God without religion

doctoremma

Possibly could go in any number of fora but I'm most familiar with the posters here....

Is it possible to have god without religion? For those who have turned away from organised religion in favour of a more personal approach, does the god figure (and many of the rules) not coincide with the that of the religion you are most familiar with? When switching denominations, are you not just trying to fit religion to your own world view? Do deists have a god figure that fits with their most familiar religion? For the "spiritual but not religious", what form does your god take?

GarIT

If you're just making it up yourself it can be whatever you want. For me its a giant flying spaghetti monster.

doctoremma

GarIT wrote: »

If you're just making it up yourself it can be whatever you want. For me its a giant flying spaghetti monster.

And you came up with that godhead all by yourself, did you?

GarIT

No, I doubt you came up with your god yourself. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't have to follow any set of rules if you do not belong to a religion.

EI_Flyboy

If there is a God, a single creator or if you believe in a God then you have to accept that God existed and exists free and independent of any religion. Religion is man's creation and as such is subject to all man's failings and imperfections. You don't need religion to access God.

doctoremma

GarIT wrote: »

No, I doubt you came up with your god yourself. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't have to follow any set of rules if you do not belong to a religion.

I don't have a god but you've somewhat strengthened my point. Is it even possible to have a personal idea of a god?

If your god is a product of your own rules, is it really a god?

doctoremma

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

If there is a God, a single creator or if you believe in a God then you have to accept that God existed and exists free and independent of any religion. Religion is man's creation and as such is subject to all man's failings and imperfections. You don't need religion to access God.

Understood. I'm just wondering what format such a god takes? And if they are monotheist, do they tend to use the prevailing religion's god as a starting point?

I wonder what god looks like for people who've never experienced organised religion.

GarIT

It would certainly be difficult given that you already have an idea of what god should be like and you will always base your ideas on that so it can never be fully your own odeas unless you grew up with no knowledge of any gods.

There are plenty of different gods though so the majority of them have to just be made up.

doctoremma

Just to be clear for any mods, I didn't start this thread as a set up to call BS. It was sparked by a couple of posts here, one a change of denomination and one rejecting religion in favour of spirituality. Exploring where you fit in terms of religion/denomination is, of course, fine. I was wondering if anyone has thrown off the shackles of their prevailing religion in favour of something completely personal and what form that difference takes.

EI_Flyboy

doctoremma wrote: »

Understood. I'm just wondering what format such a god takes? And if they are monotheist, do they tend to use the prevailing religion's god as a starting point?

I wonder what god looks like for people who've never experienced organised religion.

God doesn't need us to know what God looks like. God doesn't need us to understand how God works. If God existed before us then God's starting point can be put a long time before anyone invented religion. About a starting point the questions that come to my mind are if there was a Big Bang, did God exist before or after the Big Bang or did God come into existence with the Big Bang? If there was a Big Bang then it makes sense that there is only one God.

Edit: In saying that, I don't think God would be without purpose. Even if we're not required to know the master plan it doesn't mean we should discount it. If there is a master plan then it is something that is inherent in us all and around us all, it is there if we look for it. This however is anathema to most organised religion who claim that the only path to God is through them.

doctoremma

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

God doesn't need us to know what God looks like. God doesn't need us to understand how God works. If God existed before us then God's starting point can be put a long time before anyone invented religion. About a starting point the questions that come to my mind are if there was a Big Bang, did God exist before or after the Big Bang or did God come into existence with the Big Bang? If there was a Big Bang then it makes sense that there is only one God.

Again, understood (I think). I'm not debating what the nature of god is, I'm debating how people who claim to go their own way actually perceive their god. Is it genuinely possible to rid oneself of the imagery and stories that prevail in your society?

If the above is your vision of god, does he have any embodiment? Doe she have any characteristics that are suspiciously similar to those of a familiar religion?

GarIT

The big bang was a physical process, if there was one only physical things were created, magic people in the sky were not.

pauldla

I'm not sure it is possible to have such a personal relationship with god without being prejudiced by the creed you were brought up in. Note, for example, that you're asking about god, not gods. Presumably you were raised to one of the monotheistic religions?

EI_Flyboy

doctoremma wrote: »

Again, understood (I think). I'm not debating what the nature of god is, I'm debating how people who claim to go their own way actually perceive their god. Is it genuinely possible to rid oneself of the imagery and stories that prevail in your society?

