As Jellaledin Rumi said

 

 

 

I don't think that this is adequate to prove the existence of a creator, but maybe it could be viewed as a primary contributer to our cerebral, cognitive and cultural evolution... or possibly a product thereof.

 

 

It arises from the overwhelming human desire to discover/invent causes for everything.

 

It's the baby in us always asking 'why'.

 

Actually from observing cats and dogs and other higher animals I think they also look for causes too, though not so deeply. But I agree that may be just anthropomorphising on my part.

 

 

 

And we also don't like the idea that we are not, in one way or another, special.

 

 

I guess while some of us like to think were special there are others who feel the opposite.

The ability to think is remarkable indeed, but only for ourselves. I bet the Sun is not very impressed. Oh, wait! It can't be! It doesn't think! Or maybe we are just unable to reason and debate with a star. So, our remarkable ability still needs some improving. We are just being our narcisists selves: "I can't help to be awed of how remarkable I am. I'm modest too! I know I'm not God! But I also know He created this world for me, I was made alike Him, and I'm going to heaven.". Somebody should really built that Terminator chip! 

 

 

 

Spirituality has connations with the "spiritual world", trying to understand the "unknown", the other "worlds".

 

Most ancient spiritual movements are tied to some form of belief in a creater.

 

Cezar The ability to think is remarkable indeed, but only for ourselves. I bet the Sun is not very impressed. Oh, wait! It can't be! It doesn't think! Or maybe we are just unable to reason and debate with a star. So, our remarkable ability still needs some improving.

 

As humans we can debate whether the Sun and other stars can communicate or not and try to proove it, this is remarkable, its not the ability that needs improving its our understanding and utilisation of it.

 

 

Cezar We are just being our narcisists selves: "I can't help to be awed of how remarkable I am. I'm modest too! I know I'm not God! But I also know He created this world for me, I was made alike Him, and I'm going to heaven."

 

There are two possibilities.

 

There is heaven

 

There isn't heaven

 

We'll all find out one day, untill then I'll respect either perspectives opinions, its all a matter of faith to believe or to believe not to believe.

 

This is what many people think, yes, but I know that in Christianity, although it is the most predominant thought, that is not what is said in the Bible. Instead one reason people dont like the Bible is because it plays humanity as a failure, and then us worse. (Humanity failure in the Garden of Eden, and then our personal "sin" failures in our own lives) It never says that those who are "saved" are better, nor are those that would go to heaven are better than those that would go to Hell. The reason there is the separation is because there would be those who do know God, and thus are friends with Him and are invited to his kingdom, and those who do not know Him and are not invited in because of that.

 

"What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is writen: There is no one righteous, not even one;... All have turned away, they have together become worthless." (Romans 3:9-12, NIV)

Mathematics is then the top of spirituality.

Most ancient spiritual movements are tied to some form of belief in a creater.

So what? Does that mean we should stick to our ancient knowledge? Is "ancient spirituality" something we should depend on?

As humans we can debate whether the Sun and other stars can communicate or not and try to proove it, this is remarkable, its not the ability that needs improving its our understanding and utilisation of it.

The first improvement should be not to think of this ability as being remarkable.

There are two possibilities. There is heaven There isn't heaven We'll all find out one day, untill then I'll respect either perspectives opinions, its all a matter of faith to believe or to believe not to believe.

First, the whole Christian basis, OT especially, is nothing but a collection of tales of murder, genocide, fratricide and other nice things like that. I bet that if someone never heard of it orwould consider Meink Kampf mild propaganda compared to the holly scriptures. Faith is based on the conservation instinct. An earthworm will avoid fire. Fire is to it a perfect God. The level of "spirituality" of the worm is not sufficient to make it comprehend the combustion. Some ancient beliefs were actually worshiping fire as a God. Why worshiping something to be afraid of? How many times is mentioned God to be feared in the holly books? Why should we love Him since He is to be feared? Is "faith" some kind of S&M?

Those aren't the only two possibilities. There's reincarnation for a start. There's also Hades which is neither heaven nor hell nor extinction.

 

And there are many varieties of 'heaven'.

 

We'll all find out one day,

Or not, as the case may be

untill then I'll respect either perspectives opinions, its all a matter of faith to believe or to believe not to believe.

