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 16:56:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1691 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Robinson writes:
> 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 over the centuries. I suspect most strict Christians would be
> quite shocked if they studied Christian history and discovered just how little
> their beliefs had in common with the beliefs of Christians of the first few
> centuries after Christ.
That I shall grant. Christianity has changed a great deal. Perhaps it would be
fairer to say that they are stubborn in change. As you said, it takes hundreds
of years for change to come about-- it doesn't happen as rapidly as change may
be required (from generation to generation, etc.)
> Don't think the same is true for Islam - that's stayed fairly constant, and
> has been able to do so through the tight control the Islamic clergy have had
> over muslim societies over the centuries.
I haven't studied Islam very much in depth, but I am tempted from what I do
know to agree... The Islamic religion (from what I know only) seems to be more
of a return to the Jewish style religion, rather than bearing much semblance to
Christianity. I think this may be due in part to the societal differences
between the middle east and the 'western' world thinking... Just a thought.
> 'viruses of the mind' is a bit provocative though. I'm sure there's
> a few people who'd say that about atheism :)
In fact, I'd go so far as to say there are... According to Plato, there were
anti-atheists as far back as Grecian times. People accusing Socrates as an
athiest, and as spreading his poisoned ("viral"?) ideas to his students. There
are people today who think that science is just a tool to make us loose our
faith... if you don't need faith in God to understand things like the weather,
etc., you'll start to not need faith at all...
As far as pushing the button-- I think that most people WOULD become athiests.
Of course, if you define an athiest as "denying God's existence", they wouldn't
be TRUE athiests... but suffice to say they wouldn't have ever known God's
presence. I think, though, that the idea of having a God appeals to most
people. They like to depend on the idea that there is some "ultimate" good
that's more dependable than the evil, devious, unreliable, fickle people in the
world. Something that *won't* change, and that is universal. I think that
sooner or later, the idea of God would emerge (possibly from less developed
areas) and would spread from there. However, I think that the impression of God
would greatly alter. Instead of an all powerful being, capable of working
physical miracles, God would be seen as more of a spiritual thing only. People
wouldn't believe that even if God wanted, He could create or stop a storm; heal
the sick, etc. I think that this idea is something that our present philosophy
of science would inhibit, and it's pretty hard to shake that-- after all,
science has continually proven to be correct, whereas religion has had
disputable flaws from day 1. Science is difficult to refute... religion is
easier to refute, and easier still to simply reform.
Dave Eaton
(who's taking the day off today, but has less free time than when he's at work
by some twist of fate)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
