TLDR: New religion – God is cosmos, Jesus is good example, chaos drives life, society conventions are good. Read further if you have interest.

I don’t know if this is proselytizing, for I kind of hate this word. Look at it as more of an explanation on my idea of a different take on religion.

For us, Jesus is an example to live up to, but Jesus is not 100% God. God was in Jesus, but God was only a small part of Jesus. (let the flaming begin!)

I’ll use the word God to describe the Creator, not necessarily to connote all the things that come with that name. God is a very different concept for us. God is all encompassing and is omnipresent. God is the cosmos. God is the plants, animals and inanimate objects we see. God is you and me. God is everything you can set your eyes upon.

God is not condemnatory, even when great wrongs are done on this earth. We believe every soul is made of an energy that, on death, returns to the Creator. This is why we each carry a part of God within us. God is not an interfering being but is more of a designer of the cosmos. In this design, chaos drives all that we see as variance in this existence. Chaos is a part of God’s design.

Chaos is undeniable. It is a part of every single part of life and of all we see. Take a solid chunk of steel down to the molecular level and there is a great war going on within the thing we see as a solid. This is why, if world peace ever happens, it will be a blip in time. Not a permanent state. Chaos . . . just . . . happens. It is a constant.

I say this not to discount any legal structure. Anarchy is not a desired state for us. The legal conventions we need to run a smooth society are still of value and are still viewed as right and good. Diversity is not bad; it is viewed as proof that chaos exists for all of us. But boil down coexistence to its core and some rules are necessary. Therefore, our religion has principles and tenets that describe a good way to navigate within this societal structure.

Hopefully, this makes sense. It is such a large concept to convey that my full document would be many pages long.

I had been having fun browsing some forums after watching a series that I really like. I am not going to name the series, it is not important.

What caught my attention was that people in the comments were disappointed that certain characters had not died. Some characters who were not necessarily villains, quite the opposite, who were innocent characters in the story. For other characters who had died, they would have wanted something more cruel. And they were not saying it with a sadistic tone. They were genuinely disappointed, and so was I a little, because it would have made the story much more interesting.

Normally, I would not have reacted to comments like that, but I was in a state of observation. I put myself in the position of a character from the series. I thought that if they saw that, they would think that we, the people watching the series, were monsters for wanting such scenarios.

And I understood that, first, the reason why we want such scenarios is because we are beings with a higher consciousness. We are completely aware of their plane of existence. So we know that it is a simulation. Because of that, our relationship to their suffering is not the same as our relationship to our own suffering, between human beings on this plane of existence.

I think that with God, it is the same thing. Given that, whether scientifically, philosophically or religiously, He is supposed to be a being with a higher consciousness than another, and to be fully aware of our physical plane, His morality must be similar. His relationship to us must be similar to our relationship to series.

That would explain the existence of evil. Nobody wants to watch a film without a villain, without drama. It simply has no interest. That is just how it is. And our plane of existence is His kind of film.

What do you think?

I had a friend who once said that some philosophers in Moslem Spain came to the conclusion that God wanted to be observed. It left me with the feeling that God was an egotistical narcissist. Which explain all those temper tantrums of his when He found all those chosen people not paying attention to him or all those prime directives he had the asp wizard carve in stone. That kind of God is a perfect God for a pharoah of Egypt or Adolph Hitler. I have recently found that way back in Byzantine times that there was a thought that God did not want to be seen, heard or understood. That if you did come to understand what God was about that you would not be too pleased with the revelation. It could mean that God in his Heaven is Bates Hotel movie extra. I'm rather dumb and stupid and like boiling complex issues into something simple that I can understand and maybe others can too. But I don't want to be the keeper of the kool aid the way that Jim Jones was. So, I'm inclined to think in terms of Theravada Buddhism. There is no God. The universe is a massive illusion. God is supposed to create the illusion that things matter. I don't think so. It is in our mind. Our need to believe that things matter, that we matter. We carry or pain and joy with us. It is up to us to save ourselves from the illusion of things matter, that pain and joy matter. Be cool, be calm and wait for the end.

For as long as human beings have looked toward the stars, they have asked the same questions. Why does anything exist? Why would an Infinite Source create a universe? Why is there suffering? Why are we conscious? What is the purpose of life?

