Please tell us what you think about course correction in religions and creeds.

[LuisDantas]

Regarding the internal consensual understandings of what a given religious, quasi-religious or pseudo-religious group is, what it does, and what it is supposed to be and to do:

Do you perceive course correction mechanisms as important? Welcome? Necessary? Central? Optional? Of marginal importance?

Is it in any way disconcerting that the idea is even considered? Regardless of whether your answer is "yes" or "no", how and why?

Do you think that the goals and self-image such groups are supposed to be constant, or to change along time? What happens if they do not behave as preferred? How bad it is, and how much condition (if any) exists of repairing those?

Is it in some way a flaw to either require or to lack self-correction mechanisms in a group with a core doctrine? If so, how and why?

 

[sun rise]

Do you perceive course correction mechanisms as important?

Cultures change and evolve. Ethical standards especially are different now than they were 100/300/1000 years ago. Anything, religion as the topic here, that does not change with changing times is dead.

This course correction to me is not giving up on root morality in the religion but how it manifests in today's world with today's problems that needs to change.

For example, at one time removing oneself from the world in monasteries and nunneries in the west and in jungles and caves in the East was the focus. Now it's much more living one's principles in every day life that many recognize as essential.

Another example is that at one time doctrinal differences between Protestant groups was considered as essential but now it often does not come up at all with non-denominational churches being very common.

A third is an issue of maturity. When kids are young, parents make rules for them and basically operate on reward and punishment (or at least withholding rewards). When the kids grow up, their ethical standards are internal (or they should be). For religions, it's be good and go to heaven/have a better next life or be bad and go to hell/have a lower next life. A spiritually mature person automatically acts in positive ways and does not need a set of external rules.

 

[rational experiences]

Men of human science said evolution natural cooling is biological progression...in God science it means God as coldest highest....allows for corrections and course human teaching updates.

Humans use courses to teach new information. Which only ever is old information newly realised.

As de evolution in the life of machine science man chosen nuclear effect true also.

About human consciousness only.

Predictions ve future heavens by scientific nuclear man's causes hence was an advice.

Scientific genesis idealism health sickness of biology. Plus ground mass or heavenly changes. Predicted by man's maths as nuclear converter himself.

Earth however wasn't predictable. As it was always naturally reactive itself.

Why he said evolution was natural progression only.

As studied by men.

We evolved. So we were progressively advised. Now we are de evolving so are progressively advised no future for biology will exist.

As we are totally advised as de evolved minds. Re evolved minds now de evolving health and mind.

 

[Clara Tea]

Regarding the internal consensual understandings of what a given religious, quasi-religious or pseudo-religious group is, what it does, and what it is supposed to be and to do:

Do you perceive course correction mechanisms as important? Welcome? Necessary? Central? Optional? Of marginal importance?

Is it in any way disconcerting that the idea is even considered? Regardless of whether your answer is "yes" or "no", how and why?

Do you think that the goals and self-image such groups are supposed to be constant, or to change along time? What happens if they do not behave as preferred? How bad it is, and how much condition (if any) exists of repairing those?

Is it in some way a flaw to either require or to lack self-correction mechanisms in a group with a core doctrine? If so, how and why?

The Anglican religion was a course correction. The previous Catholic religion didn't allow King Henry VIII to divorce. Furthermore, the Vatican/Pope exerted power over the king. The new religion allowed King Henry VIII to make the rules.

Henry VIII was a pig by virtually every standard. He'd toss bones over his shoulders, eat with his fingers, and any wench he wanted was his for the taking (married or not). How dare a religion say "no?" How dare a woman say "no?" One woman did say no. . . she found out that King Henry VIII had multiple wives heads chopped off and said that she would be his mistress as soon as she grows a spare head.

This begs questions,

1. "did God make a mistake when he wrote the original bible?"

2. "can God really know the future"

Why, then, did God have to make an old testament for Jews and a new testament for Christians? I believe that it is a book of new laws for different people.

Christians will be in charge of the United States and they have the use of nuclear weapons (which could destroy the world). It was necessary to tell these new leaders that "eye for an eye" must be replaced by another old testament law "thou shalt not kill."

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are a few things in Hindu, that need change, though we have safeguard laws for them, caste discrimination, dowry, and remarriage rule for widows.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Regarding the internal consensual understandings of what a given religious, quasi-religious or pseudo-religious group is, what it does, and what it is supposed to be and to do:

Do you perceive course correction mechanisms as important? Welcome? Necessary? Central? Optional? Of marginal importance?

Is it in any way disconcerting that the idea is even considered? Regardless of whether your answer is "yes" or "no", how and why?

