Observing Religions as a Theory that evolved

[logician]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by logician

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]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

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]

Originally Posted by tariqkhwaja

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?