Religion was not created for the glory of god but for the glory of the preacher.

Back it up a bit...

What did the preacher do to merit any 'glory'?

Answer that question and you'll (I think) more fully understand the allure of 'religion'.

Yes, religion is a vehicle for leaders to amass more power and the perquisites that come with it.

That, however, is only half the story. What is in it for the followers?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What is in it for the followers?

A long, happy and fulfilling life. After this one.

Guaranteed!!

I have always projected (from my mind) that the reason for 'starting' a religion was to answer the question, "why?"

The word didn't exist and humans filled in meaning...

I have imagined me, 50,000 years ago, leaving my little tribal group with a couple of friends, to go fishing. There's always a question as to if we'll catch any, or how many. On this morning I spot a shiny green stone and I carry it with me. I catch a lot of fish. I make an 'if-then' connection: If I carry the green stone, then I'll catch a lot of fish.

But why? I ask myself. Because the stone is special... And from that point we're off to the races. It becomes almost a game to assign value to actions and reasons for results. Because the stars are the only TV we had back then, they help us make up answers to questions.

And of course, along comes some fast talking Type A person to profess that he's in tune with the unseen 'causes', and able to predict the effects. And the competition takes off.

That's my opinion and if you're not convinced, I'll create a wikipedia entry and you'll have to believe it!

Razortooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Religion was not created for the glory of god but
> for the glory of the preacher.

I think this is true for modern religions, especially in the global "Western" part of the world.

Religion in pre-modern times (whether native religions in most any part of the world I am aware of...or Hinduism...or Buddhism...or Judaism...or Zoroastrianism...) was mostly about serious attempts at "connection": connection between the individual-plus-the-community (on the one hand) and (on the other hand) whatever force or forces were larger, or more powerfully encompassing, than the human beings involved felt themselves, or their circumstances, to be (none of which involved preachers).

Two thousand years ago, when the beginnings of Christianity began to split off from Judaism (aided, in very large measure, by the increasing numbers of non-Jewish people who were converting directly to Christianity, without the "stop off" at Judaism first), "preachers" (of which Paul can reasonably be credited as the first of the Christian group) began to appear, but this specific kind of "preacher" was a relatively new phenomenon in world religions...even though a strong argument could be made that Buddha himself, who was born and raised Hindu, was the first non-Christian "preacher" we are aware of.

On a personal level, recently, I have been increasingly observing that spirituality (which I, personally, define as "connectedness," in the same sense that most any human being from cave times on would probably agree with), and religion, are---most of the time---two different things, both on an individual level, and (especially) on an institutional level.

"Religion" (particularly modern times religion) is often more about following set rules and formulae (and, despite the talk about inner connectedness, on a practical level usually not quite "getting there" for most people)...

...while "connectedness" (in the terms I am talking about it here) can USE (meaning: utilize) some of those outer practices that have proven to have value in creating "connectedness," but is also, and increasingly more often on an individual level, free from them.

I think what I am really saying here is that I see "religion," most of the time, as largely a matter of outer-practice conformity (even when practiced in private)...

...a conformity which can be utilized by "preachers" for their own personal or institutional ends....

...while "connectedness" is an interior process that can utilize anything practical from "religion" which is discovered to enhance the inner process, but is also (simultaneously, and on an inner basis) free of the outer, formalized, constraints of that same "religion."

To me, this entire subject is a work-in-progress right now.

I hope this "progress report" on what I have been mulling over makes sense!!!

:)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2017 04:47PM by Tevai.

Maybe it's the connectedness to something greater than ourselves that I find comforting in Judaism. That, and the connection to others - which is a reflection of God in the brotherhood of humankind.

It's the inter-connectedness that is paramount in Judaism.

Religion is a sworn enemy of democracy. Look what they've done to one of our political parties.

Glory. Yes. On top of that there is a lot of power comes with convincing people you are the intermediary for their god--that you are the key to their salvation and exaltation.

The interesting thing is how easily this is for church leaders to do.

Religions were started for three reasons:

To gain power

money

sex

Your naievity is amusing.

and I'm fine with that.

But just once in a while, it would be nice to know that some all-powerful deity has your back.

I never experienced that feeling, however, so I get along OK without it.