But there is a huge difference.
Hey, Wil, I withdrew my above post because it was a 'here we go again' entry.
For the benefit of you and all, I'd like to declare that I am of the opinion we are 'brothers from a different mother', in this case being family, country, culture ... all of which is inescapable in shaping who we are.
Part of your perception, not a million miles from my own, is that we're dealing with people who stand by their interpretation of a 2,000 year old text. People who think they understand it, and do not take into account any of the subsequent 2,000 years of investigation and commentary. In my case, for example, it's a 2,000 year old concept of gender and sexual orientation that simply doesn't stand in light of current understandings of the issues involved.
From what you've said, and from what I know of 'Bible belt' America — the current political machinations on the abortion debate is a case in point — your problem is way bigger than mine.
So I feel for you.
I've never been referred to a 2000 year old science text.
But the MBD does refer to a 2,000 year old text, does it not? Without that 2,000 old text, Unity has got nothing.
The stuff I learned in science 50 years ago is not the same as the stuff my kids learned 20 years ago.
Same here. The stuff I was taught in catechism class when I was a kid worked from a book that's a whole different document from the current catechism. My beef with the MBD is its founded on a 'scientific' understanding that's nearly 200 years old, and much of which is no longer viable in the light of current insights into human psychology and consciousness.
The 'I AM' as the Higher Self is a myth with no scientific foundation whatsoever.
Empirical data allows us to see further and deeper into the material world, but atomic theory was laid down by the Greeks. And religion necessarily deals with non-material things, so empiricism does not apply.
In many sciences: mathematics, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, the list goes on, 2,000 year old texts are required reading, and their data is, in its own way, as viable now as ever. Insights and inspirations then have shaped the sciences we have today.
As ever, it seems to me you're looking for empirical data when the core principles in question are inaccessible to empirical inquiry. That's not a fault or a flaw, it's just that empirical investigation is limited in its scope.
The Golden Rule: 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' cannot be quantified or measured, but it's a good rule, despite its age.
