Observing Religions as a Theory that evolved

[Bishadi]

In that it seems, that from many periods in time, new additions and progressions to the belief systems, share that the words of religious teachings evolved over time.

How it is that if religious books are the words ‘by God’ that in the evolution of the very beliefs continue to evolve over time?

If the words found in the literature of religious orders are the ‘creation’ of God, then why the changes over time?

Same with debating the evolution of species; if man was ‘created’ in God’s image, then why was the serpent capable of deceiving a God?

Then if life was created and just planted on this earth by God, then why are there dinosaur bones in the soil?

SO the idea of the thread is, if we as people can see evolution in just about every step we take in nature and knowledge; then why is evolution so firmly denied as a pattern of progression, quite similar to the ‘golden ratio’ shared in the structures of living things?

Perhaps, we should all go back to honoring Zeus on a thrown and forget the so called prophets who contributed to the evolution of knowledge and be faithful to the original Gods of mankind?

 

[Nameison]

The snake didnt trick eve, re-read the beginning of the bible the snake says the same thing gods says so , if the snake tricked them so did god.God says "now they are one of us" and the snake said they would be like god.. so read it i wanna know what you think bout that one.

 

[scottb]

Perhaps, we should all go back to honoring Zeus on a thrown and forget the so called prophets who contributed to the evolution of knowledge and be faithful to the original Gods of mankind?

I second the motion.

Friday is named for the goddess Freya, and Saturday after Saturn. Let's celebrate and be faithful by enjoying the gifts of Freya every weekday, and then kicking off the weekend with a Saturnalia! :woohoo:

 

[Imagist]

Perhaps, we should all go back to honoring Zeus on a thrown and forget the so called prophets who contributed to the evolution of knowledge and be faithful to the original Gods of mankind?

Original? Zeus isn't one of the original gods. Ask any shaman-king.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In that it seems, that from many periods in time, new additions and progressions to the belief systems, share that the words of religious teachings evolved over time.

How it is that if religious books are the words ‘by God’ that in the evolution of the very beliefs continue to evolve over time?

If the words found in the literature of religious orders are the ‘creation’ of God, then why the changes over time?

Same with debating the evolution of species; if man was ‘created’ in God’s image, then why was the serpent capable of deceiving a God?

Then if life was created and just planted on this earth by God, then why are there dinosaur bones in the soil?

SO the idea of the thread is, if we as people can see evolution in just about every step we take in nature and knowledge; then why is evolution so firmly denied as a pattern of progression, quite similar to the ‘golden ratio’ shared in the structures of living things?

Perhaps, we should all go back to honoring Zeus on a thrown and forget the so called prophets who contributed to the evolution of knowledge and be faithful to the original Gods of mankind?

More than anything else, your post is incoherent. Even once we filter out the babble, we're left with ...

"..., if we as people can see evolution ... then why is evolution so firmly denied ...?"​

And the pathetically obvious answer is: "Because those who reject evolution don't agree that it's obvious."

It's a silly thread. Let it die ... :yes:

 

[zenzero]

Friend Bishadi,
Surely evolution is there but Relgion is not a theory for sure. It is a Way of life which too eveolves.
Love & rgds

 

[logician]

Religion is anything but a theory, it is faith based, not based upon experimental research.

 

[Autodidact]

Bishadi: I have no idea what you meant by this post. Maybe you should try again.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

In that it seems, that from many periods in time, new additions and progressions to the belief systems, share that the words of religious teachings evolved over time.

How it is that if religious books are the words ‘by God’ that in the evolution of the very beliefs continue to evolve over time?

If the words found in the literature of religious orders are the ‘creation’ of God, then why the changes over time?

Your insight is good. May I be allowed to further it?

It is true that religion, like man, has evolved. It is so since man, himself, has evolved over time so religion had to evolve with him. As new evils arose, so, those new evils had to be combated with new Divine guidance. I must also claim that Islam is the pinnacle of this evolution. Let me elaborate the preceding sentences with an example.

At the time of the Pharoah the evil present in the Jews was cowardice. They did not stand up to him and they did not dare fight him. For this reason Moses' revealed religion was a fiery religion (in that God spoke to him through the fire). His religion did not give much of forgiveness but a great emphasis was placed on "Tooth for tooth and eye for eye". And that was the requirement of the time. The Jews needed to learn to stand up for themselves and fight.

Yet as time progressed a new evil began spreading among Jews. That evil was hard-heartedness. They took the teaching to its extreme and "A tooth for a thousand teeth" began to be the order of the day. To counter this 1400 years later God sent Jesus Christ with a religion of the "dove". He taught them to "turn the other cheek". To forgive and to submit. His teachings were, one must admit, correct for the time. It was the medicine the Jews needed. But it can not be heralded as a perfect teaching. Not only is it inapplicable it is wrong to forgive a bully. That is, again, cowardice.

