Question about the religious God

a reply to: JUhrman

Thank you for the reply.

originally posted by: JUhrman
Actually many believe the same as you, including religious people

I agree - though many presume that Consciousness-Light is separate from Form. This is particularly the case in various Eastern traditions and Western mystical traditions.

And yes, Absolute Light can and does evoke religious and spiritual devotion in its many modifications. It is only in that devotion and surrender that we can fully realize our non-separation from Absolute Reality - and that is necessarily a great process.

a reply to: bb23108

What I meant was a God that created us but did not intrude after,so to speak. Why would you make such a God responsable for everything and ultimately to blame for it all,like you say. You buy a TV and it so happens that after a week it stops working. Would you blame God(in general terms) for it? I did not mean a God that created us for a greater good or a divine purpose,I meant just the ideea of a creator,I didn't specify what God would be since I think that's impossible. I never said that the God I was talking about answers my prayers or has a personal relationship with me,I don't need him to do that. Would that kind of God be too difficult to accept?

Out of curiosity, are you an atheist,religious person...what have you? Thank you

a reply to: leopayaso1987
Oh, my apologies - my post was not meant to be completely directed at you, but only in general terms relative to your assuming there is a Creator-God of any type. I understand your opening post.

As my post right above yours hopefully implies, I do various religious and spiritual practices in response to recognizing Reality - but not as some kind of method of seeking for Reality or God.

In other words, once one recognizes something about one's connection to Reality, that same Reality will evoke a response relative to surrendering further. You can see the link in my signature if you want more details, rather than me repeating them here.

originally posted by: leopayaso1987
Would you accept the probability of the existence of God ( general term) if it would be stripped away of all it's religious context?

Only way I would accept existence of God is if there is evidence for existence of being/force or what you like to call it.

But from our history and from all other sources, this is something probably we never will be able to prove exists or does not exist, so there is high probablity I will never have to accept it. Reason is that in our history is very clear who created whom and for what reason. (we created gods and later single one, more powerful, all with idea of control)

Now, would you accept there is no god (general term again) as no evidence points to existence of one??

Also not that there is no signs we were created, but there is all signs that we know very well how life evolved and changed through time? Do you accept that or you think everything is product of supreme being?? And final question - what created that supreme being??

originally posted by: leopayaso1987
a reply to: bb23108

What I meant was a God that created us but did not intrude after,so to speak. Why would you make such a God responsable for everything and ultimately to blame for it all,like you say. You buy a TV and it so happens that after a week it stops working. Would you blame God(in general terms) for it? I did not mean a God that created us for a greater good or a divine purpose,I meant just the ideea of a creator,I didn't specify what God would be since I think that's impossible. I never said that the God I was talking about answers my prayers or has a personal relationship with me,I don't need him to do that. Would that kind of God be too difficult to accept?

Out of curiosity, are you an atheist,religious person...what have you? Thank you

I think it is a mistake to imagine most religious people think god created the universe then decided to step back and watch the show, or even causes bad and good things from afar for his enjoyment.

As bb23108 explained, the underlying teaching of most religions and spiritualities is that separation is an illusion. So basically separation between the material and the spiritual, separation between the mundane and divine, between you and me, is an illusion.

Everything is interconnected but it is only visible from a higher level of consciousness, not bound by the limitation of the illusion of separateness.

So basically god never "created" anything. God IS the universe. It started to exist. It evolved. It's still evolving. Everything we are doing to each others, we can blame it on god or blame it on ourselves, but ultimately it's the same thing.


Take this passage from the Bible:

Matthew 25:
34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.’

What does Jesus mean by this? That god/the King is in everyone and everything, and when you help someone in need you help god (or when you hurt someone you hurt god).


It's written so plainly and permeates so much the teaching of Jesus and most religions that I never understand how so many people can still not see how all religions are saying god is in everything and everyone, and that there is no true separation but only the illusion of it. It's actually the same teachings as buddhism so it's not even like all these philosophies/religions are contradicting.

