Should religion change?

[Skandi]

Once upon a time when religion and politics were entwined by the monarchy people were punished for not following religion to the letter. As monarchs' powers gradually dwindled so too did the power that religion held over this, and many other countries, around the world.

But does this loss of power mean that religion should now adapt to suit us and our notions of what is right and wrong? Certainly the Pope does not think so.

The whole premise behind religion is that each faith knows it is right. Religion is the most irrationally stubborn belief known to man and so a change of stance will often look like an admittance of being wrong.

Some aspects of religion have been left behind, but often these changes have been imposed on them by serious changes in law. Very infrequently have religions changed to follow society's wishes.

And why is that? If the Pope were to take advice from Tony Blair and change his stance on gay marriage he would effectively be saying Catholicism was not 100% right. And if it was wrong about gay marriage what else could it be wrong about?

Source (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/editors_corner/article/23361/)
Should the religion change to suit the people, or is that selling out on your beliefs?

[Loki]

Source (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/editors_corner/article/23361/)
Should the religion change to suit the people, or is that selling out on your beliefs?

Good question -- it kind of defeats the object and waters down the said religion to a hobby, which rules you can change at a whim and according to popularity. Then again, this has always been the case with religion. If you look at the history of Christianity, for example, it was interpreted in every century according to political needs. Even the books in the Bible were there because some guys made a decision which is most suitable. Religion will forever change according to people's needs, because it is a human creation after all.

[Gooding]

I see religion quite frankly going the way of social clubs and fraternities. Religion's greatest defence is the emotional appeal it holds for people and the emotional reactions it evokes from people when they find their beliefs being challenged.Apply cold reason and logic to religion, with no emotional attachment whatsoever and see the shared values many religions share, many folks, free from the fetters of fear,will retain the values and acknowledge that the pagentry of liturgy and the colorful language of symbolism is little more than entertainment plus an aphrodisiac. Religion makes people feel better and provides comfort and if people need it to evolve, evolve it will, without compromising their conscience.

[Loki]

I see religion quite frankly going the way of social clubs and fraternities. Religion's greatest defence is the emotional appeal it holds for people and the emotional reactions it evokes from people when they find their beliefs being challenged.Apply cold reason and logic to religion, with no emotional attachment whatsoever and see the shared values many religions share, many folks, free from the fetters of fear,will retain the values and acknowledge that the pagentry of liturgy and the colorful language of symbolism is little more than entertainment plus an aphrodisiac. Religion makes people feel better and provides comfort and if people need it to evolve, evolve it will, without compromising their conscience.

Indeed, however the true power of religion comes to the fore when people really believe the dogma and thinks it is true. Doubt destroys the power of religion and its hold over people. The time when religion was most powerful and real to me, was when I was 13 years old. For the period of a few months I really believed it. Then, gradually, doubt infiltrated my thoughts and logic took hold ... even without me wishing for it. I guess that will happen to anyone who is not completely braindead yet. Doubt makes us clever and makes us evolve as humans. To question things, to get better at doing things. I was fighting the seed of doubt for more than a decade ... when it finally could not be resisted anymore.

[Tabiti]

I don't see the problem of anyone believing in anything he/she wants, as long as they obey the national laws and don't harm others. We can't get the time back, by making people to believe strictly in something, just to behave good and not to do any crimes.
We should concentrate our power rather for increasing the whole moral, values and self-discipline of the society. Those quallities aren't religious.

[Psychonaut]

I think that an answer to your question, Thrymheim, depends on how you define religion. After all, the notion of a religion being defined as a belief structure is decidedly Eastern, while the pagan religions of Europe were more defined by the specific rites that were celebrated. So, keeping that in mind, if we're going with the first definition, then yes, religions most definitely should change. There is no reason at all to hang on to aspects of religion (principally those which are cosmogenic or anthropogenic descriptors) which have been falsified by modern science. However, if we're talking about the second definition, then no, religions should not change all that much. Knowing that the Sun is a ball of flaming gas and not a chick with a shiny shield is no less reason to hail it and celebrate it's triumphant return in the Spring. Regardless of our change in understanding of what it is, the way in which we relate to it and are affected by it remains the same. Sunna is still that which makes life on Earth possible, and will be deserving of worship for that until her days are done.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I see religion quite frankly going the way of social clubs and fraternities. Religion's greatest defence is the emotional appeal it holds for people and the emotional reactions it evokes from people when they find their beliefs being challenged.Apply cold reason and logic to religion, with no emotional attachment whatsoever and see the shared values many religions share, many folks, free from the fetters of fear,will retain the values and acknowledge that the pagentry of liturgy and the colorful language of symbolism is little more than entertainment plus an aphrodisiac. Religion makes people feel better and provides comfort and if people need it to evolve, evolve it will, without compromising their conscience.