Do you think that the goals and self-image such groups are supposed to be constant, or to change along time? What happens if they do not behave as preferred? How bad it is, and how much condition (if any) exists of repairing those?

Is it in some way a flaw to either require or to lack self-correction mechanisms in a group with a core doctrine? If so, how and why?

I think your post begs to be elucidated in terms of the external energies, that seem clearly to be at work on a structure like religion? All of the questions you ask, and the language, seem to frame religion in terms of being embedded in a structure, that it moves through, as a stable sub-structure. So firstly, I couldn't answer any of your questions without acknowledging here, what seems to be a very weighty assumption. And it is one that I suppose may be true, as I guess it seems to be true of everything else in nature.

Because you know, there can't really be an 'internal consensus' without that being a clear fact of external pressure, from an external mode. Otherwise, what would even be an 'internal consensus?' It is a subjective consensus, as part of a more objective whole.

As to humans finding things 'disconcerting' in groups, it seems pretty clear that we will always have that with us, so long as we are humans. Humans are primates, and all primates seem disconcerted. So then, it seems like that kind of thing is just the resonant tail of our evolution that stays with us, right from the ancient primate mother-nest.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Cultures change and evolve. Ethical standards especially are different now than they were 100/300/1000 years ago. Anything, religion as the topic here, that does not change with changing times is dead.

1 million years ago, you probably could have been looking at the full moon though, and you'd still hear the howling pack of something pretty dog-like, or wolf-life, deep in the distance, directed at that moon. And if no one told you that you were stationed 1 million years in the past, you probably wouldn't even know it. So basically, the howling of moon-loving canines represents the sound of the moon. Analogously, you might say that the doings of primate humans represent the will of time. Though I'm not sure.

 

[stvdv]

Regarding the internal consensual understandings of what a given religious, quasi-religious or pseudo-religious group is, what it does, and what it is supposed to be and to do:

Do you perceive course correction mechanisms as important? Welcome? Necessary? Central? Optional? Of marginal importance?

Is it in any way disconcerting that the idea is even considered? Regardless of whether your answer is "yes" or "no", how and why?

Do you think that the goals and self-image such groups are supposed to be constant, or to change along time? What happens if they do not behave as preferred? How bad it is, and how much condition (if any) exists of repairing those?

Is it in some way a flaw to either require or to lack self-correction mechanisms in a group with a core doctrine? If so, how and why?

I see no problems here
We have Freedom of Religion

Those who like self-correction mechanism can choose to do so. For some it might be good, for others maybe not. Depends what lessons we need/want to learn

There is a Law about "supply and demand". If people want it then it will be offered.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Because you know, there can't really be an 'internal consensus' without that being a clear fact of external pressure, from an external mode.

That is not wholly true. In the religion itself, people think of improvements. They are not blind. For example, Martin Luther in case of Christianity, and so many in Hinduism, Buddha, Mahavira, Sankara, Basava, Chaitanya, Kabir, Guru Nanak, Gnaneshwar, Namdev, Eknath, etc., even when there was no external pressure.

Scale down your time line. Humans are not older than about Two Hundred Thousand years. We are a very recent story in evolution.

.. eat with his fingers, ..

Anything wrong with that? More people eat with their fingers than those who eat with spoons, forks or chopsticks. They wash their hands before eating and some do not eat unless they have taken a bath. There are different ways in the world.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think your post begs to be elucidated in terms of the external energies, that seem clearly to be at work on a structure like religion? All of the questions you ask, and the language, seem to frame religion in terms of being embedded in a structure, that it moves through, as a stable sub-structure. So firstly, I couldn't answer any of your questions without acknowledging here, what seems to be a very weighty assumption. And it is one that I suppose may be true, as I guess it seems to be true of everything else in nature.

Because you know, there can't really be an 'internal consensus' without that being a clear fact of external pressure, from an external mode. Otherwise, what would even be an 'internal consensus?' It is a subjective consensus, as part of a more objective whole.

As to humans finding things 'disconcerting' in groups, it seems pretty clear that we will always have that with us, so long as we are humans. Humans are primates, and all primates seem disconcerted. So then, it seems like that kind of thing is just the resonant tail of our evolution that stays with us, right from the ancient primate mother-nest.

The way I see it, any religion that wants to be respected owes itself a measure of respect to those from the outside.

When I talk of internal consensus, I am not interested in "avoiding" external pressures. I am interested in mobilization from those who are actually heard and respected by the group itself.

I do not recognize isolation from other groups as a right, and I do not advocate for its defense.

 

[joe1776]

OP: Do you think that the goals and self-image such groups are supposed to be constant, or to change along time?

Progress requires change. We humans have been making moral progress which has required religions to change to keep up. However, some religions have claimed their sacred texts were divinely-inspired (inspired by God). This raises the obvious tough question on their need to change: You mean God didn't know better? God didn't know that slavery was wrong?

