Religion: What it means to you

I am a peculiar person. I believe in God, or at least a divine presence, but there doesn't seem to be any one religion that meshes with belief set. In a way, that's a relief, since I believe there's a distinct difference between religion and faith. I am comfortable with people choosing their own beliefs, but the moment organized religion enters the picture, I find myself wanting no part. My observations and experiences have shown that religions tend to be very divisive and alienating of others. I'm just not that way.

I was raised Roman Catholic, and for a long time, it worked, mostly because I knew nothing else and was too young to seek alternatives. However, as I grew into adulthood, I had a lot of questions and had begun to notice discrepancies in the Catholic Church's teachings. Yet whenever I asked an elder for clarifications, I was fed the same rhetoric: "You must have faith.", or "It is unwise to question the Lord's ways." Basically, the message I was given was that free thought was bad and that being a mindless sheep was good. I couldn't accept that. When it was revealed that our priest had been molesting the secretary's son and taking drugs, I decided that Catholicism - and Christianity in general - would not satisfy me.

I researched numerous faiths but found the same basic behaviors in most of them. There was a sense of self-superiority amongst many religions, that their version of God was the only "true" God and that all others were either blasphemers or misguided fools destined for eternal damnation. The function of a church, it seemed, was not only to provide a sense of spiritual community, but also to perpetuate its own existence, and the best way to foster both was to paint all other religions in a darker light. This seemed to be against the very nature of God, whom I'd been told was all-loving, all-forgiving, and all-accepting. How could one faith be right and another wrong when both believed they are praying to the same creator?

I tried to figure out the real nature of God - if one existed - for myself, screw what anyone else had to say. It took a while, but in retrospect, it was the same journey that could take others a lifetime. I decided that it was generally agreed that God was everywhere, and had created all things, so effectively, the entire Earth is God's temple. Why, then, would anyone have a need to attend a specific house of worship, or to route all communications with God through a priestly middleman?
Further, if I spent my entire life doing what I sincerely felt to be to the benefit of others and myself, was kind, generous and respectful, yet never attended Church, how could I possibly be more wicked than a man who attends service each Sunday, then goes home, gets drunk, beats his wife and steals from his workplace? This made absolutely no sense, and it cemented my belief that organized religion would serve me none.

These days, I try not to see issues in terms of "good" and "bad". Everyone has their reasons for acting, and though I may disagree, I may also not know the full story. I rather find a lot more value in the concepts of "benefit" and "harm". These are more directly tangible in most situations and it's more difficult to hide behind flimsy rationale when you know your actions will harm others.

I still believe in God. In many ways, my concept of God is still similar to the traditional Western concept, except that it's been expanded enough to allow room for Eastern similarities as well. What's different is that I do not believe in Hell. It doesn't exist. God, for all God's power, has absolutely no need to punish those who've harmed others, because those who harm others harm themselves also. The punishment is enacted within the act itself and there can be no greater consequence than knowing what you've done to hurt others.
Everyone goes to Heaven, although I see this journey as more of a state of expanded consciousness, a return to the aether that defines energy and existence at its purest form. No matter how cruel or wicked you may be, you go back to God upon death, for that's all there is.

I believe that the meaning of life is simply to live it. God exists with omnipotence, but God is everything - the Alpha and Omega. God knows God only as itself, and because the essence of God encompasses everything that has and could possibly exist, God has no direct way of knowing God-ness from without. This is why life exists: so that God can experience the wonder of existence through a subjective outlet. We live our lives in a purposefully limited capacity so that God may experience his (or her) creations - and by this, himself - through us. We are seperate, yet we come from God, so we fulfill the circle of self-awareness. Everything we do in life, every emotion, every act upon others, every idea, God experiences this as we do. This is why all people return to the heaven-state: because it's just as necessary for us to commit harmful acts as it is to be kind. Without light, the darkness cannot be understood.
Upon death, we return to God until we choose to undergo the process of living once again.
It's a pretty complex idea and I expect that many Christians will take issue with it because this process isn't explicitly stated in the Bible. But it's my belief and I'm entitled to it by virtue of free will.

There are other, more subtle beliefs that I have, but they get rather complicated and only invite arguments from overzealous types. Suffice to say, I practice no specific religion because - 1) a match doesn't seem to exist; 2) I see no need to have my beliefs affirmed by others; 3) churches place their own continued existence ahead of seeking and delivering the truth about ourselves and our existence.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

To some of you: I find it absurd that you proceed to mock religion, Christianity in particular, for its adamant trust in the words of one specific book, and the blind certainty that everything in that book is absolutely true because it says so.
Yet simultaneously, you use the theories and opinions from another, specific book as the sole basis for disproving those who subscribe to the first book.

Is this not just a bit, hypocritical?

"Your book cannot be true! Oh, it may say that everything is truth, but that is merely a convenient lie! It's nothing but platitudes and falsehoods meant to lull you into a false sense of security!"

"Oh yeah? How do you know this?"

"Why, I read it in a book, of course."

There's nowhere I can't reach.