If the above is your vision of god, does he have any embodiment? Doe she have any characteristics that are suspiciously similar to those of a familiar religion?

I know you're not debating, you're only asking! Yes it's possible to rid yourself of the imagery once you realise there is absolutely no way you or anyone else can possibly know what God looks like. I have no idea if God has an embodiment but I think it's possible that that embodiment may simply be the whole Universe. The only characteristic I can think of that's shared with any of the religions is love though with a lot religions God's love seems to be conditional.

doctoremma

pauldla wrote: »

I'm not sure it is possible to have such a personal relationship with god without being prejudiced by the creed you were brought up in. Note, for example, that you're asking about god, not gods. Presumably you were raised to one of the monotheistic religions?

Well, I was exposed to a monotheistic religion and when I talk about a god or gods, it's always the standard Christian god I default to in my head (he looks like the Michaelangelo version).

Having never, as an adult, believed in the existence of that god, I find it difficult to imagine others. It would be fair - maybe - to say I have a reasonably clear picture of the Roman and Greek pantheon, although I tend to view those as a collection of secondary gods, being ruled by a single figurehead (so even then, am I applying my monotheist reflex to a polytheist system?).

Anyway, rambling. I guess I find it difficult to believe that anyone truly does rid themselves of the god (or gods) instilled in them by their surroundings. I'm not sure what it actually means when people say they believe in god but have no religion. Are there any "standard issue" believers here who view such claims with caution? Are they to be celebrated?

doctoremma

Ha, having googled my way around a few belief systems, I have come across the phrase I needed at the start. Does everyone anthropomorphise their god?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

doctoremma

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair dues, didn't even register that forum as the most appropriate, even though it clearly is...:o

gillad

doctoremma wrote: »

Possibly could go in any number of fora but I'm most familiar with the posters here....

Is it possible to have god without religion? For those who have turned away from organised religion in favour of a more personal approach, does the god figure (and many of the rules) not coincide with the that of the religion you are most familiar with? When switching denominations, are you not just trying to fit religion to your own world view? Do deists have a god figure that fits with their most familiar religion? For the "spiritual but not religious", what form does your god take?

God is the Energy of Love and it doesnt need a religion and it doesnt need to be worshipped.It doesnt need anything and it doesnt need us,we have freewill to live in that energy or ignore it.If you live in/with that God energy you will experience real happiness.its what buddah,muhammad and jesus tried to tell us:):):)
Religions started out with good intentions but most got corrupted by power and a need to control the followers with fear.:(There is no such place as hell.

Sin City

If there is a God, then the one true religeon is Deisim. Where God starts off with say the big bang, grabs a bag of popcorn, and watches the universe unfold itself and doesnt really interfere at all just watches

doctoremma

gillad wrote: »

God is the Energy of Love and it doesnt need a religion and it doesnt need to be worshipped.It doesnt need anything and it doesnt need us,we have freewill to live in that energy or ignore it.If you live in/with that God energy you will experience real happiness.its what buddah,muhammad and jesus tried to tell us:):):)
Religions started out with good intentions but most got corrupted by power and a need to control the followers with fear.:(There is no such place as hell.

What does that mean, "God is the energy of love"? Love isn't energy so I assume you're using a poetic description of love? In which case, is it fair to say that you have ascribed the label of "god" to the network of human emotion that binds us to one another? So why do you need to label that "energy of love" as "god"? It's adding an unnecessary layer?

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

If there is a God, then the one true religeon is Deisim. Where God starts off with say the big bang, grabs a bag of popcorn, and watches the universe unfold itself and doesnt really interfere at all just watches

Is it plausible, therefore, that "god" is simply another label, this time added the phenomenon that is the Big Bang?

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

Is it plausible, therefore, that "god" is simply another label, this time added the phenomenon that is the Big Bang?

Possibly, I can neither confirm nor deny if that its the case (though I can give an educated case and say he didnt have a hand in it which is why I said IF God exits he probably did that, we are his Home and Away or Corrie or what have you.


You know yourself Emma that human civilsations have decided that there is something above themselves conrtolling the world and taking responsibility awayf from themselves, where we all just got over relient on the concept.

Joe1919

doctoremma wrote: »

Is it possible to have god without religion? For those who have turned away from organised religion in favour of a more personal approach, does the god figure (and many of the rules) not coincide with the that of the religion you are most familiar with? ...