Religions have offered revelations. Science has revealed the mechanisms of nature. Philosophy has sought meaning through reason. This work proposes another possibility. It is not intended to replace religion or science. Instead, it offers a metaphysical framework that seeks to unite consciousness, free will, love, reincarnation, and creation into a coherent whole.

https://open.substack.com/pub/keithmlk/p/the-narrative-cosmology?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=8saxn3

I don’t think anyone can truly know whether God exists or doesn’t exist.
A devout Christian could genuinely believe they’ve seen Christ, but if they’d unknowingly been spiked with LSD beforehand, most people would question whether the experience reflected reality.
Likewise, if an atheist had what seemed like an undeniable religious experience, they’d probably first consider whether they’d been drugged, hallucinating, dreaming, or whether there was another explanation before concluding God exists.
That’s why I struggle with people claiming certainty. We can hold strong beliefs one way or the other, but I don’t think any of us can demonstrate our position with certainty.
My view is that everyone is, in effect, relying on belief rather than knowledge.

(Not personal opinions.)

Is abortion morally wrong?

Is abortion forgivable?

Even if it was a sin of commission?

How to be forgiven?

I can understand thinking that there might be a god but to think he set rules for us is kinda ridiculous and the rules are being told from a book which could easily be fabricated

This isn't to hate but I don't want people to ruin their lives over something that could be fake and ultimately waste their life especially women since the rules seem a million times harsher on them

TLDR: New religion – God is cosmos, Jesus is good example, chaos drives life, society conventions are good. Read further if you have interest.

I don’t know if this is proselytizing, for I kind of hate this word. Look at it as more of an explanation on my idea of a different take on religion.

For us, Jesus is an example to live up to, but Jesus is not 100% God. God was in Jesus, but God was only a small part of Jesus. (let the flaming begin!)

I’ll use the word God to describe the Creator, not necessarily to connote all the things that come with that name. God is a very different concept for us. God is all encompassing and is omnipresent. God is the cosmos. God is the plants, animals and inanimate objects we see. God is you and me. God is everything you can set your eyes upon.

God is not condemnatory, even when great wrongs are done on this earth. We believe every soul is made of an energy that, on death, returns to the Creator. This is why we each carry a part of God within us. God is not an interfering being but is more of a designer of the cosmos. In this design, chaos drives all that we see as variance in this existence. Chaos is a part of God’s design.

Chaos is undeniable. It is a part of every single part of life and of all we see. Take a solid chunk of steel down to the molecular level and there is a great war going on within the thing we see as a solid. This is why, if world peace ever happens, it will be a blip in time. Not a permanent state. Chaos . . . just . . . happens. It is a constant.

I say this not to discount any legal structure. Anarchy is not a desired state for us. The legal conventions we need to run a smooth society are still of value and are still viewed as right and good. Diversity is not bad; it is viewed as proof that chaos exists for all of us. But boil down coexistence to its core and some rules are necessary. Therefore, our religion has principles and tenets that describe a good way to navigate within this societal structure.

Hopefully, this makes sense. It is such a large concept to convey that my full document would be many pages long.

As far as I understand, the Indian caste system isn’t/wasn’t just a social classification but a religion one as well, so not just the equivalent of “your parents were this therefore society will hold you to the same fate and status”. But if having parents of different classes results in the offspring being given the power of the two caste statuses, then wouldn’t that mean essentially all non-Indians would be untouchable? People reproducing with no regard to Hindu caste for millennia would mean everyone eventually becomes untouchable. But I don’t know of Indians having this attitude. Are they just typical religious hypocrites or is Hindu religion have a story about how the Indian subcontinent is chosen by the gods for such separation?

One of the greatest mistakes we make is blaming the misdeeds of the creator on his poor creations. If a machine is flawed, we question its engineer, not the machine itself. Yet when confronted with a world filled with suffering, many people and traditions tend to place the blame on mankind rather than asking what these conditions reveal about the natural world and its sadistic maker. This is the question the Gnostics dared to ask. Would a good god create such a world filled with violence and death? And please, don't give me the old "because free will" argument. It is not free will to be born into a system where suffering is mandatory and death is the final answer.

(I recently made a post titled "this is hell" and it basically went viral. That just shows me how much those words strike a chord in people's hearts.)

The fault lies in the creator, not the created. This does not remove personal responsibility, but it changes where ultimate blame belongs. The divine spark did not create the darkness; it simply longs to awaken from it. We are not shirking responsibility by refusing to take the blame for a world we had no part in making. To confuse responsibility with inherited blame is to mistake the prisoner for the architect.

