Is god above religion?

1. 50

   sweetie1posted 11 years ago

   Recently a friend of mine had an argument with me about God and religion. He said that God can not be above religion and can not do anything which religion do not allow. He is like Judge who has to punish or reward everyone for his or her deeds but can not do anything which religion won't allow. I am confused because I thought religion is because of God and not the other way round.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The "theory" of G/god stems long before religion ever existed. However, you could classify their particular culture and lifestyle as a religion.
      
      Nowadays, any belief which leads to a G/god, can be a religion, regardless of how foolish it might be.
      Tell you friend, he is not making sense.
      Really? How did your friend ever draw this conclusion?
      Religion is actually a classification. It has it's own definition. G/god, in theory, is the "creator", "supreme being", a "higher" power.
      
      A G/god didn't create religion. Each book of each religion of the world is supposedly inspired by a G/god. It's unknown if the actual inspiration was given by a G/god. Which is why faith is required. Many people wrote things down, but not all them are in the books available. Who is to determine what is actually inspired by a G/god. Who is qualified? No one actually.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      mischeviousmeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Man had a perception of the self and in not understanding, created God/god/gods to fill the gaps. We just haven't moved on yet, hence we perpetuate the discord between the self and the world at large. People tend to think of life as having or needing a cause, if it does, we may never know.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Well, that explains your aimlessness.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            mischeviousmeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Aimlessness? If I am vaigue it's for my own reasons. If it bothers you, get a life.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               It doesn't bother me at all. You can show yourself off however you choose. I'll just take comfort in pointing out the things you do show off.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  mischeviousmeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Fine and I'll point out how narcissistic that sounds, as if you're any better. You're wearing a skin suit too and you look equally awkward... Is that realy even your picture? I highly doubt you're a bald eagle...

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm sure it sounds narcissistic. But, in actuality and reality, it's not. And, I'm not making any claim of being better than you, as you're implying. But, then again, you're good for vague statements and incoherent messages.
                     Mockery? Your character continues to talk about you even more. Keep talking.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        mischeviousmeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Fine... Do you need someone to fill your time? I could go on forever, but you already knew that. Didn't you?

                        replyreport
                        1. 69

                           Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Fill my time? I have time. I know how to use it to my advantage, so the time I do spend on pointing out your actions, isn't a waste. Even if I didn't have time to wasted, pointing out your actions would still be advantageous.
                           Yes, and I even expected you to ask.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              mischeviousmeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Thanks for the stock you've let me take up in your head, renting space in my own was getting boring.

                              replyreport
                              1. 69

                                 Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Dude, you're so fleeting it's not even funny. To think that you have that kind of impact is absurd and purely ego on steroids.
                                 
                                 You take up no space in my mind, brain or head, whichever you want. I don't give you a second thought, until I have to read one of your post. Every action you take implicates you more. When I am done writing a post in response to you, I always expect a response because you don't know any better.
                                 
                                 You're like the energizer bunny on lithium. You never know when you've been beaten in a conversation. You never know how to stay on topic. You just keep going, going and going.
                                 
                                 Here's an old saying you might want to apply to your life sometime in the near future- when you're already in a ditch/hole, it is always best to stop digging.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    mischeviousmeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    You're the one that initially replied to me in this thread (I may be mistaken), but if you're answering me, I must be getting to you on some level.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 69

                                       Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Getting to me? You really think you're that special, as to get under my skin? If so, then you've obviously have an inflated ego. All I did was make a statement which was a testimony to your action. Apparently, it is you who has issue with my statement.
                                       
                                       So, now you're attempting to place blame on me for something you do often? You implicate yourself even more with every word you speak.
                                       
                                       You're the one who began posting. I responded to the thread before you did. When I responded to your post, was to only point out what I did. It wasn't to engage you in conversation. It was to make a plain statement about your actions.
                                       
                                       Now, if I haven't been speaking the truth about you, then you would have not even bothered with my post, but yet here we are?

                                       report
                                       1. 60

                                          mischeviousmeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          You replied and you're still replying. I'm glad I'm popular with you, I love having fans.

