Truth and Religion

[Onoma]

If you join a religion because it says that it teaches the truth, but continuously updates or outright changes its official beliefs, is the religion then contradicting itself?

Also, if you join the religion because of its current beliefs, but then those beliefs change, is it logical for them to accuse you of rejecting the truth if you leave because of the changes?

Welp, it all comes back to the fact there are two ways to interpret a text

Eisegesis and exegesis

I've spent 10 years traveling forums and chats and could count on one hand the number of people that are even familiar with these two crucial concepts, so I rarely listen or pay attention to religious debates these days

 

[Samael_Khan]

Or to give some of them the benefit of the doubt, it might be intended to pep up aspiration for a vaguely defined good so it sounds more confident, more certain.

( I recall the Pisco fudge at funerals "The sure and certain hope of the resurrection", which has a left-handed kind of honesty. Having said that, I wonder if they still use it.)

Yes, I do think that giving followers hope is part of the deal. But I think that in many cases they use that hope to emotionally control the believers.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Welp, it all comes back to the fact there are two ways to interpret a text

Eisegesis and exegesis

I've spent 10 years traveling forums and chats and could count on one hand the number of people that are even familiar with these two crucial concepts, so I rarely listen or pay attention to religious debates these days

Agree with you there. I often come across believers who say that a certain doctrine or interpretation is true and to demonstrate this they proof text the scriptures, which is a problem. So I ask them about the immediate context of the verse and they do not know.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Truth cannot be found in any religion because religions never agree and always contradict each other. Truth can only be realised through the implementation of the introspective science (going inside the I-consciousness). So a wise person will avoid religion and find a proper spiritual philosophy and path that can help in the spiritual emancipation.

Interesting point.

 

[Samael_Khan]

There is no such thing in a religion.

Most likely.

 

[pearl]

Also worth noting that the NT texts were written long before they were considered scripture. They weren't written as scripture, they only became scripture after years of being used as part of a living tradition.

That's a very important point. The only holy scripture the evangelists had recourse to was the Hebrew Scripture. And because the gospels were not considered Scripture allowed for scribes and copyists a freedom not otherwise allowed for.
3. The Church holds that the ' sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.

 

[metis]

That's a very important point. The only holy scripture the evangelists had recourse to was the Hebrew Scripture. And because the gospels were not considered Scripture allowed for scribes and copyists a freedom not otherwise allowed for.
3. The Church holds that the ' sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.

And there's also a question by many theologians as to whether Matthew or Mark were actual witnesses to these events. This is especially made more likely since they don't exactly match up on some events, including the women's visitation to Jesus' tomb.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I would also think that the religion would say that followers must follow the fundamentals in order to belong to the religion but then not expect them to follow teachings that are subject to change and that there would be an acceptable variation in what people believe within the group.

Well, the so-called 'dark ages ' weren't called 'dark' for No reason, including spiritual darkness often caused by false clergy forbidding Bible ownership.
Proverbs 4:18 does inform us that our understanding of God's purpose, His will, would improve over time. Spiritual light growing brighter and brighter.
Remember: at first it was difficult for many Jews to break free from the Mosaic Law - They had to now be in harmony with God's unfolding purpose.
(Hebrews 4:1-2; 6,11; Romans 2:28-29) They had to adjust to what was 'new ' in God leading His people in that newer direction.
Thus, for Christians the "Law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2) would include and apply to all in the congregation.
1 Corinthians 14:33 says God is Not the Author of confusion, disorder, so the true Christian congregation would speak/ believe in agreement.
All in agreement - 1 Corinthians 1:10; Philippians 2:2; 1 Peter 3:8

 

[Brian2]

Jehovah Witnesses do this. They call it 'new light.' They even get to have an
updated bible every now and then. Doctrines about Christ's return in 1878 and
1914 and 1917 and 1975 are 'updated', so too are God's commands about
blood transfusions and military service.
The Catholics were good at this in the early centuries. In three hundred years
their church was unrecognizable to the first Christians.