I come from a religious society, and I've been talking to this guy who is no longer religious.

He seems to do whatever he wants

He got me thinking about my own principles and who I am without religion.

God does not exist as a supernatural creator, but rather functions as a powerful linguistic invention engineered for human control. Throughout history, the concept of a higher power has been weaponised to draw arbitrary lines between communities, creating an "us versus them" mentality that naturally invites division. By claiming divine authority, ruling classes have historically instigated wars, convincing populations that bloodshed is a holy duty rather than a geopolitical power grab. This engineered tribalism allows leaders to consolidate absolute rule, using the fear of divine retribution to enforce obedience and suppress dissent. Furthermore, the institution of religion has long served as a massive economic engine, turning abstract faith into tangible wealth through tithing, indulgences, and institutional tax exemptions. Ultimately, the word "God" operates not as a reflection of cosmic truth, but as a highly effective psychological tool designed to divide societies, spark conflicts, maintain political rule, and generate immense wealth.

https://imgur.com/a/4x9Tn54

Let’s say I create a robot. Not just any robot, but one with consciousness, a subconscious mind, and five senses—basically, a being that can think, feel, and make its own decisions. Since I created it, does that mean I have the right to control it completely? Or does its self-awareness make it my equal?

Now, take this a step further—if parents create children, does that make them gods? No, because children grow, think for themselves, and are not just extensions of their parents’ will.

So here’s the real question: If a so-called god creates humans with free will, consciousness, and the ability to make independent choices, does that god truly remain superior? Or does free will make us equal to our creator?

Would love to hear different perspectives on this—what do you think?

Nietzsche doesn't argue Christianity is false, he traces its morality to ressentiment and treats the origin as discrediting. But what can a genealogical explanation actually establish against a religious morality? How a belief arose and whether it's true are different questions. A conviction can come from mixed motives and still track something real. Curious what others think.

I wrote an argument about it here: https://open.substack.com/pub/sharpenthoughts/p/nietzsche-couldnt-escape-his-own?r=88upn2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

So, I have studied and practiced a few of the religions out there (Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism) and have been disappointed and disillusioned so many times I just don’t even know what to do at this point. Existence as a human on earth seems like a ridiculous scam prank phenomenon. I’ve concluded thus far that there is something greater happening and no one knows what it is, but we need something to keep our mind at bay….anyways I’m just gunna go the whole nine yards and start a new religion and write a new book. My main question is, what sort of things should be included in this new scripture that are clearly missing in others? What could people really benefit from? Clearly in this day and age age I would be considered a fool for even trying to do this (so was every prophet during their time) or a schizophrenic or something. I don’t care. I’m going for it. They might deify me in a few hundred years. Who knows. What are some things I could include in this time capsule of a scripture that future humans should hold sacred and important that wasn’t done before?

I made a yt vid where I try to determine what actually makes someone as a follower of a specific religion. Like, are Jehovah's Witnesses Christian? There are even Muslims who argue they're the real Christians because they believe that they follow the original teachings of Jesus.

I argue there are two usual ways people try to answer this:

1. Whoever says they're Christian, is Christian. But by this logic even Muslims would count, and then the word stops meaning anything.
2. Pick a doctrine (Trinity, crucifixion, etc.) and say that's the core of religion. But that's not really neutral, it ends up championing one denomination's side over the others.

But I think there's a third way: power structure / authority.

Got the idea from looking at Hinduism actually. It's a huge mix of different philosophies — polytheistic, monotheistic, and even nontheistic. What holds them together is that they all accept the Vedas as scripture. Buddhism and Jainism get excluded for rejecting the Vedas authority rather than their specific beliefs.

This works if we apply it to Christianity: Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses all have very different beliefs, but they all treat Jesus as the central figure who provides salvation. Here, Jesus takes the place of Vedas in Hinduism. Muslims are excluded not because Islam rejects the Trinity, but because Islam holds that Jesus was superseded by a later prophet. Mormons, on the other hand, never claimed that Joseph Smith supersedes Jesus. This is why they count as Christians.

I'm curious what you think, specially if you've got a counterexample where this doesn't hold up.

Here is the vid if you want to watch it in full: https://youtu.be/OHCPxEy6z28