Changing beliefs

[idea]

I think that it is outright impossible for one to consider the Providence of God under this aspect, but inasmuch as all God does is loving for He is love then yes it is.

The circumstances of many cannot be described as loving or just. Would a parent give food to one child and poison to another?

A God of confusion who changes their mind and does not deal justly with their "children".

 

[Lain]

The circumstances of many cannot be described as loving or just. Would a parent give food to one child and poison to another?

A God of confusion who changes their mind and does not deal justly with their "children".

Where is a change of mind? As for some having more good than others, evil being a lack of good and existence being good all have been given good, just some more than others in my view. It is impossible to call the situation unjust for none deserve anything, not even existence which was bestowed on them. Justice is giving others what they are owed, but we can not claim anything who have received everything (and moment-to-moment continue to receive existence, for all that exists abides by God's will). I think St. Thomas explains it most beautifully here:

"It should be noted that if an artisan uses base matter to make a beautiful vessel for noble uses, it is all ascribed to the goodness of the artisan; for example, if from clay he fashions pitchers and serving-dishes suited to a banquet table. If, on the other hand, from such base matter, say clay, he produced a vessel adapted to meaner uses, for example, for cooking or such, the vessel, if it could think, would have no complaint. But it could complain, if from precious metals, such as gold and precious stones, the artisan were to make a vessel reserved for base uses.

"But human nature has baseness about it from its matter, because as Genesis says: God formed man of dust from the ground (Gen 2:7), and more baseness after being spoiled by sin, which entered this world through one man. That is why man is compared to dirt, in Job: I am compared to dirt and I am likened to dust and ashes (Job 30:19). Hence, any good that man possesses is due to God’s goodness as its basic source: O Lord, you are our Father, we are the clay, and you are the potter, we are all the work of your hands (Isa 64:8). Furthermore, if God does not advance man to better things but leaves him in his weakness and reserves him for the lowliest use, he does him no injury such that he could justly complain about God."

 

[Secret Chief]

Truth is not a collection of facts. So for the truth to be expressed in different practices in different places and times is not an issue for me.

^^^^
This.

 

[firedragon]

Many religious faiths hold truth to be constant and unchanging, yet change their doctrine and practices through the years as new information and social norms are changed.

For those who are religious, what changes in your religious organization would cause you to leave your faith? Do you recognize previous changes, and if so, how do you justify remaining in your church knowing its changing doctrines?

Example - pre-1990 Mormon (aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) changes to temple ceremony - a few words in bold removed as they attempted to become more mainstream:

IS that an example of a change in doctrine?

 

[firedragon]

I don’t think staying in a religious organization, especially one which claims to be “the true church or group” representing God on the earth can be justified when they make major changes to their doctrine. I left the Catholic Church for this reason, as well as the Mormon Church later. I did go through the temple ceremony pre- 1990 and became aware of the changes made which you highlighted above.

Interesting. What is the doctrinal change the catholic change did?

 

[idea]

Where is a change of mind?

IS that an example of a change in doctrine?

Let me just give a few examples of change in doctrine. My background is Christianity, so others will have to fill in changes from other faiths.

God as creator → most people now believe the Earth to be older than 6,000 years, there were dinosaurs, life has existed for a long time, so creation myths and the doctrine of God as a creator has changed to more of God as "organizing" or God "inspires" but not actually creating perfect humans in a place called Eden - at least for many this doctrine has changed.

Flood - many believe this is symbolic rather than actual, or have changed beliefs about it being global.

Many have changed their interpretation of scriptures to now respect different family structures (LGBTQ), as well as changing their view on women with women now being called as leaders in the many different faith traditions. The doctrine of male being the "head of the household" has changed for many.

Racism as in large part ended for many religious groups thankfully (many Christians used to preach that the curse of Cain meant anyone without white skin was cursed etc.)

