I simply don’t believe in multiple gods, especially if they promote exclusivity, or even one god who is exclusive to a particular group. To me, such beliefs often reflect politically motivated faith or exclusion. Exclusivity, in my view, leads to the root of many spiritual problems and even crimes. Our politics of belonging to groups is the source of many of the crimes we commit against each other. Most of our prejudices, discriminations, disputes, and even wars—along with the suffering of innocent individuals—are politically inspired.
A sense of belonging not only gives rise to prejudice, discrimination, ego, pride, and honor but also creates fearful individuals who are overly concerned with what others in their group think. This concern limits their ability to practice or utilize their sense of freedom. In the presence of political belonging and individual weakness, our personal sense of justice gets compromised. We fail to extend to others what we receive from them, including something as fundamental as equal human rights.
On the surface, a sense of belonging might not seem like the root cause of our problems, but if every community preaches exclusivity, we cannot resolve our disputes. We would continue to harm each other regardless of our education, civilization, or progress. In an era of equal human rights, our sense of belonging to specific groups and the resulting prejudice and discrimination often conflict with our personal spirituality. If we portray God with favoritism, as the father of such exclusivity, we hinder our spiritual evolution. Our spiritual principle, which is to treat others as we would want to be treated, cannot be achieved if our politics of belonging makes even God a prejudicial entity.
Religions teach us to be good people and offer illusions of hope and optimism, but many are also guilty of instilling a sense of individual irrelevance. This undermines an individual’s self-esteem, leaving them feeling vulnerable and insecure. Such insecurity and vulnerability are central to the real and political aspects of our religions. Naturally, humans dislike feeling insecure or vulnerable, so we spend our lives trying to escape these feelings. This often leads us to cling to anything stronger than ourselves, particularly our belonging groups. In group settings, God becomes secondary because both individuals and groups feel vulnerable. Throughout history, people have exploited individual and group insecurities, and even land disputes have been framed as religious disputes, using individual passion as fuel. Political religions understand these weaknesses and exploit them, encouraging extreme behaviors rather than discouraging them. Consequently, people may follow religious teachings outwardly while hoarding, compromising their spirituality, and committing crimes to secure themselves. This is evident in the full mosques, temples, and churches that coexist with social crimes like cheating, bribery, and violence.
Why do these people fill religious buildings yet continue to commit crimes? Why don’t they take responsibility for their actions or self-regulate? What leads them to believe their wrongdoings are justified by their affiliation with a particular group?
In a world where individual and group vulnerability and insecurity are prevalent, things can’t improve in the long run, especially if survival is considered optional while prayers are viewed as a duty. If religions operate like businesses or governments, the money collected is often used for monumental architecture or even laundered, rather than fighting poverty and hunger. Collectors themselves, seeking power and political control, are also victims of insecurity and vulnerability. How can they preach against these issues?
Insecure and vulnerable individuals, raised among similar people, carry these traits like blood flowing through their veins. Addressing these issues is monumental due to resistance from those politically invested in maintaining the status quo.
Examining social crimes and the happiness and contentment levels in various societies reveals some intriguing statistics. Why might religious societies not fare better than secular or socialist societies in terms of happiness and contentment? What is the purpose of a belief system if it doesn’t contribute to our well-being? Why do religious individuals resist spiritual concepts like universal health care, welfare, and other social services? Why do they vote against democratic values and equal human rights? Why do they resist adapting to the demands of changing times? Why is there religious rigidity against accepting others’ rights to differing opinions? Why do they claim certainty in their knowledge of God while dismissing other knowledge as incorrect?
Religious beliefs are heavily influenced by the politics of belonging, making it difficult for us to develop a common-sense spiritual philosophy. Principles like “don’t do to others what you don’t want done to you” or “live and let live” are often overshadowed by political and religious agendas. Regardless of whether it’s politics with a religious twist or religion with a political twist, it all boils down to politics. God has nothing to do with it. Rules governing human society should undergo rigorous scrutiny, just like our justice systems. Rules based on the principles of equal human rights are closest to spirituality. Any belief system founded on exclusivity is inherently prejudicial and discriminatory. Therefore, organizations that reject others as equals cannot be considered a true spiritual path, as spirituality is inherently free from the politics of belonging.
