On the Identity of Christianity, Christendom and Europe [split: An European forum?]

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I do distiniguish between Lutherans and Calvinists if that concerns you.

It does not concern me too much I must admit since all these different fractions still belong to to the same misbelief. I went to a Catholic (Jesuite ?) grammar school for four years if that concerns you...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

That's right.
In any case, the Catholic Church has been infiltrated by Freemasonry since long and they have managed to destroy the institution. Nowadays the Catholic Church is no longer the repository of Spirituality that it was for long for Catholics. The same thing happens the Orthodox and Lutheran Churches.

And what agenda was changed since the freemasons infiltrated? Would a medevial Catholic church be better for us nowadays?

Originally Posted by Mynydd

However this is true, it is still not a reason to insult the beliefs of Christians who are the most aflicted by it.

Like I said before - I am not bothered when someone has he wrong faith as long as he has the right political opinion. The line between insult and critic seems to be not too clear here...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

definitely not in the name of some ancient gods and under the [false] pretext of representing that ancient Spirituality. If it is true that Chrisitians at some point persecuted Pagans, it is also true that before that Pagans slaughtered Christians. Victimism under false pretexts don't give much credibility.

As far as I see history Chritians often enough were busy in declaring each other as heretics and fighting each other. Noone can deny Christians committed atrocities in Europe - I just name the witch burning here.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Further, the accusation of Christianism being not a European Spirituality and of being a Middle East religion is shortsighted and apallingly ignorant.

Well, having absorbed much of European's spirituality does this faith not make an European one. The idea having a single god and his son as salvator is most definitely non-Europen. What Christianity makes partly European is mostly the mundane political agenda that was pursued by Christian kings, popes etc.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

For a start, if Christianism had arrived to Rome as a Middle East religion, do you really believe that it would have got as far as it did? Instead, when it arrived in Rome it had already absorbed much of the Greek Philosophical thoughts.
As Christianism advanced throughout Europe, it kept absorbing more and more of the indigenous beliefs and spiritualities. Not only in the internal but also in the external. But the time it had settled as the main religion, it had nothing left from the Middle East except for the tale part of it.

I am well aware- old traditions were absorbed. As far as I know baptizing children was known in Europe before Christianity arrived - not to mention the many festivities like Easter. Protestants still oppose Catholicism becaue it is too heathen - e.g. Shrove Tuesdays are not celebrated in predominant Protestant regions like it is in Catholic regions (in Germany). Halloween is another example...and of course no one celebrates New Year's Eve because it is Jesus' Brith Mila.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Also, one must not ignore that Europe as such did not exist. The Roman Empire is pre-Europe. Europe is born from Christendom.

I know. In fact the term Europe is of Phoenician origin - would not the term Occident describe Christian Europe better?

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Later on, Christendom continues being the glue and the guide for the construction of the future Europe.

Do you think so? Because some want to mention the Christian god in the forthcoming European constitution?

Originally Posted by Mynydd

If the ancient pantheons were the Proto-History of Europe, Christianism was the History.

Maybe, but Europe still is an artifical construct. "Proto-History" is very interesting for those that want to explore history beyond Christian Europe.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Like Christianism substituted a world in chaos and decadence and absorbed the Indo-European beliefs and spirituality through absorption, so did these Indo-European religions presumably substitute and absorbed beliefs which were more ancient, Paleo-European.

So Chritians brought law and order? Many would have been better without that.
I agree with the latter statement.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

In the end, the quest for a European Spirituality from ancient is not to be found by unearthing mummified religions, but it is to be found in the religion which absorbed those spiritual beliefs and took them into a long process of evolution... all the way to decay.

I have read around one% of the people in major German towns go to church regularly. Christianity is undead here so to speak. I am simply not interested in artifical and constructed belief systems like Christianity - I think spirituality only can be found there where it is: in nature. The several gods represent the several forces of nature - a guy tortured to death at a cross does not.
I am more than sure Jesoshua Ben Joseph would be banned from this forum very quickly.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The problem, however, is that the institutionalisation of the Christian churches and their decadence have left Europeans without spiritual guidance. And so we are immerse in a world of extreme confusion where the lunatic freaks and the unscrupulous alike thrive offering the people gone religions which have been long dead and empty of any real spiritual guidance (e.g. all of these New Age Pagans) or new religions coming from the outer space in the most bizarre forms.