That gets to me.
I feel like Mr Bojangles coming out a church. Change every Sunday.
http://www.bojangles.co.za/

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Believe=make believe= media entertainment

Adam and Eve believed

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee255/Dokkie_G/prickless-1.jpg

[Thorum]

Perhaps this will lend a little clarity. The premise/question of the video is "Why we believe in gods?

1iMmvu9eMrg

[billadam]

You should not change your religion, unless there is specific reason to do that. It is your wish to follow a particular religion. There is no compulsion to remain in one religion. What is religion after all - a set of specific rules to maintain in your life. Basic knowledge about religion would help you to think in your own way on this subject. There are good people and bad people in every religion. We inherit our religion from our parents. Once we are adult, we become free to choose our life as we wish, keeping bad virtues away from us. So, the question of changing religion is a minor one. If I am good, I will remain good wherever I am. You may find the review given below useful in this context.
church communication (http://ihatechurch.com)
:thumb001:

[Loddfafner]

In order to use religion as a tool of manipulation, you must convince your victims that religion is somehow more than the artwork of people of a particular time and place.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

You should not change your religion, unless there is specific reason to do that. It is your wish to follow a particular religion. There is no compulsion to remain in one religion. What is religion after all - a set of specific rules to maintain in your life. Basic knowledge about religion would help you to think in your own way on this subject. There are good people and bad people in every religion. We inherit our religion from our parents. Once we are adult, we become free to choose our life as we wish, keeping bad virtues away from us. So, the question of changing religion is a minor one. If I am good, I will remain good wherever I am. You may find the review given below useful in this context.
church communication (http://ihatechurch.com)
:thumb001:

I was fortunate enough to study for 7 months the Jesuit priesthood in The Netherlands.
I went through the Chapters 1 by 1,stopped by basically every verse.
Sometimes I thought I was reading a peep-show(Solomon ecstasy)
Sometimes I thought that JHWH(Jehova-Elohim etc) was a serial killer(Exodus 32:26-28,2 Chronicles 14:8-12,2Chronicles 13:15-18 etc)
Then to please the God, Solomon killed 120.000 sheep and 22.000 oxen(1Kings 8;63)
On other occasions He became a thumb and big toe collector(Judges1:5-7)

I struggled immensely with Genesis(the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil)
Here is a tree with fruit on it,Eve ate some and gave some to Adam too(stupid man :) ).
They saw the difference of good and evil thereafter.
This fruit had to have the same amount of good and bad juices in it.These juices had to come from the roots of the tree and out of the soil. Both tree and soil were created by YHWH beforeAdam and Eve existed.
Therefore the fruit eating birds knew beforehand the consequences of eating these delightful imported celestial fruities,stamped"Made with the love of God for vegetarians"
My question in the Seminar was:"If the fruit had equal quantity of good juices and bad juices.Then how in God's name must we fight evil with good.
Kill 10 percent evil,than good will be reduced by 10 percent too or good and evil are out of balance.
In another way we could say.If you kill all evil,how would we know what good is.
Well well, the Jesuit teaching us had an answer, God is omnipotent everlasting etc and at the end of days only goodness will exit
Not so, I said,the fight only starts then. We will all be equal before God,which means that if God shows me my seat on His left side, I would object,as I prefer to sit on His right side( I am right handed and quite puckish with a right jab)
Needles to say that in the eyes of the Almighty I was a jackass and banned from the Priesthood sitting out my life as a Boyz-is-'n-hood
in South Africa eating celestial fruitcakes

[Óttar]

Apply cold reason and logic to religion, with no emotional attachment whatsoever and see the shared values many religions share, many folks, free from the fetters of fear,will retain the values and acknowledge that the pagentry of liturgy and the colorful language of symbolism is little more than entertainment plus an aphrodisiac.

