“Religion stays the same, NO MATTER WHAT we discover about the universe.”
I've always wondered what it would be like if religions did try to change themselves and their credos by acknowledging what they have been wrong about and only covering the areas where we still don't know. Officially, many religions have done this in form, accepting evolution for example (“nolo contendere”), but they go on believing the unbelievable, things that, in order to be true, would have to assume an ancient/Medieval view of the Universe that contradicts what we know from science.
“If religion didn't change then where did all the Protestants spring up from? And why are there constantly new branches breaking off from the original tenets on a yearly basis? If religion didn't change, it'd have died out thousands of years ago.”
Well, the only trouble is that many of these changes have to do with differences over what are strictly matters of belief about abstract doctrines and liturgical practices that are not susceptible to objective knowledge. Sometimes these developments expose religions' weaknesses. For example, the claim that Truth is obviously what one church says it is, but then dissenters arise who say it isn't obvious (usually correct) but that some other interpretation is right instead (usually wrong or, at best, unknowable objectively). This has nothing to do with religion changing because it recognizes its mistakes or accepts truths that objectively contradict articles of faith.
“These guys don't assume all Christians or Jews are like that, they're making a poke at the ones who are. If you're not amongst them then it doesn't even reference you except peripherally.”
I suppose that feelings can be hurt peripherally. That seems to be the complaint.
reply
share
Zarathustras_Crown
16 years ago
"Well, the only trouble is that many of these changes have to do with differences over what are strictly matters of belief about abstract doctrines and liturgical practices that are not susceptible to objective knowledge."
Welcome to the world of religion...
"Sometimes these developments expose religions' weaknesses. For example, the claim that Truth is obviously what one church says it is, but then dissenters arise who say it isn't obvious (usually correct) but that some other interpretation is right instead (usually wrong or, at best, unknowable objectively). This has nothing to do with religion changing because it recognizes its mistakes or accepts truths that objectively contradict articles of faith."
You're anthropomorphizing religion ("it recognizes" for example), from what I've seen religion is dependent upon those following it, when those who believe in a doctrine split from another group "religion" changes, it adapts. Without followers there is no religion, maybe old mythologies in books, but without believers a religion becomes the mundane.
"I suppose that feelings can be hurt peripherally. That seems to be the complaint."
Then my advice would be "if your feelings are that easily hurt, avoid anything by David Cross"...*shrug* I see a show portray a blathering, frothing at the mouth "Dawkinite" atheist and I don't take it as a personal insult.
--
*+_Charos_+*
"God's away on business"
-Tom Waits
reply
share