Not to mention the numerous Christian sects. Here more and more Jehova's witnesses and Mormons convince people to join them...
But why are these sects non-acceptable and traditional Catholicism is? Because Juan d'Austria was Catholic?

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Involutive formulas are roads to the death of spirituality, and in consequence to the death of the European man. People need an evolutive spirituality, and that is not going to be attained by taking any long dead religion of the past as a starting point. It misses 2,000 years of evolution.

Again you talk about an artifical spirituality. The only spirituality that works is in your innerself - your instinct. I inherit the genes of my ancestors - listening to my innerself, my instinct leads me, and not worshipping symbols or even men that came from the desert.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Personally, I believe in an evolutions towards a formula of Agnosticism taking the old spiritual baggage as a starting point. Which is why I define myself a Christian Agnostic. But I am not one from the Caste of the priests, so at the end of the day I can only share my thoughts and discuss them.

You see it this way - I see it that way - interesting for me is only we can cooperate in political issues on a common base.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Aptrganga

It does not concern me too much I must admit since all these different fractions still belong to to the same misbelief.

Do you discard it as a misbelief in the whole or in parts?

I went to a Catholic (Jesuite ?) grammar school for four years if that concerns you...

In principle, I should be concerned. Take no offence, but too many undesirable elements in Spain have been educated in Jesuite schools. Not to mention the Theology of the Liberation.

It is little wonder that the Jesuites were expelled from Spain in two occasions.

And what agenda was changed since the freemasons infiltrated?

I don't know about agendas, but do judge by yourself on the events and transformations since the Concile Vatican II.

Would a medevial Catholic church be better for us nowadays?

Why Medieval? Why not one which could provide spiritual guidance?

I should remind here that any critique or praising should be for the sake of fairness made clear if it is directed against/to the Church either as a terrenal institution or as a spiritual guide.

Like I said before - I am not bothered when someone has he wrong faith as long as he has the right political opinion. The line between insult and critic seems to be not too clear here...

Critiques based on false accusations is a line clear enough to be crossed.

As far as I see history Chritians often enough were busy in declaring each other as heretics and fighting each other.

Agreed in most cases. In other cases, heressy is too clear to me. But to be fair my understanding of heressy here does not match its real definition.

Noone can deny Christians committed atrocities in Europe - I just name the witch burning here.

I would blame that on people, not on the religion in itself.

Well, having absorbed much of European's spirituality does this faith not make an European one.

That would depend on how much is much. In any case, it seems to have been much enough to have adapted to different peoples.

The idea having a single god and his son as salvator is most definitely non-Europen.

On the contrary, there is nothing non European in evolution of ideas. Even in faith.

What Christianity makes partly European is mostly the mundane political agenda that was pursued by Christian kings, popes etc.

Just off the top of my head, magnanimity, clemency. Aren't you being a bit too biased?

I am well aware- old traditions were absorbed. As far as I know baptizing children was known in Europe before Christianity arrived - not to mention the many festivities like Easter. Protestants still oppose Catholicism becaue it is too heathen - e.g. Shrove Tuesdays are not celebrated in predominant Protestant regions like it is in Catholic regions (in Germany). Halloween is another example...and of course no one celebrates New Year's Eve because it is Jesus' Brith Mila.

When you say Protestants, you mean Lutherans?

Sorry, I don't know what it Jesus' Brith Mila.

I know. In fact the term Europe is of Phoenician origin - would not the term Occident describe Christian Europe better?

It might if it is not to mean the same as the Anglo-American construct of Western.

Do you think so? Because some want to mention the Christian god in the forthcoming European constitution?

If I had wanted to refer to the European Union I wouldn't have said a future Europe but probably a Europe without a future or something along those lines.

Maybe, but Europe still is an artifical construct.

That, again, is subjective. It depends on how you define Europe. It can be a construct or it can be a reality.

I have argued one time too many that Europe is a complex environment which for its existance it depends on the existance of its nations. It doesn't have one identity but many. That makes it unique and at the same time fragile. As such it is a reality.

Other proposals for Europe are indeed constructs.

"Proto-History" is very interesting for those that want to explore history beyond Christian Europe.

Absolutely. And so is Pre-History by the way.

So Chritians brought law and order? Many would have been better without that.