It's interesting that you make that last point. When I was around 12 or 13 I had my most ardent spiritual feelings. I was a folk Catholic with heavy pagan sympathies. This led to my later re-indentification with pre-Christian indigenous religion(s) (paganism.) I realized Catholicism was a blend (called syncretism) between Christianity and ancient Mediterranean paganism. I realized I didn't like the Christian aspect at all, indeed I found it superficial, corrupted, and irritating, but only liked the pagan elements, so I decided that I was a staunch pagan.

I studied intensely and exclusively the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary, I use 'BVM' because She is an archetypal, composite cult figure as opposed to the actual historical Miriam Umm Yaohushua (Mary, mother of Jesus.)

Much of the wording in prayers and litanies to Mary are downright conjugal. In one extra-biblical Catholic writing, "Jesus" says to Mary "Come, sit on this throne, for long have I coveted the beauty of thee." (!!!)

In one Marian prayer-book I noticed the statements meant to be said by the devotee is literally called "ejaculation" ! I know it's a Latin term with a distinct meaning, but it doesn't take much of a leap of logic to another implication. Most of Mary's titles are epithets of mediterranean goddesses, and one in particular Domus Aurea "Dome of Gold", was the name of Nero's palace!

Orthodox (Greek, Russian etc.) commentators and critics trace this current in Catholicism to the development of "bridal mysticism" in the Middle Ages where Catholicism became eroticized and effete. I believe the origins are much earlier and predate Christianity altogether.

Like my favorite lyrics in the Ordo Rosarius Equilibrio song "Mary dances in the shadows", She's the Mother of the Damned, Mary gives Herself to Angels, She is the concubine of man."

There was a book out, I forget the name, where the author claims that the intense devotion to the Madonna in Italy can be traced to an Oedipal current which arises from the libidinous drives in Italian males, which surface in puberty.

The womb-like shape of the Notre Dame Cathedral and the feminine shape of the entrance to many churches is a hint of the erotic implications in religion.
Note the Arabic word for the entrance to a mosque (which has a feminine shape), mihrab is also the medieval Arabic word for vagina. Perhaps this is the hidden reason why, at many Sufi shrines women are not allowed inside.

The link between sex and spirituality is made most clear in Hindu Tantra which does not attempt to veil sex in spiritual allegory. It uses spiritual allegory and sexual symbolism, but plainly admits the sexual elements outright.

Do I think religion should change?

As Psychonaut pointed out, what we think of as "religion" proper has come to mean the Abrahamic concept of religion as a set of static, unchanging rules. I think that religion or spiritual expression naturally changes, because true spirituality is manifested at the popular level and at its root, in individuals.
It is organized structures (i.e. The Catholic Church, other churches), which have monopolized all the symbols and archetypes and then given them their specific interpretations to suit their own ends. Texts are also given a spin firstly by their authors, and then institutions. It is ultimately population groups in general and individuals in particular who must give meaning to symbols, archetypes and allegories, hopefully using guidance from people who came before. In Freemasonry for example, symbolism is paramount. Ancient symbols are used, and then various meanings are explicated, for example the significance of a symbol to the ancients and then to Hebrews and Christians is given to the initiate, but it is the initiate himself who must decide what the meaning is.

[HawkR]

If religion should change? Well, no. Even though it has and will change. I would rather say that so-called religions like Islam, Chrisianity and Rastafari, should be ruled out as religions, since we all can see that these in particular is just modifications and continueses(?) of Jewishism. It's all there. Then you'd be lefrt with religions so old that one cannot find the start of it, in my meanings this is the true religions. Except Jewishism of course, as it seems more likely that this religion started as a simple way to control your life with guidance lines and stuff. Here one can just look at the word "God", which in old Hebrew means "I am". Now, this is of course, as the rest of the Bible discussionable, and so it is discussed.

But as mentioned, the more "later" religions are false, in my eyes of course.

So religion shouldn't be changed, no.

[Skandi]

US nuns worried by Vatican inquiry


When the Vatican began an inquiry seven months ago into the "soundness" of American nuns, it adopted a discreet approach.

But as details have emerged about the investigation into the beliefs held by nuns - and of the way they worship - the disquiet and irritation felt in religious communities has started to spill into the public arena.

A working paper delivered recently by the Vatican to the leaders of American nuns was interpreted by many as a sign that the hierarchy in Rome is worried about a liberal drift among them.

The sisters are increasingly anxious about what that might mean.

Nuns once worked mainly in Roman Catholic schools and hospitals, but since the sweeping reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the late 1960s they have decided for themselves how best to do good in the world.

