I see a lot of this, too often to not become sick and saddened by it. A given creed, ideal, religion, etc, is followed with less and less zeal, faith, and devotion to the point where it is a skeleton and parody of itself.
That itself doesnt bother me. Thats history. What nauseates me is how people react to this. Instead of saying, "yeah, people stopped needing cattle for livelihood so it seemed stupid to make sacrifices to protect their herd," they write it off as, "religions have to change with the times, maaaan."

What the fuck are these times that change everything? Where the fuck does a ticking clock = weakening and remolding of everything? Because basically, 'the times' are socio-economic factors that exist very temporarily, and it angers me that people use that to shape religion, and not vice versa. Dont you think the big, unmovable spiritual paths that have existed since man became man hold more weight than what Disney says is cool, and what Eminem tells your kids? Apparently not, but thats sad.

I agree. I think that it's absurd that the way of life of millions changes based on what is happening in society. I think it's funny that a religion can change over time because it was founded on certain fundementals that were supposed to followed to the letter and over time the church has changed them in order to keep their herd.

BuD

the way i see it, time is a human invention, that has little or no meaning to things (spirits) that are not human, now religion tends to deal with these "spirits" so in theory religion should not be affected by time, i think what happens in the churches, is a grab for power, that ends up in changing the religion

If the foundation of a religion is strong, and worthy of survival, it will weather the temporary trends of a given society, including it's pop-culture cheeze.

But generally speaking, is the changing power of belief; the result of man's psychological evolution? If our religion doesn't evolve with us, then it eventually becomes stagnant and useless. Like sacrificial livestock.

What would happen if you could devise a religion/belief system, with a basic set of rigid fundamental ideals, then build up around it superficial rituals and social conventions, which can be changed to suit 'The Times' without affecting the basic tenets that were established...

...and then tell people that the rituals and conventions are superficial, and won't be around in 1000, 100 or even 50 years' time?

Nobody's going to take the fundamentals seriously, either.

Therefore, for a religion to survive for any length of time, the fundamental and the superficial mustn't be separated, well at least not from the point of view of the faithful masses.

---

At this point I have lost my train of thought. I apologise for this unfinished thread, and I'll come back and write some sort of conclusion when I work out what I was trying to say.

>>>>Therefore, for a religion to survive for any length of time, the fundamental and the superficial mustn't be separated, well at least not from the point of view of the faithful masses.<<<<

But they are...thats the point. Even the fundamentals change, actually.

I would agree that in order for a religion to survive the test of time that it must change, even it's most basic tenats.

Ave Defiantas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
But they are...thats the point. Even the fundamentals change, actually.

---

Yeap, I think that was what I was trying to lead to... Thanks for clearing that up.

Interesting thread and very true. Yet, you have to understand that socio-economic factors that influence religion generally take the grandiosity from the faith. "God is found in between". I read that quote somewhere and it is true. Back in the days of the ancient Greeks, they had gods for thunder, rain, seasons, disease, etc... They did not know how these events occured, so they made up gods and religions to explain. Once we understood how the world worked, no one believed in thunder gods or gods of pestilence. Know there are fewer and fewer unanswered questions fundamental to human existence. Some are how did the world come about, and what happens when we die.

People do not understand these questions so they say, well, god created the world and I will see him when I die and I will live forever. People are afraid of the unknown. Also, we are scared to die. We should be, it's probably wired in our genes to fear death. That is why our survival instinct is so strong. We are like any other living organism. People need to understand that life is beautiful because it ends. Like a flower blossoming on a warm, breezy spring afternoon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:

>>>>>For you young people(under 30), you would not have grown up in the 50's or 60's when it was mandatory first thing in the morning at school to stand next to your desk with your hand over your heart and recite the WHOLE pledge of allegiance. Not doing so would garner you a fast trip to the principal's office where you could still be smacked with a board at that time. <<<<

And questioning the dominion of God 600 years ago would get you burned alive, great, and? This is not relevant to this matter today.

---

I ripped this off from [i]Politics...[\i]. This topic was weak, so I thought I'd render it a merciful blow, to put it out of it's misery.

Understanding the physical principle behind those phenomena is no reason not to ascribe their occurence to gods.

Vene, what kinds of things do you think about before you go to sleep? Man, you have some things you need to straighten out in your head. I mean no offense. It is precisely because we understand the physical properties behind certain occurences that we need no gods. Gods are there to fall on when we have no answers.

I think you misunderstand where VeneFrigus is comming from, I'm not going to agree on the matter, though I have thought about it prior so I'm not going to disagree either

User, I was talking about how past punishment for not saying the pledge is no longer doled out, so citing any kind of punishment is stupid, since there is none today.

The punishment sometimes is ostracism.

Thats not official. Some people dont like you if youre a homo either, that doesnt mean its an official, legal flaw in a system.

There's still the question of why.

And the cultural value.

And if you find ostracism that bad you can just say the damn words.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
...past punishment for not saying the pledge is no longer doled out, so citing any kind of punishment is stupid, since there is none today.

---

I don't deny that it was revelevant in the topic from whence I ripped it, I just borrowed it, to show you that you're guilty of what you claim to detest. Your reply indicates that you recognize the truth of social evolution. Religious evolution must also be possible then.
___

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Thats not official. Some people dont like you if youre a homo either...

---

Equating Atheists and fags again?
___

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
And if you find ostracism that bad you can just say the damn words.