Certainly. Those who thrive with chaos and unrest.

I am simply not interested in artifical and constructed belief systems like Christianity - I think spirituality only can be found there where it is: in nature.

I don't know how to put this so that it doesn't sound offensive, really..

I can agree in that there is a personal way to live one's spirituality and even agree in that this is Nature. But stopping there is primitive. African animists do. As highly evolutioned beings, humans do also wonder beyond, about the Universe and about their own existance.

The several gods represent the several forces of nature - a guy tortured to death at a cross does not.

So you choose to pick on the tale part of Christianism? That, I'm afraid, has not to do with spiritualism.

I am more than sure Jesoshua Ben Joseph would be banned from this forum very quickly.

Obviously so.

Witty as the comment is, it is still tricky as it focus on the tale part of Christianism.

Not to mention the numerous Christian sects. Here more and more Jehova's witnesses and Mormons convince people to join them...
But why are these sects non-acceptable and traditional Catholicism is? Because Juan d'Austria was Catholic?

Among other reasons, for the same reason why a good wine is acceptable and a cola drink is unacceptable.

Again you talk about an artifical spirituality. The only spirituality that works is in your innerself - your instinct.

Instinct has not to do with spirituality. Beasts do have instinct and follow their instinct.

I inherit the genes of my ancestors - listening to my innerself, my instinct leads me, and not worshipping symbols or even men that came from the desert.

There was a time when your ancestors lived up on the trees. Yours, mine, everyone's. At some point they evolved and came down from the trees. Had they followed their ancestral instinct you would still be un on the tree.

You see it this way - I see it that way - interesting for me is only we can cooperate in political issues on a common base.

We can if there is a common base.. a common ground. Having an end in common like overthrowing the decadence of the modern world is something that you and I can have in common even with Communists or Islamists. Besides, it is not even an end. The end is what is it to be substituted with. And it is there where people must find a commonality.

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Do you discard it as a misbelief in the whole or in parts?

In whole. You are trying to reform the belief sytem, in my opinion this belief system as such is the problem, that's the difference. Anyway, this thread originally was obout this forum is an European one - we are too emeshed in theology now...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

In principle, I should be concerned. Take no offence, but too many undesirable elements in Spain have been educated in Jesuite schools. Not to mention the Theology of the Liberation.

Here in Germany the Catholic left is dominated by someone having been in a Jesuite grammar school - his name is Dr. Heiner Geißler.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

It is little wonder that the Jesuites were expelled from Spain in two occasions.

And now you have Socialists instead...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I don't know about agendas, but do judge by yourself on the events and transformations since the Concile Vatican II.

And still Roman catholicism is labeled "conservative".

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Why Medieval? Why not one which could provide spiritual guidance?

I wanted to propose a compomise since I thought Medevial Catholicism was the major spiritual guidance at that time - having led many great European leaders against those enemies still sieging us.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I should remind here that any critique or praising should be for the sake of fairness made clear if it is directed against/to the Church either as a terrenal institution or as a spiritual guide.

So you seperate between mundane Christianity and Christianity as spiritual guidance? How's that? A Christian who refuses being a member in a church still belives Jesus died to relief him from his sins.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Critiques based on false accusations is a line clear enough to be crossed.

Agreed - but often enough truth is refused by people following an ideology.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Agreed in most cases. In other cases, heressy is too clear to me. But to be fair my understanding of heressy here does not match its real definition.

Heressy? - I have no opinion about that right now...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I would blame that on people, not on the religion in itself.

Well, but this religion opened the door to such behavior.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

That would depend on how much is much. In any case, it seems to have been much enough to have adapted to different peoples.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

On the contrary, there is nothing non European in evolution of ideas. Even in faith.

When you say so...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Just off the top of my head, magnanimity, clemency. Aren't you being a bit too biased?

Biased - me? Never In fact being magnanimity and clemency are not terms that immediately come to my mind when it is about Catholic church I must admit. Jesus was magnaminously and benevolent - it did not help him much because it was considered as weakness.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

When you say Protestants, you mean Lutherans?

Primarily, Yes. Most Prots in Germany are Lutherans. Most in my family are, with some Pietist/Methodist exceptions...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Sorry, I don't know what it Jesus' Brith Mila.

http://www.brityy.org/default.asp

Originally Posted by Mynydd

It might if it is not to mean the same as the Anglo-American construct of Western.

