Evolution of religion.

Post Reply New Topic

Religion does evolved. It is an evolving lie. Christianity is very flexible. There are so many variations of Christianity ,Catholics, Protestants etc competing for dominance like animals.

If Catholics become the dominant religion, it would break up into many different factions. The same would happen to Islam but to a lesser extent

Religion cannot evolve because religion comes from scripture. Scripture cannot change because that would be adding or removing from scripture which in turn corrupts religion. The only thing that changes are the people's mind and culture. In turn they adapt the scripture to their changing ways.

The down side of doing such a thing is that disaster after disaster the people will look at their leaders and religious men and say "We have strayed" and revert back to fundamentalism (which is what happened to Islam).

There is an infinate ways to interpret those scrips. There is no systematic way.
For example it is possible to interpret those scrips that make the religion almost identacle to Islam.

Religion is a human enterprise. To say that it can't evolve is to say that religion cannot change - absurd! Religion changes as much as fashion does.

This post makes no sense. Explain, please?

Fashions change every six months. Religion changes, but not that fast. Religion and fashion aren't much alike, really.

There are fads and trends in both fashion and religion. If you were to sample religion every hundred years or so for the past 2 millenia, you would see profound differences. While some churches have stayed fairly constant for a few hundred years, these tend to whither or decrease in numbers. The new churches are often rather different - picking up snakes, speaking in 'tongues', incorporating worship of the nation-state, etc. Fifty years ago, Southern Baptist churches were highly segregated and warned against inter-racial marriage ... not so much these days.

I've found some religions are more open to change than others. It seems that the older, bulkier, less flexible religions are either shrinking or collapsing. Meanwhile, some religious communities are learning these lessons and becoming more open to others, and more concentrated on a handful of shared core beliefs than crusty old dogma. One may say what they like about religion in general, but I think this new breed is at least better than the old.

Myself, I'm quite happy to be a Quaker. (And NO, I'm not trying to persuade ANYONE.) I've never found people more accepting of [my] diverse beliefs. The first time I sat in worship, and heard someone stand and quote a Buddhist text, I got a giant grin on my face. Sadly, I think too many so-called Christians "accept" unique people with the intention of educating them "properly" over time, accepting diverse beliefs as though they were forgiving them.

That's not acceptance, it's condescending, dishonest, and mean-spirited. As Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Truly accepting someone with diverse beliefs means you accept that they may understand Truths that you do not, and that you could actually learn a thing or two by listening to them. It doesn't mean kindly overlooking how wrong they are, provided they shut up, fill the offering plate, and make the congregation look diverse.

If being a Quaker works for you, that's great. Don't insult other people and their beliefs. Don't get too high on yourself.

Most Christians are unlike Christ. That is no huge secret.

I don't see where I "insulted other people and their beliefs." If I insulted anything, it'd be the practice of assimilating people of other religions under the guise of acceptance. Although that doesn't occur everywhere, and it isn't a uniquely Christian tactic, it does occur frequently, and is disgusting wherever it occurs.

As far as being a Quaker, I suffer no illusion that my way is the only way - or even the best way. It's merely MY way. And the only positive I explored regarding Quaker worship, is that people are ENCOURAGED to stand up and speak as they are moved to do so - and that it doesn't have to come out of any particular book, or jive with any particular dogma. Certainly there are other communities that are similarly open, but the fact I find this openness in Quaker worship is one of the reasons I'm glad to be a Quaker.

Yes, but it is the people changing the practice not the religion itself. The religion, for this example, Islam states that Muhammad is rasulullah, that is His Messenger. A person of this faith cannot then say "You know what? He isn't His messenger" without morphing into something that isn't Islam. It ceases to be Islam. A Christian who does not value Christ and instead follows John the Baptist, or Moses, is not a Christian. The fundamentals will go unchanged.




Unless you have a belief system like Hinduism (since there are many different practices in Hinduism) which does not have a revealed law like the Abrahamic faiths, religion cannot evolve or devolve (Hinduism appears evolving, but there is still strict adherence to each sect). It must remain with the laws until a new faith abrogates them in which it refrains from being considered that religion anymore. Just like Christianity superseded Judaism, as Islam superseded Christianity, and the Baha'i superseded Islam; all in forms of abrogating the previous laws.

The people will find change their beliefs enough to suit their modes of living. However, religion itself remains unchanged. The principles and fundamentals will always remain unchanged. This does not mean that a person will one day wake up and be revealed unto him a scripture and law. It only means that a new people are meant to follow a different way, different from before. The practice of belief will remain, however.

The statement of one religion superseding another is puzzling to me. I am not aware of Jews massively becoming Christians nor Christians becoming Muslims in huge numbers. Nor, unfortunately I do not suspect that the acceptance of the rational reality of atheism will sweep the religious masses. As religious people continuously and sensibly point out rational scientific views of the world do make the assumption that the universe can be understood which is a faith I can adhere to until there are implacable indications otherwise.

su·per·sede (spr-sd)
tr.v. su·per·sed·ed, su·per·sed·ing, su·per·sedes
1. To take the place of; replace.
2. To cause to be set aside, especially to displace as inferior or antiquated.



I would highly doubt any Muslim would consider Christianity superior to his beliefs, vice verse and so on and so on down and along the chain. And obviously you weren't around thousands of years ago to have noticed that cities were converting to the new faiths.


There is no rational reality in atheism except that it leads itself to be considered rational.

Or up the so-called "chain" for that matter. There is no chain.
To assume something without evidence is hardly rational. A tentative assumption such as that the universe can be comprehended is rational as long as it is tentative and provides a working discipline. I have never heard that religious beliefs are held tentatively.