Mormons have changed doctrines of polygamy, have changed the covenants made in the temple (women no longer covenant to their husbands as being their Lord), have changed garment/underwear styles and requirements, the leaders of the Mormon church no longer write scripture or make "thus saith the Lord" statements but are much more subdued in how they communicate (not really acting like prophets anymore even though they still retain that title). Racism - the priesthood is now given to people of all nationalities (although the president and apostles of the church are still white). There are a bunch of things like Adam-God doctrine, and men living in the moon that people hide.

I guess the big ones are:
Creation myth
Flood myth
Earth standing still, etc.
Family policies (from LGBTQ, to inter-racial marriages allowed, and birth control allowed etc. the role of women)
Covenants and church membership and leader requirements
Racism beliefs and doctrines
doctrine of hell → most now see hell as figurative, or at least do not condemn children or non-Christians to hell.

That is as good a list as any to start with.

 

[firedragon]

Let me just give a few examples of change in doctrine. My background is Christianity, so others will have to fill in changes from other faiths.

God as creator → most people now believe the Earth to be older than 6,000 years, there were dinosaurs, life has existed for a long time, so creation myths and the doctrine of God as a creator has changed to more of God as "organizing" or God "inspires" but not actually creating perfect humans in a place called Eden - at least for many this doctrine has changed.

Flood - many believe this is symbolic rather than actual, or have changed beliefs about it being global.

Many have changed their interpretation of scriptures to now respect different family structures (LGBTQ), as well as changing their view on women with women now being called as leaders in the many different faith traditions. The doctrine of male being the "head of the household" has changed for many.

Racism as in large part ended for many religious groups thankfully (many Christians used to preach that the curse of Cain meant anyone without white skin was cursed etc.)

Mormons have changed doctrines of polygamy, have changed the covenants made in the temple (women no longer covenant to their husbands as being their Lord), have changed garment/underwear styles and requirements, the leaders of the Mormon church no longer write scripture or make "thus saith the Lord" statements but are much more subdued in how they communicate (not really acting like prophets anymore even though they still retain that title). Racism - the priesthood is now given to people of all nationalities (although the president and apostles of the church are still white). There are a bunch of things like Adam-God doctrine, and men living in the moon that people hide.

I guess the big ones are:
Creation myth
Flood myth
Earth standing still, etc.
Family policies (from LGBTQ, to inter-racial marriages allowed, and birth control allowed etc. the role of women)
Covenants and church membership and leader requirements
Racism beliefs and doctrines
doctrine of hell → most now see hell as figurative, or at least do not condemn children or non-Christians to hell.

That is as good a list as any to start with.

Appreciate your response. The thing is we really dont consider those things doctrine. Thats why I asked for clarification.

Official doctrinal change or peoples views? I am asking because you referred to "most".

 

[idea]

Appreciate your response. The thing is we really dont consider those things doctrine. Thats why I asked for clarification.

Official doctrinal change or peoples views? I am asking because you referred to "most".

100, 200 years ago an actual "perfect" Adam and Eve actually fell starting the chain of events that required a perfect life for a perfect life - as in Adam all sin, so in Christ shall all be made alive. No literal first sin, no literal atonement, no literal anything.

Yes, that is a popular dodge - to redirect and claim things like the original fall and need for redemption was never doctrine, it was all only symbolic, that nothing is ever claimed as actual "doctrine".

 

[idea]

Here is another that just popped up:

"President Nelson clarified that the Book of Mormon is not a historical textbook. Instead, it further defines many Bible teachings — while revealing new concepts and refuting many falsehoods, including the notion that revelation ended with the Bible and that one can be saved by grace alone."

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-a ... sowfWpltjI

While admitting Native Americans are not decendants of anyone named Nephi or Laman, the book is now just "symbolic", not historical ... quite a change.

Someone tell the apologists their prophet just admitted the entire book of Mormon has no evidence, is demonstratably false, does NOT describe life in the America's, and is no longer considered "historical".

 

[firedragon]

100, 200 years ago an actual "perfect" Adam and Eve actually fell starting the chain of events that required a perfect life for a perfect life - as in Adam all sin, so in Christ shall all be made alive. No literal first sin, no literal atonement, no literal anything.