-------------

 

But yet my faith is not based on feart at all. The "Fear of God" that is referred to in the OT is a respect for God, not a fear that is instinctual because your afraid of that being.

 

You mentioned that all stories in the OT are about genocide and murder and the such, yet in written history we have the Holocaust and the Third Reichs mass murder of Jews under hitler, yet we know that it happened. Purely because it is in written history does not mean that it did not happen. All of these "myths" are handed down through oral history, yes, but also notice that in the OT all of the geneologies are mentioned, and the names of the father of, father of, father of, ect.. are written down. This is the oral history of a people, the Jews, and they would have been sure to write such things down carefully.

 

But in what language?

 

Speaking of DNA and the irregular sequence that was used to form the "words" needed for life

 

 

I think like everything else in human history, religion slowly evolved into more complex and stronger meanings. To this day it still changes. It was just adding faces to the unexplained, making it more understandable to us even if it was incorrect. Overtime story was added, and we end up with what we have now, and it's still not the end product.

 

The concept of reincarnation includes heaven aswell, we reincarnate untill we reach a spiritual level high enough to enter as the Hindus call "Loka".

 

There are different interpretations of "heaven" but they share a common point which is being another world.

 

 

SearchandDestroy I think the oldest tomb/grave is just rocks formed around the body with the one at the head having a hole to allow the spirit out, though they can only guess on that.

 

The concept of "burial" is interesting in itself.

 

Why have we always had burial rights?

 

 

Cezar Mathematics is then the top of spirituality.

 

Everything in existance is connected to spirituality if you have faith in the creater as the creater created everything when there was once nothing.

 

Cezar So what? Does that mean we should stick to our ancient knowledge? Is "ancient spirituality" something we should depend on?

 

You missed my point, which is not that we shouldn't just stick to ancient knoweldge but instead trying to understand why humans have since their creation had "faith".

 

 

Then if I don't have faith I totally lack spirituality?

Cezar So what? Does that mean we should stick to our ancient knowledge? Is "ancient spirituality" something we should depend on?  You missed my point, which is not that we shouldn't just stick to ancient knoweldge but instead trying to understand why humans have since their creation had "faith".

First, what's that about humans creation? You think we were created? Then, what faith? Maybe you say that ancient people worshiped nature. Again I see it as a side result of conservation instinct. They were trying to avoid being harmed.

Cezar Why worshiping something to be afraid of? How many times is mentioned God to be feared in the holly books? Why should we love Him since He is to be feared? Is "faith" some kind of S&M?   Why should the creater be feared?   There are many people who love the creater.   Also love can create fear but a different kind of fear, you fear that you may upset your mother but love your mother like nothing else in the world.

[/quote]

So it's a desire and want in burying our relatives that goes back atLEAST 40,000 and definitly further back. Over time it became a ritual, in either case it eases the mind knowing you didn't leave your your relative to the elements and animals.

 

And before anyone asks, "Well what about the sky burial?" because I know some people on this forum like to pull that sort of thing, it's obvious that it's a custom that came about through neccesity to do something with bodies. After all, it's just about comforting the mind more then anything.  

 

In the end, if there was a creator, would it matter what other religions though? I often find that people grade "God" on religions. Think about it, if there truly is a superior being, with superior intellect, then how could you grade that being on humans like us? Wouldn't we be getting it mostly wrong in the first place?

 

That's not for me to say, faith and spirituality are personal, I or anybody else can't dictate to you what you should or shouldn't believe, its a private matter.

 

Cezar First, what's that about humans creation? You think we were created?

 

Well we havn't always existed, at some point we were created.

 

Cezar  Then, what faith? Maybe you say that ancient people worshiped nature. Again I see it as a side result of conservation instinct. They were trying to avoid being harmed.

 

The creater created everything, so if nature created us its the work of the creater.  

 

 

 

Think about it, if there truly is a superior being, with superior intellect, then how could you grade that being on humans like us?

Exactly, so why do people choose to follow religion? Perhaps just comfort through spirituallity and hope?

Wouldn't we be getting it mostly wrong in the first place?

I always question that, and thats why I asked.

 

Originally posted by Bulldog Gcle Those aren't the only two possibilities. There's reincarnation for a start. There's also Hades which is neither heaven nor hell nor extinction.   And there are many varieties of 'heaven'.   The concept of reincarnation includes heaven aswell, we reincarnate untill we reach a spiritual level high enough to enter as the Hindus call "Loka".   There are different interpretations of "heaven" but they share a common point which is being another world.

