Why is religion "unchangeable"?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by PretzelCorps, Dec 23, 2008.

  1. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    That's the question:

    Why are most modern religions "unchangeable" or "unadaptive" to modern situations?



    Please note that there are two interpretations here:

    1. Why are most modern religions unable to change their doctrines and opinions in the face of new scientific evidence and changing sociological trends?
    2. Why is it that if and when modern religions do change their doctrines and opinions based on science and sociology, there is a vast outcry from the secularists that the religious group in question is now non-credible or "wishy-washy"?
     

  2. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    For most things of that nature, if you change them, you're admitting you were wrong. Some things, you can adopt different policies to suit different times. But you can't change core doctrine like that.

    It's like in science. If you have a theory, then later modify it, you're admitting the first iteration was at least slightly wrong.
     
    Rebeccaaa likes this.
  3. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    Before approaching the subject of why they are unchangeable should we not address whether they are changing?

    I think most religions are changing all the time. In the most part they adapt themselves to the modern day, just because they may have issues with the modern day(dont we all!) does not make them unchangeable. Even the puritans are changing, they call it being true to the doctrine, I call it selective hearing. They only hear the bits that suit themselves. For example, the bible has been rewritten so many times with chapters removed, altered and added that is nowhere true to its original form. Even then it is interpretted how the reader wants to interpret it. The same goes for most other religions.


    They can and are. What would be the evidence to say that they are not changing? Last time I checked they were not burning Stephen Hawkings or David Copperfield at the stake so my arguement is they have changed, considerably.


    From the secularists? again this is a completly lopsided preloaded question. Where is the evidence of secularists calling reformation wishy washy?

    Maybe Im being picky or pendantic but the questions here are suggestive and misleading.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2008
  4. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    The questions are preloaded with little but personal experience.

    I've spoken with several Christians that will posit that the world (and universe, I suppose) was created 6,000 years ago. There is plain and stark evidence that this is very much not so.



    "Where is the evidence of secularists calling reformation wishy washy?"

    BBC NEWS | Europe | Vatican says aliens could exist

    I very distinctly remember when the Vatican made this claim ^.

    Most of what I recall was the criticism that the church received for "changing it's mind", in all sorts of editorials and opinion spots.



    With Christianity (obviously the one I have most experience with), I find that opinions can be changed only on subjects that do not contradict the Bible.



    EDIT
    ------
    But, perhaps I should rephrase the questions (as I actually do agree with you about religion being somewhat adaptive in many cases):

    1. Why is it that scientific evidence cannot influence the Bible?
    2. Question 2 is more to do with a common secular attitude: Why is it that the church will fall under criticism if and when it does make drastic reforms?
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2008
    Bananas likes this.
  5. Stab-o-Matic5000

    Stab-o-Matic5000 Cutting Edge in Murder

    The majority of Christians do not believe the world was made 6,000 years ago, however. Most Christians are able to reconcile their beliefs with science and take the Bible more as a guideline as to how they should live their life.

    As for your questions: I believe the main reason scientific evidence does not affect the Bible is that nobody really wants to fuck around with it. Some Christians would shit their pants if the Vatican came out and said "Hey guys, we changed Genesis so it says that God created man millions of years after he created animals." That doesn't even take into account the fact that the Vatican really only officially controls Catholicism, and the fact that Jews have the old testament as well, which is the main place where scientific evidence and biblical scripture don't get along. Funny, you don't hear Jewish religious leaders and the scientific community arguing with each other much.

    As for the second part, I think it's very similar in cause to the phenomenon of people stereotyping Christians as backwater kooks who believe that the Earth was made 6,000 years ago and that dinosaur bones were planted by scientists in a huge conspiracy to disprove the Bible. Remember, assholes and crazies scream the loudest and most often, and normal sane people tend not to give a shit and just live their lives. The "secular attitude" of blasting the Church for changing its mind on matters of the interpretation of scripture is likely nothing more than some assholes who just want to blast the Church and are looking for a good excuse. As a non-religious man myself I'm actually happy when church leaders change their views on matters, it shows that they are open minded and actually interpreting the scripture instead of taking it at face value.
     
  6. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Quite frankly and as concise as I can put it, science takes theory and tests it then asks what conclusions can be drawn whereas religion decides on conclusions and then decides what facts can be drawn from it.
     

Share This Page