• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How did religion evolve?

tariqkhwaja

Jihad Against Terrorism
Assalamualaikum.

I was surprised to see the contents of the thread titled "Evolution of Religion". I thought it would refer to how Abrahamic and other religions have evolved over time in their teachings and how God has advanced the laws for us human beings. But instead I saw a discussion of the "natural" comeuppance and subsequent evolution of religion according to the human psyche. That is, I saw in this religious evolution discussed with the point of view that religion was established as a social need over time. So I will address in this post how religion has prevailed in human beings due to God’s direct interference as opposed to the socialist and atheist viewpoint that humans created God.

It is factually incorrect of socialists to state religion slowly evolved as humans realized they needed something to worship. Facts oppose this viewpoint.

We see that religion and the concept of God and the craving for a connection with Him has always been re-established by Prophets of God. Furthermore, this happens always in a time that people to whom the prophet is sent are far detached from religion (or follow it blindly without spirit or thought).

So, for example, according to the Quran, Abraham proclaimed Prophethood at a time when his own father and the people around him worshipped a thousand Gods. The same was the case with Moses when people used to worship the Pharoah. Turn to Jesus and he, too, was sent to let the Jews know that they were now blindly following their religion with no idea of what it meant to follow it. And, of course, we have Prophet Muhammad (peach and blessings of Allah be upon him) who came at a time when Arabs were worse than animals in many ways and people with a real connection with God were very hard to find.

Some socialists claim that as time passed humans went from worshipping several Gods to worshipping one God. Yet history shows that Prophets came to give people a unity concept of God but as time passed people moved away from that concept and associated partners to God. Or, stopped believing in Him at all. As we see today, 1400 years after the advent of Islam humans are atheists openly or hypocritically (as in they claim to believe in God but their actions show otherwise).

In conclusion, humans tend to move away from the concept of God over time. It is not the other way around. The only reason they return to God’s worship is due to direct interference of God by sending one person who claims to be a Prophet. So is the case with Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Moses, and all the others.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
??

We exist outside of our brains and bodies? This is amazing!

You totally need to write to scientific american and get this published. We are immortals baby! This human form is nada and the whole impregnation, gestation and birth thing and all that aging and living in between... hahaha... Illusison.

You think thats air your breathing?

Classic. I really can't believe this. Expand on this ground breaking discovery for me? I am awaiting with bated breath.
Man, you are dense, which makes the sarcasm even more ridiculous. Separate from everything. ZZ's saying that religion evolved when we developed a concept of self.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
It is factually incorrect of socialists to state religion slowly evolved as humans realized they needed something to worship. Facts oppose this viewpoint.

We see that religion and the concept of God and the craving for a connection with Him has always been re-established by Prophets of God.
Welcome to RF, Tariq. :namaste You are using an already established religion as evidence in a discussion on the of the evolution of religion. That may be fine for you and others who share your beliefs. It is highly unlikely to sway anyone else.

Moreover, I do not see why postulating a natural origin for religion negates the validity of religion.
 

Smoke

Done here.
I figure religion was an "unintended" side-effect of other traits. It's a spandrel.
Assuming you put "unintended" in quotes because evolution doesn't have intention, I agree.

To date, the best explanation I've seen for religion is a comic strip:

IntroCh2.jpg

 

zenzero

Its only a Label
Friend Balance FX,
Sorry, seems we need to understand what we each are saying.
This has been the biggest problem throughout history of religion and so Lao Tzu in the first stanza of TAO states that truth once spoken, does not remain truth any more BECAUSE of this very MIND which we use to understand always colors whatever we hear. We hear what we make of it and not what the speaker is trying to say.
However, coming to the statement to which you have responded thus:
?? Your putting the evolution of religion on the seperation of the left and right conscious minds? That seems odd. The fact that humans believe their existance is seperate from their physical form is most likely due to that error of perception and nothing more.

If you believe in EVOLUTION then realise that the MIND developed after huamns came into existence. The Mind developed to THINK, animals thinking is not developed to realise that he is anything else than what he needs to. This very Thinking Mind when stilled is again when you are ONE with Nature. The division starts with this Thinking Mind and so the day this mind got the idea as in the Bible that is why I refer to the Mind as Satan of the Bible, which tells man [Adam / Eve]that he is more powerful than existence [God concept] if they ate this fruit of the knowledge tree which is knowing good / bad etc. By default religion started evolving that day on.
Why do we require a religion or Path or Way - to get back to our source. To be again ONE with Existence like all other forms and no-forms in this universe. That happens at the same moment our Mind is Still. No thoughts arises in it [mind]. The individual is no more an individual at that moment, he is One with Nature / existence. Yes, he does walk seperately dressed up like a human being but otherwise everything is one.
If you understand that Mind is one then you willunderstand that the left and right are two pols of that One mind which sees two poles DUALITIES of everything. This seeing TWO is fine BUT differnciating creates confusion. They are one. DAYNIGHT is one, DARKLIGHT is one etc. they are the two poles of a magnet too which cannot have one pole even if you cut the magnet into two But you can never seperate two poles of a magnet.
Still if doubts remain, please do ask and shall try and clear the doubts to the best of human abilities as personally I know nothing. Whatever comes out, is only *through* as am not the author nor have any thing personally to do with them.
Love & rgds
 

tariqkhwaja

Jihad Against Terrorism
Welcome to RF, Tariq. :namaste
Thanks.

You are using an already established religion as evidence in a discussion on the of the evolution of religion. That may be fine for you and others who share your beliefs. It is highly unlikely to sway anyone else.
Lets just say that if I present an argument that is not my own I should cite the original source which is the Quran in this case. Otherwise I'd be plaigarising. So take the argument as an argument and just keep in mind that the source of the argument was the Quran.

