3 ms·

Sorry, no. What you write makes absolutely no sense to a religious person. A religion (any religion) is, by definition, correct, and doesn't have any problems

Sorry, no. What you write makes absolutely no sense to a religious person. A religion (any religion) is, by definition, correct, and doesn't have any problems. It's not a thing based on any kind of rational thought, but rather pure fantastical belief. You can't "fix" that, when its believers don't think there's anything to fix. Of course, you're looking at this as an outsider who doesn't believe the religion, so you don't see it this way, and you have entirely different goals in mind. You're probably thinking about people living together in a pluralistic world or something like that, but that's not a concern to a True Believer in a religion, where anyone who disagrees with the religion either needs to stay out of the way or be killed if necessary.

em-bee 2y ago
so the spanish inquisition, or the burning of witches, and whatever else atrocious people did in the name of religion was ok, and reformation was unnecessary? have you not noticed how christianity has changed over time? same for other religions too. is everything religious leaders and people do in the name of religion today backed by their holy scripture? i think not. and until it is, there is room for improvement. i am a religious person, btw. and i absolutely believe that religion needs to change and advance just like everything else on this planet. the purpose of religion is to address the problems a society faces in its time. as our society advances, so must religion, to be ready to address the problems of a modern changing society. if it can't do that it needs to be replaced by another. this is exactly what jesus did, and the reason why he came to earth. and it is the reason why he promised to return. it is the purpose of all of god's messengers to advance and reform our religious beliefs.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >so the spanish inquisition, or the burning of witches, and whatever else atrocious people did in the name of religion was ok Absolutely, yes, if you ask the religious people who did those things. Of course, non-religious people (or people of a different religion) disagree, but that's simply a difference of opinion. >have you not noticed how christianity has changed over time? It's changed in many ways, and depends on which group of Christians you're looking at. Are you looking at the Mormons, the "supply side Christians" that are popular in American mega-churches, the rather liberal Presbyterians, or what? >is everything religious leaders and people do in the name of religion today backed by their holy scripture? I'm pretty sure it is. You can interpret that scripture an infinite number of ways, so they always seem to find some way of supporting their claims. >there is room for improvement. "improvement" is your opinion only. For them, your idea of "needed changes" are anathema. >this is exactly what jesus did, Jesus specifically said (if you believe the quotes in the bible are true) that he did NOT come to replace anything. Of course, the teachings attributed to him are quite different from the religion he claimed not to be replacing. And of course, there's no real evidence to support any of this, either his existence, the words claimed to have been said by him, the previous religion the people in that region followed, etc.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    It's changed in many ways, and depends on which group of Christians you're looking at well, i am primarily looking at the catholic church itself, and protestants that came out of it. both changed a lot over the centuries. Jesus specifically said that he did NOT come to replace anything but he did come to reform. with the sword. there's no real evidence to [...] his existence historians beg to differ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus and as for the words, well, the bible is authentically almost 2000 years old. so someone must have said the words that the people in the bible report. of course, given how the bible was written it is hard to find real evidence for that. so i am not faulting you for not believing it to be real. to me that doesn't really matter. whether religions are of divine origin or a fantasy, they clearly have a strong influence on the world, and therefore we must subject them to criticism and to reform if they want to keep their relevance in the world. alternatively, it's time to look for their replacement. it is possible that jesus already came back and the majority of the world missed it.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >to me that doesn't really matter. whether religions are of divine origin or a fantasy, they clearly have a strong influence on the world, and therefore we must subject them to criticism and to reform if they want to keep their relevance in the world. Why do they need to stay relevant? If you're willing to accept they're fantasy, then it'd be better for everyone to read Lord of the Rings instead. At least it actually promotes wholesome values and thinking, unlike the Bible which promotes rape, slavery, and genocide. The god of LotR is consistent, whereas the god of the Bible seems to be narcissistic, sociopathic, and worse, schizophrenic (somehow going from directing his followers to commit genocide, to later reproducing somehow and then promoting peace and tolerace, but only sometimes). And at least with fantasy epics, everyone knows they're not real, so no one is setting up theocracies based on their interpretations of them and committing atrocities to support these.
      - em-bee 2y ago
        Why do they need to stay relevant they don't need to stay relevant. reform is what they need to do if they want to stay relevant. otherwise they will soon stop being relevant. however as long as they continue to have a strong influence, we need to keep an eye on them and look for their replacement