Looking at the state of the world today, it’s clear that we cannot judge or punish others as we did in the past. Practices like stoning people to death for adultery or chopping off hands for theft seem incompatible with the idea of a loving God who created us with sexual desires and a fundamental right to survive. Such practices appear to stem from a political agenda aimed at controlling people through fear and force. When these political controls form the foundation of societal rules, they reflect an era when there were fewer hungry and desperate individuals. Blaming God for our politically driven rules is short-sighted. If a person goes hungry in a society, that society, spiritually and logically, shares responsibility for their criminal behavior. This is why, despite the origins of such harsh punishments, modern societies condemn them as barbaric.
The concept of the “cliff of faith” represents a line drawn for us all, individually and collectively, due to our mortal nature. This line is not determined by our beliefs or what we are taught to believe. We all face this cliff of faith individually because we are born into a faith system inherited from our parents and their communities. Naturally, we are expected to follow the beliefs of our communities, nations, and religions. Following in the footsteps of our ancestors seems normal, not necessarily due to loyalty or the correctness of the path but because of the influential politics of belonging. Given the vast number of human communities, there are countless paths to this cliff of faith. Unfortunately, no one truly knows what lies beyond, as death is the only way to find out, and no one returns to share that knowledge. Therefore, we are left to believe the teachings of our communities as truth.
I believe that God is like a fully bloomed flower or a majestic tree, producing billions of seeds, none of which resemble God. Comparing God to an individual human, intellectually, emotionally, or spiritually, is unwise. We are like those billions of seeds, having never seen God or experienced the essence of God from within. It’s akin to two cells within our body speculating about the existence of the body. As humans, our understanding is still evolving, and we cannot claim ultimate knowledge of God without making assumptions. Our understanding of ourselves is incomplete, let alone our understanding of God. Our knowledge of God will always be in flux because our potential is also evolving. Claiming to know everything beyond the cliff of faith is based on faith rather than truth, especially since we are taught that our truth is the only truth. This belief is heavily influenced by the politics of our sense of belonging. Disagreements even arise within religions, evidenced by sects, which are not purely spiritual but often political.
Our claims of knowing everything are filled with egotistic assumptions rooted in the politics of our groups. Logically, since we learn something new every day, our knowledge is never complete. Our constant quest for understanding shows that we must continue to learn. As humans, genetically and spiritually programmed to evolve, we can never be fully satisfied with our current knowledge. Despite our assumptions, our reality includes ongoing conflicts and violence driven by these assumptions, heavily influenced by the politics of belonging groups.
Every path to the cliff of faith has its passionate followers, and they can all be right if their followers find inner and external peace in their lives. Problems arise when we claim that our group alone is on the right path and that God is exclusively with us. This exclusivity breeds prejudice and discrimination against those born on different paths. By implicating God in human politics, we make God a figure of discrimination and prejudice.
Thus, none of us truly knows what lies beyond. To me, God is not exclusive to any particular group; otherwise, everyone would be born on the same path. The political influences from our groups are clear. The real question is: who or what is responsible for this? Is it the insecure, vulnerable, and passionate individuals, or is it the exclusivity-driven politics of insecure groups that make individuals feel inferior or irrelevant? If this is the case, what can we do to address these problematic behaviors? A passionate individual with nuclear and biological weapons poses a far greater threat than one with a sword or spear. We risk bringing the apocalyptic scenarios described in our holy books to life—not from a spiritual God, but from a physical one influenced by the politics of belonging.
I am not trying to find comfort in the mysteries of existence. Instead, I am attempting to make sense of problematic human behavior. I am not questioning ancestral knowledge but pointing out the flaws in our group politics of belonging.
