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

[Sand Dancer]

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.

Certain people worship a god, then make rituals, holidays, etc, around that god. Pretty standard fare for a religion.

 

[joe1776]

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.

The Second Vatican Council back in the 1960s was all about moral changes in your church. Wasn't it?

 

[paradox]

The Second Vatican Council back in the 1960s was all about moral changes in your church. Wasn't it?

Nothing contradictory to scriptures AFAIK.
What changed at Vatican II (catholicregister.org)

 

[joe1776]

Nothing contradictory to scriptures AFAIK.
What changed at Vatican II (catholicregister.org)

Sorry, the link you provided only made me smile. The Church has made great moral strides just in the past century, but it can't admit to changing.

 

[Koldo]

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?

Depends!
It might be downright impossible depending on the religion. Abrahamic religions, barring Divine intervention, are not prone to major reforms since their very source is purpoted to be God himself. What we see every day is adaptation ("Let's pretend that the inconvenient scriptures/passages don't exist and/or that they no longer apply to us since they are really crappy!"), rather than reform ("We have a new revelation to go by or just realized we messed up our interpretation.")

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Certain people worship a god, then make rituals, holidays, etc, around that god. Pretty standard fare for a religion.

I believe Christianity (church rituals, holidays, and the stories in the Bible) are from pagan religions that predate both it and the Bible. In fact, I think it's very likely. If you read "Parallels between Christianity and ancient Pagan religions," then you'll see what I mean.

Furthermore, Christmas and Easter both have pagan origins, so it's reasonable to assume that the Bible is also plagiarized from older pagan religions that predate it. As a matter of fact, the stories of Jesus' life written in the Bible are more likely plagiarized from a few pagan religions that have similar stories of a holy man being born of a virgin, being tempted by the devil before his earthly ministry began, miraculously healing people, dying for mankind, and being resurrected from the dead after three days. If you read this article, 10 Christ-Like Figures that Predate Jesus, then you'll read similar stories about these ten Christ-like figures' lives that parallel the life of Jesus written in the Bible. What's more, the story of Jesus' crucifixion on a cross, dying for humanity, descending into the underworld, and being resurrected from the dead after three days isn't the first savior story of its kind. His death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead after three days parallel the life of Attis, the Greek god of vegetation (1250 BCE). It's written that Attis was divinely born of a virgin; he was crucified on a tree; he descended into the underworld after his death; and he was resurrected from the dead after three days. If you click on this article, Attis: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, Crucified and Resurrected after Three Days, you'll read more similarities between the stories of Attis and the stories of Jesus. And these are the reasons why I believe the Bible is plagiarized.

I'm editing to add this article, The Bible is Fiction: A Collection Of Evidence, to further validate my belief that the Bible is plagiarized.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I believe Christianity (church rituals, holidays, and the stories in the Bible) are from pagan religions that predate both it and the Bible. In fact, I think it's very likely. If you read "Parallels between Christianity and ancient Pagan religions," then you'll see what I mean.

Furthermore, Christmas and Easter both have pagan origins, so it's reasonable to assume that the Bible is also plagiarized from older pagan religions that predate it. As a matter of fact, the stories of Jesus' life written in the Bible are more likely plagiarized from a few pagan religions that have similar stories of a holy man being born of a virgin, being tempted by the devil before his earthly ministry began, miraculously healing people, dying for mankind, and being resurrected from the dead after three days. If you read this article, 10 Christ-Like Figures that Predate Jesus, then you'll read similar stories about these ten Christ-like figures' lives that parallel the life of Jesus written in the Bible. What's more, the story of Jesus' crucifixion on a cross, dying for humanity, descending into the underworld, and being resurrected from the dead after three days isn't the first savior story of its kind. His death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead after three days parallel the life of Attis, the Greek god of vegetation (1250 BCE). It's written that Attis was divinely born of a virgin; he was crucified on a tree; he descended into the underworld after his death; and he was resurrected from the dead after three days. If you click on this article, Attis: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, Crucified and Resurrected after Three Days, you'll read more similarities between the stories of Attis and the stories of Jesus. And these are the reasons why I believe the Bible is plagiarized.

