Schisms, Reforms

[Cino]

Schisms, reform movements, "Back to the roots", and giving relevance in ancient teachings by reinterpreting them in the context of modernity - the lifecycle of religious and spiritual traditions is complex, and often leads to offshoots that develop in their own right.

Whether Deuteronomy and Exodus; Christianity, Judaism and Paganism; Mahavira, the Buddha, and Vedic religion; Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism; The Valdensians, Hussites, Lutherans, Zwingli&Calvin and the Roman Catholic Church; Enlightenment and the Occult Revival; Twelver Shia Islam and the Babi&Baha'i faiths; Scientology, Wicca and Thelema...

Do you see these movements as desirable, or inevitable, or destructive? Do you think the forces that express themselves are divinely guided or inspired, or rather the consequence of human misunderstanding accreting over original clarity?

How do you view the unfolding of religious variety?

 

[wil]

Me personally...

All forms of religion have been written therefor influenced by humans.

All are a reform/schism from whatever current conventional thinking was previously.

This also applies to science eh?

 

[Cino]

This also applies to science eh?

Of course it does. It is the foundation of the schientific method. If you took it away, the result would not be science any more.

 

[wil]

Just wanted to clarify...

To further I feel in most of the religions without further schisms clarifying we will just continue to see more atheists as time goes on.

 

[Ahanu]

How do you view the unfolding of religious variety?

As a dialogue between humanity and God.

Do you think the forces that express themselves are divinely guided or inspired, or rather the consequence of human misunderstanding accreting over original clarity?

Not a fan of the choices here. It doesn't necessarily have to be a misunderstanding that leads to new offshoots. Humans have organized themselves in different ways for thousands of years. As new circumstances emerge, people find the old ways do not apply anymore.

Extreme example: If humans are still around in 100,000 years, we will probably merge with our technology. Doubt that future generation will be able to relate to old texts about fleshly bodies - just as we moderns find it hard to relate to animism.

Just wanted to clarify...

To further I feel in most of the religions without further schisms clarifying we will just continue to see more atheists as time goes on.

So . . . to avoid having more atheists, are you saying schisms are desirable? Do I hear desirable? Going once, going twice . . .

This also applies to science eh?

This calls for a meme!

 

[RJM]

I've heard it suggested that the attempt by for instance the Catholic church to counter dwindling membership by relaxing its 'rules' to make itself more accessible the modern world and to the youth of the modern world -- is actually what causes the dwindling numbers. People want some difficulty. It shouldn't be easy. It justifies the committment.

"What comes easy just gets wasted"

Just a thought ...

 

[Cino]

Not a fan of the choices here. It doesn't necessarily have to be a misunderstanding that leads to new offshoots. Humans have organized themselves in different ways for thousands of years. As new circumstances emerge, people find the old ways do not apply anymore.

Which new circumstances led to the Buddhist or Jain movements? To the split between Greek and Latin churches? To Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, or L Ron Hubbard? More often than not, I think, it was a shift in political power which gave rise to these developments.

Extreme example: If humans are still around in 100,000 years, we will probably merge with our technology. Doubt those that future generation will be able to relate to old texts about fleshly bodies - just as we moderns find it hard to relate to animism.

Modern people speak to voice recognition software in their phones as if it were a sentient being. If that's not animism...

 

[Cino]

I've heard it suggested that the attempt by for instance the Catholic church to counter dwindling membership by relaxing its 'rules' to make itself more accessible the modern world and to the youth of the modern world -- is actually what causes the dwindling numbers. People want difficulty. It justifies the committment.

Just a thought ...

Orthodoxy has staying power, but I think people are vastly more often born into orthodox groups than converts to them.

The Old Catholics are not exactly enjoying membership surges at the expense of mainstream Catholicism, I think?

 

[Ahanu]

Which new circumstances led to the Buddhist or Jain movements?

Don't know much about it, but I'm willing to search with you.

A brief search shows there were profound changes in Buddha's homeland during his time period. Iron tools produced more food, giving small villages the opportunity to flourish into larger towns throughout the region. Urbanization arose. States began to form. The Persian empire's spread into ancient India increased trade, and it introduced (reintroduced?) writing. The Vedic religion didn't emerge in this kind of society, for it was adapted for a tribal era. Just knowing this fact alone from looking at the timeline in my opinion, one can sense new religions beginning to form as people began to make sense of their new social realities.

Source: The Classical Era of Ancient India

 

[Thomas]

As a dialogue between humanity and God.

That's the way I see it.

 

[wil]

So . . . to avoid having more atheists, are you saying schisms are desirable? Do I hear desirable? Going once, going twice . . .

What? Err...no?

For some reason you think I have issues with atheists?

 

[Ahanu]

Do you see these movements as desirable, or inevitable, or destructive?

Just wanted to clarify...

To further I feel in most of the religions without further schisms clarifying we will just continue to see more atheists as time goes on.

So . . . to avoid having more atheists, are you saying schisms are desirable? Do I hear desirable? Going once, going twice . . .

What? Err...no?

For some reason you think I have issues with atheists?

I am teasing you, wil . . .

 

[seattlegal]

Schisms, reform movements, "Back to the roots", and giving relevance in ancient teachings by reinterpreting them in the context of modernity - the lifecycle of religious and spiritual traditions is complex, and often leads to offshoots that develop in their own right.

Whether Deuteronomy and Exodus; Christianity, Judaism and Paganism; Mahavira, the Buddha, and Vedic religion; Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism; The Valdensians, Hussites, Lutherans, Zwingli&Calvin and the Roman Catholic Church; Enlightenment and the Occult Revival; Twelver Shia Islam and the Babi&Baha'i faiths; Scientology, Wicca and Thelema...

Do you see these movements as desirable, or inevitable, or destructive? Do you think the forces that express themselves are divinely guided or inspired, or rather the consequence of human misunderstanding accreting over original clarity?

How do you view the unfolding of religious variety?

It is inevitable. Cultural nomos needs to reside just beneath consciousness to be effective, so it is considered to be self-evident and not questioned. When it remains as an unconscious influence, people will go to war with others and such, absorb other cultures, etc. When it does come into consciousness, people will investigate it, apply philosophy to it and possibly revive it and change it.

 

[wil]

I am teasing you, wil . . .

I am slow...you gotta tell me when you tease or insult so I can be incensed.