What Was Man Thinking When He Made Up All Those Religions When A Perosnal Relationship With God Would've Suffice?

I refer you to. . . The oath of human citizenship ill send. Also drugs.

The following was told to me in a low falsetto voice, in my head, in Spring 2009:

The Oath of American citizenship or The Decree of Buddhist Rationalism:
On the meaning of life:
Everyone must leave something behind when (s)he dies. Something that his or her hands have formed in some way so that his or her soul has somewhere to go when she or he die, if his or her work is not yet done. It doesn’t matter what he or she does, as long as he or she has changed something from the way he or she found it; preferably for the better.The difference between a man making a meal and a cook preparing a masterpiece of flavor- “feast?” is in the preparation of the said meal. Stuff your eyes with the marvels of the world and live as if you were about to die at any moment, in that you live every moment to its fullest. Do harm to none and no harm will befall you unless it is necessary. Typically, the necessary or unavoidable occurrences of the world are beyond rational thought. Trying to explain the negatives of the world, in anything besides an unbiased rational data reliant way, is a wasted pursuit. Respect, observe and maintain the world, for it is rare and it will be depleted too soon.
To assume security or guarantee for anything is to act as a carrion. The carrion, though does nothing, but nourish those who come after it. So treat the dead as the carrion. Its accomplishments must be built upon, while its mistakes quickly forgotten. Instead be like the vulture, and live off of the fruits of the carrion’s material being. To do so is too honor the memory of its past energy.

On Suicide: Since all life is considered sacred, death itself should be avoided to the extent that is possible. However, because every human is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if a human decides that they would be happier dead, then aren’t they entitled the right to commit suicide in their pursuit of that happiness? After a certain age? (maturation)
On truth: Before one can really make an analysis of truth one must consider its sources. Does truth pertain more to what we each hold in our own hearts, what the majority believes, or by measuring the most present opinion of society? Ultimately, one must make that decision for themselves, but it is only in each person’s heart that truth can reside. Historical facts are undeniable, but the question must always be, have we learned from our past experience? If not, how can we act in a way that reflects the experience we have had, towards improving our/that reality?
On others beliefs: Ultimately, what a person chooses to believe and assimilate into their life is entirely that individual’s decision. However, one cannot be judged in a way that does not include their past actions. For it is their past actions that demonstrate how they act based on their beliefs and experiences. Therefore, it is necessary to have patience with all other beings and to refrain from infringing your belief system upon them. However, informing them of your belief system on an intellectual basis is commendable and may help them on their journey.
On “our origins”:What sets us apart from the other organisms on this planet? The simplest explanation is that the ability to reason is what sets us apart from those animals around us, though we too are just animals. Therefore, the mind, which allowed for this reasoning in the first place sets us apart. So the mind has created everything that we now have. The values, beliefs, & societies that exist are only products of the mind. The laws and moral codes humanity, generally, holds in common are thus the product of our shared subconscious. The messiahs that have been intrinsic to the varying institutionalized belief systems were only guides along the way to complete balance of reason. If we desire to continue these belief systems we must let go of our differences and incorporate the most important elements of each in order to maintain the stability of our broader system(s).Since there is little to no (absolute) definitive proof as to whether or not Our Universal Creator, or Allah, or Jehovah or whatever you choice to call the divine power that may or may not have created this place, exists it is equally logical to say that the earth produced mankind. Therefore, we must care for our creator by caring for the earth. For perhaps humans were merely the products of the essential creation of our lord the universal creator; the earth and celestial heavens. Or just as likely maybe not.
On morals: The world is only considered from a moral perspective after interpreting the stigmas that humanity has developed toward certain, declaredly deviant behaviors. Somehow, we have lost our way, putting meaning where none should be seems like a sitcom trying to convince us it is the only right (correct) way. Indeed, we must not take instruction as to what our moral standard should be that is for each to decide on their own. Placing great emphasis on chastity simply because our society is a patriarchal one, and it is perceived that women need to be protected, is the result of those religions that try to explain our creator as a male. Understanding where our morals come from is just as important as what those morals are. We have only two words of advice: Do harm to none unless it is necessary or accidental, and karma will treat you well. And Take care of the earth for that is all that we have by which to judge our potential creator and existence which will be depleted too soon.
On karma: Serving as the underlying energy that regulates and maintains all of life, As the source of all life and especially the mind, Karma is usually not considered an entity, but rather a certain shared driving energy. However, this energy can easily be given the name of Our universal creator and if looked at as a comparison of the Christian, Moslem, and/or Jewish Our universal creator could be seen as more fair because like the universal creator of these other religions karma is always with the being who has accumulated it, but it is entirely based on the actions of each individual whereas, in certain sects of Christianity and Islam beings are sometime reprimanded or considered to have sinned purely based on their thoughts. Yet the declaration from Our Universal Creator as not interfering with freedom of will, would surely contradict such punishment. Generally, karma can be good, bad, or neutral in its origins. A few brief examples will illustrate this point best.
Good Karma:
1) You’re standing on the road in front of your house and a car parks next to where you are standing on the road. a) the man has a tail light out. If you tell him and he takes action to avoid a ticket in the future there is no precise way of calculating the benefit of saved time.b) the man litters on your lawn then drives away. You could either get upset and call the cops reporting the man for littering assuming that you recorded his license plate or you might pick it up and just let things be that are. The first action would not necessarily produce bad karma, in fact, the man may be a criminal and by reporting him to the police perhaps you may save a life in the process. For it cannot be denied that the world works in mysterious ways. All that can be expected is that we do what we feel is necessary in the moment. More likely than not though the second action would(might) be better because perpetuating a broken/wasteful system just because one can isn’t good enough reason to do so.

