Where did the concept of God(s) come from?

Hi graham, let me first say that I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. You're correct in saying that the Buddha neither denied or acknowledged the existence of God. There may be some truth, when you say that it's a concept that seems to weaken over time. Not all that long ago in history people relied heavily on agriculture for their livelihood. As anyone involved in farming, fishing or raising livestock will tell you, it's a job that you rely heavily on favourable conditions. However sometimes conditions aren't so favourable & disease or hailstorms or bush fires or floods can cause certain crops to fail. Humans being humans have to have a reason/ thing to praise/blame when crops either flourish or fail & God seems at the time like a fair enough call. Remember that most of these people weren't so educated. It's not all that long ago either, my own father never went to high school. It was a time in history where choice was limited, if your father was a farmer, fisherman, brick-layer so you were expected to be as well, if you were born a woman you'd marry into either the same or similar class of people as your father & brothers. Usually the only educated people in town were the doctor, school-teacher & the priest. To get on well with your neighbours, it was best not to rock the boat too much, especially with the well educated people. In Australia this started to change in the 1960's, however in some small rural pockets it still goes on to a certain extent.

The concept of God--or, more properly, GOD--was developed and patented by a programming engineer in a previous earthly civilization. The Genesis Operating Driver, was designed and set up at that time as a means to regenerate the planet's ever-dwindling species and their habitat, which had all, over the centuries, been decimated by the lust for wealth and power.

This digital program employed the braiding of genetics, holographics and nanotechnology, and was meant to restore the planet to its former equilibrium.

Without going into too much detail, the safety parameters set by the programming engineer were, due to the nature of the program’s benevolent goal, ignored by the device and, once set in motion, could neither be regulated nor stopped. Unbeknownst to its designer, the algorithms he'd set could only be adhered to if it included, first and foremost, total annihilation of the very race of beings who'd caused the need for such a device.

So now we live in a simulated, digitized, holographic universe in which Absolutely Everything is stamped with the imprint of God.

This has been channeled through the one known as Kilgore Trout, may he rest in past fiction.

I'm just playing, of course. Thank you for patience.

But seriously, genesis is something like God. I'm not speaking, exactly, in terms of the creation of the universe. It's karma that does that, it's lovingkindness and compassion that makes it possible that our karma has space and this "flat" earth as karma perpetuates itself, rather than this illusory self twitching around like a worm wriggling everlastingly in a bean in the fires of hell. It's genesis in the sense of generosity, giving, everpresent and generating giving anew, which goes against the grain of that karmic grasping after self. It’s the giving of safety, as illustrated by those photos Gary posted recently.

I would have to think that the illusory self, self-discovered, "created" God, as a higher, unbiased yet loving concept that more purely reflected something recognized as nature's inherent goodness, but which did not contain that human self-grasping nature which caused so much ill-will and devastation.

Of course, when humans wield "God" as a weapon, there is no understanding and no concept of lovingkindness and compassion, no good present, and so the concept of generating goodness, the very human concept of God is cut off.


Might mention that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," pretty much points out that it's a concept not to be humanly conceived of. But that was, as they say, just the beginning.

I agree with shaun the belief in God started from primitive, agricultural societies. The big question is why is it still so prevalent in a post-industrial world of advanced scientific understanding.

On one hand the belief in God truly is a positive force. It gives people great hope and confidence. It brings people together. Psychologically speaking, a belief in a Higher Power has the potential to bring about a wonderful sense of awe, inspiration and gratitude.

On the flip side, I think problems come when God is taken too literally. It becomes a "known fact" when in reality, it IS a total mystery. The belief system becomes dogmatic and laden with too many extensive rules and moral superiority. The God concept easily feeds the ego in self righteousness. Another major problem is that it stops further investigation into reality. When one "already knows the answers" then the search for further knowledge stops. So anything contradicting their belief that god created the universe and humans for instance, will automatically be fervently opposed. Many will say that evolution is "only a flimsy theory". They will ridicule true scientific achievement and extensive research into the matter while readily clinging to pseudoscientific claims such as Intelligent Design or Creationism (which in reality is pure speculation with zero evidence).

I truly believe God is a man made concept. But when I say God, I mean in the anthropomorphic sense. To say God is a bearded man in the sky judging our thoughts and deeds as is proposed in monotheistic religions seem quite absurd and way too simplistic. Yet I have always been open to the idea of a force or higher power that is IMPERSONAL but conscious,(much like Mother Nature or as represented in the Tao). Light and Dark, Life and Death, Heat and Cold, Yin and Yang as the unity of polar opposites. It doesn't judge, as a Buddha doesn't. It doesn't work supernaturally but within the laws of nature and physics. It is like gravity, or electromagnetism. It just is.

I actually find this way of perceiving "God" or a higher Power to be less prone to all the pitfalls of an All-Knowing father figure. It is neutral, not preferential. It is still just as awe-inspiring and worthy of praise and reverence, but free from all the attachment, aversion and delusion that goes with the conceptualization of a traditional God being human-like and full of emotion. To think that "God" has emotions such as anger, or jealousy, or forgiveness or even love is simply just a projection of human qualities.

