To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 1848
1847  |  1849
Subject: 
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 27 Aug 1999 03:46:29 GMT
Viewed: 
1486 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, "David Eaton" <wpieaton@wpi.edu> writes:
[...]
I can't say I despise ALL religions-- I just despise religions that won't
bend. Christianity is deeply seated there. Christianity, and particularly
Judiasm has a great respect for tradition. "My father before me thought
this way, so I'm going to do the same." The problem is that the world
changes. Every once in a while when the mentality changes enough, a reform
happens, giving birth to a new religion, which embraces whatever change has
occurred. Judiasm gave birth to Catholisism, which gave birth to Islam, and
also to Protestantism. And Protestantism gave birth two somewhere beyond
quintuplets with all the quakers, shakers, amish, lutherins, etc that broke
off. The problem is that despite all of this, the old religions are still
there, and still refuse to change. What is more, they all try and prevent
the birth of a new religion. This works marvelously with the "societies are
living beings in and of themselves" idea; it is unnatural to go against the
life ethic, which is to spread and multiply; to become diverse (this falls
into evolution-- survival of the fittest). Thus a lot of these religions
are quite wrong in my opinion. (I happen to like Buddhism, though)

I like the note in there about survival of the fittest!  IMHO, all of the
religions popular today are memes or viruses of the mind which have adapted
and evolved to serve the human condition and local political climates.
Those religions which do not include means for self-preservation and, more
importantly, self-propagation -- and fail to adapt to the changing times --
eventually perish.

Now here's a purely hypothetical question:  If you had a magic button that
you could press to cause the instant extirpation of all religion from the
face of the planet (thus instantly and simultaneously transmuting everyone
on the planet into athiests), would religion then cease to exist forever,
or would it just pop right back up again and within a few decades' time
resume flourishing?  With all our modern science and knowledge, has humanity
finally overcome the need for religion, or is the need permanently rooted in
what we are?  Will it take another 10,000 years of human evolution before
this need fully abates?

--Todd



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
 
(...) Yeah - religions can adapt. I don't think David Eaton is really correct to say that Christianity doesn't bend - it does - it just does so over a period of hundreds of years - rather than tens of years. Christianity has adapted tremendously (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
 
(...) Ok, I think I'm a little clearer on your definition. That was my original intent, although I did a rather quick job myself in my first post. Basically, I wanted to know if 'happiness' was included in life-affirming. Here's what happened: Larry (...) (25 years ago, 26-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR