Perhaps Beliefnet did us a disservice by renaming this Board; from the lack of interest/activity I can only conclude:

1. Religion isn't in the human mind,

2. Religion doesn't belong in the human mind,

3. People prefer to discuss religion and the mind, separately,

4. Atheism is sweeping the world.

But seriously, why is so much of religion intentionally designed to appeal to a human's emotions?

Consider the human aura as seen by those capable of the view: 

Next to the body and interpenetrating is a deep blue line of the health of the body.

Outward from there is a large and energetic layer of emotional body.

At the very outer rim a thin line of spiritual body appears.

The aura is a reflection of the inner being and shows the state of the body, mind, spirit.

With the spirit that far from the body, it must take quite an effort to bring it into alignment and take it within.

[QUOTE=spiritalk;43868]Consider the human aura as seen by those capable of the view: 

At the very outer rim a thin line of spiritual body appears.

The aura is a reflection of the inner being and shows the state of the body, mind, spirit.

With the spirit that far from the body, it must take quite an effort to bring it into alignment and take it within.[/QUOTE]

Thank you,

Are you implying that the emotional "layer" must somehow be manipulated to reach the spirit?

[QUOTE=exploringinside;43376]

But seriously, why is so much of religion intentionally designed to appeal to a human's emotions?[/QUOTE]

exploring,

In a general and simplified version of how mind works - there is a natural division of reason/logic and emotion/intent.  This is like the natural division of matter and energy.  Reason, and the logical connections that reason uses, is like the study of matter with its defined structural connections that are easily sensed. Science measures these material aspects as size, mass and time related parameters.

Material science, as a catalogue of properties, was the first foundation of objective knowledge.

Energy wasn't developed as a concept until much more recently with Newton being the leader.

Same picture dealing with cognitive science, logic was there as obvious early on, as objective and definitive. but intent and emotions are harder to catalogue.   Hence we have less objective conceptual background for them.  The subjective nature of intent is like energy, as it not so easily defined without structural context as background.

The key to mind science is to measure intent and how emotion is active as a cause in behavior, in my humble opinion.  Surely pyschology has made great strides in this labor.

People change and evolve, as to their inner character in relation to controlling their emotions and intentions.   Religion is about these changes from obeying animal instinct to using the guidance of sacred texts.

[QUOTE=newchurchguy;45648]exploring,

Same picture dealing with cognitive science, logic was there as obvious early on, as objective and definitive. but intent and emotions are harder to catalogue.   Hence we have less objective conceptual background for them.  The subjective nature of intent is like energy, as it not so easily defined without structural context as background.

The key to mind science is to measure intent and how emotion is active as a cause in behavior, in my humble opinion.  Surely pyschology has made great strides in this labor.

People change and evolve, as to their inner character in relation to controlling their emotions and intentions.   Religion is about these changes from obeying animal instinct to using the guidance of sacred texts.[/QUOTE]

NCG,

These are really good observations. One model of emotions that has worked for me is a functional analogy to the sense receptors throughout the body; in this idea the emotions are considered a barometer of a person's mental life. When the body's pain receptors are unstimulated, a person is physically untroubled; contentment and joy are usually emotionally satisfying. Physical pain and distress are usually uncomfortable and unwanted; emotianal turmoil and distress are analogous; we seek to return to a desired state through some kind of response.

I hope religion is not the source of our "civilization," turning us from reactive animals to humans. The respnder that mentioned seeking emotional relef through religious practices certainly has part of the equation. I want to borrow into this subject a bit deeper:

Whereas religion has often claimed a solution for various types of emotional turmoil, it appears to me that a good deal of the teaching intentionally aggravates and actually incites emotional responses. Guilt, remorse, insecurity and fear appear to be generated as much as they are naturally occuring and self-identified. Is the goal of most religions to help one gain control of their emotions or use natural emotionalism as a catalyst or cause for adherence to a "faith?"