If their religion was truly inspired by God, moral change would be unnecessary.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Reform Judaism is working on it ...

 

[paradox]

Regarding the internal consensual understandings of what a given religious, quasi-religious or pseudo-religious group is, what it does, and what it is supposed to be and to do:

Do you perceive course correction mechanisms as important? Welcome? Necessary? Central? Optional? Of marginal importance?

Is it in any way disconcerting that the idea is even considered? Regardless of whether your answer is "yes" or "no", how and why?

Do you think that the goals and self-image such groups are supposed to be constant, or to change along time? What happens if they do not behave as preferred? How bad it is, and how much condition (if any) exists of repairing those?

Is it in some way a flaw to either require or to lack self-correction mechanisms in a group with a core doctrine? If so, how and why?

Any change in regard to morality laid out by any religion is a sign of weakness because morality described by any religion comes from God rather than from people.
Therefore if God needs to adjust it self according to people, that is his commandments, then he is not real God.

I agree that morality needs improvement because we people are not perfect and we do mistakes including mistakes when it comes to laying out laws.
But when it comes to God and his morality then that morality is either eternal and infallible or God accepts to become unholy by doing as people say but the opposite is supposed to be true.

 

[Truth in love]

Regarding the internal consensual understandings of what a given religious, quasi-religious or pseudo-religious group is, what it does, and what it is supposed to be and to do:

Do you perceive course correction mechanisms as important? Welcome? Necessary? Central? Optional? Of marginal importance?

Is it in any way disconcerting that the idea is even considered? Regardless of whether your answer is "yes" or "no", how and why?

Do you think that the goals and self-image such groups are supposed to be constant, or to change along time? What happens if they do not behave as preferred? How bad it is, and how much condition (if any) exists of repairing those?

Is it in some way a flaw to either require or to lack self-correction mechanisms in a group with a core doctrine? If so, how and why?

Doctrine does not need to change. It can last. Practices often need to change. If we look to the Old Testament we see many areas were the quick turning to idol worship, the long standing rule of kings, slavery etc. all had to be worked with in the practices. Almost the entire New Testament is a corse correction. Doctrines remained, Christ updated the practices and Paul wore out many a quill trying to get people to stay on course.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Regarding the internal consensual understandings of what a given religious, quasi-religious or pseudo-religious group is, what it does, and what it is supposed to be and to do:

Do you perceive course correction mechanisms as important? Welcome? Necessary? Central? Optional? Of marginal importance?

Is it in any way disconcerting that the idea is even considered? Regardless of whether your answer is "yes" or "no", how and why?

Do you think that the goals and self-image such groups are supposed to be constant, or to change along time? What happens if they do not behave as preferred? How bad it is, and how much condition (if any) exists of repairing those?

Is it in some way a flaw to either require or to lack self-correction mechanisms in a group with a core doctrine? If so, how and why?

Religions are man made, so things need to change when they don't work well or when knowledge changes.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Any change in regard to morality laid out by any religion is a sign of weakness because morality described by any religion comes from God rather than from people.
Therefore if God needs to adjust it self according to people, that is his commandments, then he is not real God.

I agree that morality needs improvement because we people are not perfect and we do mistakes including mistakes when it comes to laying out laws.
But when it comes to God and his morality then that morality is either eternal and infallible or God accepts to become unholy by doing as people say but the opposite is supposed to be true.

Man's knowledge is dependent upon the knowledge of the times. There are so many things they didn't know about our world.

 

[paradox]

Man's knowledge is dependent upon the knowledge of the times. There are so many things they didn't know about our world.

You're assuming religions are man made, in which case morality described by religions is free to be subject to change.
But that is not the case.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Religions are man made, so things need to change when they don't work well or when knowledge changes.

Agreed.

Man's knowledge is dependent upon the knowledge of the times. There are so many things they didn't know about our world.

That's true. For instance, there was a time when people believed the mentally disturbed were demon possessed, but now we know about mental illness and how it can be treated. The majority of people today no longer attribute mental illness to demon possession.

 

[LuisDantas]

Any change in regard to morality laid out by any religion is a sign of weakness because morality described by any religion comes from God rather than from people.
Therefore if God needs to adjust it self according to people, that is his commandments, then he is not real God.

I agree that morality needs improvement because we people are not perfect and we do mistakes including mistakes when it comes to laying out laws.
But when it comes to God and his morality then that morality is either eternal and infallible or God accepts to become unholy by doing as people say but the opposite is supposed to be true.

Just for the record: this is not a view that I can approve of in any way, shape or form.

 

[icehorse]

@LuisDantas - very interesting thread!