Christians & Muslims Keep Out. Only Humans Allowed.

Talk,

Very nice that you should say a few things about the limited reach of God in primative Abrahamic religion. For many Abrahamic believers it is probably hard to come to grips with a God that was not constant, but constantly evolving to meet the needs of the original followers of Abraham. The importance of Zoroasterism and its impact on the Abrahamic relligions should not be overlooked, nor has it been. I also believe that the Zoroasterian influences are far more important than the Egyptian.

Vinsan,

Humanity as religion may sound nice, but I'm not so sure that it will fly. "Religion" tends to provide some sort of bridge between the mundane and underlying truths about the nature of existence. Behavioral norms and taboos are closely related to the fundamental beliefs of the society's dominant religion. So how would humanity fill the role of a religion? Raw humanity suggests no clue to the meaning of existence, nor the place of our species in the larger universe. On what foundations would your Human Religion define proper behavior and thought? Reason? The dynamics of History as expressed in a socio-economic theory?

Our species has been around for awhile, and our various tribal cultures are the result of tens of thousands of years of religious thought and evolution. Those cultural norms will not be swept away easily, or in a short period of time. The aboriginal religions of the Teutons and Celts became incorporated into early Christianity, and for a thousand years the Catholic Church provided the philosophical foundations for European life. Luther's great schism kicked of the wars of Reformation and Counter-reformation, and Europeans got their fill of theologically driven blood-lust. In reaction to those terrible times, the Enlightenment was born in the 17th century. Voltaire and other thinkers exalted the role of reason and justice as the proper foundations for human relations. Enlightenment thinking played a significant role in the design of the United States. The Enlightenment, for all its wonderful contributions, was not inherently a religious movement. Agnosticism/Atheism built upon Enlightenment values is a very fine philosophical position, but is unlikely to replace religion in the hearts of most people. Should it be otherwise? Perhaps, but let's try to stay within the probable.

Marxism is perhaps the best known socio-economic theory of modern times that has tried to supplant traditional religions. Classless materialism guided by State ideologues was not only a dismal failure, it has invariably been a nightmare of repression and terror equal to any religious dictatorship envisioned by either Christian or Muslim zealots. Mottoes, no matter how fine, do not change human nature. State Communism seems destined for the dustbin, but Marxism/Socialism is alive and thriving among the political left around the world. This is not a very good substitute for "religion".

Scientific-materialism is a third alternative, and is responsible for many of the wonderful technical achievements that make our lives more comfortable and secure. Mathematics, physics and the other sciences are almost certainly the best means so far discovered for understanding the physical universe we live in. But, science doesn't address values, or prescribe normative behavior. Mathematics is beautiful and pure, but has no warmth and gives little comfort to suffering humanity. Instant communications does not necessarily improve understanding, and may even obscure meaning in some cases. To travel around the globe in a few days does not suggest a destination, or what one might do upon arrival. Indeed, in our world the differences between cities and nations are becoming harder and harder to distinguish. Existentialism may be the philosophy best suited to the scientific approach to life in the 20th centuries. Existence is meaningless, or absurd. All morality is relative. Like Marxism, science and Existentialism have great appeal to intellectuals, but for most folk don't come close to serving the same functions of their traditional religions.

key elements for religion to serve the masses, (1) ritual (2) magic, both contradictions of reason. Mankind is not a reasoning animal.

Yes we are...in parts.

and which part does a rabbit weason with?

For good luck I carry a desicated bull's ear I cut off a standing bull in Sonora Mexico 25 years ago.

Cerebral cortex.

whose?

Mine.

this is a profound question

you have one?

Certainly.

Do you?

no need for a cortex. And you?

..................

ok ok

no need to nibble my head off

If I wanted your head off, I wouldn't nibble.

whooo

caniverous thingy something with floppy ears

One does not, perforce, eat all one snips.

If one did, florists would **** rose thorns...



And now to eturn this thread to the sane people......

The sane people were never in possession of said thread. They're over at the park trying to put a needle through the eye of a camel.

That's just wrong, I know it.

It's quite possible, however -- and the opposite action (camel through eye of needle) is patently impossible. The sane persons aforementioned are merely acting accordance with the clear intentions of the author of the phrase, which was clearly mistakenly recorded by his scribe. Amazing that a typo should have gone unnoticed for so long -- especially in so widely circulated a publication -- but these things happen.

It's not unlike the now-infamous "to pee or not to pee"* gaffe.




The Danes being heavy drinkers, and the night air in Denmark in winter being a tad chilly, this was in fact a major national dilemma before the introduction of the chamber** pot.


**Originally called, for obvious reasons, and especially where a substantial portion of the populace is inebriated*** more or less nightly, the "clamor pot."



***The more this adjective describes you, the more difficult it is to say, and so we find that alcohol in fact confounds introspective Danish princes. This accounts for their unwillingness to partake of spirits.****


****But not of ghosts, of course, or there would be no English Danish***** drama to speak of.


*****Save for the Great Pastry Uprising, which first brought Trafalgar to national attention but was later overshadowed by greater exploits -- namely, his great love for and protection of the London pigeon population.





But I digress...

Indeed you do.

Asherman asks, so


Religion replies to his question by offering a mirage, so we shouldn't start there. Or perhaps we should start there by agreeing that all the bogeymen, hoo-doos and avenging angels aren't really real, that they are just elements of fear to keep the slackers in line.

"Oh, so you don't want to conform to the rules of our society, well ,,,, God is going to get you for that."

Meanwhile, "raw humanity suggests no clue to the meaning of existence" because it is the meaning of our existence. To be here. That is it. We are here in the midst of all that is real and we, each of us, breathe and live and die our own lives. Life, in it's myriad forms, forms it's own meaning.

And anyone can go and erect immense mystic structures and write massive tomes regarding the relationship between the epistemological Sha-la-las and the soul's journey, but they won't have created anything as real as one living thing, one blade of grass, one baby's laugh, the hands of a man near death.


Joe(life is good)Nation