Banal

[The Hammer]

Modeling an assumption on something 2000 years ago may not be the best bet in today's society regarding the growth of a new religion.

Neither is saying religious growth is dead, yet here we are.

 

[Jimmy]

While these may have their roots in "old beliefs," they've hardly been stagnant in their evolution and views have evolved as sciences has presented new information.

If there are "old beliefs" that are still consistent with modern science, why change them?

Well if it works for them that's great

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm talking about a new movement not personal growth within a certain religion.

Oh. Your OP just says religion. But that's the point of all religions new and old-growth and change. Somewhat the definition of it.

 

[Jimmy]

Neither is saying religious growth is dead, yet here we are.

Yes it could be alive tomorrow

 

[Jimmy]

Oh. Your OP just says religion. But that's the point of all religions new and old-growth and change. Somewhat the definition of it.

Yeah I don't see much change really within a specific religion so I guess my op could be taken either way. Although individuals may change greatly the religion really don't

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

"Banal" seems an odd word choice for the title of your post, considering the content. Does it convey your message correctly?? Maybe "stagnant" or some such? Just wondering.

adjective

1. so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring.

 

[Jimmy]

"Banal" seems an odd word choice for the title of your post, considering the content. Does it convey your message correctly?? Maybe "stagnant" or some such? Just wondering.

adjective

1. so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring.

Yeah maybe

 

[Quintessence]

I agree. I just find it odd that innovation is dead in religion especially with it's subjective nature.

It's not remotely dead. In practice, even those who are doing religions that have had hundred year histories are creating traditions for their families that work for them. Originality and creativity has at least as big of a role in religions as tradition. Spend more time learning about religions and you'll run into that pretty quickly.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

One book on Mediaeval Christianity will disabuse you of this notion.

Heh...I was gonna post the same, but use 'Byzantium' as the example...lol

 

[February-Saturday]

I agree. I just find it odd that innovation is dead in religion especially with it's subjective nature.

You can't say this and dismiss innovations as tied to old religions, because innovation is inherently tied to what came before it. That's why it's called innovation and not invention. That said, the Church of the SubGenius, Dudeism, and Discordianism were arguably invented, which is something their followers often gleefully admit from my experience.

Nonetheless, all religions are ultimately innovations. So is all of science and all of philosophy. As the saying goes, "philosophy is just cliff-notes of Plato." It's the same with religion; Islam was an innovation on Persian Paleopaganism and Christianity, Christianity was an innovation on Gnostic Judaism and Zoroastrianism, Judaism was an innovation on Mesopotamian Paleopaganism, Mesopotamian Paleopaganism was likely an innovation on shamanism, shamanism was likely an innovation on animism and possibly bicameralism. Modern religions continue to innovate in the same way, cementing themselves in older practices in the same way.

Now these innovations lead to divergent sects due to reaching different conclusions, and these sects are what we call religions. Some sects fit under larger umbrellas like Neopaganism, Dharmic, or Abrahamic, while others do not easily fit into any category like Raelism, LaVeyan Satanism, or Eckenkar.

New religions and innovations in religion are a dime a dozen. Ask any individual on this forum and they can probably give you their own private speculations and innovations on their religious creeds. If that's not what you're looking for, then what are you looking for?

 

[Jimmy]

You can't say this and dismiss innovations as tied to old religions, because innovation is inherently tied to what came before it. That's why it's called innovation and not invention. That said, the Church of the SubGenius, Dudeism, and Discordianism were arguably invented, which is something their followers often gleefully admit from my experience.

Nonetheless, all religions are ultimately innovations. So is all of science and all of philosophy. As the saying goes, "philosophy is just cliff-notes of Plato." It's the same with religion; Islam was an innovation on Persian Paleopaganism and Christianity, Christianity was an innovation on Gnostic Judaism and Zoroastrianism, Judaism was an innovation on Mesopotamian Paleopaganism, Mesopotamian Paleopaganism was likely an innovation on shamanism, shamanism was likely an innovation on animism and possibly bicameralism. Modern religions continue to innovate in the same way, cementing themselves in older practices in the same way.

Now these innovations lead to divergent sects due to reaching different conclusions, and these sects are what we call religions. Some sects fit under larger umbrellas like Neopaganism, Dharmic, or Abrahamic, while others do not easily fit into any category like Raelism, LaVeyan Satanism, or Eckenkar.

New religions and innovations in religion are a dime a dozen. Ask any individual on this forum and they can probably give you their own private speculations and innovations on their religious creeds. If that's not what you're looking for, then what are you looking for?

See posts #9-11

 

[February-Saturday]

See posts #9-11

I did, I read the whole thread before I commented. I still don't understand what you're asking for here.

 

[Jimmy]

I did, I read the whole thread before I commented. I still don't understand what you're asking for here.

I did, I read the whole thread before I commented. I still don't understand what you're asking for here.

I can't help you.