Moreover, I do not see why postulating a natural origin for religion negates the validity of religion.
I really am not sure of the answer to that one. I guess natural origin of religion is very prone to human error and therefore religion's validity can be put into question. But religion's existence due to Divine interference does not contain human error. Does that answer the question?
 

Theocan

Active Member
I agree with logican to an extent... I do believe that throughout history, religion was a tool to gain political/social control. And where I have a problem with the Bible/Other religious texts that any one of them outcasting women and homosexuals... I feel was on the basis of the bias created in that time period... I believe "God loves us all" and there is no way he is going to burn people for being gay.
 

Sententia

Well-Known Member
I agree with logican to an extent... I do believe that throughout history, religion was a tool to gain political/social control. And where I have a problem with the Bible/Other religious texts that any one of them outcasting women and homosexuals... I feel was on the basis of the bias created in that time period... I believe "God loves us all" and there is no way he is going to burn people for being gay.

No lying with men is wrong. Did you read the bible? Women are honored in that they are subserviant to men and as for children... should you hear a voice in your head to sacrifice them... build an altar and do gods will... barring that... He Says use the ROD!

Now burn the bible and think for your self. Its hard I know. But in the long run its so worth it.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
I really am not sure of the answer to that one. I guess natural origin of religion is very prone to human error and therefore religion's validity can be put into question.
For me, to say that religion evolved naturally no more invalidates religion than to say that science evolved naturally. Yes, that does mean there will be some error, but that doesn't take away from its validity nor importance.


But religion's existence due to Divine interference does not contain human error. Does that answer the question?
Then, for you, does the word "religion" only refer to Islam? What about Buddhism, for example? Did Buddhism originate from Divine interference as well?
 

tariqkhwaja

Jihad Against Terrorism
For me, to say that religion evolved naturally no more invalidates religion than to say that science evolved naturally. Yes, that does mean there will be some error, but that doesn't take away from its validity nor importance.

I would have to think about that ... maybe if you told me what you meant by "validity of religion". I could be answering the wrong question.

Did Buddhism originate from Divine interference as well?

Yes I do believe Buddhism originated from Divine interference. Buddha was a Prophet of God and the writings on Asoka's pillars can prove this (that deserves a new thread).

The origins of all true religions (including Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, the Abrahamic religions and many more we do not know off) were from Divine interference. Any religion that claims otherwise is prone to error and can not be absolutely true.
 

Smoke

Done here.
The origins of all true religions (including Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, the Abrahamic religions and many more we do not know off) were from Divine interference. Any religion that claims otherwise is prone to error and can not be absolutely true.
What about the Baha'i Faith?
 

tariqkhwaja

Jihad Against Terrorism
Nope ... Baha'i faith is not divinely inspired and, therefore, not true. Although they would claim otherwise I think (gotta do me research).
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
I'm sure tribes had some form of oral tradition before the invent of writing. Religion was born of our fear and ignorance of the world around us and of our imagination to bring us solace and answers. And as time went on such beliefs became more elaborate and complex.
I do believe that "faith in higher power(s)" was born of our fear and ignorance of the world around us... but MORE importantly, our fear of DEATH... I don't think primitive humans gave much serious thought to "political/social control" until MUCH later on in human development. "Worship" of the physical world and ancestor worship I believe were the likely "beginings" of religion.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
I would have to think about that ... maybe if you told me what you meant by "validity of religion". I could be answering the wrong question.
At the very least something worth pursuing.


Yes I do believe Buddhism originated from Divine interference. Buddha was a Prophet of God and the writings on Asoka's pillars can prove this (that deserves a new thread).

The origins of all true religions (including Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, the Abrahamic religions and many more we do not know off) were from Divine interference. Any religion that claims otherwise is prone to error and can not be absolutely true.
If they're all divinely inspired and all "absolutely true," what does one make of the fact that they disagree with each other?


Nope ... Baha'i faith is not divinely inspired and, therefore, not true. Although they would claim otherwise I think (gotta do me research).
Ironically, the Baha'i faith claims Divine inspiration - that they are the next step along the long line of prophetic traditions - whereas Buddhism and Taoism make no such claim. The Buddha taught us that belief in God is irrelevant and could hinder attainment of nirvana.

On what basis do you decide that Buddhism is true and Baha'i is not true?
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
How religion evolved is too complex a question, with too little solid information to get any meaningful answer on an internet forum.

However, one thing that must be taken into consideration is the reality of mystical experiences. (By which I mean simply that they happen.)
 

tariqkhwaja

Jihad Against Terrorism
Firstly, I am going to start a new thread on Did Buddha believe in God?
And I must say my research about the Baha'i faith is not enough to comment on it now. I will do the research and come back to that too.

If they're all divinely inspired and all "absolutely true," what does one make of the fact that they disagree with each other?
Excellent question! Specially if only one concept of God is true, why do we have so many contradictory concepts. And the answer is that in their origin all religions were correct when they were introduced by Prophets and they all basically had the same teachings and same concept of God. Yet, as time progressed, humans interpolated and added/deleted according to their own thoughts. Thus religions deteriorated after Prophets passed away. That is why God sends new Prophets to either
1. Bring new laws since the old laws are obsolete given the evolution of man (emergence of new evils).
2. Reestablish old laws that are still applicable (thus many Prophets came without their own book but just reestablished a previous book).

And once again, to state the source, the above argument of religions being originally correct but deteriorating over time is from the Quran.
 
Top