                                          report
   3. 83

      pennyluposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi.  I don't know that I can really answer this question to any satisfaction, but I think you are very sincere and your question is valid.  In thinking the question outloud, I thought about how "religion" is defined, and how "God" is defined.  Religion is simply a "system of belief".  God, on the other hand, is a Being, and whether a person believes that or not does not necessarily change the fact that God exists and that He is a Being.  As far as God not being able to do something religion does not allow, perhaps your friend simply meant that God cannot do something out of character of who and what He is.  For example, God is merciful.  If a religion were to state that mercy is not allowed (I am imagining this for I know of no religion that would say that), then that religion would demean God, for God is merciful.  I personally think that religion is important, and respect is important regardless of a person's religious beliefs.  Ultimately though, can a system be above a divine eternal Being?

      replyreport
   4. 61

      Ruben Riveraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Religion is because of people

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Team Wisemanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Religion is man made and not of God at all! Jesus Christ had no "religion" He only had a RELATIONSHIP. Nothing more. It is good to know that He only desires me and my love and not my money nor does He care to make me sit with a bunch of cruel mean hearted and high minded church goers (not all of you) every week. Religion sucks...Jesus Christ even hated it, thank God for Jesus Christ and the relationship He so easily allows us to have with Him.

         replyreport
   5. 40

      H P Roychoudhuryposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Religion is now become a part of our life. We are accustomed with the system of religion right from the birth as it is practice by our parents and grand father and so on as if it has become a customary law. It has brought a discipline in our life system. In this respect it is very essential and it is very good. Now who has brought this religion? Our past history says it has been brought by intelligent people who are recognized as prophet or messengers of God. Who is God? How he had came in the minds of humanity. My personal idea is something with which others might be liked, well, if not forgets and excuse me. In a family Father is the guardian, so long he is alive every thing goes with him or in his absence every thing also goes with him remembering his ideals as the guidance. God is the imaginary Father created by the human beings for the guidance of religion to carry out the process of life in a discipline manner.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Guardian? Says who? Yes, a man will protect his family at all costs, but so will the mother. No Guardian needed.

         replyreport
         1. 40

            H P Roychoudhuryposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, a man will protect his family. A family consists of a man (Father), a woman (Mother) and children. A man who is no other than the Father and who is the guardian will protect the family.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Family isn't just a man(Father) and woman(mother), and child. The fact that two men can raise a child or two women can raise a child. Family is what you make it.

               replyreport
               1. 40

                  H P Roychoudhuryposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  My definition of family is an old one and not of the definition of modern one as that of the definition of marriage such as gay-marriage. Two men or two women can build up a family with an adapted child. But it is not a normal family as we find in most of the country among most of the people.

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Yeah, I know. That's the problem. Step into the 21st century.
                     With an "adopted" child? I take it you forget about surrogates? And, women can be fertilized to carry. No adoption necessary, but it is an option.
                     Normal? Who is to say what is "normal". I mean, you cannot even state for a fact YOU are normal. So please, cut the BS.

                     replyreport
                     1. 40

                        H P Roychoudhuryposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Normal? Who is to say what is "normal".
                        Yes, you are right to ask ‘What is normal’. Who is to decide what is normal. It is the people of the globe to decide. What the majority to the extent of 98% people are following, can’t we not say that is normal.

                        replyreport
                        1. 69

                           Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Normal is a BS description of people on an individual level and almost meaningless.
                           
                           You could look at someone and say they are normal by your standards, and then all of sudden they commit mass murder. Are they still normal?
                           
                           Majority doesn't rule or even make the rules. Life is ever changing and we(as individuals) must change with it or die out.

                           replyreport
   6. 74

      soumyasrajanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi! Sweetie
      considering that u r from India, I am a little surprised that why you should be so puzzled about such questions.  In our country neither religion ( have you noticed that most Indian languages do not have even word religion - the common word used is Dhrama which means  that which upholds, supports or maintains the regulatory order of the universe- so it is more like science and social science put together)  nor  existence of God (or not God) is such an important issue.
      To worry about  who is above or below is least of our worries.
      
      For us truth and understanding and identifying with it is more interesting and important. Our sentiments are more like - "all right paths (it does not matter whether you go via God or via any religion or via science) lead to the same truth (and you choose one or more what ever you find most suitable for yourself)", "vasudhaiva kutumbakam (whole earth every body on it is our family)", "even a dot on wall is as respectful as any God" are the sentiments which teach us how to understand such aspects.
      I once wrote an article describing some of the ideas in our ancient philosophies - when you have time do go through it, hope you can enjoy it.
      
      http://soumyasrajan.hubpages.com/hub/Truth-what-it-is

      replyreport
      1. 50

         sweetie1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         soumyasrajan, yes I am from India and if you remember even Brahma ( The creator) was punished because he took a shape of husband of a lady and had his way with her.. Since then he is not worshiped anywhere. There are hardly any temples of him. So if God does something bad he is punished too. So more I think on it more I feel god is not above the religion he belongs to.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            soumyasrajanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hi Sweetie
            I think u r a little confused. Brhama Vishnu Mahesh are our devatas.  Generally in  English that is translated as God though it is a little different than the concept of God as an omnipresent entity common in many religion which have strong belief systems like Abrahmaic religions (like Islam or Christianity etc.)
            