If we believe that the carrot-and-stick philosophy comes from God, we need to examine it with an open mind. If God is almighty and knows everything before it happens, then no one would be able to do wrong. Our justice systems would be obsolete. If we were mere programmed entities like bees and ants, our autonomy and free will would be meaningless.
However, that is not the case. If the carrot-and-stick approach were from God, God would simply be a political entity. I believe God is a spiritual entity and cannot be associated with injustice. Since we are all endowed with our own autonomy and free will, it is our responsibility to use compassion and personal justice. The burden of justice falls on us, which is why we have justice systems worldwide. Injustice is a human creation. We have invented the carrot-and-stick philosophy to control our communities, but this approach is failing in the era of equal human rights.
My belief that these practices are not from God stems from their political nature. Human politics relies on lies, deceit, and distorted truths to maintain control and power. Therefore, I would prefer that God not be involved in such politics. If a belief system serves political control or benefits only a select few, it cannot be from God. If everything were predestined, we would lack free will. Everything points to individual and collective strength in addressing our responsibilities. We should strive to understand and practice the philosophy of reciprocation, enjoying our lives while engaging in actions that align with spiritual principles. Group politics often makes us feel inferior and irrelevant, allowing middlemen to assume power and control.
Consider the progress humanity has made outside the spiritual realm. While we have made strides in democracy and human rights, the need for political belonging to groups signals ongoing insecurity and vulnerability. If our politics of insecurity underpins group belonging, does that make God irrelevant? No, because every human action is influenced by both God and human will. We are all blessed with free will, and God has provided us with bodies and life-sustaining conditions beyond our control. Our actions during our lives are our responsibility. If we choose to harm others or act unjustly, we cross lines of justice and face consequences. These should be addressed by living, breathing humanity, not relegated to divine retribution in an afterlife.
Our courts handle crimes and punishments as human constructs. Despite using holy books for oaths, real justice is administered by people, not left to God to decide in the afterlife. Furthermore, without a physical body, how can we experience pain or pleasure in an afterlife? If we are to receive a new body after death, why do major religions not believe in reincarnation? The concept of hell as a burning place or heaven as a paradise is often based on our physical experiences.
So why would God employ a carrot-and-stick approach if humans are capable of self-regulation and choice? This approach seems more suited to animal behavior than to human beings capable of self-regulation. Therefore, religions treating us as animals, responding well to the carrot-and-stick method, might be overlooking our potential for self-regulation.
God is not intervening or punishing us in our lifetime, which logically should increase crime rates rather than reduce them. Crimes are not lower because of the threat of punishment; they are lower because most people self-regulate without fear or greed. We understand the difference between right and wrong, but various factors such as survival, addiction, and other circumstances can lead to criminal behavior. The root cause of many major crimes is the politics of belonging to particular groups. Therefore, it is not only the individual who affects the crime rates in our communities. If someone steals a loaf of bread to survive, that community should not exert control over them. If we invoke God in this context, I would question a deity who punishes someone merely for trying to survive. Reciprocation should be a two-way street: God should provide for individuals as well. We should act out of love for God, not from greed for heaven or fear of hell. With our free will, we should be encouraged to self-regulate rather than be frightened and treated like animals.
If reincarnation is part of the life beyond the cliff of faith, then we should all agree on it. If we can’t agree, then why does every path claim to be the right one? In reality, no one has proof of what lies beyond the cliff of faith, so various paths create philosophies based on fear and greed to keep individuals feeling weak, insecure, and insignificant, thereby ensuring adherence to their groups during their lifetimes. For those seeking political control, the afterlife is secondary, so individuals must evolve to understand political dynamics and the importance of personal spirituality.