I never intended to follow this version of Occident as I do not consider the old NATO mebers as "West".

Originally Posted by Mynydd

If I had wanted to refer to the European Union I wouldn't have said a future Europe but probably a Europe without a future or something along those lines.

I was sarcastic anyway.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

That, again, is subjective. It depends on how you define Europe. It can be a construct or it can be a reality.

I know. I stand for an Europe of souvereign fatherlands. Independent and allied.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I have argued one time too many that Europe is a complex environment which for its existance it depends on the existance of its nations. It doesn't have one identity but many. That makes it unique and at the same time fragile. As such it is a reality.

I see your point. When it comes to Europe in TV here it is automatically equaled with the infamous EU.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Other proposals for Europe are indeed constructs.

It seems like that. But who grants Spain is no construct? Or Germany?

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Absolutely. And so is Pre-History by the way.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Certainly. Those who thrive with chaos and unrest.

Now it is you being sarcastic! Do you honestly think your Celtic, Iberian ancestors were just wild and brutish barbarians anxiously waiting to be pacified by Christian laws? Come on...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I don't know how to put this so that it doesn't sound offensive, really..

I won't be offended, I am a tall, blonde barbarian from the north - I pay back with the same sort of coins if necessary...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I can agree in that there is a personal way to live one's spirituality and even agree in that this is Nature. But stopping there is primitive. African animists do. As highly evolutioned beings, humans do also wonder beyond, about the Universe and about their own existance.

Wondering about the universe is spirituality? For me this is science! There is nothing wrong with primitive things, sometimes. As teenager I loved to go to Techno parties sometimes - this primitive, rhythmic noise just made people dance - like our ancestors got into trance but shamanic rhythms.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

So you choose to pick on the tale part of Christianism? That, I'm afraid, has not to do with spiritualism.

The tale part of Christianism as you like to describe it does not depend on spirituality - resp. vice versa?

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Obviously so.

Witty as the comment is, it is still tricky as it focus on the tale part of Christianism.

- see comment up.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Among other reasons, for the same reason why a good wine is acceptable and a cola drink is unacceptable.

Both is inacceptible for me...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Instinct has not to do with spirituality. Beasts do have instinct and follow their instinct.

Someone debating with you has to be well rested. Of course spirituality is more than instinct. But the fact most of nowaday's living people have lost their natural instinct.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

There was a time when your ancestors lived up on the trees. Yours, mine, everyone's. At some point they evolved and came down from the trees. Had they followed their ancestral instinct you would still be un on the tree.

Their instinct made them to wage new things, to dare to explore and to be careful at the same time.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

We can if there is a common base.. a common ground. Having an end in common like overthrowing the decadence of the modern world is something that you and I can have in common even with Communists or Islamists.

Communists and Islamist are this decadent themselves they do not have the slightest thing to offer - decadence can not be fought with decadence.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Besides, it is not even an end. The end is what is it to be substituted with. And it is there where people must find a commonality.

Agreed, and I am keen to find out what this commonality might be here.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

For a start, if Christianism had arrived to Rome as a Middle East religion, do you really believe that it would have got as far as it did? Instead, when it arrived in Rome it had already absorbed much of the Greek Philosophical thoughts. As Christianism advanced throughout Europe, it kept absorbing more and more of the indigenous beliefs and spiritualities. Not only in the internal but also in the external. But the time it had settled as the main religion, it had nothing left from the Middle East except for the tale part of it.

I agree. One can even add that Jesus and his fellow Galileans had been “corrupted” by Greek and Roman thinking which made them enemies of the Pharisees. Anyway, I have to say Mynydd is someone with new ideas. I am a Protestant from the colonies (Canada), but I find his thinking very interesting and convincing. As I look at the world today, I see the fight to be between Globalists and Nationalists. For me, the feuds of Left versus Right, Catholic versus Protestant have faded into the background. I know that I would never have been at home in Franco’s Spain, but I am still very interested in the ideas on Stirpes. I should also say that I think Paganism is mostly a way of avoiding the last 2000 years of history. By saying that one is a Pagan, one is free of witch-burnings, crusades, massacres, etc, etc. A Pagan can live in an imaginary world without a dark past. The rest of us have to accept both the good and the bad that we have done in the name of Christianity. I think that position is much better for our souls and our sanity.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Aptrganga

In whole.