Apologies but I dont accept that idea. Because these things were discussed and established a long time ago. So this didnt occur a century or 2 ago. I accept that in Judaism or rather second temple time there was no idea of original sin but this was discussed way back in the 2nd century. Even Justin Martyr spoke those very language of "first sin". Augustine of Hippo a thousand six hundred or so years ago established these doctrines, and was called the doctor of grace by some scholars. Both original sin, and grace.

 

[Lain]

Let me just give a few examples of change in doctrine. My background is Christianity, so others will have to fill in changes from other faiths.

God as creator → most people now believe the Earth to be older than 6,000 years, there were dinosaurs, life has existed for a long time, so creation myths and the doctrine of God as a creator has changed to more of God as "organizing" or God "inspires" but not actually creating perfect humans in a place called Eden - at least for many this doctrine has changed.

Flood - many believe this is symbolic rather than actual, or have changed beliefs about it being global.

Many have changed their interpretation of scriptures to now respect different family structures (LGBTQ), as well as changing their view on women with women now being called as leaders in the many different faith traditions. The doctrine of male being the "head of the household" has changed for many.

Racism as in large part ended for many religious groups thankfully (many Christians used to preach that the curse of Cain meant anyone without white skin was cursed etc.)

Mormons have changed doctrines of polygamy, have changed the covenants made in the temple (women no longer covenant to their husbands as being their Lord), have changed garment/underwear styles and requirements, the leaders weof the Mormon church no longer write scripture or make "thus saith the Lord" statements but are much more subdued in how they communicate (not really acting like prophets anymore even though they still retain that title). Racism - the priesthood is now given to people of all nationalities (although the president and apostles of the church are still white). There are a bunch of things like Adam-God doctrine, and men living in the moon that people hide.

I guess the big ones are:
Creation myth
Flood myth
Earth standing still, etc.
Family policies (from LGBTQ, to inter-racial marriages allowed, and birth control allowed etc. the role of women)
Covenants and church membership and leader requirements
Racism beliefs and doctrines
doctrine of hell → most now see hell as figurative, or at least do not condemn children or non-Christians to hell.

That is as good a list as any to start with.

I see, this makes sense although you use the term "doctrine" differently than me. To me a change in doctrine (focusing on Christianity) would be a change in what the Church officially taught, as in an Ecumenical Council or some Creed made of it or any other dogmatic teaching. A change in how people popularly express something is distinct from that as long as it holds what is officially taught by the Magisterium, and that only if the particular teaching by the Magisterium is irreformable (some of them can be reformed others can never be touched). If the popular expression of something has changed or something that was never taught was dropped off popularly (like the mark of Cain theory) then that's well and fine to me, as long as nothing that was given and presented as irreformable did in fact reform.

Speaking of my Church specifically we still hold as we held before that Adam is the sole father of the human race who was created in justice and fell from that justice (although there is a range of opinions on how his body came to be, hence the seeming acceptance of evolution by some although most atheists would disagree with this version of it), still do not ordain women or permit contraceptive sexual acts, still is against any sexual act not properly done in a proper marriage between a man and a woman, still teaches the reality of Hell and so on. The questions which are open now were in fact open questions before and you can find differing speculation on them even in ancient times in the Church.

In my opinion this means that we haven't changed.

 

[idea]

Here is a good starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics

Many who are on the above list held ideas which are now accepted, but considered evil at the time...

I'm not a Catholic, but it sounded like official doctrine to kill "heretics" it was - Canon 3 of the Ecumenical Fourth Council of the Lateran, 1215 required secular authorities to "exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics"

The same doctrinal cannon which claims priests turn crackers and juice into actual flesh and blood (it is NOT actual flesh and blood - everyone knows this, right?)

 

[idea]

Group think, elevation, cognitive dissonance, these are real things.

Easy to recognize it in "orher" groups, few will admit it within themselves and their own group.

