I believe in God. It is natural to believe in a higher being. The problem with religion for me is that it was created by people, and that a whole organisation was created to complicate the path between God and man and make it unnatural. Be convinced that no one should come between you and God and no one else should speak to God on your behalf.

Each religion has initially a good point of view. Is there a single religion that puts cruelty first? No. These are manmade thoughts that support this religion which can turn into cruelty and corrupt that one religion. The inquisition is a perfect example. Was it God’s will?
Let me ask you, how many religions betrayed and crucified their saviour? Isn’t this the essence of the destructive thoughts of the past two thousand years? You may say Christians did not crucify their saviour, Jews did. I say that Christ was a saviour for all of us, send by God, and with no allegiance to any human religion. Christianity was created as a cult and it shows we did not understand the message of Christ. If you look at all the riches the church gathered in being the so called representative of Christ on earth, do you really believe God would support such an institution? No, and it does show through all the suffering the church has caused.

How many conflicts have there been because of religion? Take Ireland. Christians and Protestants stood and stand against each other, all the time forgetting about the essential element of the message of Christ. Do you really believe God wants wars to be waged in his name? The bible does list many conflicts, especially in the old testament, but I will explain a bit later I am not so sure about the value of what has been written there. War is an evil, but sometimes, necessary thing. Once you bring in God though and pretend you are fighting in his name, you are actually fighting for someone else.

For me, religion has to come to an end. It was created solely by man and is abused by man. Only spirituality counts, that which can be felt by each and every one of us, but still remains a mystery. I do not say that the government should make an end to religion. God no, let's not go back there. I think that each person can come to this logical conclusion. The belief in God is natural, but when you see how religion has been used during the ages, you can't say that it is pure.

I also ponder about the value of the bible. We keep repeating it is God's word, but apparently He said something else to people of another religion. Also, why is there never an update to the bible? I mean, why did God speak to people so many thousands of years ago and why would he no longer speak to any of us and ask for a new chapter to the bible?
You may shout: blasphemy!, but I only ask you to think about it. Certainly now, with the world in so much danger, why is God not speaking like we are told to He did in the bible? Why are there no longer any prophets who can show us their power so we know they are send by God?

Most religions tell us there is an afterlife. I say that is wrong, life is now. There is nothing else after death. How many people have accepted the Christian belief of suffering, thinking that they earned their misery, subjected themselves to all the taunting by the rich, just because the church promised a better life after death?

I do believe we humans have the knowledge and power to effect change. This source has been mostly used to do evil things. The history of mankind is a tale of atrocities and only a few positive chapters. Religion has not been able to cure us of this wickedness. Religion has been responsible for the most hateful acts invented by the human mind.

Welcome to the board, Karel!

There's some good stuff in that post.

I'll touch base a bit later with some input, and thanks for taking the time to talk with us!

This is strange, Karel--unlike you, I don't believe in God, yet I would have more good things to say about religion. You say that spirituality is all that matters, but of course many come to religion as a way of expressing their spirituality.

If I am following you correctly, you say that no one should come between you and your god and no one should speak to god on your behalf. That is not a natural relationship between a person and god.

In essence, is not Christ a middle man of sorts that would make your relationship with god an unnatural one?

DWill, you are right in saying that many if not all people come to religion to express their spirituality. It is just that religion has been abused during all the ages by those who hold positions of power within that organisation. So there is nothing religious (or spiritual if you want) about those institutions like the church according to me.

Ant, who says it is unnatural to not have any persons/organisations between you and God? You do make a good point about Christ, but he is the son of God, not a middle man.

Yes, there is no argument from me about the abuse. It's an unfortunate fact that from institutions, of whatever type, abuse of power can follow and almost always does. Would what people have valued about their religion have been possible without the formation of the institution? Simply in the sense of bringing people together--one of the things that religion does, again for both good and ill--it seems that the institution was necessary.

Religion existed before it was structured as some institution that enforce social control and obedience. In other words, religion never needed the institution as much as the institution needed religion.

Coming from a culture that waged war for centuries against this system of control created in Rome, and even to this day reject any religious institution trying to impose social control. Cultural expressions of dislike and anger towards the effects religious institutions have had from past to present, are abundant in literature, music, and most other art forms.

People from other cultures seem to perceive this expression as attacks on their own beliefs and religion, and labels it as some form of religious practice within their own religious concepts. This is of course wrong as it is not even any religion in essence that is being targeted, but the institution of obedient submissive social control it is constructed to function with.