If reincarnation is true, then we must also believe in heaven and hell and view God as a human-like figure who rewards obedience and punishes disobedience, despite granting free will amidst challenging circumstances. It doesn’t make sense to implicate God in human inhumanity. The portrayal of God by religions often leads to a horrific situation for ordinary, insecure humans. Even if one adheres to religious practices, who benefits—God or the people in control? Why demand total obedience, sometimes by force, when God has endowed each individual with free will? Why are we expected to live like worker bees or warrior ants? We are treated and disrespected like animals and threatened with eternal punishment, yet it is humans who turn spirituality into physical action. If humans are treated as irrelevant, why is God’s spiritual work dependent on human actions? If not, why do religions not acknowledge this crucial aspect? Removing politics from spirituality might reveal the true picture. The significance of human individuals is evident in every spiritual act, but one must be willing to look beyond their religious beliefs.
I aim to bring our spiritual belief systems out of fantasy and mystery akin to Harry Potter, as real damage has been done to individuals’ personal belief systems. In real life, disputes have tangible consequences. Blaming it on God’s will is unjust. If I were to blindly accept and pass on these beliefs to future generations, it would be an injustice. Thus, I will critically question these beliefs until we all take personal responsibility for our actions, even if they are motivated by religious teachings.
If we do not take responsibility, who will? God or the politicians of belonging groups? God cannot be responsible because we have our atom of autonomy, which comes with free will, compassion, and a personal sense of justice. The real culprit is the politics of belonging, a powerful human phenomenon that can turn even the most righteous individuals into extremists, stripping them of their responsibilities as spiritual leaders. If no one returns to tell us the truth about what happens after death, why do religious leaders continue to preach with such conviction? What underlies their special understanding? If every path leads to the cliff of faith, why don’t we question our religions as we do everything else?
Humanity has made tremendous progress by questioning everything. When it comes to religious beliefs, however, questioning has been discouraged. In an era of equal human rights, we still openly preach prejudice and discrimination. Had we questioned our ancestral paths as we have questioned other aspects of humanity, we might have ceased killing each other in the name of political belonging. We would have advanced in spirituality as much as we have in medicine, science, and technology. Today, if faced with a virus like Corona, we look to vaccines and antibodies rather than ancient prayers and sacrifices. If your computer malfunctions, you wouldn’t consult a religious leader but a technician. We must start questioning everything that causes us problems. It is an era of understanding, problem-solving, and taking responsibility. Global warming demands our action, not sacrifices. When faced with a problem, we seek out experts in the relevant field. Similarly, we should question our religious beliefs and understand their impact.
Leaving religious beliefs unchallenged would result in a gap of at least two thousand years. Fortunately, this problem can be addressed. By removing the politics of belonging and transforming religious beliefs into spiritual beliefs, we could overcome the divisions that lead to violence. The Pope has recently acknowledged the need for equal human rights and against prejudice—an acknowledgment that should have come two thousand years ago. Even though it is late, it is a positive step towards spiritual growth. Other religious leaders should also embrace the principles of equal human rights to fill the gap.
Regional traditions, customs, and rituals are not inherently spiritual because spirituality is universal and transcends all groups, nations, and religions. The desire to fit in and impress is often tied to group approval, leading to practices such as self-harm and human sacrifice, which have been justified in the name of God. Today, we no longer engage in such practices because we realize that God never demanded them. Humanity has advanced its understanding of natural phenomena and disease, discovering solutions that save lives, even as religious authorities have historically opposed such progress. I credit scientists who have saved lives with being closer to God than those who claim religious authority. God’s work is realized through our actions, so saving lives is as spiritual as it gets, whereas killing in the name of God is a spiritual crime. Recognizing the difference between spirituality and politically motivated religious beliefs is crucial. The best spiritual action is to assist others, embodying the duty and purpose of human life. Although it may seem optional due to free will, God’s work is manifested through physical actions performed by us. If we suffer from the consequences of our political beliefs, we must seek the true causes of our hatred and violence. Understanding our differences and addressing them with individual insight into political belonging is essential.