em-bee 2y ago

so the spanish inquisition, or the burning of witches, and whatever else atrocious people did in the name of religion was ok, and reformation was unnecessary? have you not noticed how christianity has changed over time? same for other religions too. is everything religious leaders and people do in the name of religion today backed by their holy scripture? i think not. and until it is, there is room for improvement. i am a religious person, btw. and i absolutely believe that religion needs to change and advance just like everything else on this planet. the purpose of religion is to address the problems a society faces in its time. as our society advances, so must religion, to be ready to address the problems of a modern changing society. if it can't do that it needs to be replaced by another. this is exactly what jesus did, and the reason why he came to earth. and it is the reason why he promised to return. it is the purpose of all of god's messengers to advance and reform our religious beliefs.

shiroiushi 2y ago
>so the spanish inquisition, or the burning of witches, and whatever else atrocious people did in the name of religion was ok Absolutely, yes, if you ask the religious people who did those things. Of course, non-religious people (or people of a different religion) disagree, but that's simply a difference of opinion. >have you not noticed how christianity has changed over time? It's changed in many ways, and depends on which group of Christians you're looking at. Are you looking at the Mormons, the "supply side Christians" that are popular in American mega-churches, the rather liberal Presbyterians, or what? >is everything religious leaders and people do in the name of religion today backed by their holy scripture? I'm pretty sure it is. You can interpret that scripture an infinite number of ways, so they always seem to find some way of supporting their claims. >there is room for improvement. "improvement" is your opinion only. For them, your idea of "needed changes" are anathema. >this is exactly what jesus did, Jesus specifically said (if you believe the quotes in the bible are true) that he did NOT come to replace anything. Of course, the teachings attributed to him are quite different from the religion he claimed not to be replacing. And of course, there's no real evidence to support any of this, either his existence, the words claimed to have been said by him, the previous religion the people in that region followed, etc.
- em-bee 2y ago
  It's changed in many ways, and depends on which group of Christians you're looking at well, i am primarily looking at the catholic church itself, and protestants that came out of it. both changed a lot over the centuries. Jesus specifically said that he did NOT come to replace anything but he did come to reform. with the sword. there's no real evidence to [...] his existence historians beg to differ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus and as for the words, well, the bible is authentically almost 2000 years old. so someone must have said the words that the people in the bible report. of course, given how the bible was written it is hard to find real evidence for that. so i am not faulting you for not believing it to be real. to me that doesn't really matter. whether religions are of divine origin or a fantasy, they clearly have a strong influence on the world, and therefore we must subject them to criticism and to reform if they want to keep their relevance in the world. alternatively, it's time to look for their replacement. it is possible that jesus already came back and the majority of the world missed it.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >to me that doesn't really matter. whether religions are of divine origin or a fantasy, they clearly have a strong influence on the world, and therefore we must subject them to criticism and to reform if they want to keep their relevance in the world. Why do they need to stay relevant? If you're willing to accept they're fantasy, then it'd be better for everyone to read Lord of the Rings instead. At least it actually promotes wholesome values and thinking, unlike the Bible which promotes rape, slavery, and genocide. The god of LotR is consistent, whereas the god of the Bible seems to be narcissistic, sociopathic, and worse, schizophrenic (somehow going from directing his followers to commit genocide, to later reproducing somehow and then promoting peace and tolerace, but only sometimes). And at least with fantasy epics, everyone knows they're not real, so no one is setting up theocracies based on their interpretations of them and committing atrocities to support these.
    - em-bee 2y ago
      Why do they need to stay relevant they don't need to stay relevant. reform is what they need to do if they want to stay relevant. otherwise they will soon stop being relevant. however as long as they continue to have a strong influence, we need to keep an eye on them and look for their replacement