I think there are good examples of attempts to have a god without religion e.g. some forms of stoicism, Spinoza, Pantheism, the American transcedentalists etc

'I do not despise you priests, all time, the world over,
My faith is the greatest of faiths and the least of faiths,
Enclosing worship ancient and modern and all between ancient and modern,
Believing I shall come again upon the earth after five thousand years,
Waiting responses from oracles, honoring the gods, saluting the sun,
Making a fetich of the first rock or stump, powowing with sticks in
the circle of obis,
Helping the llama or brahmin as he trims the lamps of the idols,
Dancing yet through the streets in a phallic procession, rapt and
austere in the woods a gymnosophist,
Drinking mead from the skull-cap, to Shastas and Vedas admirant,
minding the Koran,
Walking the teokallis, spotted with gore from the stone and knife,
beating the serpent-skin drum,
Accepting the Gospels, accepting him that was crucified, knowing
assuredly that he is divine,
To the mass kneeling or the puritan's prayer rising, or sitting
patiently in a pew,
Ranting and frothing in my insane crisis, or waiting dead-like till
my spirit arouses me,
Looking forth on pavement and land, or outside of pavement and land,
Belonging to the winders of the circuit of circuits.'
verse 43 Song of Myself by Walt Whitman 1819-1892 http://www.daypoems.net/poems/1900.html

gillad

doctoremma wrote: »

What does that mean, "God is the energy of love"? Love isn't energy so I assume you're using a poetic description of love? In which case, is it fair to say that you have ascribed the label of "god" to the network of human emotion that binds us to one another? So why do you need to label that "energy of love" as "god"? It's adding an unnecessary layer?

No i`m not being poetic at all.Love is ENERGY.I know its hard to grasp and its harder to explain in a post but when you find that ENERGY then everything makes perfect sense and science and God/Love/Energy all come together

pauldla

gillad wrote: »

No i`m not being poetic at all.Love is ENERGY.I know its hard to grasp and its harder to explain in a post but when you find that ENERGY then everything makes perfect sense and science and God/Love/Energy all come together

If love were energy, one Friday night rave could power a small town.

doctoremma

gillad wrote: »

No i`m not being poetic at all.Love is ENERGY.I know its hard to grasp and its harder to explain in a post but when you find that ENERGY then everything makes perfect sense and science and God/Love/Energy all come together

It's hard to grasp because, for me, it's simply not true. I am a scientist and know what energy is (and a fair few equations involving it). It makes no sense. Love is an emotion; it's a head thing, not a physical thing.

However, if you believe that love is energy, why do you then apply a "god" layer to it? Is "love is energy" not enough?

GarIT

Sin City wrote: »

If there is a God, then the one true religeon is Deisim. Where God starts off with say the big bang, grabs a bag of popcorn, and watches the universe unfold itself and doesnt really interfere at all just watches

You can't really say that for a fact, if there was a god it could be anything and do anything, but I doubt there is.

GarIT

gillad wrote: »

No i`m not being poetic at all.Love is ENERGY.I know its hard to grasp and its harder to explain in a post but when you find that ENERGY then everything makes perfect sense and science and God/Love/Energy all come together

There are a limited number of energies, none of them are love.

pauldla wrote: »

If love were energy, one Friday night rave could power a small town.

I've never seen love there :L

pauldla

GarIT wrote: »

I've never seen love there :L

But you can feel it baby, you can feel it.

GarIT

pauldla wrote: »

But you can feel it baby, you can feel it.

Nope, thats not love.

Sin City

GarIT wrote: »

You can't really say that for a fact, if there was a god it could be anything and do anything, but I doubt there is.

You cant say anything is fact really with religeon of any kind, you have to make allowences or leaps of faith etc so as far as everyone else saying that there is a supreme puppeter who made the world surely I can say that maybe a a divine coach potatoe who views us and our daily stories lol

pauldla

GarIT wrote: »

Nope, thats not love.

You must be feeling the wrong part, so.

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

It's hard to grasp because, for me, it's simply not true. I am a scientist and know what energy is (and a fair few equations involving it). It makes no sense. Love is an emotion; it's a head thing, not a physical thing.

However, if you believe that love is energy, why do you then apply a "god" layer to it? Is "love is energy" not enough?