It would be better then to use the term 'other world'. 'Heaven' has many specific connotations, including being a pleasant place.

 

Actually I'd have no objection to saying there are two possibilities: "There is an afterlife" and "There is not an afterlife". Though you'd have to raise the question of whether there is a 'beforelife' or not.

 

 

 

Valid points, what i was trying to say, guess i should have just said it, was that we should grade it not on the religion intself, but the book that the religion follows. Such as the Bible, Koran, Torah, ect.. other spiritual books.

 

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Speaking of a creator, there could be one, but there doesn't have to be a religion and thats what I'm getting at. If some religions don't have a creator or a being of superiority of the all ruling, then is not something we were born self-consciencious of, and thus religion would be invention.

Buddhism gets on very well with the idea of an eternal, uncreated, universe, and has no 'being of superiority of the all ruling'. Anybody can be a Buddha, given time and right thought, right living and so forth.

 

Many animist religions have no concept of a single creator, or of a creation for that matter.

 

In fact you'll have to look at animism to find the origins of religion since that's the oldest of all religious beliefs.

Valid points, what i was trying to say, guess i should have just said it, was that we should grade it not on the religion intself, but the book that the religion follows. Such as the Bible, Koran, Torah, ect.. other spiritual books.

The books are the religion, without them, there wouldn't be a religion to follow. You could have preachers without a book, but then it would probably resemble the Celtic Religion where it ended up with 100s of gods, I believe upwards near a 1000 or more. There was no written book for the Druids and they conveyed the stories themselves, which obviously makes the religion unique in different areas.

But with the bible and other holy books, it creates consistency within a religion, something everyone looks to for answers. But even then the books change, so there's not much that is consistent in religion in my eyes. If it were 100% completely true and consistent, then there'd be one religious book and thus one religion; or atleast consistent one. Instead we have multiple religions and with each one multiple sects in them. So, how do you grade a book, when there isn't one that can be widely accepted as the true one? Do we grade the bible and koran against the Torah since it started the Abrahamic Branch?

To grade something, you need to find something to grade it against, otherwise it's pointless. All followers say their belief is true, so how do you find the one that is of a higher grade?

 

Maybe I'm not understanding what you are trying to say, but grading something to me means putting a rank or value that is higher or lower then others in a catagory. Usually you have something to measure up to, a medium I guess you can say. But we don't, atleast as far as I know.

Originally posted by gcle Buddhism gets on very well with the idea of an eternal, uncreated, universe, and has no 'being of superiority of the all ruling'. Anybody can be a Buddha, given time and right thought, right living and so forth.   Many animist religions have no concept of a single creator, or of a creation for that matter.   In fact you'll have to look at animism to find the origins of religion since that's the oldest of all religious beliefs.

Thanks for the info on Buddhism. I think that shows that humans aren't born with the idea of a supernatural being in mind, but is passed on by culture.

To this day many Shamans in central Asia still believe in animism and ancestral spirits from what I understand. Do these religions stretch back thousands of years before written religion? I was always curious about them in that regard. With written religion we have a good idea of the age they are, but with Shamanism and such, I never really see a age put on them.

 

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Originally posted by gcle Buddhism gets on very well with the idea of an eternal, uncreated, universe, and has no 'being of superiority of the all ruling'. Anybody can be a Buddha, given time and right thought, right living and so forth.   Many animist religions have no concept of a single creator, or of a creation for that matter.   In fact you'll have to look at animism to find the origins of religion since that's the oldest of all religious beliefs. Thanks for the info on Buddhism. I think that shows that humans aren't born with the idea of a supernatural being in mind, but is passed on by culture.

Buddhism does have supernatural beings (at least many branches of it). It just doesn't need a creator, and they're not seen as all-powerful. Depends a bit what you mean by supernatural beings or course - it's more like Christians or whatever also believing in fairies and elves.

To this day many Shamans in central Asia still believe in animism and ancestral spirits from what I understand. Do these religions stretch back thousands of years before written religion? I was always curious about them in that regard. With written religion we have a good idea of the age they are, but with Shamanism and such, I never really see a age put on them.

-------------