Progressive Thoughts, Archaic Texts

It seems that every time someone attempts to criticize a religious belief the standard reply from the believer is that the thing being criticized is not taken seriously any more.

This leads to my simple question: If religious and spiritual thought have been evolving and advancing for thousands of years then why are the religious texts never rewritten?

For example, I have an evolutionary biology textbook that was printed in the 1950s. It is very interesting and I read it from time to time, but I know that the science has changed and so I also have books printed in the last few years. Why can't religions do this?

 

Probably because most people that try to add to religion are super crazy!

As far as rewriting the bible, they would probably see that as evil.

 

Religions do change and adapt all the time and continuously.
Just because the change does not advance as YOU think it should nor conforms to YOUR ideas concerning religion does not mean it hasn't and isn't progressing.

There is no need to re-write any ancient scriptures, honestly, the idea is ludicrous and laughable as it is the practitioners who determine how a religion is manifested where the "rubber meets the road".

The idea screams of fear and insecurity, as all ideas about implimenting such censorship always do.
What's the matter, are you to insecure in your own beliefs to be able stand up to opposing beliefs?

 

Dear, I don't know where you've been reading; but here at HF being critical of religious beliefs is the standard and the norm. Believers are criticized much more and heartier than those that have no beliefs. I'm not aware of anyone that has "attempted" to criticize a belief and been unsuccessful. The believer may attempt to take up for themselves; but, the criticism stands.

There are MANY revisions of biblical texts; but thankfully the basic premise hasn't been revised out yet. Being a believer as well as someone that is capable of understanding the original KJV, I don't even see a need for all of these re-writes that have become popular.

You compare religion to science, saying the science has changed.

To me that is the beauty of religion...if you do believe, that is a constant and there is no need for "updates".

 

Well apparently you either did not read my post, or you completely misunderstood my point. I began my point by saying "If religious and spiritual thought have been evolving and advancing for thousands of years...". I am well aware that religious and spiritual thought advances and changes continually both at the social level and the personal level. That is actually the reason for my question.

The question has nothing to do with what type of person I am. A proposition should be judged on its merits, not the merits of the person making the proposition. Feel free to attempt to derail my argument by accusing me of whatever you want. As I have already stated I know that religion has and is progressing. I also do not have any thoughts about religious progression to which I expect others to conform, other than the rather innocuous statement that I am perplexed by the disconnect between religious thought and religious texts.

I agree with your point and reach the opposite conclusion. It is of course the practitioners who define the religion "where the rubber meets the road" just as it is the people speaking who define the language. This would be akin then to speaking modern English but using an Old English dictionary. Again I can only reiterate my point: I am perplexed by the difference between religious texts and religion as practiced or understood by practitioners. I also don't see how it is ludicrous to suggest that the books should be rewritten. Is it laughable to suggest rewriting a Chemistry textbook?

An astounding conclusion. I do not see how you infer fear from what is actually merely a somewhat interesting question to me. After all, I am not even actually arguing that the books should be rewritten, only asking why they are not. And it is only somewhat interesting. The only reason I have posted this thread is because I injured my back and stayed home from work. I saw something that Okiefreak said in another thread and it made me wonder about this topic. But again accuse emanresu of what you want, he isn't real anyway.

You are reaching again. At no point did I say anything about enforcing censorship. As I write this I can turn my head slightly to the left and see my King James Bible on the shelf. I do no intend to ever get rid of it, nor would I want to deny anyone else the ability to obtain it. I do think that preachers should not preach from it, but that is very different from saying it should be hidden or forgotten or destroyed or discontinued etc...

Nope. I am not afraid of having my mind changed, and I do not have any belief which is so dear to me that I would ignore rational argument to preserve it. Nor do I care about most things enough to really argue about them either. Religion is a topic of some interest to me from time to time as it relates to human psychology, but I am really not concerned with religion, spirituality, gods, or afterlives.

 

So a group of men go out and massacre another tribe. They don't kill the women and the children. God tells them to go back and kill the male children, and the women who have been with a man, and the rest keep for yourselves. No need for an update? Strange, chemistry textbooks have been updated for less.

 

First off, chemistry textbooks would be updated because they found out the information was wrong and/or not complete, and should be changed or "updated" as you say.

Biblical texts wouldn't need updating since those facts didn't change. Perhaps you don't like the information provided but that doesn't make the facts different from what was originally stated. AND the example you gave would have come from the Old Testament. The New Testament reveals/contains a completely different mind set. If the OT were to be "updated" that would be changing history/facts. I don't LIKE everything I've read in the Old Testament. However, that doesn't make it untrue or in need of updating.

 

Best I can understand is that they are supposedly "God's word", which may or may not be taken literally, so rewriting them would be upsetting the presumably divinely inspired nature of the texts. How then revisions and what not are reconciled with this idea? Beats me.

Science texts are not static in the same way, they usually are written with the best available evidence and understanding of phenomena.