Cant love be a chemical thing or an electrical impulse in the brain which will then effect you physicaly

GarIT

Sin City wrote: »

Cant love be a chemical thing or an electrical impulse in the brain which will then effect you physicaly

Yes, but signals are not the electricity, they are carried through it, the electricity is the energy. Chemicals have energy but the energy is defined by other properties of the chemical non of which are how they make you feel.

Red21

doctoremma wrote: »

What does that mean, "God is the energy of love"? Love isn't energy so I assume you're using a poetic description of love? In which case, is it fair to say that you have ascribed the label of "god" to the network of human emotion that binds us to one another? So why do you need to label that "energy of love" as "god"? It's adding an unnecessary layer?

You cannot give a well defined description of what god is, the english language or any language isn't designed for it, a person can string a few words together in the hope of pointing to what they believe but it's pointless for you to break down their description because the word is not the thing, the word only points to the thing.

Sin City

GarIT wrote: »

Yes, but signals are not the electricity, they are carried through it, the electricity is the energy. Chemicals have energy but the energy is defined by other properties of the chemical non of which are how they make you feel.

I may have slightly oversimplified

GarIT

Sin City wrote: »

I may have slightly oversimplified

No, you were just wrong, you tried to use science to prove a point and it didn't work out. In a simple or complex way an emotion can not be energy.

Oryx

doctoremma wrote: »

Anyway, rambling. I guess I find it difficult to believe that anyone truly does rid themselves of the god (or gods) instilled in them by their surroundings. I'm not sure what it actually means when people say they believe in god but have no religion. Are there any "standard issue" believers here who view such claims with caution? Are they to be celebrated?

You mention about people 'ridding' themselves of the belief systems and ideas of god instilled in them by their surroundings and upbringing? But to what end? Why bother? You either find something that makes sense in your head, or you don't. And generally, the things that will make sense are the things we are familiar with. Why look for a whole new system that could be just as unreal/nonsensical/genuine/good for you/none of the above as the one you just turned from.

Anyone on a spiritual path will probably look at a few different religions. Some of which have godfigures, some do not. I think your initial question is actually very narrow. It comes across to me as if you think that the god figure is the absolute, the thing that people will remain clinging to when spiritually seeking. I don't agree with that.

But yes, people will attach to a belief that makes sense, and it makes sense because it is familiar. It could make god into anything from a bearded guy in a sheet, to a Jedi knight, to Philip Pullmans Dust. Or no god at all, just a trust in the goodness of the human heart.

I think the key thing for me when trying to understand what god might be, remains tied into two statements I was told years ago.

Never let anyone teach you anything.
If you see the buddha on the road, kill him.

gillad

doctoremma wrote: »

It's hard to grasp because, for me, it's simply not true. I am a scientist and know what energy is (and a fair few equations involving it). It makes no sense. Love is an emotion; it's a head thing, not a physical thing.

However, if you believe that love is energy, why do you then apply a "god" layer to it? Is "love is energy" not enough?

Im glad you are a scientist because you may understand my view on our existence.Everything in the universe is a big soup of Particles.If you look at yourself at the Quantum level all you will see is Energy.Everything is Energy including thoughts and emotions(Love).There is empty space between those particles so we are not solid beings with chemical reactions in our brains controlling our thoughts.We are Conscious Energy (spirits).This will be proven in the future as science starts to understand the behaviour of these particles that we are made of.A Particle can be in two places at once.A Particle takes every possible route/decision until it is observed and they can communicate with each other at any distance and this is what we are made of.Its very strange to science but it fits in perfectly with my spiritual view on what we really are.This WILL be proved. People thought the earth was flat and that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth.Science doesnt understand(yet) the building blocks of what we are made of but when it does it will be a great evolution for us as Spiritual Energetic conscious beings.
I have my own evidence of this Energy and thats why my view will never change.

getz

i would prefer to call it a spiritual being,in my mind only a being with intelligents could create a world in which every living thing is critically inter-linked,also as i am a sensitive i do know the soul carries on after death,

GarIT

gillad wrote: »

Im glad you are a scientist because you may understand my view on our existence.Everything in the universe is a big soup of Particles.If you look at yourself at the Quantum level all you will see is Energy.Everything is Energy including thoughts and emotions(Love).There is empty space between those particles so we are not solid beings with chemical reactions in our brains controlling our thoughts.We are Conscious Energy (spirits).This will be proven in the future as science starts to understand the behaviour of these particles that we are made of.A Particle can be in two places at once.A Particle takes every possible route/decision until it is observed and they can communicate with each other at any distance and this is what we are made of.Its very strange to science but it fits in perfectly with my spiritual view on what we really are.This WILL be proved. People thought the earth was flat and that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth.Science doesnt understand(yet) the building blocks of what we are made of but when it does it will be a great evolution for us as Spiritual Energetic conscious beings.
I have my own evidence of this Energy and thats why my view will never change.