 

[Lain]

Here is a good starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics

Many who are on the above list held ideas which are now accepted, but considered evil at the time...

Do you have any specific ones? I am reading through the entire list of the pre-Reformation RC and post-Reformation RC heretics burned, I am nearly done, so far other than some political executions (like St. Joan of Arc on this list, a guy who may have not even been a heretic, and possibly some of the poor movements maybe although they did forerun definite heresy it seems) not a single person here was not actually a heretic according to our standard today, or ecclesiastically disobedient. And this is just going by and accepting at face-value the Wikipedia articles. But I'm still going through each one perhaps I will find one.

Edit: going further, one of the guys is actually a Catholic who was burned by heretics.

 

[1213]

...
For those who are religious, what changes in your religious organization would cause you to leave your faith? ...

My faith/loyalty is for Bible God. If the organization goes too far from Bible God, I reject the organization and don't support it. I have been part of it till this day, because I think it still keeps God's word visible and also does work that I think is good. Unfortunately the good side is getting weaker.

 

[idea]

Do you have any specific ones? I am reading through the entire list of the pre-Reformation RC and post-Reformation RC heretics burned, I am nearly done, so far other than some political executions (like St. Joan of Arc on this list, a guy who may have not even been a heretic, and possibly some of the poor movements maybe although they did forerun definite heresy it seems) not a single person here was not actually a heretic according to our standard today, or ecclesiastically disobedient. And this is just going by and accepting at face-value the Wikipedia articles. But I'm still going through each one perhaps I will find one.

Edit: going further, one of the guys is actually a Catholic who was burned by heretics.

Here is the first on the list from Catholics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fra_Dolcino

Do you agree that the person above deserved to be killed for his beliefs of living a simple life in poverty etc? I do not think the Catholics would kill such a person today - change on what a "heretic" is, change in what behaviors are encouraged (not encouraged to kill people anymore I hope?)

 

[idea]

My faith/loyalty is for Bible God. If the organization goes too far from Bible God, I reject the organization and don't support it. I have been part of it till this day, because I think it still keeps God's word visible and also does work that I think is good. Unfortunately the good side is getting weaker.

Tyndall believed if only everyone could read the Bible for themselves, all would agree on all doctrines...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale

Do you believe all men die because Adam sinned? In a literal garden if Eden? Dinosaurs?

Do you interpret the Bible to condemn homosexuality?

Do you interpret the Bible to believe women should not lead?

Do you interpret it differently from those who wrote it?

 

[1213]

...

Do you believe all men die because Adam sinned? In a literal garden of Eden? Dinosaurs?

Bible tells that people were expelled to this first death, because Eve and Adam rejected God. We are all born in here, in separation of God, because of that. That is why all bodies probably die.

I believe there was a garden as the Bible tells it. And I also believe there have been animals that nowadays are called dinosaurs. I don't know were those also near Adam and Eve. For example the legends of rok birds suggests that people may have observed something like that.

...Do you interpret the Bible to condemn homosexuality?

Bible doesn't have the word homosexual. Bible says for example:

You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestible.
Lev. 18:22

I think that is very clear and doesn't require interpretation, unless you don't like the truth.

...Do you interpret the Bible to believe women should not lead?

If we speak about Christians, disciples of Jesus, I think they should follow Jesus and God. And Jesus said:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

I think Christians should not exalt them or anyone else over Jesus.

I am not against women leading, I am against leaders who seek that position because they are vain and want to be served and exalted. Very often women seem to seek that position because of bad reasons. If Church has leaders, they should be people who want to preserve what Jesus said and serve those who are disciples of Jesus (=Christian). Do you want women to serve? Could that be even said in today's world?

...Do you interpret it differently from those who wrote it?

I try to avoid all interpretations and allow Bible to explain what it means.

 

[idea]

Bible tells that people were expelled to this first death, because Eve and Adam rejected God. We are all born in here, in separation of God, because of that. That is why all bodies probably die.

