Religion and progess (Jesus, Revelation, bible, Apostle, God)

[d.]

Originally Posted by Victor

Why would this be a "good thing" if it only has whatever meaning you happen to apply to it at the time. The only thing you can really look forward is "change" but not necessarily something "good". People have this habit of equating "change" with something "good". Change is just change, nothing more.

well, i agree that change is just change, as you say.

it's just that from my perspective the less friction with the rest of society...well, i have a secular bias. i could argue that, but i think i'd stray off topic.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by d.

well, i agree that change is just change, as you say.

it's just that from my perspective the less friction with the rest of society...well, i have a secular bias. i could argue that, but i think i'd stray off topic.

Well, there is nothing wrong with a secular bias. We all have our bag of goodies that we carry to interpret the world. But if it's going to go off topic then perhaps another time.

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by Victor

So what do you think about the topic at hand?

Well, I want to think that religion should not change to appease society. As I stated before, it would be a little unfair for someone to be judged by one standard and later others that followed be judged by another standard.

But, take the LDS for instance, I'm not sure who has things right, and I am not prepared to take that chance, just like when I was a young boy.

The standard I apply to Joseph Smith is, if anything he said did not conflict with the past scriptures, it would not disprove he was a profit. In the old days, if you claimed to be a profit and you got something wrong, you were stoned to death.

I must say that I read the book of Mormon with caution, but I do not discount what is said either. I do not trust that the Bible is without mistakes because although they were guided by God's hand, they were after all just men capable of mistakes.

I question who got to decide what was included in the Bible and what was not. No insult to Catholicism, but I believe you all trust in others judgement for your salvation. I believe your soul is not in danger, (my son converted this year with my blessing).

Back to the topic, the less a religion changes, the better the chance of not perverting the will of God.

To me, even the thought of modernising religion is blasphemy.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

Well, I want to think that religion should not change to appease society. As I stated before, it would be a little unfair for someone to be judged by one standard and later others that followed be judged by another standard.

But, take the LDS for instance, I'm not sure who has things right, and I am not prepared to take that chance, just like when I was a young boy.

The standard I apply to Joseph Smith is, if anything he said did not conflict with the past scriptures, it would not disprove he was a profit. In the old days, if you claimed to be a profit and you got something wrong, you were stoned to death.

I must say that I read the book of Mormon with caution, but I do not discount what is said either. I do not trust that the Bible is without mistakes because although they were guided by God's hand, they were after all just men capable of mistakes.

I question who got to decide what was included in the Bible and what was not. No insult to Catholicism, but I believe you all trust in others judgement for your salvation. I believe your soul is not in danger, (my son converted this year with my blessing).

Back to the topic, the less a religion changes, the better the chance of not perverting the will of God.

To me, even the thought of modernising religion is blasphemy.

Modernization and change don't necessarily go hand in hand. I'm assuming by "change" you mean official teachings, correct?

[gmelrod]

Excellent! Now, what difference in human nature do you think has occured [example]?

I do not think that any core diffrence has occured. Thus religions should not chnage in their fundamentals. Our understanding of the world has expanded and our consciences drive us always to make the world better, thus such things as the increase in equality and the development of human rights.

But the fundamental nature of the human mind has not changed. We are still creatures born of DNA and equiped with minds that deal only with the input of the same five senses. Anything on top of these fundamentals is diffrences in culture. The deciplinary rules and practical ritual can and should change to reflect culture so as to allow for more effecive worship and education, as well as promote equality. But just as the fundamental makeup of a human mind is unchanged so should the core beliefs remain unchanged.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by gmelrod

I do not think that any core diffrence has occured. Thus religions should not chnage in their fundamentals. Our understanding of the world has expanded and our consciences drive us always to make the world better, thus such things as the increase in equality and the development of human rights.

But the fundamental nature of the human mind has not changed. We are still creatures born of DNA and equiped with minds that deal only with the input of the same five senses. Anything on top of these fundamentals is diffrences in culture. The deciplinary rules and practical ritual can and should change to reflect culture so as to allow for more effecive worship and education, as well as promote equality. But just as the fundamental makeup of a human mind is unchanged so should the core beliefs remain unchanged.

I forget you are catholic. That's cheating!

[Sonic247]

Victor what do you think about religions changing, should they, and if so what changes should be made?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by gmelrod

I think the post might benifit from some improved definition. The face of the Catholic Church has clearly changed. But is there any core belief, a tenate of the faith that was once held and is not now. While Victor is a much better RC scholar than I am I think I see the point he is trying to make here. While the rules governing members behavior and relations have changed the core propositions of faith, the creed, has remained unchanged since the birth of the Church. Put this way I have to agree with VIctor. I cannot think of somthing that was once believed that no longer is. The core of the church is unchanging.

As to the OP I think religions should change to reflect a diffrence in human nature but that does not mean core beliefs had to change. One can look at the Catholic churches practical treatment of women. From segragation through headcovering to now allowing female alter servers. God does not change
so our belief in him on an institutional level should not either.

Hi gmel, This makes good sense to me. Do you know, would the male-only priesthood, the unmarried priesthood, the prohibiition of divorce and the prohibition of using birth control be things that are core 'official' doctrine like the Trinity and Incarnation, or are they more like rules governing members that possibly could change?

luna

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by Victor

Modernization and change don't necessarily go hand in hand. I'm assuming by "change" you mean official teachings, correct?

Yes, we are on the same page here.