outhouse
Atheistically
That is not true.
Nor did you prove anything.
YOu added an error on top of another error.
-
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!
The True Origin of Reality
- Thread starter Quadrivium
- Start date
That is not true.
Nor did you prove anything.
YOu added an error on top of another error.
Quadrivium
Member
Uh okay dude... I originally said why I relate the religious trinities as analogous to tri-fold synthesis.
You asked about religious history. I sent you links where you can read that information.
So what are you saying?
You want me to debate religious history? lol, I'll refer to the worlds consensus on the basics. If you understand the concept of evolution as in applied to reality, or information, and not just biological lineage, then you'll understand all human cultures evolve alongside humanity.
Meaning all religions are going to have come from the elder versions of the category. And like evolution in biology, ints not merely a linear transition.
[For more examples of this in reference to biological evolution, we can study horizontal gene transfer compared to vertical gene transfer and how in the same way all information evolves similarly (including culture/religion). But I don't think this thread is ready to jump into biology quite yet.]
The timeline and specific written history that is maybe our best shot at assuming the truth. So that's all I'm saying. I'm not changing the written text, just providing links for you to read it. But since that's unreasonable by your standards, I'll post specific quotes from the provided reference.
1. Hindusim is an old religion...
Hinduism -- Ancient History Encyclopedia
Unlike other religious traditions, Hinduism does not originate in a single founder, a single book or a single point in time. It contains many different beliefs, philosophies and viewpoints, not always consistent with each other. These apparent contradictions strike only those who are not familiar with this tradition: the Hindu insight claims that the Oneness expresses itself in many different forms.
Hinduism is often labelled as a religion, but it is actually more than that: it is a vast and complex socio-religious body which, in a way, reflects the complexity of Indian society.
This tradition has come down to us from prehistoric times. The foundations of Hinduism can be found in the teachings of anonymous ancient sages or rishis, which were originally transmitted orally. We know very little about Hinduism beyond what can be learned from the Vedas, a collection of hymns and other ritual texts composed in different periods. These texts contain a lot of material including the teachings of the early sages. The oldest evidence of religious practices in India date back approximately to 5500 BCE.
2. Religious Evolution...
Zoroastrianism and parsiism - Encyclopedia Article and More from Merriam-Webster
Mithraic mysteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Judaism Origins, Judaism History, Judaism Beliefs
Zoroastrianism - ReligionFacts
Constantine the Great and Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Judaism is a religious tradition with origins dating back nearly four thousand years, rooted in the ancient near eastern region of Canaan (which is now Israel and Palestinian territories).
Zoroaster's ideas of ethical monotheism, heaven, hell, angelology, the resurrection of the body, and the messiah figure were influential on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, though to what extent is not known for certain.
Ancient religion that originated in Iran based on the teachings of Zoroaster. Founded in the 6th century BCE, it influenced the monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It rejects polytheism, accepting only one supreme God, Ahura Mazda.
Founded by the Iranian prophet and reformer Zoroaster in the 6th century BC, Zoroastrianism contains both monotheistic and dualistic features. Its concepts of one God, judgment, heaven and hell likely influenced the major Western religons of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Early Christianity is the period of Christianity preceding the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
The earliest followers of Jesus composed an apocalyptic, Second Temple Jewish sect, which historians refer to as Jewish Christianity.
When Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (reigned 306337) ruled Rome, Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire
The Mithraic Mysteries were a mystery religion practiced in the Roman Empire from about the 1st to 4th centuries AD. The name of the Persian god Mithra (proto-Indo-Iranian Mitra), adapted into Greek as Mithras, was linked to a new and distinctive imagery.
The Romans themselves regarded the mysteries as having Persian or Zoroastrian sources.
outhouse
Atheistically
Nothing of value there helps you.
For one Christianity probably spawned Mithras, as it dates afterwards.
And Judaism has no tie to hindu's at all.
You overreached and made errors plain and simple.
No need for long post, your putting to much out their for no reason. [your all over the board and no where near what you stated]
Quadrivium
Member
Really? You're to think the people of the world didn't evolve together as people of the world?
Anyways, this topic is totally unrelated to the main topic of the thread. You can read all the literature you wish on religious history.
