Because you made the mistake of assuming all religious are like yours in all respects. You want to establish the notion of a "true" or "universal" religion so that you can argue it both derives from nature and also isn't tied up in some sectarian strife. This then would become a moral authority on whose basis you could dictate policy. You challenged your critics to name practices from any religion, and you would explain how they relate to nature. But in your ignorance you were unaware of just how profoundly some other religions in the world differ from Hinduism. You were unaware that some religions are predicated explicitly upon the supernatural.
I feel, there is an universal or absolute or prime basis of everything or being and by making base of that, one can know all grosses or variations. That would somehow be taken as omniscience. Like for example, you can feed a tress just be giving water to roots instead of spraying it on whole tress(still not fully watered inspite much more water is spoiled). Same only, I was trying to make base.
Christianity, especially Catholicism, is based heavily on the notion that events that seem to defy nature occur as a matter of fact. It accepts that, aside from supernatural intervention, the natural world behaves according to inviolable laws. They imagine that a supernatural force exists, and they cite apparent examples of these physical laws being violated as proof of that supernatural force. The purported resurrection of Jesus is the central miracle in the faith. The purported supernatural force that causes miracles such as resurrection is personified into a supernatural deity whose will is then said to supersede the laws of nature. By this means are the faithful held in subjugation by those who purport to interpret the will of that deity.
Can't comment on it. To really understand it, we may need to wait till science become A&F or we become omniscient. Such aspects are also present in many religions, here except that one & few others. Energy modified in matter and matter mediate energy both are facts in science. If we take one as nature other as supernatural entity, both can be justified in this sense but energy will be prime source i.e nature. In Hinduism, Lord Shiva & Mother Parvati--Shiv-Shakti is indicated as supernatural god & nature. Trinity basic gods along with three basic goddesses(not prime) are also indicated. It may suggest, sipritual existence of male and female god representing supernatural and nature or Matter & energy. If this can hold sense then probably matter may be considered as gross and supernatural.
Jainism, in contrast, begins with a set of what the west would call demigods, who are said to have dispensed a universal ethical wisdom built around exaggerated obligations of non-violence. In other words, it's a bunch of made-up philosophy attributed to ancient beings believed to be, in some sense, divine. So important is non-violence, in this philosophy, that humans must live an ascetic lifestyle in order to minimize the "violence" imposed on their environment. It is worship of nature, not worship derived from nature. In order to make nature worthy of such sacrifice, it must be ennobled -- deified, for lack of a better word. And it is this inferred ennoblement of nature that sends your religion off the rails. Nature is simply not the noble thing you pretend it is.
Jainism is not based on supernatural or miracle nor on entity but based on property(ref previous links). It appear to be secondary to basic religion and adopted one part of nature related to peace, non-voilence, truth, non sinful acts and healthful practices. Why it adopted this part? Because its introducers didn't felt that they were prime, supernatural and like Supreme court.
Yes, you are correct in saying that some religions defy nature and reach for the supernatural while others simply look to nature as the object of worship. But where your religion and Catholicism can be considered similar is in that they both simply make up a desired belief and then selectively look to nature to support it. That each tries to work nature into its system of belief doesn't substantiate than any one of them has simply arisen from nature.
There can be different levels and types/parts of nature, all religions can adopt differently depending of introducer's understandings, specific needs, specific time & environment ets. But it is bit difficult to achieve A&F status like SUN, which shall never attract odds. At most initial levels we all are on one platform but different on some gross or local level. Universal, Solar, global, live beings, animals, humans( one at basic levels), Continental, sub-continental, national, international, state, city, area, society, home, communal etc. (some different at gross/local levels). Mostly,odds are relevant to grosses at increasing rate not on basic levels.
Sorry become more complex.
Since science is not yet A&F, we may need to use some other mean for its yet non A&F part.