I'm editing my post to include this article, The Bible is Fiction: A Collection Of Evidence, to further validate my belief that the Bible is plagiarized.

Perfectly said.

 

[LuisDantas]

For what it is worth, I want to point out that I consider periodic revision of moral expectations and directives not only possible, but fully necessary for any doctrine (including many that aren't considered religious).

Morality is IMO inherently dynamic. Being as it is a result of our possibilities of action and omission and the expected consequences, it can and will change as circunstances change, as the available stances change, as the expected consequences of our actions and omissions change.

I don't really understand why anyone would claim otherwise.

 

[firedragon]

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?

Interesting. In Islam, if not the first, the oldest existing school of thought in jurisprudence is based on thaweel al masaari which means root understanding based on development through time. I hope I worded it right.

 

[LuisDantas]

Interesting. In Islam, if not the first, the oldest existing school of thought in jurisprudence is based on thaweel al masaari which means root understanding based on development through time. I hope I worded it right.

Did it survive? For how long?

 

[firedragon]

Did it survive? For how long?

Yes. Survived.

 

[firedragon]

Henry VIII was a pig by virtually every standard. He'd toss bones over his shoulders, eat with his fingers,

You have to seriously learn about the world a little. Do you even know how many people eat with their "fingers" today? Are they pigs?

My God.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes. Survived.

Where?

 

[firedragon]

Where?

What do you mean where? Like a physical location?

 

[Stonetree]

I believe Christianity (church rituals, holidays, and the stories in the Bible) are from pagan religions that predate both it and the Bible. In fact, I think it's very likely. If you read "Parallels between Christianity and ancient Pagan religions," then you'll see what I mean.

Furthermore, Christmas and Easter both have pagan origins, so it's reasonable to assume that the Bible is also plagiarized from older pagan religions that predate it. As a matter of fact, the stories of Jesus' life written in the Bible are more likely plagiarized from a few pagan religions that have similar stories of a holy man being born of a virgin, being tempted by the devil before his earthly ministry began, miraculously healing people, dying for mankind, and being resurrected from the dead after three days. If you read this article, 10 Christ-Like Figures that Predate Jesus, then you'll read similar stories about these ten Christ-like figures' lives that parallel the life of Jesus written in the Bible. What's more, the story of Jesus' crucifixion on a cross, dying for humanity, descending into the underworld, and being resurrected from the dead after three days isn't the first savior story of its kind. His death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead after three days parallel the life of Attis, the Greek god of vegetation (1250 BCE). It's written that Attis was divinely born of a virgin; he was crucified on a tree; he descended into the underworld after his death; and he was resurrected from the dead after three days. If you click on this article, Attis: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, Crucified and Resurrected after Three Days, you'll read more similarities between the stories of Attis and the stories of Jesus. And these are the reasons why I believe the Bible is plagiarized.

I'm editing to add this article, The Bible is Fiction: A Collection Of Evidence, to further validate my belief that the Bible is plagiarized.

Much of what you offer I am familiar with. I do not trust Scripture to be factual or even free from ancient political considerations......I would also be suspicious of modern writers without knowing more about an author's past works or history.....Thank you for the 'links', I've read part of one and will enjoy reading all the material you have posted.

 

[LuisDantas]

What do you mean where? Like a physical location?

I take it that you are talking about some Fiqh and/or Madhhab, since you described it as an old school of thought in jurisprudence.

 

[firedragon]

I take it that you are talking about some Fiqh and/or Madhhab, since you described it as an old school of thought in jurisprudence.

It is Fikh. Madhab was a later developed concept. But yes, if you wish you could say madhab. I didn't say old school, I said the oldest school of thought. Oldest. Earliest.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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?

It is necessary as cultures evolve and sometimes undergo dramatic paradigm shifts.

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

Change can be exciting or disconcerting depending on how attached we are to fundamental core principles, perceived or otherwise.

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?

The religions I'm most familiar with (Abrahamic) have mechanisms that allow some change but also to protect the status quo.

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?

If the mechanism allows change within the framework of maintaining core values that could be considered positively. If the mechanism comes with uprooting come values then probably not. Within many Abrahamic Faith commodities there are conservative and reformist elements.