George,
I agree, formal procedure is important – scientific and mathematical discovery needs to be made within this context and discipline. The metaphysical and theological aren’t perhaps quite so measured – but the ‘fruits’ of their discoveries have always been the same.

Bushbred,
A naïve reading of the Gospels takes them not only literally, but fails also to detect the hyperbole found within their rhetoric. The ethos in the figure of Jesus is one of undoubted non-violence and there’s no mistaking the pacifism of pubescent Christianity – from which ‘Christ’ emerges.

Undoubtedly, all war is accompanied by evil and injustice and I believe ‘The Sermon on the Mount’ offers a true blue-print for peace. However, if you are to ‘swallow’ the Gospels at all , Bushbred, take them as a whole and acquire their balance, viz, “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you… Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” The actions of individuals who are vengeful, excessively defensive, selfish, and self-justifying need repudiation - and Israel is certainly and by no means perfect in this regard.

A division between the secular and the religious rightly exists - the Church (i.e. the spiritual) has no right to appropriate and identify itself with the power of the state. This is not say it must stay out of politics - where it sees an abrogation of social justice (i.e. human rights) the Church must ‘inform’ the state. As with Kennedy and St. Mary’s, an external authority exists and has its rightful place – it should be challenged not merely usurped.

Must say, as far as Faith of the Fathers is concerned, Relda, true faith has been too much abused through history, I thus simply now believe in hope with a capital H, that compassion and commonsense is never far from one's mind.

Cheers, BB, WA.

Yes I will receive condemnation for stating the following but so Did Jesus when he told the Truth to the Pharisees.

The standard / orthodox catholic church and it's associated trinity formulation and praying ' through / via the literally dead Mary ' are at odds with the Bible.

i.e. 1. The trinity formulation is man made and ill conceived. (Gal. 3:20) KJV

2. There is but ONE mediator and it isn't Mary. (1 Tim. 2: 5) KJV

As George asked the question, I will try to answer it. The day the conscious mind began and the instinct barrier was broken, that new state of mind separated us from the animal world for ever and this took place the day we came down for the trees. That decision to do so, has shaped mankind to where it is today and this is where religion sporned and as each new generation unfolded, evolution adds one more degree to the human consciousness.
(A new age awakening)
There has been thousands of gods since that time and with-out a doubt, religion has had a massive impact, and this mechanism was indeed the key to our survival as our minds began to expand.

Now just for an example, the IQ of a chimpanzee is rated at the same as a four year old child, but at some point back in its past, it had the IQ of a three year old and so on, right back to where it was at ground zero and for us, that’s round 5 million years ago. So it’s fair to say they are following in our foot steps so to speak, but again, our branch is one of those unique triggers that we still don’t fully understand why as yet and there is no name for it. Mankind’s maturity begins at round forty and as above, the chimp hits it at the age of four, and still, the chimp sees no reason for the need for religion, but yet again, he hasn’t left the trees either. So at what stage does religion start in a species? Well as mans evolution progresses, the need for a security with in ones self, grew with all our new awakenings and curiosities and became more intense as time travelled on, so we started to join up the all dots and began questioning some of the many wonders and oddly enough the sky was the big focus with the stars and shooting stars and so on.

Continued

(Primitive man and the imagination)
And so the gods began! So in us all, we have religion constantly plucking at our inner strings and even I at times look to the skies when-ever a distressing or fearful event through loss of a loved one and so on.

(The fast train of evolvement)
Today some of mankind’s newest members are not feeling the pull like religion once had on some of us, so evolution is hard at work, and the changes are very clear to see.
It’s all in the genes and if one day man was to take out this mechanism the human state would revert back and just an empty man animal would remain. The need for god like I’ve said in the past will be with us for a long time to come. And now the big question is do we still need it? And the answer is yes. But without the misinterpretations of a man made book from primitive minds of no understanding of the text. The truth of our existence is not on this planet with an all mighty creator but with more of a big brother in our minds and once we start heading out to the stars we one day maybe gods to some other types of living creatures, but that another story.

EVO

EVO2,
Which question of mine are you “trying to answer”?

Your description of how humanity evolved is more or less the standard one, except that it is not clear on what “day the conscious mind began”. As far as I understand evolution, the transition from “animal” to “human” was continuous, gradual (ontogenetically mirrored in the ambiguities about at what “moment” an embryo becomes human). Not only religion, but the sense of, and striving for, beauty, truth, goodness - or for that matter general curiosity leading to mathematical understanding of the essence of physical reality (or religious understanding of the essence of a reality believed to exist beyond the physical) - evolved gradually in the process of “animals” becoming human. Not everything can be reduced to mere struggle for survival, individual or collective: “culture driven” evolution has been replacing its “nurture driven” stage.

Of course, there are/were naive versions of religion, like there are/were naive versions of the scientific understanding of reality and the role of mathematics therein. There are people who speak of “misinterpretations of a man made book from primitive minds of no understanding of the text“ referring to bible, who would not call Plato or Aristotle, Euclid or Pythagoras “primitive minds” although much of what these have written also needs to be re-inrepreted (but not dismissed) in light of what we have learned in the meantime.

“The truth of our existence is not on this planet”, neither is the truth about this planet in some small township in the outback. Nevertheless, you can sit in some God-forbiden place and contemplate about the fate of this planet, the same as you can sit on this planet and contemplate about the world, its meaning and purpose: the diminutiveness or remoteness of the place whence you conduct your contemplation is irrelevant. Einstein’s mind, “running” on a brain positioned on a negligibly small planet, embraced the whole universe, which, of course, might contain other living creatures that will embrace the same universe, or multiverse, in a similar or quite dissimilar manner. The same about great philosophers and general thinkers, religious or areligious.