Sister Kathy Stein, of the Sisters of St Joseph of Carondelet, is executive director of Thomas House, a shelter for homeless families in Garden Grove in Orange County, California.

Thomas House, with its 16 apartments in a secure compound, its language and parenting classes, its food bank and its activities for children, is a secular organisation with no formal link to the Church.

Sister Kathy has never worn a habit, and moved out of the convent long ago to live among the people she serves.

But she says the Church need have no worry about the way she meets her religious calling.


That would have been unheard of in the early days for a group of nuns to be working in a home for alcoholic men, it wasn't acceptable
Annette Ciketic

"I would see it as a reason for hope that our message of love and respect and concern for people is expanding beyond the walls of a Catholic institution... that we are able to bring God's word to people by who we are and how we minister to them," she said.

Manuela Aguilar and her daughter, Terri, say they would have been living in their car had there not been space for them at Thomas House.

She is glad the shelter is not linked with the Church, and would not want to see Sister Kathy wearing a habit, or living in a distant convent.

"Sister Kathy does splendidly well as she is, acting as a Good Samaritan out in the community running this organisation and not being stuck in a convent," she said.

But senior figures in the Vatican are concerned that as nuns respond to the changing needs of US society, some have become too liberal.

Recent guidance about the investigation - known as the "apostolic visitation" - reveals questions about whether nuns take part in daily mass, and "the soundness of doctrine held and taught" by them.

Sensitive issues

Traditionalists have long been concerned that some sisters might be flouting Church teaching on sensitive issues such as homosexuality and the ordination of women as priests.

The investigation will also ask for a description of "the process for responding to sisters who dissent publicly or privately from the authoritative teaching of the Church".

The process has been welcomed by some more conservative orders.

Helen Hull Hitchcock, of Women for Faith and Family, said the inquiry into the claim by some nuns to "complete self-determination" independently of the Church hierarchy, was decades overdue.

But Francine Cardman, an academic at the School of Theology and Ministry at Boston College, claimed that the investigation was an attempt to establish an official interpretation of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

She warned that nuns had in the past frequently been restricted as to what kind of work they could do, or even "returned to the confines of the cloister".

Sister Mary Mackay says the Vatican shouldn't impose its views

Sister Kathy's Mother Superior, Sister Mary Mackay, oversees 360 nuns, all but 90 of them living and working in a wide range of jobs in the community.

Sister Mary says the Vatican hierarchy inhabits a very different world, and could not expect to impose its own idea of religious life on the culture inhabited by American nuns.

"The culture encourages everyone to be very tolerant and open-minded," she said.

"To imagine that a dictum sent by somebody we don't know who lives very far away would take hold in this culture, to imagine that, is really a stretch."

The Church says it doesn't want to impose its own model of life on nuns but to revitalise religious orders.

Officials say the Vatican has a genuine concern for the "quality of life" of the approximately 60,000 sisters.

Male hierarchy

But many nuns believe the investigation is intended to rein them in, while others warn that a male hierarchy wants to regain control of them as women and as a free workforce.

There could be consequences for those who disappoint the Vatican.

Annette Ciketic helps run Beacon House in San Pedro, California, a hostel for men recovering from drink and drug addiction.

Annette belongs to the Immaculate Heart, a community of former nuns who had to leave the Church 40 years ago because they refused to toe the Vatican line.

She claims that the Church's idea of proper work for nuns would rule this work out.


"That would have been unheard of in the early days for a group of nuns to be working in a home for alcoholic men, it wasn't acceptable," she said.

"We would be teaching their children and witnessing (the effects of) their abuse in the classroom... but God forbid we should ever deal with the adults and especially the fathers."

Trini Luna says the prayers and sermons he heard by going to church did little to help him overcome his addiction to drugs.

He says he has encountered a more flexible spirituality at Beacon House, which has had far more effect.

"Living by these spiritual principles my life has changed tremendously," he said.

"It doesn't have to be in a Church way. It can be in a recovery home in the centre of Los Angeles."

The Sisters of St Joseph insist that they too are satisfied with the way they are doing their duty.

Sister Kathy Stein says she does not need to preach to those who use the shelter for them to receive the Christian message.

"They know me as Sister Kathy. They know I'm a Catholic sister. I'm ready to talk about the gospel if they want to. That's enough."
source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8189793.stm)

Should Nuns be doing this or is it changing to much?