 

Well there is this religion called Judaism that takes the Old Testament pretty seriously. And Christians print it all in the same binding, so I fail to see your point. This would also be akin to saying "Well only the first half of my textbook contains bad ideas, so lets keep printing the whole thing with no changes."

 

Since it seems you are interested in "all the facts", lets try then to not take things out of context...

__________________________________________


Below is my entire quote:


First off, chemistry textbooks would be updated because they found out the information was wrong and/or not complete, and should be changed or "updated" as you say.

Biblical texts wouldn't need updating since those facts didn't change. Perhaps you don't like the information provided but that doesn't make the facts different from what was originally stated. AND the example you gave would have come from the Old Testament. The New Testament reveals/contains a completely different mind set. If the OT were to be "updated" that would be changing history/facts. I don't LIKE everything I've read in the Old Testament. However, that doesn't make it untrue or in need of updating.

________________________________________________________

I have no idea how you went from my statement of your example coming from the OT to where you arrived with Judaism and the rest . I also said I didn't like every single thing I have read in the OT and that also has no bearing on this subject that you brought up.

I have a few very good Jewish friends, and I can assure you I am well aware of "Judaism". My favorite book in the entire bible is Isaiah. My 2 favorite people in the bible (aside from Jesus) are Moses and David.

Just as you fail to comprehend my very simple statements, I fail to see what is so difficult for you to understand about there not needing to be updates to what is considered fact by those that believe.

 

There are many books written by religious people from many cultures over just the last 50 years or so. Many propose some kind of modernized version of their particular belief system. It's not that modern writers on religion are just repeating what was said in the middle ages.

It's true that such would be reformers often face much opposition from entrenched views, but the same is true in many fields.

 

I think it is important to note that there are books being written currently (in the last 50 years or so) that address what is considered updates...such as finding the Dead Sea Scolls for instance.

There are also books such as the Lost Books of the Bible / Great Rejected Texts that have not always been available to "regular" lay people.

None of those books is a revision of the original. It is added information.

The modernized versions you refer to reflect each author's thoughts, as I see it. Each author states what they see as updates as well as any new information/evidence without proposing to "update" the whole.

 

What I had in mind was modern progressive writers on religion who are saying that the way we understand religion can change, and the way in which we respond to it.

I think that for Christians, the Bible has to stay as it is without subtraction or addition. But since the early days of Christianity in the Roman Empire, there have always been theologians, philosophers and scholars writing about it, seeking to explain it. That continues to this day, so whilst you wouldn't expect new additions to the Bible, the volume of writings about it is ever growing.

In a more general way, I think that really you only get new scriptures when you get a new religion. Or like in India, a new development in the existing religion. Thus in the mediaeval period, new scriptures, the Puranas and Tantras emerged along with new forms of Hinduism.
Buddhism too has many layers of scriptures accumulated over a long time span. And really, the OT is the same, although it may have been written down at a particular time, certainly the stories in it must have come over centuries.

 

BlackBillBlake, I agree with everything you said.

 

Nope, it is because of exactly what Lynn posted.

LOL.........how silly

 

The charge of taking you out of context is out of place. You clearly think that it is relevant to the point I am arguing that the story I was talking about came from the Old Testament. I do not think it is relevant. I quoted you and responded directly to that quote. Nothing out of context there. But feel free to join NoxiousGas in accusing me of whatever you would like, it says nothing about the merit of my position.

Really? Regardless of whether you agree with it I would think the argument is obvious and direct. My point is that to say that scripture needs no revision because that nasty story is from the Old Testament is to ignore that there is an entire religion built on that half of scripture. The same logic applies to the King James version. You can try to distance the New Testament from the Old, but there they are in the same binding, waiting for anyone to take them seriously. Ultimately though my post was meant to be humorous.

This charge is spot on. I absolutely do not comprehend your statements, as simple as you claim them to be. From my perspective you have described a very irrational and undesirable position. I suppose then our views differ so greatly we have no recourse but to agree that this is the matter's crux.

 

What did I say that is in conflict with what Lynn said?

 

Guerilla, I don't think the revisions, per se, change the story nor add additional knowledge. I do NOT believe that the new editions, the RKJV, NRKJV (and you get where I'm going with this) change the deepest meaning of the scripture...I've read so many different things through the years, of all different types.

The beauty of the lyrical language in Isaiah and some Psalms expressed in a "plain" KJV has more beauty and "says" more to me but I don't believe the "revisions" (so far) change what is said. It is just the way in which it is said.

Maybe Nox was talking about where you said "revisions being reconciled"...

I can't speak for the future but Thus Far, the "revisions" offered on the KJV don't change any facts. To me, it takes away much of the beauty of the word but that isn't what we're talking about.

Reconciling suggests one has had to adjust their beliefs due to changes in the book of beliefs, no?

 

1) There are passages in the bible that most christians find disgusting

2) christians love the bible

3) christians do not remove those disgusting passages from their bibles

That is the point of this thread. Why?

For those who think the bible is the literal word of god, that's understandable. But many christians don't think it is. So for those christians, why keep those passages in their? What is being preserved?