That's a big mistake which in my opinion arises from a huge misconception.

By the way, some would even deny that Christianism (in its Trinitarian belief) is a Monotheistic religion. Thus, one might even accuse the Unitarian Christian beliefs (like Arrianism, which was adopted by many of the Eastern Germanic tribes) are a Middle East Monotheistic religion. But the concept of the Trinity alone is innovative and alienates Trinitarian Christianism from any Middle East Monotheistic religion.

You are trying to reform the belief sytem, in my opinion this belief system as such is the problem, that's the difference.

I am? How am I trying to reform the belief system?

Anyway, this thread originally was obout this forum is an European one - we are too emeshed in theology now...

Agreed. There should be a split in this thread.

And still Roman catholicism is labeled "conservative".

It is undeniably conservative in some aspects.

I wanted to propose a compomise since I thought Medevial Catholicism was the major spiritual guidance at that time - having led many great European leaders against those enemies still sieging us.

True.

So you seperate between mundane Christianity and Christianity as spiritual guidance? How's that? A Christian who refuses being a member in a church still belives Jesus died to relief him from his sins.

Is that what you belief it is the spirituality in Christianism?

From what little we have debated so far, I am perfectly sure that you can do much better than that.

Agreed - but often enough truth is refused by people following an ideology.

That's a too common mistake.

Well, but this religion opened the door to such behavior.

Do you really believe that such behaviours did not exist in people before Christianity?

Biased - me? Never In fact being magnanimity and clemency are not terms that immediately come to my mind when it is about Catholic church I must admit. Jesus was magnaminously and benevolent - it did not help him much because it was considered as weakness.

To be magnanimous first one needs to be stronger than opponent. How can it then be a weakness?


Sorry for this sudden break. Need some sleep and I still have a busy day tomorrow morning and afternoon. I'll try to finish answering tomorrow evening or night.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

By the way, some would even deny that Christianism (in its Trinitarian belief) is a Monotheistic religion. Thus, one might even accuse the Unitarian Christian beliefs (like Arrianism, which was adopted by many of the Eastern Germanic tribes) are a Middle East Monotheistic religion. But the concept of the Trinity alone is innovative and alienates Trinitarian Christianism from any Middle East Monotheistic religion.

To further support the non-strictly monotheistic nature of Christianism, apart from the Trinity there is the Pantheon of demi-gods.

Ok, they are called saints but still. So yes, Protestants were somehow right in seeing Western Catholicism (and probably Eastern Orthodoxy too) as somehow Pagan. But then it was some of those Protestants who --through an approach to the Old Scriptures-- created Judeo-Christianism (not incidentally in open opposition to Catholicism). No wonder then the Inquisition in Spain used almost indistinctively the words heretic and judaicer.

All things considered, I have to agree with Aptrganga in that the religious strifes are today a waste which only helps to divert the attention from the real [earthy?] issues.

Originally Posted by Aptrganga

I never intended to follow this version of Occident as I do not consider the old NATO mebers as "West".

It doesn't stop (nor does it start) at NATO. The Anglo-American construct of westernism is today more clear than it ever was. Not just America, but countries as alien to anything Europe like Israel and Turkey are a part of this westernist construct. Alien is not the right word here, but hostile in nature.

How I understand Europe is probably closer to how you understand it. Though at this early stage I'm almost only guessing here.

In short, as a geopolitical macro-region made up of different nations and nationalities, more or less linked to each other by historical and political events and, to a much lesser extent, by racial links. The last link, racial, is too distant to be able to provide for a strong link.

Europe, as an identity, does not exist if it is not to hold and to be a joint for the national/ethnic identities which conform it. It is there where I have a strong point of disagreement with the Identitarians. They must realize that the creation of a Pan-European identity brings inevitably the death of national identities and consequently the destruction of Europe as a reality to become a construct not different from others like the U.S. of America. At the very least, it is harmful for the ethno-cultural richness of Europe, which is rich precisely because of its diversity.

Therefore Europe must focus in the protection of itself, which is the preservation of its national identities.

However, this is just one part of the story and --as is-- it falls short of a full analysis. You say:

Originally Posted by Aptrganga

I stand for an Europe of souvereign fatherlands. Independent and allied.

