Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
This completely misses the point that IFF was making: Religion does not consist of "a bunch of 'wrong theories'". Religion is a progressive animal that has proven over millenia to be self-correcting. Either religion adapts or it disappears. Because it is still a dominant social and cultural force, it will not simply disappear because of what science has discovered. I fully expect that it will change—probably quite dramatically—over the next century, but billions of people will not simply forsake this absolutely fundamental venue for their own spiritual expression because their theological models have become outdated.
|
That sounds more like 'Spirituality' then 'Religion'. (Or just poorly executed religious belief?)
Religion by its very nature is dogmatic and codified, and to simply adapt and change those rules as the generations change is to invalidate the entire exercise. How can one have conviction in something today that will change tomorrow?
To allow oneself to dismiss the truth behind some religious customs that become inconvienent and/or out-dated while embracing others, when they all come from the same source, is ignorant at best. Either the source is enlightened and you believe all of it or it was not enlightened and you are doing it simply for the sake of doing it. How is someone half enlightened?
IF Religion can evolve (and i am not saying it cannot - in fact it most certainly does) it would seem to me to prove its connection to the changing HUMAN condition on this plain of existence NOT the validity of its connection to a higher plain of existence.
A sense of spirituality, where there is a belief in some basic generalized unknowable truth behind all of that religion - which itself can evolve over time, is fine. But that is spirituality, not religion.
In my opinion anyways...
Claeren.