.

Dear Canem Malum,

.

You wrote :

« All ideology is a source of conflict and division throughout history … Religion is a drug- similar to what Marx said- "religion is the opiate of the masses"- as if communism isn't a drug »
.

Agreed, Canem Malum.

All ideology is a source of conflict and division. Religion just happens to have been with us much longer than Marxism, communism, Nazism, capitalism, and every other “ism” we have conceived throughout history.

Religious ideology has been a major source of conflict and division ever since primeval man emerged from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees about five to seven million years ago. All the other “isms” were conceived much later.

An “ism” is a distinctive practice, system, philosophy, or ideology (OED). All “isms” are sources of conflict and division. All are potential drugs, “opiates of the masses”, including, as you suggest, communism – as well as capitalism, of course.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« If you testify that this is your understanding then I cannot argue otherwise. However, that understanding is flawed: Human beings indeed branched off, etc. as you wrote, but not "we human beings" »
.

As I have often indicated here on OLO, I have great respect for the kaleidoscope of human culture around the world, Yuyutsu, including my own culture which is steeped in liberal Christianism ( that of the Church of England, now known as the Anglican Church of Australia). But, as you also know from our previous exchanges, a lifetime of study of the origin of religion and its tenets has led me to the understanding that I depicted in my previous post.

Naturally, as per the fundamental rule of every rational – dare I say scientific – study, I conducted it as freely, as independently, and as honestly as humanly possible, being especially careful to avoid any “a priori” assumptions, beliefs or precepts. I based my study solely on the facts as revealed to us to date by reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific research (historical, social, anthropological, and neurological, in particular).

Consequently, I should be very surprised if anybody willing to undertake a similar study under such rigorous conditions of rationality, honesty, neutrality, thoroughness, and completeness, based solely on the facts as we know them today, would arrive at a different conclusion.

Any detailed indication by you or by anybody else, for that matter, to the contrary, would be more than welcome.

That said, Yuyutsu, I should be delighted if you would be so kind as to provide me with a more detailed description of your own Hindu spiritualistic understanding of the origin of religion and its tenets – in addition to the few cursory remarks you made in your comments on my understanding of the origin of religion and its tenets.

My curiosity knows no bounds.

How do you think religion and its tenets originated, Yuyutsu ?

.

Dear Banjo,

«I have great respect for the kaleidoscope of human culture around the world, Yuyutsu, including my own culture which is steeped in liberal Christianism ( that of the Church of England, now known as the Anglican Church of Australia).»

So you were interested in and studied about Christianity and its origins.

«But, as you also know from our previous exchanges, a lifetime of study of the origin of religion and its tenets has led me to the understanding that I depicted in my previous post.»

Having spent a lifetime in study of Christianity is fine, but does not amount to studying religion or about religion.

Up to your concluding remark ("Religion is a drug"), your comment was all about Christianity, so our Christian friends in this forum are welcome to relate to your words as they wish. I was only referring to your concluding remark.

«I based my study solely on the facts as revealed to us to date by reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific research»

No problem with that, that's called anthropology, the study of human development and behaviour: just as no astronomer should take issue with your studies so long as you did not refer to them as astronomy, no religious person should take issue with your anthropological studies so long as you did not refer to them as the study of religion.

«How do you think religion and its tenets originated, Yuyutsu ?»

The very moment anything or anyone seemed separate from God, having felt the pain of limitation, it started longing to re-unite with God, thus started on its journey back to God, which is religion in the broader sense.

While all that exists, without exception, is on that journey, having a human body and brain allows one do proceed on that journey consciously and deliberately: which can be referred to as religion in the practical narrow sense.

As for religious tenets, over time, people discovered that certain methods and general principles work better than others to advance us more quickly and steadily on our journey back to God.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

In response to my statement : “I have great respect for the kaleidoscope of human culture around the world, Yuyutsu, including my own culture which is steeped in liberal Christianism ( that of the Church of England, now known as the Anglican Church of Australia)”

You replied : “So you were interested in and studied about Christianity and its origins”.
.

No, Yuyutsu, as indicated, I was referring to the kaleidoscope of human culture around the world, including my own Christian culture. I already knew how Christianity began and developed. That has been well documented by historians. I wanted to go beyond that and discover the circumstances that led to the development of religion in general, including the god concept.
.

You then wrote :

« Up to your concluding remark ("Religion is a drug"), your comment was all about Christianity, … »
.

No, it wasn’t "all about Christianity", Yuyutsu, you are referring to what I wrote in my last post to Peter, the author :

« There are officially 51 non-secular States in the world today, Peter, many of whose politics “often rely on coercion” – in some cases, to a much greater extent than in secular States.

You seem to overlook the fact that religious ideology has been a major source of conflict and division of humanity throughout history, just as it is today and, no doubt, just as it will continue to be a major source of conflict and division throughout the foreseeable future.

There is no end in sight.

Religion is a drug, an entheogen : a little stimulates; too much enslaves; an overdose dehumanises »

As you can see, Yuyutsu, my concluding remark was not “all about Christianity”. It was all about “religious ideology” (in general).

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

And, finally, I’m sorry to have to say that your response to my question : « How do you think religion and its tenets originated, Yuyutsu ? » makes no sense at all.

You replied :

« The very moment anything or anyone seemed separate from God, having felt the pain of limitation, it started longing to re-unite with God, thus started on its journey back to God, which is religion in the broader sense … »

You do not explain how or why primitive man thought there was “a God” in the first place. According to the anthropologists, primitive societies were animist and attributed a god or spirit to each of earth’s physical features as well as to each of the terrifying manifestations of nature, as I indicated in one of my previous posts.

Never mind. I think we had better leave it at that, Yuyutsu, and call it a day.

With best wishes,

.

Dear Banjo,

I could easily respond to the issues you raised, but since you prefer to call it a day then so be it.