It's only in their earthly interpretations that they become deformed.

a reply to: SuperFrog

I did not get the impression the question was addressed to someone who is already an atheist but maybe I'm reading it wrong

a reply to: leopayaso1987

Thank you for thanking me.

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: SuperFrog

I did not get the impression the question was addressed to someone who is already an atheist but maybe I'm reading it wrong

My apologies if I misunderstood OP, where I was under impression question was for everyone, not just religious folks.

Can you please point where this is specified?

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: SuperFrog

I did not get the impression the question was addressed to someone who is already an atheist but maybe I'm reading it wrong

My apologies if I misunderstood OP, where I was under impression question was for everyone, not just religious folks.

Can you please point where this is specified?

The whole thread and question is based on the assumption that there is a god and explore the relationship between religious people/ believers and how they see and understand said god.

At no point the thread is oriented to whether someone believes in god or not.


Consider it a thought experiment. OP is asking "what if" to better understand how religious people see god. So really I don't think you explaining how you don't believe in god is answering any of the questions of the OP.

Probably just an old habit of sharing your views on religious threads and challenging believers on their ground I even love how you asked classical trick questions about god to OP like this thread is now about whether god is real or not when it's not the point.


Here is the question again from the OP so you can see better what I mean:

Why does God(general term) so very often has to be accompanied by various rituals,incantations, whatever you prefer calling it across such a vast array of religions? Would the ideea that there is a God(general term) that created us for his delight so to say and not for any kind of purpose whatsoever be so sad as to invoque the need for religious rituals,incantations,especially in the Christian and Muslim faith but not only.

a reply to: JUhrman

Sure, and how my answer that I would acknowledge God if we have evidence in his existence does not cover first part of question? Do you think scientific evidence would make change only in religious groups??


But apart from that, I believe i covered second part of your post with my historical view on religion. We have evidence where rituals and how religions interacted with each other, how they acted against non believers or against those who's view is viewed as pagan...

It might be surprised, but I actually studied religion in college, even I might claim that I was born atheist, never was in any religious school or lecture as kid, born into secular family... But part that most interest me is plagiarism of new abrahamic religions, from holy scripts to some of rituals...

Whatever thanks for your input Superfrog.

a reply to: leopayaso1987

I have to say I struggle a bit in understanding if you agree with my point of view or not.

I understand on a purely intellectual way what the concept of Deism involves, a god beyond emotional needs.

But I'm not that god, and I do have emotional needs. It is normal(I think) that I project some of myself upon the god.

If I woke up one day and said, "Okay, the god doesn't need to laugh, so I won't tell him a joke." Still, if I thought of a funny joke, I would say it anyway.

But that other stuff, heaven or hell or afterlife,the bible,quaran etc. No, I don't think the god or I need that. But I do like good stories.

originally posted by: leopayaso1987
Would you accept the probability of the existence of God ( general term) if it would be stripped away of all it's religious context?

The only reason to worship a god is because of the religious context...but I guess that's not your question.

But I'll throw one back at you--I might be inclined to accept the probability of the existence of God if there were acceptable evidence of its existence.

As it stand, for me anyhow, the existence of any god is improbable, religious doctrine or not.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

God has become such a dirty word to some people nowadays, it almost always comes with the baggage of religious dogma. Religious gods who require worship and rituals are not the true God, they are impostors. God is not supernatural, God is everything that is natural.

The fact that we exist in such a profoundly beautifully complex and yet perfectly balanced universe goes to show (IMHO) that God truly exists. He/she is not separate from this reality but is interconnected with everything in existence.

They say God is light, what is it that reveals the universe around you? The image of light you see, consciousness. It is the true miracle. Drop the religious stigma surrounding the word God and look at it in a new way.

a reply to: bb23108

Thank you for your comments and sorry fir the delay,just finished working.