Literature from the Iron Age includes the earliest texts which have been preserved in a manuscript tradition (as opposed to texts which have been recovered by archaeologists), including the Avestan Gathas (see date of Zoroaster), the Indian Vedas (see Vedic period), parts of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament; cf. dating the Bible), and the earliest literature from Ancient Greece.
But this book on page 43 will let you in on the fact that, that method is not useful.
The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate - Edwin Bryant - Google Books
And this is pretty interesting as well.
https://www.academia.edu/4540206/Brahma_and_Abraham_Divine_Covenants_of_Common_Origin
But regardless, you don't need to know what happened to understand the evolutionary trajectory enough to be able to predictably trace it back with generalizations.
And lastly in any sense, this is completely irrelevant to the main topic. I only was drawing comparison to the religious trintity and tri-fold synthesis.
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
I would agree with you for the most part, but I would express division as parts of a whole. So when you divide by something you are actually expressing how many parts of that whole that you have. So 4/2 is actually expressing that you have 2 wholes that fit into 4. So when you divide by zero, you can say that you can fit an infant number of 0's into whatever number that you have, but as you mentioned earlier this theory breaks down when you try to do the reverse process of multiplication, so I dunno.
So when you say monad, do you mean the concept of the first being and/or God? Or are you expressing the Mathematical concept? And by tri-fold synthesis are you talking about the in/out wave synthesizing into one wave that has a specific wavelength, thus giving it measurable qualities. Can you cite a link to tri-fold synthesis, I wasn't able to find anything on it.
Please explain how Christianity evolved from Hinduism? And please, please explain how all religions evolved from Hinduism. Be sure to cite legitimate articles that support your theory.
But I do agree with you somewhat in the human fiction part, at least when those parts are taken literally, but those fictitious parts play a crucial role as well. First, they make the stories interesting so that people will actually read them so that they may have access to the deeper truths contained within them. Secondly, the fictitious parts have symbolic meanings that often portray important aspects of reality, but require the right perspective to understand them, thus helping people toward self realization.
I would agree with this. I'll have to find this article I read about the Druidic order for you. It talks about how religion evolved from the celebration of a single life force that flows through all things into specific worship of certain aspects of nature, and/or supernatural beings mostly in order for a small group of peoples to maintain authority over larger groups. But I agree with you that the essence of most religions have the same basis of belief.
Nothing is not non-sensical in my opinion, it's just the absence of the tri-synthesis waveform that you were speaking of in subsequent posts, but I would also argue that it is "something" just because we can conceptualize it.
I would appreciate that greatly, I have found a lot of the information you have presented very interesting. It's all pretty much what I believe, but it has been presented in a much more understandable manner, and I really like the in/out wave synthesis where the epicenter of the wave is presented as a "particle". I would really like to see more information on the "coherence" that you speak of as I find the relation between quantum coherence to biological system coherence of great interest.
I personally don't think Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva correlate to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as Vishnu is considered "Creator", Shiva is the destroyer, and Brahma is the force beyond both. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost has no such breakdown as far as I am aware.
But along those lines which part of the tri-fold synthesis would consider to be which aspect of the trinity of Hinduism and Christianity?
It's not necessarily ignoring it, more of defining it in a way in which the entire of the rest of the system works. So how would you suggest defining a number divided by 0, while the rest of the system still works?
I think I see where he's going with this, that set's are naturally occurring, and since a set like the one describe by Russell wouldn't exist in nature, then it would not actually be considered a set, but that was the kind of the point Russell was making in the first place in my opinion. But I have yet to think of an actual set of numbers that would actually demonstrate this contradiction.
I would agree with this. I definitely think the universe is fractal based, and if this were shown to be true, it would definitely lend itself to a holographic/one substance based universe, as a fractal is basically a reproduction of one shape into the exact same shape of a larger and/or smaller scale.
Last edited:
Quadrivium
Member
Monad in mostly an analogus sense for fundamental unit of reality or natural unit, Where quaternion is fundamental unit of space. I suppose monad is the first information manifest from "nothing" for the reasons I've claimed.