I don't think the first centuries of Christianity could be called the Catholic Church.

 

[Brian2]

Well, the so-called 'dark ages ' weren't called 'dark' for No reason, including spiritual darkness often caused by false clergy forbidding Bible ownership.
Proverbs 4:18 does inform us that our understanding of God's purpose, His will, would improve over time. Spiritual light growing brighter and brighter.
Remember: at first it was difficult for many Jews to break free from the Mosaic Law - They had to now be in harmony with God's unfolding purpose.
(Hebrews 4:1-2; 6,11; Romans 2:28-29) They had to adjust to what was 'new ' in God leading His people in that newer direction.
Thus, for Christians the "Law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2) would include and apply to all in the congregation.
1 Corinthians 14:33 says God is Not the Author of confusion, disorder, so the true Christian congregation would speak/ believe in agreement.
All in agreement - 1 Corinthians 1:10; Philippians 2:2; 1 Peter 3:8

The ideal was to be in agreement but the reality was not that way. That is the same in the Church these days.
A group that claims to have the truth or be the only channel of truth from God these days, who teach right things at the right time to their people but who show they do not teach right things to their people at the right time, should not be claiming such a high status for itself. iow should show more humility about who and what they are as a group.

 

[rational experiences]

When humans say I own the truth is what I think about supports me

Abstract. When I think about why. Heavenly body as mass exists I am not included in the description. Human.

I am a human only.

A beast an ape can biologically only ever be an ape.

If I themed first an ape as a man I would own the power reason why a human would see first an ape. Then describe chemical ape bio by thoughts

Radiation attack on my chemicals would force a man to de evolve and become ape like. Seen

Never naturally an ape.an ape is only an ape.

If I quote once I was not sacrificed. When my thinking personally invented science. I already said why.

How I knew. I was different biologically.

If I quote consciousness cones from elsewhere

Where naturally did other conscious allow him to before conscious be conscious living loving?

Maths O just maths or O an ovary. A human mother. Her lived life. Her love for two equal babies

No scientist considers equal.

Science always lied about ownership.

He never invented natural presence.

If it did not exist science could not discuss any thing.

Know why today you don't know.

You all lost your natural minds.

 

[iam1me]

If you join a religion because it says that it teaches the truth, but continuously updates or outright changes its official beliefs, is the religion then contradicting itself?

Also, if you join the religion because of its current beliefs, but then those beliefs change, is it logical for them to accuse you of rejecting the truth if you leave because of the changes?

I suppose it would highly depend upon the centrality of the beliefs in question to the religion. If a given belief is both highly speculative and serves little value/function in the overall belief system, I think people would tend to be more forgiving of changes to the 'official' doctrine. The more important and central a belief is to the believer, the less accepting they'll be of nonchalant changes to the official doctrine.

Ultimately one must study for themselves and not be dictated to by a council or the like. The more speculative and the less important a belief is to the religion, the less official doctrine should be involved at all. Instead simply say: here are some various thoughts on the subject from different theologians/philosophers/etc. Here's the one or two we tend to favor.

At any rate, if you encounter a situation where you feel that a religious group is fundamentally changing its beliefs - that is probably good grounds for questioning them and reconsider being with them. Of course, consider the logic of why the change(s) were made and if they aren't justified. Religion is full of imperfect people - it should not come as a surprise that errors would be found within a religion, nor that there are those would like to root out such errors.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well, the so-called 'dark ages ' weren't called 'dark' for No reason, including spiritual darkness often caused by false clergy forbidding Bible ownership.
Proverbs 4:18 does inform us that our understanding of God's purpose, His will, would improve over time. Spiritual light growing brighter and brighter.
Remember: at first it was difficult for many Jews to break free from the Mosaic Law - They had to now be in harmony with God's unfolding purpose.
(Hebrews 4:1-2; 6,11; Romans 2:28-29) They had to adjust to what was 'new ' in God leading His people in that newer direction.
Thus, for Christians the "Law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2) would include and apply to all in the congregation.
1 Corinthians 14:33 says God is Not the Author of confusion, disorder, so the true Christian congregation would speak/ believe in agreement.
All in agreement - 1 Corinthians 1:10; Philippians 2:2; 1 Peter 3:8

The dark ages only applies to the western church, not the eastern church. The only reason why the Rennaissance scholars called those times the dark ages was because they believed that Greek and Roman society was the most advanced, and because there was a decline technologically, they called it the dark ages. It has nothing to do with spiritual darkness.

