placing any parameters onto that possibility, whatsoever.
I can accept whatever might be the reality....like, maybe God exists, and IS eternal...but we are not.

My "spirituality" does not hang on GETTING anything out of it, such as eternal life.

As I already said to other people in here if you want to know the real life of Jesus you should really read
the aquarium Gospel of Levi.
As far as Jesus being the son of God why not.
After all we all are the sons and daughters of God.
Religions twist Jesus words by saying that he is the only son of God that is why it is important not to fail in the religious trap and listen to all their invented stories.  

[Angrboda]

As I already said to other people in here if you want to know the real life of Jesus you should really read
the aquarium Gospel of Levi.
As far as Jesus being the son of God why not.
After all we all are the sons and daughters of God.
Religions twist Jesus words by saying that he is the only son of God that is why it is important not to fail in the religious trap and listen to all their invented stories.  

No, of course not. Instead we should listen to the invented stories of schmucks like you and Levi. You're so transparent it's embarrassing.

[MTL]

As far as Jesus being the son of God why not.
After all we all are the sons and daughters of God.

I have used almost the exact same wording when pointing out to my Baptist family
that Jesus might have been a demon.

the devil, after all, is said to mix lies with truth.

Maybe Jesus IS the Son of God....but, as you say, aren't we all?

So is Lucifer, come to that.

[robvalue]

Sure we are. And I've not had any pocket money for about 30 years off him. Pay up you beardy bastard!

Great to see you back on the forum MTL