Here’s the revised version of your blog:
If you analyze it logically, the driving force behind all religious practices is often the pursuit of spiritual fulfillment. Rather than adhering to outdated traditions that involve sacrifice, why not modernize and amend these practices? For instance, instead of sacrificing blood to follow a religious tradition, consider donating it annually to save a life. Rather than fasting, focus on feeding those who are going without food. Instead of self-mutilation to feel pain, help those who are genuinely suffering. Rather than attending mosque or church for prayers, engage in practical acts of kindness that address real issues like poverty and suffering. This approach will provide a deeper sense of spiritual fulfillment than merely impressing others in religious settings. Remember, human gatherings are rarely free from politics. There are various types of pain people experience, so if you are in pain and seeking solutions in mosques and churches, try becoming a vessel for God’s work. See how you can transform spirituality into tangible actions that benefit others and yourself. Ultimately, practical acts of kindness are what truly matter to God, and even if you don’t hold any religious beliefs, you can still achieve spiritual fulfillment by being a helping hand.
If you are struggling spiritually despite following religious traditions, customs, rituals, and rules, consider changing your approach. Aim to please God by embodying godly qualities and bringing spiritual thoughts into action. This won’t happen by simply adhering to religious practices without genuinely fulfilling your purpose.
Consider how our cars, planes, and boats have evolved over time. Why haven’t we made similar advancements in personal behavior? Historically, we have done both good and bad things; shouldn’t our bad behaviors decrease as our civilization progresses? Why do we evolve with imbalances? On one hand, we develop nuclear weapons, while on the other, we remain mired in unjust politics and conflicts. We haven’t stopped killing each other, even during the COVID-19 pandemic. Why can’t we see ourselves as CEOs of our own lives, making decisions that shape our existence?
God does not reside in political places like mosques, temples, or churches. God is present in the lives of suffering people in need. If you spend resources on building majestic religious structures but ignore the poverty surrounding them, you are addressing the wrong issue. God resides in the human heart, so if you seek inner peace, focus on alleviating human suffering to feel useful and meaningful. A sense of purpose and relevance is beneficial for self-esteem and overall well-being.
Like our physical similarities, such as having one nose, two eyes, and a mouth, we share universal desires to stand out and achieve higher status in competitive societies. We strive for progress in all areas of life, and our basic needs—oxygen, water, food, shelter, and love—are universal. Yet, some of us cannot suppress our desires to dominate others, which may be linked to inherent traits. While we are capable of great compassion, our desire for dominance and the politics of belonging often lead to violence against the weak and vulnerable.
Reflect on where you personally stand. Can you control your animalistic desires to dominate, or are you a humble, compassionate, and loving spiritual being? Being honest with yourself will place you in a balanced state. If you fail to understand the importance of this balance, you might act purely on instinct or let others manipulate you. We are often taught to choose extremes: to be either with God or the Devil, without acknowledging our human complexity. Understanding your true identity and achieving balance between your animal and spiritual sides will lead to spiritual fulfillment. If you choose to live purely as an animal or, metaphorically, as the Devil, you will miss out on spiritual growth. Conversely, if you focus solely on spiritual devotion, you might miss out on the physical joys of life.
You have been blessed with your personal atom of autonomy, allowing you to be the CEO of your life. Unlike angels, who are devoid of desires and consequences, humans have the capacity to make choices. This capability places us ahead of angels, as we act out of choice rather than necessity. We are spiritual entities experiencing a physical existence. If you choose an extreme path, it’s your choice alone, and you should not blame your religious group or God for an unfulfilled life. God and others are not responsible for your decisions. If your religion encourages living like an angel, there are likely political motives behind this philosophy. As a human, you should embrace your nature without guilt. God might say, “I gave you autonomy to be the CEO of your life, but you chose not to live fully as a human.” With your autonomy and role as CEO, you can understand yourself better and nurture both your spiritual and physical aspects to feel comfortable in your mortal existence. A well-balanced individual cannot be swayed by simplistic reward-and-punishment philosophies or the politics of belonging, as they are spiritually aware and secure within themselves.