Proverbs 4:18, if you read it in context, is regarding behaviour, not the understanding of God's purpose or will, especially doctrine.

I can see all your other scriptures applied to the middle ages church. They had a monopoly on "truth" therefore they expected all to be unified in belief. All heretics were excommunicated or killed.

There is also no reason that Christians should agree on a falsehood. Unity shouldn't supersede truth. Also expecting people to just change their beliefs based on the understanding of their leaders and not their own would mean that their belief isn't genuine. If they are told to speak in agreement about something that they do not agree with, and that thing changes later is stupid. They would just be following men, and not their God or their own convictions.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I suppose it would highly depend upon the centrality of the beliefs in question to the religion. If a given belief is both highly speculative and serves little value/function in the overall belief system, I think people would tend to be more forgiving of changes to the 'official' doctrine. The more important and central a belief is to the believer, the less accepting they'll be of nonchalant changes to the official doctrine.

Ultimately one must study for themselves and not be dictated to by a council or the like. The more speculative and the less important a belief is to the religion, the less official doctrine should be involved at all. Instead simply say: here are some various thoughts on the subject from different theologians/philosophers/etc. Here's the one or two we tend to favor.

At any rate, if you encounter a situation where you feel that a religious group is fundamentally changing its beliefs - that is probably good grounds for questioning them and reconsider being with them. Of course, consider the logic of why the change(s) were made and if they aren't justified. Religion is full of imperfect people - it should not come as a surprise that errors would be found within a religion, nor that there are those would like to root out such errors.

Agreed. Well put.

 

[Clara Tea]

Well.... science is always "updating", but that isn't invalidation is it?

Science is a process that comes closer to the truth. It starts with a great deal of evidence, continues with a great deal of debate, and concludes with a theory (not an assertion of correctness). Science is why we can feed a growing population, cure hitherto incurable diseases, and save the environment (if we choose to). There are many who misuse science to pollute (we live in a world hurt by industrialization). It behooves us to ignore the Global Warming deniers, and believe scientists.

 

[Clara Tea]

The theoretical ideal of religion is to follow God's teachings. Defying God with wars results in God's wrath (remember, thou shalt not kill). Damaging God's environment will also result in God's wrath. Though there are many conflicting parts of the bible, we have to believe that some part of it is valid.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't think the first centuries of Christianity could be called the Catholic Church.

There's this guy Diotrephes in John's epistle who might have been an early
'Bishop' of the nascent Catholic Church. He wanted the 'pre-eminence'
amongst his people. Instead of being an itinerant preacher like John he had
drawn a little church around himself, as the central figure, and barred them
from talking to the disciples.
Diotrephes is an uncommon name. Yet there's this First Century Diotrephes
in the RCC.

 

[Marcion]

Interesting point.

To illustrate my point, three identical spiritual practices that transcend the category of religions.
The truth lies in its/their effect not in any doctrine or religious belief.

 

[Samael_Khan]

To illustrate my point, three identical spiritual practices that transcend the category of religions.
The truth lies in its/their effect not in any doctrine or religious belief.

So basically results over theory?

 

[pearl]

And there's also a question by many theologians as to whether Matthew or Mark were actual witnesses to these events. This is especially made more likely since they don't exactly match up on some events, including the women's visitation to Jesus' tomb.

I guess that would depend on whether the 'eye' witness was personal or that which is handed on. Considering the length of time passed between Jesus and the penning of the Gospels, that they were written anonymously, with the name of the author attributed by the Church, named after the community/church founded by the Apostles, it is highly doubtful that either, especially MT, witnessed personally.