I think you have taken how things work and understood it the wrong way. Anything that gravity applies to has potential energy, everything that can be burned has chemical energy but that does not mean those particles are energy. Yes everything is full of billions of tiny gaps but they act as a unit because they are bonded together, we are not concious energies, and chemical reactions do control everything. Heres an example of sorts, if I go into a group of people and throw water over the group they will all react even though they are not touching.

If I pull out your brain could you function normally? If I drained your blood could you still survive? You body depends on several things to live and there is no supernatural energy making it live.

I could say the same thing, people used to think the world was flat soon they will discover we are really all puppets controlled by the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You have evidence? This is great, what evidence of an energy that none of the best scientists have ever found do you have? You could be the smartest person ever if you have found evidence of this!

Just so you know particles are held together by the strong nuclear force and not an energy.

GarIT

getz wrote: »

i would prefer to call it a spiritual being,in my mind only a being with intelligents could create a world in which every living thing is critically inter-linked,also as i am a sensitive i do know the soul carries on after death,

You can't know something unless you can prove it, you can only think of guess it or even use the evidence to come to a likely conclusion but you cant know without proof.

Have you ever looked at it this way, how could it possibly happen where a univers is created where nothing has a physical relationship with anything else. Organic life probably developed and its unlikely that it was created. There is lots of evidence to support evolution we just can't go back in time to prove it.

doctoremma

Oryx wrote: »

Anyone on a spiritual path will probably look at a few different religions. Some of which have godfigures, some do not. I think your initial question is actually very narrow. It comes across to me as if you think that the god figure is the absolute, the thing that people will remain clinging to when spiritually seeking. I don't agree with that.

I'm more than happy to accept that my initial questions were/are narrow. T'is the point of questioning in the first place, to broaden one's view

Yes, I tend to imagine religious people stick to one godhead, as this is the idea most familiar to me and most common to those I know who are religious (either ardent followers or go-their-own-way private believers).

Oryx wrote: »

Or no god at all, just a trust in the goodness of the human heart.

Perhaps I have a different definition of "spiritual" to you guys? Trusting the goodness of humanity is not "spiritual" (in my head, at least).

GarIT

Oryx wrote: »

Anyone on a spiritual path will probably look at a few different religions. Some of which have godfigures, some do not. I think your initial question is actually very narrow. It comes across to me as if you think that the god figure is the absolute, the thing that people will remain clinging to when spiritually seeking. I don't agree with that.

In the defense of the OP I do believe that this thread was about how people view god and not spirituality.

Oryx

You can have spirituality without any belief in an external power. I meant trust in the goodness of ones own heart, rather than trusting everyone else.

Oryx

GarIT wrote: »

In the defense of the OP I do believe that this thread was about how people view god and not spirituality.

And Im just pointing out that 'god' can mean many things.

GarIT

Oryx wrote: »

You can have spirituality without any belief in an external power. I meant trust in the goodness of ones own heart, rather than trusting everyone else.

Thats not true. You can only have spirituality with belief in an external power. It doesn't have to be a god as such but does have to be an external power. Any spirituality is a belief in something more than just a physical world.

What you say about the heart is spirituality because it goes against physics, the heart directs and pumps blood any nothing else.

Basically spirituality is a broad term for the belief in anything that is wrong in terms of physics.

doctoremma

Oryx wrote: »

You can have spirituality without any belief in an external power.

How? Surely "spirituality" is defined by the supernatural (if not god).

GarIT

doctoremma wrote: »

How? Surely "spirituality" is defined by the supernatural (if not god).

Spirituality is defined as "the quality or fact of being spiritual". Spiritual is defined as "of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature"

From Dictionary.com

Oryx

doctoremma wrote: »

How? Surely "spirituality" is defined by the supernatural (if not god).

Spirituality is not supernatural.

Spirituality is about your inner path, discovering the essence of your being. Im paraphrasing the wikipedia entry there, but its worth a read to give yourself an insight into it. Spirituality can involve a higher being or power, but it does not have to.