Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Next Stage in Our (Religious) Evolution
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 35 (523886)
09-13-2009 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by ochaye
09-13-2009 6:25 AM


ochaye writes:
The more populated Western society gets, the more easily will people be unaware that cultures outside their own even exist. Americans are infamous for that already, or they were before 9/11.
You think so, compared to say the Dark Ages, or Japan before the 1500s? Western society is now more aware, concerned, and knowledgeable about foreign cultures than any other time in the history of the planet. Is every westerner an expert on every society in the world? No. But my point still stands.
ochaye writes:
People will ask, "Where is the moral fibre of skeptics?" if there is not either such evidence, or a retraction.
Thanks for an excellent example of the "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy. Also, people already ask "Where is the moral fiber of skeptics?", or are you new to these boards?
Besides, how about we discuss your moral fortitude when you choose a grandmother from Sussex to refute my predictions about modern communication. Choosing a hypothetical character who is unlikely to actually use said technology seems an awfully shifty tactic for someone who is trying to claim the high ground.
Furthermore, you are specifically instructed to debate the argument and not the arguer. Stop telling me what my point is and come up with your own concept. Present the concept as best you can, and shut your pie hole about what I must *really* be saying and meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ochaye, posted 09-13-2009 6:25 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ochaye, posted 09-13-2009 6:58 AM Phage0070 has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 32 of 35 (523888)
09-13-2009 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Phage0070
09-13-2009 6:48 AM


quote:
the Dark Ages
How many English speakers were there in the Dark Ages?
The accusation that religions are the result of deliberate deceptions has been abandoned, de facto.
Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Phage0070, posted 09-13-2009 6:48 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Phage0070, posted 09-13-2009 7:05 AM ochaye has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 35 (523889)
09-13-2009 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by ochaye
09-13-2009 6:58 AM


ochaye writes:
How many English speakers were there in the Dark Ages?
The accusation that religions are the result of deliberate deceptions has been abandoned, de facto.
Actually, I would say: "quod erat demonstrandum"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ochaye, posted 09-13-2009 6:58 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ochaye, posted 09-13-2009 7:06 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 34 of 35 (523890)
09-13-2009 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phage0070
09-13-2009 7:05 AM


LOL!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phage0070, posted 09-13-2009 7:05 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 35 (523926)
09-13-2009 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ochaye
09-12-2009 1:58 PM


Re: what would religious evolution look like
Biological evolution implies advance.
Biological evolution implies change.
Catholicism has changed at the expense of credibility. Rather than increase in population, as with biological organisms, the reverse occurred and is ongoing.
The analogy is meant to show how religion, much like other social institutions change over time due to a variety of reasons, just like in nature other selective pressures lead to change.
The analogy is just meant to show change, not cataloging every specific reason why an organism or a religion changes.
The present leader of the Catholics has sensibly been talking about a slimmed down Catholicism in the future, even as he makes almost simultaneous, mutually contradictory statements about his own religion.
Not surprising. Catholicism is a dying dinosaur on the brink of extinction.
A religion that is seen to change with its environment is seen as unprincipled; 'evolving religion' is a contradiction in terms. A deity who changes his mind is hardly worth following, and the Vatican tries hard to cover up this fact with its casuistry, as do the lesser cults.
The Deity doesn't matter, as often the Deity takes a backs seat to man's interests. Man has always found a way to make absolute moral imperatives ever so slightly lean towards relativism.
Today's Church is not the Church the apostles built on the instructions of Jesus, just like Moses' congregation was nothing like Jesus'. However well-intentioned they all might be, cultural pressures come in and the theology has to roll with the zeitgeist, but not so much that it appears contradictory. It's quite a juggling act, but nonetheless happens.
The bottom line is that the only thing that doesn't change is change itself.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ochaye, posted 09-12-2009 1:58 PM ochaye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024