            In such religions a follower has to generally follow some basic discipline like he/she has to accept the God as described in that religion as God for him/her and no other God etc. You have then a very  disciplined system where certain aspects you do not have flexibility. Also ritualistic aspects as well as philosophical aspects are quite mixed and discipline involves following rules about both of them. The types of questions, which are bothering you can matter a lot, in such religion systems. Here your attention is  more on following rules and ritualistic aspects properly and have beliefs exactly in accordance pf belief system. It can be fun to do that but point is it is very disciplined regimental, you do not have much choice or flexibility with in a system.
            While being brought up in a different system, you do not have compulsion to get into that.
            
            In religions  which originated in India, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism etc. (and I think even in religions which originated in other Eastern countries like China or Japan etc.), we have a lot more freedom. The type of aspect you are describing like worshiping Brahma as creator or Vishnu, Siva etc. (we are supposed to have have more than 330 million devatas in Hinduism, it is fun) are ritualistic aspects. In these systems ritualistic aspects and philosophical aspects are not so much mixed. Philosophical aspects may influence ritualistic aspects but other way intrusion is not at all there.
            
            For us rituals are more for fun and enjoyment. The type of questions which you are asking to learn and get clarified about that one has to see philosophical aspects and not decide just based on ritualistic aspects.
            
            There also we do  have many philosophies and our sentiment is that all philosophies  (or paths) are parallel and lead to the same truth, you follow one or more of them which ever you find suitable. Even you can build your own philosophical system if you feel that is more suitable.
            
            If you read a little about these philosophies - basic ideas (many of them I have described in the above article- one  I have given in much more details which is currently most popular adviata vedanta) you will see that questions you are asking may not even make sense in  that analysis. Many of our philosophies  Like one of the oldest one Samkhya (started by Kapila Muni) , or very ritualistic one Mimamsa, or Budhism, or Jainism etc. are atheist, in the   sense that they do not talk about God at all.
            
            Mimamsa even says clearly that there is not sufficient  evidence to make a statement about existence or not existence of an Omnipresent creator entity (God in your language)  nor is there any reason to postulate any such statement.
            
            Our philosophies are more interested in  understanding truth and identifying with it - that is the goal rather than  worrying about questions of the type you ask. It is much more pleasant to understand universe, our existence, truth instead of worrying about those questions.
            
            Over all we practically do not have any universal belief system in our religions which has to be followed by all. Nor do we have conversion system, which  tries to convert people to religions. More or less you choose what ever you find suitable form these philosophies or ideas from other religions too.
            
            So trying to find answer in rather raw manner as you were doing -- "some body said this so  is it true etc."  does not make much sense. 
            
            Just read a little bit of these basic ideas, try to understand them (they are simple ideas to understand based on very simple observations) and enjoy that understanding that leads you nearer to truth. I am sure you will enjoy that much more than getting into such fruitless debate.

            replyreport
            1. 74

               soumyasrajanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Oh! Some how assumed you may be born in a set up which is one of those religions, May be you are Christian or Muslim than just try to find answers via those philosophies, it can be fun there too following their belief systems.
               
               Though still you can learn about these philosophies more as a fun, which they are any way.

               replyreport
   7. 0

      Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If God exists; I would think the evidence is clear that he has no use for religion.

      replyreport
2. 63

   pisean282311posted 11 years ago

   god is above everything than human being...Humans invented god...religion is just expression of that invention called god...Every human being who believes in god , has his/her own perception about god irrespective of religion he/she adheres to.

   replyreport
3. 70

   waynetposted 11 years ago

   No God is under it sucking it's balls!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      mischeviousmeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      +1

      replyreport
   2. 50

      sweetie1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      funny

      replyreport
4. 49

   sydneyyposted 11 years ago

   Not really because the First Commandment states "You shall not worship false gods" so if you're a different religion then you're breaking one of the commandments. Another thing is that if you die with a mortal sin (breaking one of the commandments) on your soul then you supposedly go to hell or purgatory. But if you die without any mortal sins and just venial sins then i think you go straight to heaven. It just depends.

   replyreport
   1. 50

      sweetie1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Sydneyy, if worshiping false god is not allowed than for different people different gods are false like Christian gods are false for non christian people same way other gods are false for christian people. But this was not the topic.. the topic was is god above religion and not who is false god and who is not false god.

      replyreport
      1. 63

         pisean282311posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         @sydneyy as sweetie rightly put ...for jews jesus is biggest damaging entity ever who took people to false god...as per muslim jesus was plain human being and putting him as god is blasphemy ...so false god is not well defined and changes from faith to faith...

         replyreport
5. 41

   johnakcposted 11 years ago

   Neither God nor religion is superior, but the humanity is at the top what I think.

   replyreport