Regardless of a religion without any practical use, nor connection to people and environment, it is the institution that weakens the people, their society and culture. People are not born to serve or follow because a system of social control created by humans orders so. People serve or follow only if there is reason or purpose to do so.

For some reason the different "death" cults are embraced in much of the world, by people told to disregard all life as paradise awaits in death. Such dark cloud blinds people from seeing and embracing the beauty and perfection of the paradise existing here and now. Although we are all chained in some way by the influence of these "death" cults, one must never give up attempting to break out of this darkness keeping us down.







You are not born to serve any institution. You are born to participate in the game of life, not to be a passive spectator. No greater contribution to society is there than actively participation.

You might be interested in Robert Wright's The Evolution of God, in which he identifies religion as providing the basis for the earliest social institutions. In other words, theocracy was the norm for societies moving from hunter-gatherer bands to the more complex structure of chiefdoms. As for those h-g peoples, it's true that religion wasn't institutionalized, but neither were there, of course, any other institutions. There is a split in views of how the religious institutions arose. Was it simply a matter of opportunistic members of groups exploiting the fears of the people in order to gain power and wealth? Or is it better described as arising from a demand that people had to be led by someone who could control supernatural forces? Wright says that it wasn't one or the other, but a combination.

Ahhh.... The good old barbaric savages perception who we once used to justify the destruction of so many cultures.

Just to be clear about what I think of when I use the word institution. I think of the physical concrete external system created by people, and not the natural social order emerging out of a society. In other words, you have religion that changes and adapts because it is a part of culture, and you have religion imposed as doctrine without connection to culture and that functions as a external influencing power on society.

Theocracy was not the norm for societies moving from hunter - gatherer societies to what we call civilization. Theocracy was the norm of expanding cultures that needed a social function to justify and enforce control over larger and less homogenous regions.

When I mention the Norse war against the Holy Roman Empire, it is because this situation explains much of what I mean. Christianity existed in different forms amongst the Norse alongside the vast amount of Norse gods. What the Norse rejected was the external institution of Christianity that was constructed and shaped to fit the culture of Rome.

One must remember that Christianity as institution is the creation of Roman culture, and therefore serves to function as a part of Roman culture. This system have little to do with, and find no support in biblical scriptures or the philosophical message put forth by Christian images of God ( Jesus and Ol`pops in the sky ).

Because of the damaging effects of the imposed external institution, people naturally over time must adapt and change it for it to have any function at all. There is a reason why northern Europe broke away from the Catholic church of Rome, and gave birth to the protestant movement. A movement that opened people to change this religion, and adapt it to function as religion intentionally should. (American protestant version somewhat different)

When people wonder why Christianity have the strong position it has in the USA, one reason is rarely ever mentioned. USA is "the" empire, and institutions created to function as part of Roman culture thrives in similar conditions. In time the American adapted Christianity, like mormonism, will dominate and function as institution supporting the power structure of the empire. Something that is neither right or wrong in a moral sense, just natural.

Again I emphasize I refer to religion as institution as external system of power that shapes and influence society, and not as the natural abstract social "binding" as part of culture that emerge and change naturally according to culture.

Religious institution of Christianity as arising from a demand that people had to be led by someone who could control supernatural forces, is the luxury of people disconnected from reality. It worked for the ruling elite in Rome, as it functions well for people in similar social situation. In societies where respect and acknowledgement of the natural forces becomes essential to maintain survival of society, the luxury of faith in control by supernatural intervention eventually lead to downfall of society.





When such societies reach the point where the luxury of belief no longer exist, and fight for survival becomes a reality instead of just imagined, people will be forced to face reality. The question becomes a matter of religion as institution, and its role in the downfall to culture of empire.

By all means "Dwill", I am not saying I do not agree with much of what you say. I only think it is important to remind about social institutions existing before and without connection to religious institution. The Norse had the earliest forms of democratic institution called "Allting".
It was purely functional and practical, and came from the people to serve peoples interests. Perhaps, and I say just perhaps, this different cultural approach to institutions was reason to the different response to the economic crisis seen all over the globe. Institutions should naturally come from the people, serve the people, and be controlled by the people.



And do not be fooled by the red glove in the end. It is not a socialist issue, nor is it a communist issue, it is a issue about freedom and liberty beyond the imagined symbolic value perceived by the color of a glove. No one is born to serve other people. People choose to serve, people are chosen to serve. Saviors does not come by being born with divine grace, or faith and belief in promises of institutions. Saviors are only defined by their actions, and how their actions serve here in the natural world we call reality.