A study into other religious lineages (Hinduism to Buddhism) for example would reveal a similar trend.

When the Quran was revealed man had evolved enough to have the complete religion revealed. Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saw angel Gabriel not as a fire or as a dove but as a human when the Quran was first revealed to him. This signified the completeness of the religion of Islam.

Following on from the example I present and challenge anyone (as I have done so countless times on this forum) to evolve the following Quranic teaching:
A tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye but it is better to forgive granted forgiveness leads to redemption.

I hope this was helpful.

 

[painted wolf]

"Mitakuye oyasin" For all my relations.... ie. We are all related, all life is connected and sacred.

We hit on it quite early on.

wa:do

 

[logician]

"Mitakuye oyasin" For all my relations.... ie. We are all related, all life is connected and sacred.

We hit on it quite early on.

wa:do

I disagree, all life is important, but not sacred, including homo sapiens.

 

[fantome profane]

I disagree, all life is important, but not sacred, including homo sapiens.

“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.” - Albert Einstein

The choice is yours.

 

[painted wolf]

I disagree, all life is important, but not sacred, including homo sapiens.

The point still stands that as far as 'evolved' ideas in religion go, new is not more 'evolved' or better.

wa:do

 

[Rolling_Stone]

SO the idea of the thread is, if we as people can see evolution in just about every step we take in nature and knowledge; then why is evolution so firmly denied as a pattern of progression, quite similar to the ‘golden ratio’ shared in the structures of living things?

SO, why in your mind do a few zealots speak for all?

 

[tariqkhwaja]

The point still stands that as far as 'evolved' ideas in religion go, new is not more 'evolved' or better.

You completely fail to mention my reply on this thread and then say this?

I am not only saying the last religion is better. I am saying its the best. And I put one challenge up for that. And if you think the point stands be my guest and answer the challenge.

 

[Imagist]

You completely fail to mention my reply on this thread and then say this?

I am not only saying the last religion is better. I am saying its the best. And I put one challenge up for that. And if you think the point stands be my guest and answer the challenge.

I am not sure what you're basing this on, but it seems to be that you're trying to base this on evolution. The problem is that this is a complete misunderstanding of evolution.

From an evolutionary perspective there is no concept of "better" or "worse" (or "best" or "worst") species, only "more evolved" and "less evolved". One might call something more evolved if it is more effectively adapted to its environment, or if it has evolved more complex structures in order to adapt. But these things aren't directly related to time; sharks are more evolved than most species, but they have existed in states very similar to their current state for many times as long as some modern less-evolved species. So newer religions aren't "better", and the newest religion isn't "best". They are probably more evolved, but there's no guarantee of that.

Furthermore, your argument that Islam is the pinnacle of evolution because it is the last is untrue because Islam is not the last religion. Many religions have arisen within the last 200 years, not the least of which being Mormonism and Pentecostalism. By your own argument, this would make these religions superior to Islam. Luckily for you, your argument is invalid.

Last, you challenged me to evolve this:

A tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye but it is better to forgive granted forgiveness leads to redemption.

My first step in evolving this would be to remove the word "redemption" which has basically no meaning in this context: "A tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye but it is better to forgive."

Next I would generalize it to what it actually is supposed to mean: "One may punish wrongdoing with equal retribution but it is better to forgive."

But this leaves it vague who is doing the retribution. It is usually better to have punishment exacted by an impartial third party because the victim of wrongdoing is apt to take excessive revenge upon the wrongdoer: "One may seek equal retribution for wrongdoing through a judge who is impartial to the situation, but it is better to forgive."

Retribution rarely does anyone any good, though, so it would be better to seek restitution: "One may seek equal restitution for wrongdoing through a judge who is impartial to the situation, but it is better to forgive."

The one remaining problem I see is that this might be too kind; people need to be kept safe from wrongdoers in some situations: "One may seek equal restitution for wrongdoing through a judge who is impartial to the situation, but it is better to forgive, except when action is necessary to prevent further wrongdoing."

That rule doesn't seem as simple and concise, but evolution often results in more complexity. My rule is far from perfect, but I think it is a more accurate description of how we should live than the one you gave.

 

[painted wolf]

"Mitakuye oyasin"

I'll stick with my religion. No eyes need be lost.

wa:do

 

[tariqkhwaja]

The one remaining problem I see is that this might be too kind; people need to be kept safe from wrongdoers in some situations: "One may seek equal restitution for wrongdoing through a judge who is impartial to the situation, but it is better to forgive, except when action is necessary to prevent further wrongdoing."