I believe there was a garden as the Bible tells it. And I also believe there have been animals that nowadays are called dinosaurs. I don't know were those also near Adam and Eve. For example the legends of rok birds suggests that people may have observed something like that.

Reading Genesis it sounds like it was not just a small isolated garden, but the entire world that is being created as a paradise, with no death anywhere for anything before Eve tries to follow the command to multiply.

The "perfect" world described by God (Genesis 1:31)—marred because of Adam’s rebellion. Sin and its consequence of death entered the world that was once a perfect paradise (Romans 5:12, 8:20–22; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22).

↑ this is very different from reality. Dinosaur bones are real, the earth was not a perfect paradise. Death has always been part of life according to museums and archeologists and science and history books.... It does not agree with the creation myth in the Bible with accompanying need for salvation due to Adam and Eve's fall from perfect paradise.

Bible doesn't have the word homosexual. Bible says for example:

You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestible.
Lev. 18:22

I think that is very clear and doesn't require interpretation, unless you don't like the truth.

This is a good writeup summarizing all that is written in the Bible about homosexuality with relevant information that puts the very few mansions of it into context:

What Does The Bible Really Say About Homosexuality?

If we speak about Christians, disciples of Jesus, I think they should follow Jesus and God. And Jesus said:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

I think Christians should not exalt them or anyone else over Jesus.

I am not against women leading, I am against leaders who seek that position because they are vain and want to be served and exalted. Very often women seem to seek that position because of bad reasons. If Church has leaders, they should be people who want to preserve what Jesus said and serve those who are disciples of Jesus (=Christian). Do you want women to serve? Could that be even said in today's world?

I try to avoid all interpretations and allow Bible to explain what it means.

I just want women to be equally respected - no one over another, no "head" of household, no leaders, no followers, just equally yoked. It would be nice if women were equally represented in the Bible as an example but it is 99% just a story of men for men with a male God.

Even the name of Jehovah was changed to be male - "Jesus" by the romans that viewed the story/name as too feminine. I wish again we had the entire story, and not just bits and pieces that were cherry picked and copied by men.

 

[1213]

Reading Genesis it sounds like it was not just a small isolated garden, but the entire world that is being created as a paradise, with no death anywhere for anything before Eve tries to follow the command to multiply.

I understand from Gen. 2:8-14 that it was relatively small area of planet earth. And from Gen. 3:23-24 comes the idea of people being expelled from there.

Yahweh God planted a garden eastward, in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed…. …A river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it was parted, and became four heads. The name of the first is Pishon: this is the one which flows through the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; … …The name of the second river is Gihon: the same river that flows through the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Hiddekel: this is the one which flows in front of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.
Gen. 2:8-14

Therefore Yahweh God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed Cherubs at the east of the garden of Eden, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
Gen. 3:23-24

I just want women to be equally respected...

I think they have been. If woman and man does as good job, they have been respected equally. The unclear issue is, have women really done as good work to deserve equal respect. For example, Jesus was respected for all what he did and endured for other people. Has some woman done the same and not been respected equally?

- no one over another, no "head" of household, no leaders, no followers, just equally yoked. It would be nice if women were equally represented in the Bible as an example but it is 99% just a story of men for men with a male God.

Could it be because men did those works, women dd not? If women would have done the same work, I think they would deserve equal respect. But I don't have any information for them to have done the same job.

However, I think the value of human doesn't depend on how great works he/she has done. People should still be loved, even if they have not accomplished as much as someone else.

It is interesting that in Bible, women are required to respect man, but men are required to love. What do you think, does that demand more from a man than from a woman?

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly, and gave himself up for it;… … Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord also does the assembly;... … Nevertheless each of you must also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Eph. 5:25-33

If man truly loves woman and is even willing to die for her, doesn’t that deserve respect? Should women also be required to love the same way?

Even the name of Jehovah was changed to be male - "Jesus" by the romans that viewed the story/name as too feminine. I wish again we had the entire story, and not just bits and pieces that were cherry picked and copied by men.

Any evidence for that?