But it's described also as cell unit of cell grid sensorium in Darius Malys' recent paper on philosophy of the universe as quantum computer basd on works of Kant, Fitche, Hegel, and Leibniz. It's 66 pages but worth the read.
https://independent.academia.edu/DariusMalys/Papers
The core function of monad is a tri-fold synthesis, but of all monads in relation to all monads.
By tri-fold synthesis I am speaking of the analogous pattern that is the expression of nature resonant from nothings' manifested monad.
This is I suppose my term?, though I'm not sure if that's true I may have heard or read it somewhere. But it just describes the essence of 'injective function'.
I just did this for Outhouses response above, it's overall not important, it's just likely and makes sense when considered under the light of what evolution is.
I agree, and I don't mean to bash religious culture except for what I see as "sucky", like slavery. But that's a more broad human issue not just a religious one. I am also claiming that all things express this pattern of tri-fold synthesis in analgous ways fundamental in nature, and our culture is natural, just of a different substrate, or cognitive dimension if you will.
I'm speaking of coherence in broad terms. Like what makes information possible. What makes cognition coherent, etc.. nothing particularly specific overall.
Or maybe I don't understand the question?
But biological quantum coherence is awesome. I read an article on a microbe that can switch it off and on to get energy from basically no light (or something along those lines). It's exciting stuff!
Quantum biology: Algae evolved to switch quantum coherence on and off
In this case the trinities I percieve similar patterns because each speaks of 3 parts that express one total essence. Bramah is everything, but whithin (or of) him is Bramha, Vishnu, Shiva. The correlation I propose is that the 3 elements (or personifications) in both Christian and Hindu are all separate of eachother, but combined express god.
Tri-fold synthesis is the same. It's Injective Function.
1.Function
2.Functions' Domain
3. Function's Codomain.
Together these preserve distinctness and allow for synthesis of information (monad).
From the perspective of "nothingness' function", the only thing it has to imprint on it's codomain, is the inversion of itself. Which would be potential infinity. Or God, if you wanted.
The expression appears the same. And can be seen in other religious symbolism as well.
I suggest it's analogous to defining non-existence, while the rest of the world is still existent.
I dumped a bunch of reference of fractal studies in various fields of study in the large reference reply above. But here's a fun page of some simulations and descriptions of cosmic fractals.
Introduction
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
What happens when you divide by 0 in your opinion?
Mmmmh, in some ways I agree with you, that the conceptions of "quantities" is just a way we define "a number", but I don't think there is a discrpenecy between number values and real world "approximations". 4 apples means 4 apples, but in the "constant" values you spoke of earlier I would degree with you.
Finite measurement does exist in the real world, but possibly not in the quantum world. As I stated earlier 4 apples is 4 apples, but whether the measurement of what the 4 apples is composed being finitely measurable is another question, but my opinion is that their is a "base frequency" that defines something as an "apple", but there is also differences in the apple after the base frequency that determine the characteristics of the apple. Nonetheless according to the base frequency of the resonant frequency that composes the apple, we can conclude that there are indeed 4 apples.
Same thing goes from Schrodinger's cat. An "alive" cat has a different frequency compared to a "dead" cat, due to the photonic interactions between the live cat that change it's frequency compared to a dead cat.
All in all, I believe we just haven't discovered a good way to differentiate the frequency between certain "entities' due to our inability to accurately measure such frequencies, same goes for the "number of apples". In order to state clearly that we have four apples we would have to be able to differentiate the individual frequency of the apples in relation to the frequencies that surround them (EX. the elements that compose the "air" around them in relation to the frequency of the apples themselves), and also the description of the trifold synethesis of the four apples, in relation to the trifold synthesis of the molecules/atom of air around the apples, given a specific definition of the entire space around the apples.
It does present a state of absence in a real world scenario, given that we define the frequencies of the trifold synthesis of the object that is "absent" in relation to the frequency of the synthesis of the waves in the "objects' surrounding it, within a specifically defined area of wave frequencies.
Explain how Hinduism gave rise to Zoroastrianism. Cite specific sources that show direct influence of Hinduism on the founder of Zoroastrianism, rather than similarities between the two philosophies/religions. Please do the same from Judiasm, Mithraism, and conversely Mithraism into Christianity.