To finish of my seemingly endless rant with what could be some kind of anti-climax. I do not disagree as much as it could seem, I only strongly emphasize the different angle of approach to a interpretation of the same reality that are argued differently only because of subjective perception of it. By understanding that any interpretation is correct, in that it is a subjective perception, it becomes easier to relate to the one objective reality one is eventually forced to recognize and react to.

Sorry I can't look at your clips, Vallhall. My computer is currently not up to it. I'm not sure of understanding you, but I get a strong sense that you see humans' religious impulse as something pure, which then is manipulated by those hungry for power and becomes something serving their needs instead of the people's. I don't wish to be dogmatic about the priority of religious institutions, but what Robert Wright said made sense to me. He is talking about very early stages in the evolution of a culture, stages that first began to happen probably 20,000 years ago. If you agree that all simple cultures at that time had ideas about the supernatural, and that some of these ideas related to the gods sending favor or harm to humans, it's easy to imagine that as groups became larger and social organization became necessary, special people came forward to mediate between gods and people. These specialists may have been the chiefs themselves, or they may have been shamans who were less political figures. Was this all the beginning of the exploitation of people's fears and the hijacking of their pure religion, that has continued to this day? Or was it more likely some of that, but including a large measure of demand by the people for better results with the powers above? That latter is the way I would look at it. Our institutions, of whatever kind, are never merely foisted on us; we participate in the making of them. The example you cite from the Norse is interesting, and I wouldn't know whether it is really an exception to Wright's theory, but it does come from a culture that is quite a lot more advanced than the level that I'm talking about. It did happen that as cultures matured, their social institutions sometimes began to shake off the influence of their religious origins.

I am sorry if I come of as difficult to understand. Unfortunately expressing my thoughts and opinions can be limited by English being a second language.

I am not arguing the evolution of religion in societies, or the rise of institutions of religion. I am arguing the necessity of religious institutions as natural path of evolution, and institutions as element of religious origins.

When I am talking about institutions, I am referring to institutions as a physical organization instructing and influencing society as external force. A vast majority of societies today are societies where religion derives from a external culture, imposed upon by institution without social relation of own origin. Remember I am not talking about institutions as understood by abstract social connections, like a family or a community. But by systems of power and influence like seen in Christianity, Judaism and Islam to mention the examples that corresponds best.

About the rise of religious institutions, I would agree on Wrights view of it being a combination of different factors. Although it is difficult to deny the necessity of systems that functions as mechanisms of control in connection with the birth of what we often define as civilization ( Cities, nation states and centralized rule ). Personally I do not like institutions to much, as they seem to serve the needs and purposes of the established system of power more than society itself. Almost like some divine supernatural force with representatives of a superior human quality than the inferior humans it influence and guides.

" Who watches the watchmen " - Alan Moore

Vallhall, is there a bit of the anarchist in you?

I would say both yes and no. The word Anarchist is loaded with many negative aspects making me to reject it as ideology. In fact, I am not comfortable with identifying me with any ideology. I am a man who have many questions, but hold few answers. All in all, I know humans have the capacity to function as a successful social group without any kind of external superior entity influencing. I know I am not a wild crazy animal who would go insane without any institution to influence my behavior. Neither do I regard people around me in that manner either. I see people as naturally wanting to be good, but trapped in a complex controlling social system of own creation. A system that is fueled by division, fear, threats and dangers.

Of course I could be wrong about how I perceive things. That is why I continue to question own and others views and/or thoughts. I do not know the answers, but I sure as hell would like to know them. How would they come to know, if not by asking and searching for them

I appreciate your spirit of searching, Vallhall. Our difference might be that at my stage of life (59) I tend to see institutions in a more positive light than you do. I'm using a broad definition of institution to include things like family and marriage. The way I look at it is that human society has never existed without institutions, although anthropologists would not label as institutions the social structures of simple societies. I think these were institutions in miniature, though. It's also probably true that in societies without real institutions, control over actions and thought can be more strict that in modern democracies.

What?

"No one goes to the Father but through me." - Pseudo Jesus

You do realize that the character of Jesus in the NT is designed to be a mediator between God and humanity don't you?

That's why Christian sects all compete with one another to claim that they are the true church of Jesus. In doing so they plug their sect into the "me" in the above verse. So Jesus is the "middle man" between God and Humanity and then each competing church aligns themselves with Jesus in order to serve as the "middle man" earthly organization between God and humanity.

And it's a confusing mess. But the deeper insight is that the corruption of the institutions traces back to latching onto the "middle man" status of Jesus in the gospels. If there's no middle man then that's just it, no middle man. Do you see where this line of reasoning begins to lead?