Being realistic, allies is not enough to face the challenges of the present and future world.

Though national sovereignty is a desirable goal and one needed for ethnic preservation, [individual, nation-wise] sovereignty has to go together with a strong [collective, Europe-wise] compromise. In a world which is moving towards blocs of influence and power, Europe must be strong as a bloc. There are no few moments where national interests can be harming to bloc interests. This is poses a problem not just in a Europe of sovereign nations. It does pose a problem in the European Union today when the interests of the bloc are confused with the interests of some country or another. I don't think that I need to single out any country to make a case example here.

A big problem that I see for the consecution of a strong Europe is the current democratic system and its uselessness in decission-making. Under Democracy projects are short-term as they are subject to electoral interests. It is endemic to Democracy and it spreads to all its related institutions.

Under such a system I am afraid that it is impossible to have a Europe of sovereign and independent nations which is, at the same time, a strong bloc to offer a secure environment for the preservation of the nations. The heavy burdened bureaucracy is mirrored in Brussels in the nightmare known as eurocracy.

These are not the bad news yet. The bad news are that either we manage to work it out together and to compromise, or there will be nothing left to preserve.. in fact there is already very little worth to preserve except for the memory of what it once was. At this point even preservationism falls short of being all meaningful. Whoever voices to preserve what is left of his nation (his people) after the rubbles left by decades of Liberal Democracy and Socialism is short-sighted or lives in a world of fairy tales. Regeneration is badly needed.

It seems like that. But who grants Spain is no construct? Or Germany?

It comes natural to people. It is therefore not a construct. But well.. you still haven't defined one or the other.

[Valgeir]

Yes I just read the thread and thought there was some highlights there.
But it made me think and find the following questions:
What could possibly be the foundation for christians and heathens to collaborate upon the theme of nationalism?
It could be easy for a small group to collaborate despite these difference just because they prioritate the theme more than the schism, but to be heathen and nationalist is betting on the wrong horse if the country in question have not ensured freedom of faith and also houses a monotheist (exclusivist) as its dominant and national religion.

And the latin/germanic schism. Is there any real schism, and what it is then, apart of the obvious; neither want to share the imperial crown.
However as the imperial crown is stowed away at a ranch in texas, it could be interesting to look at the question.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Aptrganga

Now it is you being sarcastic! Do you honestly think your Celtic, Iberian ancestors were just wild and brutish barbarians anxiously waiting to be pacified by Christian laws? Come on...

I suppose that it depends on how you define barbarian. Not in a negative sense.

I won't be offended, I am a tall, blonde barbarian from the north - I pay back with the same sort of coins if necessary...

I am a tall, dark haired man from Spain. I don't entertain myself in branding Europeans as civilized/uncivilized according to past Graeco-Roman guidelines. And I definitely do not feel the need to offend he who has not offended me.

Wondering about the universe is spirituality? For me this is science!

Universe there was used as rethoric.

There is nothing wrong with primitive things, sometimes. As teenager I loved to go to Techno parties sometimes - this primitive, rhythmic noise just made people dance - like our ancestors got into trance but shamanic rhythms.

I don't dance, so I wouldn't know.

The tale part of Christianism as you like to describe it does not depend on spirituality - resp. vice versa?

That's correct. Take the tale part in its geographical context and then take the full origins of the spiritual beliefs. See any connection?

Someone debating with you has to be well rested. Of course spirituality is more than instinct. But the fact most of nowaday's living people have lost their natural instinct.

I will assume that you are not talking of instincts in absolute terms and that you agree that instincts are positive so long as they are self-controlable.

If you are sailing and the sea gets rough your instinct tells you to get away from the storm and head for land. Yet reason tells you that you are safer at sea in the storm than heading to the coast where you are likely to end up against the rocks.

There must come a moment when reason becomes instinctive and a better instinct than a primary instinct. Early Hominids would see a lighthing bolt strik some of theirs and would run for cover under a tree. To run for cover became an instinct. But as it happens a tree attracts the ligthning and what is instinctively supposed to protect you it can also kill you. Then that instinct has to change and adapt to a reality.

So it is no good that people lose their instinctiveness. But it is also no good that instincts stay primitive.

Agreed, and I am keen to find out what this commonality might be h