2) Bad karma:, to kill, waste, or maliciously act is part of life, However, to do these things when it is not absolutely necessary is to accumulate bad karma.

3) Neutral karma: In life there is much that is neither good nor bad. An example would be driving to work. The pollution of your car might be seen as bad, yet the need to go to work in order to survive cancels the potential bad of pollution and so the act becomes neutral, in your mind. Here what is necessary must be in the eyes of the beholder. There are those who find that they must believe in a higher power in order to be calm in their hearts. The nature of this higher power, although indiscernible, has been personified so as to stress this entities human characteristics and to emphasis any connection that may exist between this entity and us. Could we argue that the effect of personifying an entity was motivated by a desire for money?
On reincarnation: There are those who would argue that after death one's soul either ascends to heaven of descends to hell. Instead imagine that if one has accumulated enough bad karma they will be reincarnated as an orphan or if enough bad karma (ex. Hitler) as a rock. Or if one has accumulated enough good karma is reincarnated as a billionaire or the next stage of life. On
Our Universal Creator(OUC): As there is no definitive proof that Our Universal Creator does or does not exist, there need not be belief in one direction or the other. If there is a higher power though, to call that entity by a name, when the intention of a name is to provide a description, is disrespectful. Instead one is more accurate in describing such an entity in the only way we might comprehend, through an idea(concept). If one must refer to this possible higher power, we suggest the term universal creator. Of course, this is still labeling something beyond comprehension. It is just as likely we are creating a director for something that has never had direction and then the exercise is pointless so decide for yourself and don’t let anyone criticize (original word was undermine) your belief; other than yourself.
On the earth: The existence of a personified entity that created and watches over this world is not the most relevant issue. Rather, how we can best foster a connection with this entity should that entity exist must be considered our most important purpose. Since the only thing we have to judge this potential entity by is that which was created, what should take precedence must be to cherish any connection that might still exist to our creator through caring for the earth. For it is through observing the earth that we can best see the presence of a higher power, if it exists. In studying existences' design we would best be able to marvel at its creation.
On gender: Anything with the ability to reason should be considered equal. Reasoning itself is too rare to justify any other action. Likewise love is too rare to merit the constraint of others. If two members of the same sex should fall in love, Is it any less beautiful or productive than any other union? Further is there any reason why gay/lesbian or bisexual people shouldn’t go through the trials of marriage or lifelong partnership like their straight counterparts do, for reason would say everyone should have to endure the duplicity that is marriage. Additionally, if considered from a logical approach homosexuality is inevitable based on gender percentages; it is also an interesting form of population control.
<While my own genetic code is that of a Bodhisattva by which is meant that it contains all the genetic codes of every organism I have ever been. One, or three of those, depending how you look at it, past lives, are/were of a species known as Cannabis.
When it comes to the differences between women and men, simple reason can easily be applied. Women should be treated with equal respect to men because the only inferior qualities that exist between the two sexes are the result of biological differences and are mostly physical in origin anyway; the ability to reason proves the equality of the sexes. In fact, because women live longer than men, perhaps men should take some lifestyle tips from women, the remaining unequal treatment that women suffer is, unfortunately, the residual result of the patriarchal system that has been present in the world and is still present in the world. Again, unfortunately, the only way that the patriarchal tendencies of our flawed system will be righted is through the continued advocacy and success driven gains of women everywhere. However, there needs to be room for women to choose to do whatever they feel is necessary in situations that call for personal preference.
Men and women find each other difficult to understand. The reason for this may be simple. Men, generally, think in terms of logic and reason, which is not to say that men are necessarily right in their logic and/or reason. Women, generally, think in terms of empathy and reason, the added combination of emotion makes men, who typically internalize their emotions, jumpy. This is why gay people could be seen as expanding human consciousness because they are attempting to equalize and reassign gender roles to both men and women and their thought processes. From this perspective they should be honored for their service to the betterment(expansion) of humanity (consciousness).
On Sex: We must, as a species, realize that we are one of the only organisms granted the blessing of deriving pleasure from the act of procreation. We are also the only organism that can stop this from resulting in a child. This too is a blessing, yet instead of reveling in the blessings we have been given, we are taught (at times instructed) to shun the act of sex.When in reality sex is one of the most beautiful and satisfying action in which two humans can engage. Since the institution of marriage was originally a civil institution, there is no reason to subscribe to the tradition as it is in only its religious form. Likewise only civic codes should apply to the core foundations of marriage.
Only consenting parties and those 16 or older should engage in sex. There will always be those who take it upon themselves to have sex earlier. That is their choice, yet it is dangerous and often/sometimes criminal so it is not recommended.
On governance (optional): Government only exists to provide society with the direction, order and structure it needs to function efficiently, yet if order deteriorates then it is often the government (or its operators) that is (are) to blame, so they should not be answered to in the event of breakdown. For when the government fails us we no longer owe the government anything other than military funding to protect us, which one would hope wouldn’t be necessary, and/or whatever fees are required to provide education, health care, etc. It is for this reason that one would argue that in times of economic crisis government should scale back its police force (military) and stop controlling people’s actions when it has no right to do so in the first place. For life is the greatest experiment of all.
Some would argue that no military would mean marshal law, instead, imagine a nation where the people are forced to trust one another as compatriots. The community that would develop would go beyond any distinguishing characteristic, creed, or personality. Would the current system break down? If it needs to it will. The future is in no one’s hands, but our own.
On charity: To ensure one’s place in the next life, one should give what they can when they can, An exact figure cannot be made because we can each only give so much and still survive. But always give what you can, when you can; for to better the lives of others is to improve your own.
On education: Education is the single greatest tool that can be utilized to achieve social mobility and eventual equality. However, attempts must be made to ensure that education is attainable by the majority of citizens and is affordable to even the most impoverished in society. Some would say that education should be reserved for the rich, yet to support this claim is to discount the value that knowledge can have in every person’s life. For it is through knowledge that even the idiot (fool) can realize their full potential and in so doing make the greatest contribution to society.
The idea of universal standards is one thing, but to dictate what is taught in anyway, beyond a local or at largest state (original word was provincial) level is to push the bounds of affordable federal ambitions. For this reason I question the sustainability of a federal common core; especially when precedent in this case would suggest that federal policy is to diminish education in order to slow progressive social change that would have improved the whole.