Similarities between religions do not necessarily mean that one was influenced by the other. By stating that similarities in religions dictate that one was influenced by the other, you are totally disregarding that people can form similar ideas all by themselves without the influence of a prior source. If this was not the case, then Hinduism would not exist, as it would have to have been influenced by a prior religion, and so on and so on.
At some point someone "discovered" these ideas on their own without the influence of a prior source, and the same could have happened for any of these religions as well.
And just so you know, while there are some similarities between Mithraism, and Christianity there are also some very significant differences.
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
Yes, but similarities don't necessarily mean influence as I mentioned earlier, due to the fact that humans are capable of coming up with similar philosophies by observing nature without having to be influenced by a priory established belief system.
What exactly are the world's consensus on the basics?
Sorry, but this is not necessarily true at all, although I would agree that it is most often the case. But with that being said, you could possibly have a person living in total seclusion from society, and he/she could eventually come to the concepts of any given religious system without have been exposed to them whatsoever. This is exactly how these religious systems were formed actually. At some point a religious philosophy had to have been formed without experience of a prior religion.
You're comparing apples to oranges, and your also forgetting the aspect of genetic mutation within gene transfer. Certain genetics evolve without "gene transfer", and our actually products of nature influencing evolution without the need for a transfer of a gene from one being to another. In these cases, a new gene is formed without being transferred from an existing organism. The same goes for culture and religion. Sometimes a culture or religion is formed without the influence of a prior culture or religions just due to the nature of the surrounding environment.
I'm pretty sure Outhouse is at least, familiar with the basic history of Hinduism.
It can be argued that many religions did not originate in a single founder. For any religion (that I can think of off the top of my head) there is significant evidence that they were not started by a single founder, a single book, or a single point in time. The contradictions within Hinduism could also arise out of it being a mixture of different philosophies being converged into one belief system. The same could definitely be said for Christianity very easily. Judaism, Pagan traditions, Roman traditions, and many more.
Agreed.
Many "religious practices" come down to us from prehistoric times. Animism comes to mind, and according archaeological research, most likely predates Hinduism by a good while.
Timeline of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look at the timeline around 5500 BC, and see what influenced the religious practices of the Indian subcontintent. Plus you have the Harrapan society that existed prior to Modern Hinduism, but we have no real record of what there religious practices were. Was Hinduism based off their practices, something else altogether, or a mixture of different ideologies
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
Show direct evidence that Zoroaster's ideas influenced these religions, and again similarities don't count, as it is definitely possible for a person to derive these ideas without the influence of a prior religion or philosophy.
Again similarities between religions are not "proof" that one influenced another. They are definitely evidence for that, given that one was established prior to the other, but correlation does not imply causation.
Likely influence, but did not definitely influence. Again cite sources that claim that Zoroastrianism had influence on these religions, as well as how these influences can be demonstrated. Archaeological evidence that religious artifacts were present in common areas etc etc.
Ea
I would agree with this, but you must also realize how many different sects of "early Christians" there were, and how different their beliefs were. Almost the entire basis for the Council of Nicaea, was to decide which Christian belief was the "true story", but just because it was decided what the official story was, doesn't mean that it actually was.
I would agree with this, but what class of people within Rome where they main constituents of the Mithra religion?
Yes, I really think that. You should look more into social families in antiquity. The World back then was not like the world we see today. Ethnicities, religious groups, and/or both did not intermingle with each other like they do today. Sure you had a few here and there that incorporated ideas from prior/different belief systems, but they were few and far between, and usually ended up getting ostracized from their particular societies, and in severe cased killed.
People of the ancient world evolved within their own social groups, with minimal influence, unless by force, from outside religious/philosophical practices. When you get into higher social classes, this was less common as a "well rounded" education was sought after, but those of higher socio economic classes were the exception, not the norm, and they usually had minimal effect on the religious/social practices of the masses, unless of course, it was by force as I mentioned earlier.
The best discussions are off topic.
, But back to the OP, what is your definition of the true origin of reality anyways? That everything is composed of waves and empty space?But archaeological evidence supports religious practices far beyond what is recorded in any religious text.
