jesus told us we can know god[good one to one]
the personal god within us all

emmanuel[god within us all]

""Keep in mind that
I am not referring..to the evolution..of new species,"""

no just editing [re programing our minds]
with two bad concepts..so poluted,..that it may well be best to stick with basics..[natural god given ones..god gifts freely to us all]

''not refering to new species]..neither does the species..science/..behind the genus..theo-ry..[of evolvlution]

""but to natural selection
within the “species”..known as human cultures""'...lol

""or""

lol its so patheticly
designed to confuse and confound
impress those ignorant of the peers theories..enslaving their minds

""or,even to more greatly..lol..restrict the term,""'

lol

""I am concerned with natural selection
among variations within the “species”..called religion.”""

yes i can agree
with where that went
but dispute the logic..that took it there

god is one family
religeon...a species within the genus
no provable genetic joinder..[linkage]

but heck..there is no species of 'religeon'
[read evolution;..no species called religeon]

each religeon..would be a new genus
and xtianisty..have..one thousand plus species..
within its genesis

no its poppy cok
but few could understand let alone refute its con-cept
[ignores the role of the precept][cause action re-action]

even if a dead incorperate corpse
like church or state..is a legal person...
evolution evolves only the living]..and 'the church' is dead

it resists any evolving
just like the other peers holding their own science theor-ry

evolutionary stasis
then one better mutation emerges
but if its not about god..its just another
peer revieuable cancer evolution..

its new rage mess-age..
and its latest messanger

its more like gmo...
[wont kill ya till the third generation goes sterile
but we will all have mad cows disease well before that'

one under god,

If I understood you properly, you do not like Stark’s sociological writings, in particular his definition of religion. That is certainly your prerogative, and I suspect that many others - Christians, atheists or what you like - will not like Stark’s historico-sociological perspective on religion.

Nevertheless, there are also those of us - with or without sociological qualifications, theists or atheists - who will find his findings and interpretations insightful, which is also the reason I introduced him here.

Thanks for the links, George, and I learned more than I set out to by my question.

George just wanted to say thank you.
While not intending to take much part here I see your informed contribution as a breath of fresh air.
Links have been very good and it has been a pleasure to read all contributions.
As I will not intrude again I will say as I leave you and those you converse with here add to the forum.
My front row forward contributions, head down and charge is less effective.
But I do think humanity, most of us needs a God.
And that is both why we invented them and continue to do so.
And why in a different way Gods continue to evolve.

Dear Belly,

Some form of religion has exited in every society
that we know of. Religious beliefs and practices
are so ancient that they can be traced into
prehistory, perhaps as far back as 100,000 or more
years ago. Even the primitive Neanderthal people of
that time, it seems, had some concept of a
supernatural realm that lay beyond everyday reality.

Among the fossilised remains of these cave dwellers,
anthropologists have found evidence of funeral
ceremonies in the form of flowers and artifacts that
were buried with the dead, presumably to accompany
them on the journey to an afterlife.

Although religion is a universal social institution, it
takes a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods,
ancestors, or totems; they may practice solitary
meditation, frenzied rituals, or solemn prayer.

Most definitions of religion that we're familiar with
have been based by ethnocentric Judeo-Christian ideas
about religion. But obviously religion can't just be
defined in terms of Western religious tradition alone.
Emile Durkheim, one of the first sociologists to study
religion pointed out that a single feature is common
to all religions: a sharp distinction between the
sacred and the profane.

I won't go into great detail here - but suffice to say
that religion can be summed up as a system of community
shared beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward
some sacred, supernatural realm. The phenomenon is of
such universal social importance that it has long been,
and remains, a major focus of sociological interest.

at the risk of derailing the thread
lets mention swedenberg..[who made mention..that we[unique ammoung all physical 'creation'..have the ability to grasp the meaning of words

the rest get their advice in real time
but we can read the words of the dead..[or spiritually too far advanced]

see no one can communicate from the highest levels[of spirit]
back to the lower...[thus god sends angels]..but if we can learn..[chose]..to learn..from the tree of wisdom..[direct]..

well so be it
we can thank adams...[or rather eves]..misstake
adam got angels..BUT..we got the words

thats unique
werree the only place in the universe
where the lower hells can commune direct to the lower heavens
as well as into the material realm..

huhmans have only been arround
for 80/100 thousands or so years

only used writting..but in relitivly recent times
pre this..it was all by word of mouth..[spruikers]
specialists...linking into our mind energy
offering their visions/solutions
direct into our mind

animal instinct
'natural selection'

autonimous reflex...if its by 'natural mean's..
god sustains it..allows it..its nature
we are never alone..

ho ho ho