On books: Books are necessary and sacred for they allow our minds to question and improve our condition in this life. Books ensure that the mind remembers the mistakes of old so as to avoid them in the future.
On violence & war:Violence is only necessary in times of personal protection, yet, even in times of great threat we must always remember one rule. That to be attacked and retaliate would cause more damage then being attacked and standing peaceful. This is especially true given the destruction that can result from war. The moral lesson portrayed by standing peaceful will prove the attacker to be the lesser party. Therefore karma will force the issue and the aggressor will suffer in the end. A brief example will illustrate the intended meaning.Bob comes home two hours early from work to find his best friend’s car parked in his driveway. This comes as a welcome surprise, Bob enters his house and walks to his bedroom, he opens the door to see his fiancée having sex with his best-friend.What would you do in this situation? Here there are two paths that can be taken. Bob could either let his anger at the scene unfolding before him take over and beat the living shit out of his best friend and/or his fiancée or he can leave the house and give himself time to think. The first course could easily result in criminal charges and possible jail time. Since Bob is studying to become a teacher he would ruin any chances at success by pursuing this first course. The second course is how Bob proceeds; he leaves his house, gets a room at a nearby motel and calls his father for advice. Here Bob has ensured his future as a teacher and avoided smearing his own name and reputation. In the meantime, his fiancée is labeled as a tramp, while his best friend will eventually get what’s coming to him.
On torture & Terrorism:Since different religions, cultures and societies define and consider torture differently, it is necessary for us to first define exactly what torture is. Torture can be considered any intentional act of inflicting pain, degradation or inhuman treatment to another human being. The reason for this torture should not be considered relevant to the morality of torture. Further, because the ability to reason is such a rare thing, torture of one human being by another shouldn’t a) be present in the world and b) should be prevented as much as possible by reasoning beings.Furthermore, terrorism, or the act of intentionally infringing a sense of fear on another being should be considered in the same light as torture. In fact, some may even consider it worse than torture, because to purposely cause unease of another’s mind is the worst way that we can torture someone. The reason for this is simple because physical pain can be overcome by the mind, but unease and fear reside in the mind and are much more difficult to overcome.
On consumerism: to consume is a necessary part of life. Otherwise we would die. However, to consume more than is needed for one’s survival is surely detrimental. This is because if those who can consume more than they need, do, then those who cannot often must do without. Therefore, every effort must be made to alleviate the suffering of all of humanity. Until no one has to do without, Everyone should do what they can to address the needs of those who go hungry, sick, or otherwise impoverished.
On the substances of this earth:This is where individual preference comes into play. There are those who say drugs or substances fog the mind’s ability to reason. However, there are also thos

Great post, Jesus is alive! He conquered death and sin, Anyone can experience the love, joy and peace He offers to those who turn to Him. Why people see the need to scoff is beyond me, His resurrection is the greatest event in history!!

The same thing he was thinking when he made up Christianity.

Because God created humans as social creatures who need the sense of community that religion provides.

Forgive them.

We all create God in our own image.

@GodSpeed63 Great propaganda posters. How do you know what the Jesus character looked liked? They did give a physical description of Mohammed but they get pissed when he is drawn.

True

Do you think you know the mind of God?

There's no way that you can separate God's mind from his ♥.

So, you got evidence for this God dude yet, or is it just more of the same?

Stop smoking crack