Page 43 is not shown on the Google books page you linked to, could you provide a summary of the information?
Interesting article, and definitely some good points, but as I mentioned earlier correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
Evolutionary trajectory is a funny thing. Two totally different creatures in two totally different environments could possible "evolve" the same features without ever having been influenced by one another, and predictably tracing something back with generalizations does not lend itself to an accurate projection of events. Generalization by definition, does not lend itself to an accurate description in my opinion.
If you wanna hang around here, you should abandon all hope of "staying on topic".
Just go with the flow, and see where it takes you. I see a lot of relevance to all that we have been discussing with regard to the nature of reality. Especially your relation of it to religious ideals, as essentially, that is one of the main purposed of religion, to relate the nature of reality to it's believers. You've made some good points, now just defend them. Being able to relate all off-topic discussions to the original topic of this thread, goes a long way in supporting your original thesis in my opinion.
Where did I say that injective functions map distinct elements of its domain to the same element of its codomain?
What I said is:
"They always map different elements of a set (domain) into different members of another set (codomain)."
I make the assumption here that "different" is the same of "distinct" in English.
Now your turn to back-up your claim that
1) The domain and codomain of an injective function must be different
2) You can never map the domain of an injective function to its codomain
For instance, the identical function that totally maps {1,2} to {1,2}, and is such that
f(1) = 1
f(2) = 2
maps a set to itself.
Is f() NOT injective in your opinion?
Ciao
- viole
outhouse
Atheistically
Your links are not credible and worthless at provong anything you stated.
Again. there is no connection to Judaism from hindu cultures.
Mithras probably copied Christiaity end of story.
By the way, i am well studied here. Its not amatter of reading, it is a matter of study and learning.
Your in error and reaching.
roger_pearse
Member
It may be relevant to point out that the earliest extant copy of any Zoroastrian text is 10th century AD. The copies we rely on are much later than that.
The Avestan literature was not committed to writing until the middle of the 4th century AD, under the Sassanid Persian kings, when the "Great Avesta" (now lost) was compiled and distributed to major temples. It is possible that this process was in response to the activity of Constantine and subsequent emperors, and the creation of a written corpus a response to acts such as Constantine ordering bibles for the churches of his new capital Constantinople. It is possible that in the recording of the ancient Avestan traditions, a certain amount of customisation took place, with reference to Christianity.
I understand that it is extremely difficult to argue conclusively from the Zoroastrian literary record, for these kinds of reasons. Supposed ancient material in them may in fact be derived from the efforts of Christian missionaries. So be very wary.
My understanding is that there are indeed commonalities between the religious ideas of the most ancient pagans and the most ancient Hindus. Both are branches of the early Indo-Europeans, and it is probably an anachronism to see the influence in either direction, rather than as two children of a common ancestor. But ... in Iran, the advent of Zoroaster modified things. It seems that the Zoroastrians were unable to stamp out entirely the primitive Indo-European ideas, and were forced to incorporate some of them as subordinate deities. Thus we get Mithra, the Lord of Wide Pastures, who seems to be much the same as Indian Mitra. (Roman Mithras, name-similarity not withstanding, is not the same deity).
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Quadrivium
Member
Yea that makes sense.
But so does this other possibility I've mentioned.
If Hinduism is older than Judaism, it's pretty likely that history influenced the future, as that's how timelines work. I understand linear evolution regarding to habitat location, etc... may make this questionable. But certainly not impossible. And there's other reasons to believe in less linear evolution. I'll get around to writing about that soon, but not yet.
There's other possibilities though written in other peoples research, so I've chosen this scenario.
I think maybe 'Outhouse' dislikes this idea for whatever reason (maybe he holds strict dislike for Hinduism or something like a racist might) so he or she chooses to just reject it, angrily, for no reason, claiming any notion of this false no matter what.
Last edited:
Quadrivium
Member
In my opinion, first I would clarify that math is human interpretation and translation analogous of nature’s expression, but math is not pure or true expression of nature.
When we (humans) divide by zero… I would assume the rules we've applied for dividing by relative values of the same category also apply. All values of the same category should behave pretty much the same, at least in the sense that their core essence is the same, warranting the defining of the category.