If any God was prone and susceptible to the same petty and beautiful emotions as we are on this planet, whether good or ill, then what really qualifies Him to be transcendent or even any better than us? He would just be like a celestial dictator or monarch rather than an Enlightened Mind which is equananimous and detached like an awakened Buddha.

So when certain scriptures say that God was angry at such and such and smote them , or he favored so and so, or he tested Job, or sent his only son to die for our sins, God seems to be way too human. How could God have such feelings for individuals?

Here is an analogy: That would be like a man watching an anthill and picking and choosing which ants he would love and favor for worshipping him and then stepping on all the particular ants he felt have denied him respect. We'd call that man a lunatic. lol So if certain people believe their God acts and behaves like this lunatic, (as is described in certain ancient texts) it is only logical to see how overzealous religious beliefs could lead to this similar kind of lunacy.

But I do believe this is the extreme form of fundamentalism rather than the average norm for Abrahamic religions.
Peace and Wisdom to all.

Graham, here's an interesting view...

Think about "prolonged lactation" as a contraception technique. In other words, it's true that if a woman is breastfeeding she is less likely to become pregnant. The obvious reason for this is that she is already consumed with the care of her infant child and is not best prepared to become pregnant at that time.

When you think about how the societal need (not just pure survival) adapted to a physical reaction on this level it would seem to be an amazing physical effect that evolved without some sort of divine intervention.

Sometimes, with all of the complexities of nature and evolution, it's much more believable to posit a creator.
Jeff

Breastfeeding does not necessarily delay follow-up conception. As a matter of fact, a woman is highly fertile a couple of months after childbirth. In Asia, there's such a thing as called "confinement" and that often means something like 40 days for a woman to "recuperate" after childbirth. So there is sex, diet is observed and she would not even leave the house. The Malays will then conduct "ikat" which translated means "tie" where they would use traditional garters for the abdominal region. This will help her keep in shape and many have hourglass figures even after 7 kids.

Traditionally, siblings are often a year apart and we used to have families of 10 -15 excluding parents. That was a common sight but of course with the advent of family planning family sizes have become small. But still a Muslim can marry up to 4 wives in my country and if each wife just have 2 kids, that will be 8 and if 3, that will be 12. So you can imagine in those days. We used to have a state ruler with 40 kids.

Most women get pregnant while they are still breastfeeding their babies and with the second one, it would be a matter of allocating which breast for which child. I came from that generation.

Well, at least I got your attention

What I'm saying is it is very easy, and some might say logical, to believe in God when you look at some of the amazing things that exist.

For instance, while a woman is continuously breastfeeding, her body does not make a hormone that is necessary for ovulation — the release of an egg from an ovary. Pregnancy cannot happen if an egg is not released.
www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/breastfeeding-4219.htm

Now, this is true either because of evolution, or because of "something else", like God. It is fairly easy to see how evolution might be responsible for some obvious changes in our bodies over many thousands of years but this is an extremely subtle adaptation and might therefore be ascribed to God.

There are many examples of things that are easier to ascribe to God than to evolution. I must have had breasts on my mind when I chose this...

As Brian said, it is not the compassionate Personal God that is the problem. It is the re-interpretation of that God, usually by minority who take control. Godless organisations are just as vulnerable, such as fascism, maoism, athiesm, communism, buddhism (whoops, sorry not that one). What starts off with a good intention is hijacked and formed into something more akin the opposite that was intended. Islam used to be a very compassionate, enlightened and accommodating religion.. Buddhism may in the future be hijacked also. Perhaps the problems in Siri Lanka and Myanmar are small signs that they have..

If all the main religions in the world were asked to summarise their philosophy/belief/objectives into a tweet size statement each, and these were carved on one large lump of granite, and the lump was parked in a public place such as in front of the UN building (does not matter where really), that may help prevent interpretation creep. We may be surprised to find that they all say the same thing. Such as "..love your neighbour, as yourself" "..relieve all sentient beings from suffering" "aspire to have the 99 supreme attributes of Allah". Naturally they should come up with their own words.. Just a thought..

Brian, that is not your normal style of reply.. If I irked you, I apologise, as it was not intended. Strangely, I do not see the other religions the way you do. It is just not my experience. My grandfather used to say "all life's problems come from comparison" and he was a wise and compasionate non-Buddhist.

While, that may be true, I didn't have that reaction from reading Brian's post. It made perfect sense to me and I agree with it.

He was simply pointing out in this particular post that many religions have used a lot of "creativity" when showing God as the all compassionate creator. He seems to be correctly citing numerous instances when facts asserted by these religions indicate God has acted in very angry, spiteful and jealous ways. You can debate whether a Buddhist would call this "skillful". I wouldn't.

This seems like a very legitimate point made in a perfectly acceptable way.

Jeff