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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bear with me for a moment. This isn't as crazy or evil as it may at first sound.
The Bible and the Qur'an represent the holy books of the world two largest religions, as well as various denominations and their predecessor Judaism from the old testament.
Whilst the concept of banning these two books flies in the face of our conceptions of personal liberty, there is a social evolutionary factor in this. The bible and the quran are both texts far removed from our own time and literal readings of them as truth are a hindrance on scientific advances as well a source of moral philosophies that struggle with questions in our technological age.
It would be hoped that in the era of atomic bombs, space exploration and industrialisation we would have developed religions or belief systems that correspond to the needs of the times. Whilst it is true that some varients of Islam and Christianity have re-invented themselves, it is only to remove the essence of the religious orthodoxy as mans submission to natural forces personified as a deity. It is more than possible to argue that such interpretations have defeated the religion itself as there are limits to how far you can interpret christianity or islam until you cease to be either a christian or a muslim. So whats the purpose of these religions if they are both scientifically and morally out-dated?
The flip side of this, is that as man comes to have greater mastery of the forces of nature and more power from our science and technology, being guided by a "bronze age" morality may infact be dangerous. Literal readings of these texts as a moral guide would produce hideously immoral societies by the standards we have today. the alternative is an extreme selectivity of these religions traditions and scripture which means that we are all but paying lip service to them. So why do we maintain the pretense of Christianity or Islam when we have made ourselves as individuals the supreme authority in deciding what parts of the religion we follow? This individualism is contaty to religious authority if it were cliamed to be derived from god or the church so it is not as if such a wide scope of interpretation is the pursuit of deeper "truth" when we have decided to ignore most of the religion.
So instead Christianity and Islam continue this strange pseudo-existence- on the one hand becoming empty liberal secular versions of themselves which do not necessarily offer spiritual truth or fulfilment in a way they were originally intended, or they are treated as truth and we condemn the results as contary to our humanity because they are such a miss match with advanced technological capabilities that could solve many problems. How long can this go on?
Should we draw a line under these religions by banning the bible and the quran and instead work to find belief systems for the majority of mankind that serve as better vechicles of the scientific and moral knowledge accumulated since the 1st and 6th century when they were established? Or should we allow these religions to continue and on what grounds?
I request removing the ban on other gnostic books regarding Jesus and put them in the Bible.Bear with me for a moment. This isn't as crazy or evil as it may at first sound.
The Bible and the Qur'an represent the holy books of the world two largest religions, as well as various denominations and their predecessor Judaism from the old testament.
Whilst the concept of banning these two books flies in the face of our conceptions of personal liberty, there is a social evolutionary factor in this. The bible and the quran are both texts far removed from our own time and literal readings of them as truth are a hindrance on scientific advances as well a source of moral philosophies that struggle with questions in our technological age.
It would be hoped that in the era of atomic bombs, space exploration and industrialisation we would have developed religions or belief systems that correspond to the needs of the times. Whilst it is true that some varients of Islam and Christianity have re-invented themselves, it is only to remove the essence of the religious orthodoxy as mans submission to natural forces personified as a deity. It is more than possible to argue that such interpretations have defeated the religion itself as there are limits to how far you can interpret christianity or islam until you cease to be either a christian or a muslim. So whats the purpose of these religions if they are both scientifically and morally out-dated?
The flip side of this, is that as man comes to have greater mastery of the forces of nature and more power from our science and technology, being guided by a "bronze age" morality may infact be dangerous. Literal readings of these texts as a moral guide would produce hideously immoral societies by the standards we have today. the alternative is an extreme selectivity of these religions traditions and scripture which means that we are all but paying lip service to them. So why do we maintain the pretense of Christianity or Islam when we have made ourselves as individuals the supreme authority in deciding what parts of the religion we follow? This individualism is contaty to religious authority if it were cliamed to be derived from god or the church so it is not as if such a wide scope of interpretation is the pursuit of deeper "truth" when we have decided to ignore most of the religion.
So instead Christianity and Islam continue this strange pseudo-existence- on the one hand becoming empty liberal secular versions of themselves which do not necessarily offer spiritual truth or fulfilment in a way they were originally intended, or they are treated as truth and we condemn the results as contary to our humanity because they are such a miss match with advanced technological capabilities that could solve many problems. How long can this go on?
Should we draw a line under these religions by banning the bible and the quran and instead work to find belief systems for the majority of mankind that serve as better vechicles of the scientific and moral knowledge accumulated since the 1st and 6th century when they were established? Or should we allow these religions to continue and on what grounds?
