Hey.. its another religion thread!!

[Rodion Romanovich]

I derive my religion from a combination of all existing religons, including atheism and science. I haven't personally read anything by Averroës who is said to have done the same thing, but it's possible that it's his view I'm using.

In short, for example the Bible neither says you'll achieve anything by praying, nor does it say anything about the Bible containing the full absolute truth, so even if read in a fundamentalistic way it can easily be combined with atheism. I prefer to read the Bible and other holy books in a way where I by science and research try to find real corresponding events and phenomenons to those mentioned in the holy books, and see the phenomenons described in the books as methafors. For example the Adam and Eve being expelled from paradise is a methafor for the creation of civilization and all bad it has led to, even though mankind keeps thinking it was good for them, and get punished for it.

As for the definition of "God", the only "definition" that exists in the Bible is through his name, Jahve, which means "I am". Compare that to all other names in the bible, and you'll see that the name is a description of the character it belongs to. Therefore, God must be "the truth", for the truth is "everything that is". This gives an entirely different standpoint when interpreting the Bible, and even as an atheist at heart I find the Bible contains plenty of wisdom. Jonah - you can't hide from "the truth", Job - truth can try you hard, but you'll never gain anything from abandoning it (compare to Sun Tzu: the importance of accurate intelligence can't be underestimated. No general can win anything if he doesn't know both his enemy and himself, whether he likes it or not). Furthermore, the Bible never says you can achieve anything by praying, it merely shows examples of humans praying, or rather: putting their hopes into words, which is a way of telling the reader about their reflections, not an order to the reader, and believer, to waste his time praying to something that isn't affected by the prayers. God exist, but only is God is defined as "the truth". You can't acheive anything by praying to "the truth". This also solves the theodicé problem which otherwise states that: how can the world be evil if God is allmighty and good? The truth isn't always good in the sense that it's nice to humans, but it's always good in the sense that abandoning will do you no good. Jesus also confirms this view of God by "the truth shall set you free". Finally it seems suspicious how the romans are portrayed as so innocent in the part of the Bible describing the death of Jesus, while the Jews are portrayed as guilty of it. Given that the Bible was rewritten and much of the faith changed during the Nicaea and other church meetings, it's easy to see the origins of that. One can't trust the modern Christian or Jewish faith much, if you want the real thing you should look back in the oldest versions of the books.

I also combine this with Buddhistic, Islamic, Christian and Taoistic beliefs. For example the Christian apocalypse belief is IMO to be interpreted as what will happen to mankind if they don't remove the "inherited sin". The inherited sin is, in this case, the result of the abandoning of Eden and expelling from paradise. That is not a sin that every individual should have a bad conscience over, or that they should be punished for, but it has created a society which will automatically punish everyone with pain and destruction unless they try to repair the damage that Adam and Eve caused. Of course, Adam and Eve is in this case also a methafor for whichever humans were responsible for the development, and the eating of the fruit is of course also a methafor. One should also note that this view is in no way an enemy of knowledge and science, it only states that knowledge and science caused civilization and humans to be expelled from "Eden", but my view is that the only way to repair the damage is by even more knowledge and wisdom.

The Taoism also supports the view of civilization separating man from nature and causing problems and suffering. The Islamic faith also is in favor of close contact with nature, for example Muhammed and others used military banners in green because green was the color of nature.

Buddhism is in this case interesting. It teaches that you can to some way control and conceal your instincts and inner urges, and that way survive in a world that is harsh. However, I don't entirely agree to fully getting rid of your pain through changing your inside. The Buddhism is a good tool for getting rid of frustration, but the environment must be adapted, not the humans. Buddhism is therefore a tool, not a goal IMO.

Generally, if you see religious statements as methafors for real phenomenons and events, you'll see that almost all religions can be combined into one without contradicting each other. There are exceptions, but they're often few.