The Subect of Religious Origins.

by Blueblades 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Blueblades

  The subject of Religious Origins is a fascinating one, as the great multitude of books upon it tend to show. The great difficulty today in dealing with the subject, lies in the very mass of the material to handle and that, not only on account of the labor involved in sorting through the material,but, because the abundance itself of facts open up temptation to rush in hastily with what seems a plausible theory.

  The more facts, statistics, and so forth, that there are available in any investigation, the easier it is to pick out a considerable number which will fit a given theory. The other facts being neglected or ignored, the view put forward enjoy for a time a great vogue. Then inevitably and at a later time, new or neglected facts alter the outlook, and a new perspective is established.

  It should be noted that the right to an opinion is very fundamental. As this board has demonstrated, and many have been helped in the exchange of the differing opinions expressed through the other persons hard labor in trying to ascertain what are the facts when it comes to the subject of religious origins. It should also be noted that research alone does not prove anything, he said she said, ie. the existence of the supernatural. However, real life experience does and only the person experiencing the real life experience knows this.

  What is your opinion concerning the subject of religious origins?

  Blueblades
• 

  apfergus

  I'm going to have to ask for some clarification on one point:
  It should also be noted that research alone does not prove anything, he said she said, ie. the existence of the supernatural. However, real life experience does and only the person experiencing the real life experience knows this.
  It seems to me like you're implying that a "spiritual" or "religious" experience can be used to support a certain position as well as empirical evidence. This is simply not so. Such an experience can definitely move an individual to believe a certain way, but it in no way lends any support to that belief other than the completely subjective "I like it" or "it makes me feel good". There are always other more parsimonious explanations for any indescribable personal experience than God or the suprnatural.
  Having said that, I do beleive you are correct when you say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. All I'm doing is expressing mine--in no way do I mean to speak ill of anyone who professes any kind of spirituality.
• 

  Blueblades

  Hi APFERGUS! No implications here, only making an opinion that it's a very personal experience for the one experiencing whatever they are experiencing. It does not give support to any position and cannot be used as evidence to support such. I agree with your thoughts on this matter. We have to leave it at that with no disrespect to those who go through such experiences.

  Blueblades
• 

  Carmel

  Blades, I'm not sure what you mean by "religious origins". It seems to me any given "religion" can be traced back to one individual who stood out above His peers. That person usually called humanity to a "reckoning" taught things that went against the grain of the day and ended up with a following that gave rise to a movement, which in turn created an elan that transcended time and created a new "civilization". That pattern has repeated itself all around the globe and until fairly recently any new "movement" (which flourished in the 19th century) were simply subsets of existing world religions. Generally evey five hundred to a thousand years this scenario repeats itself leaving behind a body of thought that guides people forward. Eventually the egotistical forces overwhelm the purity of the "teacher" and division, corruption and disunity sap the energy and influence of the "prophet". Virtually all of them claimed they carried a "message" from One much greater than themselves, and promised to "return".

  Lay that template over all the world religions that you know of and see if it doesn't fit fairly well.

  carmel
• 

  Blueblades

  Carmel, Religious Origins has it's roots all the way back to early man, the way he viewed his existence and fears were tied into some kind of religious experience that changed from generation to generation and it is still going on all over the world today. I agree about what you have expressed also.

  Blueblades
• 

  Siddhashunyata

  "The Perrinial Philosophy" - Aldous Huxley
• 

  greendawn

  It is innate in man to believe in superior powers so all past cultures without exception believed in one or other god before whom they felt inferior and subdued.
  
  Few if any of them realised that a genuine religion is one that elevates man above his base animal instinctive nature precisely the one that evolutionists consider to be the natural and original state of man and the one to which we should remain attached to for all time, contrary to all spiritual impulses that drive us towards a higher more civilised state.
• 

  Satanus

  Shamanism is the primordial religion, if it can be called that. In any tribalistic society, a shaman, male or female will arise among the group. Therefore, all other religions must have had shamanism as a base. 'Higher', more intellectual, more theological religions develop when populations increase, and tribalism gives we to city states, etc. Shamanistc types of individuals still appear, but they channel themselves into healing services, caretaking jobs. Sometimes they become mentally ill, become drug addicts, or get on prescribed medications, because the world in which they have one of their feet, the other dimensions, do not allow them to easily fit into standard civilization. Not to say that all schizophrenics are potential shamans. But, some are.

  My contribution.

  S