And when, exactly, is an action necessary? To prevent further wrong-doing. And how can we know when further wrong-doing will be prevented? When forgiveness is only meted out with the knowledge that the forgiveness will lead the offender to not do it again and to feel truly bad about hurting the other party. For example, if I step on your foot due to an honest mistake, you could go ahead and step on mine and there would be nothing wrong with that but it would be wiser of you to forgive me because unintentionally stepping on your foot really isn't worth revenging.

Redemption means that it should be in the case the other person feels sorry for what he did instead of getting more brave about it. So your so-called betterment of the original was really more of a go around in a circle and come back to the original.

As far as third-party involvement is concerned you are right. The instructions are for a third party. Nowhere in the original verse (which I should have quoted in any case) does it mention that the offended should react. It could be the offended one or it could be an impartial judge depending on the situation.

And in the case of religion as well as our physical evolution, they have been for the better. Humans are the pinnacle of evolution and are the best of the species without a doubt in that they can make choices and can reflect and think. Other species just follow instinct.

Islam is the last Divinely revealed religion. Obviously, by inference you should have understood that anyone claiming Islam to be defunct or false is, in my opinion, wrong and such a religion is false.

 

[Imagist]

Redemption means that it should be in the case the other person feels sorry for what he did instead of getting more brave about it. So your so-called betterment of the original was really more of a go around in a circle and come back to the original.

It's not going back to the original - your original rule says nothing about when the other person doesn't feel sorry and does get more brave about it. Mine does.

As far as third-party involvement is concerned you are right. The instructions are for a third party. Nowhere in the original verse (which I should have quoted in any case) does it mention that the offended should react. It could be the offended one or it could be an impartial judge depending on the situation.

Yet it is in human nature for the offended to react, so a rule of this kind should account for human nature by specifying that the offended should consult a third party rather than react.

And in the case of religion as well as our physical evolution, they have been for the better. Humans are the pinnacle of evolution and are the best of the species without a doubt in that they can make choices and can reflect and think. Other species just follow instinct.

This is not at all "without a doubt". Other species haven't built nuclear bombs, organized World Wars and Holocausts, or even done less nefarious things like cause global warming. Making choices and thinking are double-edged swords, and as often as not we use these skills poorly. Instinct rarely has such far-reaching negative effects.

Islam is the last Divinely revealed religion.

Please prove this. I suggest starting by proving that Islam is divinely revealed at all. Or even better, you could start by proving that there's anything divine to do the revealing in the first place.

Obviously, by inference you should have understood that anyone claiming Islam to be defunct or false is, in my opinion, wrong and such a religion is false.

I understood this. However, the criticism I was making was that while Islam says Mormonism is false, Mormonism says Islam is false. Islam and Mormonism cannot both be correct. So how do you prove that Islam is right?

 

[tariqkhwaja]

It's not going back to the original - your original rule says nothing about when the other person doesn't feel sorry and does get more brave about it. Mine does.

Woe to TariqKhwaja for not quoting the Quran in the first place. Please, Allah, forgive Tariq for he is stupid:
42:41 - "And the recompense of an injury is an injury the like thereof; but who so forgives and his act brings about reformation, his reward is with Allah. Surely, he loves not the wrongdoers."

Yet it is in human nature for the offended to react, so a rule of this kind should account for human nature by specifying that the offended should consult a third party rather than react.

But for some cases (especially small ones) it is too bothersome to call a third party. If both parties agree to resolve the issue "out of the court" then so be it.

This is not at all "without a doubt". Other species haven't built nuclear bombs, organized World Wars and Holocausts, or even done less nefarious things like cause global warming. Making choices and thinking are double-edged swords, and as often as not we use these skills poorly. Instinct rarely has such far-reaching negative effects.

Valid point. But remember, just as scientific advancements and the pursuit for more knowledge is good even though that knowledge can be used to do good or evil, very similarly, humans are more evolved than the remaining species due, for one reason, their ability to make free choices. Humans using their free will to make the wrong choices is not a counter to the fact that they are more advanced.
It is true though that we have exploited our free will and chosen to become [insert my title here].

Please prove this. I suggest starting by proving that Islam is divinely revealed at all. Or even better, you could start by proving that there's anything divine to do the revealing in the first place.

Not on this thread. View the Quranic Debates folder in Scriptural Debates folder in Religious Debates folder in ... and I would like to read your views on a topic that interests you (there are only a handful at the moment).