---

You have a future in politics.

No, Im not equating anything. The whining pansy that becoming some kind of outsider for not saying Under God is de facto legal punishment, should be reminded that there are a lot of things people will not like you for, most of which do not reflect government policy.

>>>>>I don't deny that it was revelevant in the topic from whence I ripped it, I just borrowed it, to show you that you're guilty of what you claim to detest. Your reply indicates that you recognize the truth of social evolution. Religious evolution must also be possible then.<<<<<

Evolution implies its getting more fit. I have never denied society gets weaker every generation. Religion likewise grows more decadent. That was the intent of this thread, and the foundation of any truth you think you were onto.

Spirit, that is actually what is being said, either a religion grows decadent or it changes along with our foward scientific knowledge of the universe.

No one in their right mind could possibly believe that we literally came from Adam and Eve. So, at least, that part of the bible is antequated. Along with many other parts. Most stories in the bible now are considered parables and stories to teach lessons. Yet, hundreds of years ago, they were taken as fact. Much like fundamentalists do nowadays. So now do you see how with a few small examples you can see how religion evolves.

I do not think that society gets weaker with every generation. I guess I would want to know exactly what you mean by weaker.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
The whining pansy that becoming some kind of outsider for not saying Under God is de facto legal punishment,

---

I think the kid who falsely pledges his allegiance to his Senator's god; is the "pansy".

quote:

---

...should be reminded that there are a lot of things people will not like you for, most of which do not reflect government policy.

---

good point.

quote:

---

Evolution implies its getting more fit. I have never denied society gets weaker every generation.

---

The implication was intentional. I don't believe humans are in regression. the factors that you use to judge this are American pop iconic bullshit, you said yourself, "'the times' are socio-economic factors that exist very temporarily...". And look at it from a global perspective, look at the people who see this trend, exactly as you do. Those same people also tend to adhere to a more traditional religious belief... like the Koran; interpreted exactly as it was intended, when it was originally written.

You're right when you say the culture that we live in, is fleeting. So it shouldn't be used to judge the direction of our evolution.

quote:

---

it angers me that people use that to shape religion, and not vice versa. Dont you think the big, unmovable spiritual paths that have existed since man became man hold more weight than what Disney says is cool, and what Eminem tells your kids?

---

Absolutely, but it's stupid to assume; that more than a minority of the population is capable of feeling this. You're well-versed in spiritual history, so tell me; when in history did a culture exist, where the vast majority of it's members were so enlightened? Fundamental religion won't make people see Eminem for the shit that it is, it just deprives them of the choice, and there's nothing great about that.

Tell us, how does your love of facism and fundamentalism feel when you're watching news accounts of the US chasing islamic terrorists into the caves? Do you think that the "natural cycle of fascism" is responsible for creating the Taliban?

The Taliban vs. Eminem, as indicators of evolutionary direction:

Eminem - Don't really know much here. I think he's a wigger wapper? Name sounds too much like "enema", so he probably likes it in the ass... Main source of income is production of nothing.

Taliban - They got that good old-time religion, which is handy for instituting a fascist government; Their daily actions are a direct result of their spiritual beliefs (aside from the chore of struggling to get their ruined civilization kicked-started again.)

Heh, "A robot, by any other name..."

Wahabbism didn't exist until the 19th century...

And Islam isn't the greatest of religions anyway.

There are no monotheistic creeds I know of that work with Fascism. Other than that, theres too much bullshit and ninety-seven different questions in as many directions, so I cant help you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
Wahabbism didn't exist until the 19th century...

---

Any group that seeks to repeat the good-ole-days of religion are doing just that; repeating something. I used the Taliban just because it was a handy example of modern culture, that could be compared to Eminem. Good rely with the Wahhabi thing though. Wiggers vs. Wahhabi.
___

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
There are no monotheistic creeds I know of that work with Fascism.

---

Not the stated Fascists, but the Taliban are damn close.

quote:

---

theres too much bullshit and ninety-seven different questions in as many directions, so I cant help you.

---

I suppose every parry isn't a thing of beauty. That's alright, don't think about it. Just sit still, while I wrap this towel around your head...

Does Catholicism count as Monotheism?

yeah. But Catholocism is not consistent with Fascist ideology.

Ya know Ive been thinking about it and I take it back. Though I will agree until I die that written Catholic dogma is terribly opposed to Fascism, Catholicism as practiced by many is compatible. Catholocism is only monotheistic on paper, in practice its old Roman rituals with saints instead of different gods.

What your saying seems comlicated but I think religion should'nt change and I believe it still relates to the modern world. We just don't see the connection. E.g its still wrong to steal but is it wrong to copy a video tape. Cuase thats stealing in a more comlicated way. Its still wrong though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nz man:
What your saying seems comlicated but I think religion should'nt change and I believe it still relates to the modern world. We just don't see the connection. E.g its still wrong to steal but is it wrong to copy a video tape. Cuase thats stealing in a more comlicated way. Its still wrong though.

---

First of all it's complicated not "comlicated." Next off, religion always changes with the times, it has to. If religion didn't change and evolve then we wouldn't have religious input on any of the current political issues. Copying a videotape is not stealing it's piracy. It's different then stealing it off the shelf.

Piracy, heh. Now there's an occupation that's taken a nasty evolutionary turn. It's gone from glorious battle on the high seas; to immigrants in basements running VCRs.