For the case of whole numbers they maintain a whole value. I'd assume that any directly related variations within this category are multiples of a “most” fundamental whole value. Now this most fundamental value is of a different substrate, or dimension of the category “number”. It is a variation of the fore-mentioned whole numbers but the exact same rules don’t apply within this substrate as it is most fundamental, unlike the other values.
This is the most fundamental substrate of reason, and any sense of computation, or existential coherence. When we count we begin after zero. But we don’t always intuitively include it when we start. And we've learned to count forwards and backwards. And nothing really stops us from accounting for or developing more axis or degrees to count spherically rather than linearly though it’s probably more difficult to maintain than 2 dimensional positive and negative values. But regardless, it all starts from zero.
The operation of division is deducing and defining new categories from parental, or other associative categories.
You can’t divide the most fundamental category because there’s no essence to fulfill quantifying a new natural category. The only coherent output in this case is devised from, "inverse deduction".
But just as there is no value to deduce from zero, this inversion occurs again, and again, and again, infinitely, and instantly. This event of "recursive inverse deduction" has manifest infinite value within zero, that can then be categorized infinitely, and among infinite substrates.
So when I divide by zero I believe it’s correct to say you get infinity because everything is naturally of infinity.
But when we do this with human number systems it implies that infinity is a number and breaks the system. This is not good for human categorization, so we have no need for recognizing infinity as fundamental math unit, and instead recognize zero, as fundamental. Or in some cases we may recognize 1 as fundamental because the value of zero, is still 0 after all.
Last edited:
Quadrivium
Member
I would attempt to clarify the suggestion that human-cognitive-categorization is a unique substrate separate from pure natural expression. That one only reflects the other through a complex series of translations, or currents of existential relation.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
You mean to say...Man is not the physical item he appears to be?
Quadrivium
Member
Id suggest this level of reality is subjective perspective. From the perspective of humanity apples are apples. The same relative frequency we each analogously observe as apples, is also categorized by each of us as apples. But each actual frequency observed is going to vary from each others interpreted perspective by slight variations due to interference. They are not the exact same apple, each are different apples among of sea of potentially infinite relativity. The actual defining characteristics of relativity are subjective to each contributing factors perspective.
We generalize to make coherence and make categories. But beyond our senses and minds, all natural categories are of one totality of nature. Which I would suggest is of infinite potential, and within nothing.
Quadrivium
Member
The category of man is an analogy for a specific set of frequencies that we all relate to each others developed categories of man, or similar set of frequencies.
From our common perspective a man is a man. But from a purely natural sense, each "man" is unique, and not merely a category of man.
Quadrivium
Member
Yea it just depends on the defining it. Lexical issues become problematic. But "sensibility" (for lack of a better term) can allow us to do so.
But I'm unclear on your usage of "trifold synthesis" here.
Quadrivium
Member
I posted links to these quotes already, they are not my ideas. And I'm very possibly misunderstanding this.
Similarities don't dictate influence, but can be supportive evidence. And since Abraham seems to appear after Hindu history, plus there's so many similarities, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion.
Another piece of reasoning I'd offer to support this possibility is in comparing the evolution of biology to the evolution of culture. Religion is human culture, and humans are biological. Though religion and biology are of different substrates, its plausible that they share qualities.
In biology there's a number of contributors to evolution.
Similar environments produce similar behaviors, even if each is isolated and of completely unique branches of lineage. This is what you describe maybe as reasoning against influence.
The Fossa is a cat-like animal of completely different lineage and isolated on Madagascar from the rest of the world. It's not a cat at all, it's more of a mongoose, which is more of a rodent.
But what this really means is the closest common ancestor is a prehistoric type of rodent. Ultimately they still share lineage, they just branched off long time ago only to become similar again later.
So that's a typical vertical gene transfer contributor of evolution. But there's also horizontal gene transfer, it's a pretty simple concept. In this case viruses have the behaviors of splicing DNA from organisim to organism. Mixing up the gene pool so to speak. Influencing evolution regardless of parental lineage. This is more associative transfer.
So in the same way religion is susceptible to various influences.