Here is part of an article by by Audrey Barrick of the Christian Post Reporter, Tue, Dec. 04 2007 09:34 AM ET

I am asking Christians--What do you think? Is this the direction we are moving in? Is it a good move or a bad one? Can we, should we, do we have the right to redefine Christianity?



Doesn't this sort of sound like many of the views on this forum?

Art

BillingsDreamer,

Integrity, in the sense of being whole, is inseparable from honest and thorough introspection: an indispensable dimension to 'facing the music' of 'life as it is', rather than how we 'feel' it should be, accordng to our preferences.

In posting this article and raising the questions you pose, I salute the integrity of your post.

Introspection and constructive 'collective-self-criticism' takes honesty and courage. I ackowledge you for that.


you asked:



Is this the direction we are moving in?
IMO, it is an objective 'polaroid' of the current state of things 'Christians' in th US. Do you have reservations about the findings Art ?

Is it good or bad?
In matters of objective findings, it is just what it is. If one roots for the healthy progress of Christianity in the US, it can't be good news. The movement shows all the signs of an implosion, an 'organic' decline.

Do we have the right to redefine Christianity? It is being redefined, and a small number of Christians from within IMO, the more militant 'fundamentalists', are the catalyst, at the source of the 'redefining'.

But more to the point IMO, I don't so much think that it is a matter of Chrisitianity being redefined, as much as it is a matter of perversion of Christianity by the few.

And I mean perversion in the sense of a movement, conscious or otherwise on the part of militant Christians, 'away from' from Christianity's quintessential 'Christ-like' spirit and nature, and opting for barbaric tactics of suppressing the 'opposition', retaliating against word of criticism, etc., everything 'un-christian'.



I know, I for one have voiced my views, denouncing the attitudes and 'tactics' of the few radicals on these threads, that are 'redefining' the image of Christianity in a very poor light for a large number of silent 'watchers' whom are left with a hostile and aggressive picture Christianity, light years off its essence.

And, in my humble opinion Art, the sample of what goes on through these threads, is a fair reflection of what goes on elsewhere.

Very interesting thread. Thank you.

My personal views on this article is, it is right on. My personal experience with Christians be they Chatholic or Baptist as I was raised both, are that they have not moved forward with the times.

My personal experiences have not shown well on the religious and mostly from the religious leaders or clergy.

I believe they should keep their religion at home and out of the government as it has no place in the government i.e. separation of church and state. The constructors were wise with this one.

If there is hope of the religion surviving among more than the fanatic, the churches and teachings need to move forward into these times.

you may not want to answer Art but I get the feeling that you do not belong to a regular church. Is that right?

it seems that way. america is a place of religious freedom and most countries with religious freedom tend to slant towards an overall LACK of faith (the UK for example), or occurances like this, where people pick and choose teachings they like, or can already go with, and ignore the parts they don't. relativism rules and real truth is becoming less and less important. personally it bothers me, but i dont think i can do anything about it, nor should i force my views on others. the only thing i CAN do is help someone out when they think they are a christian, and clearly not doing christians things or living by god's word. other than that, all i can do is follow christ the best way i know how, helping people to understand my faith if they're interested. and leave the rest up to god.

Do you like regular or crunchy? I usually like regular but ya know, sometimes crunchy just has a real appeal. How about you?

So, If I get you right, you see Christianity as more than one of a number of different products on the religious market shelf--regular, stale, militant, fundamental, heretical, or maybe, just crunchy.

People can shop for the religion or church that agrees with them. It depends on what they feel like choosing. Thus, your question does play into my reason for posting.

My reason was actually directed to those who profess Christianity. Consider that Jude said to earnestly strive for the faith once delivered. What is that faith?

It certainly is very distant from what we see today. The faith has evolved, adapted, and modified itself so that it might not be recognizable to the original Christians. In fact, it might be on the shelf, and look so outdated, so unattractive, and so primitive that no one would ever want to choose it.

The ancient faith did not try to change the world through politics. It was one in which the people sincerely sought to change themselves as they looked forward to a time when Christ would return and take over the governments of this world.

They did not try to force conversions on people. They did not kill, torture, or threaten anyone like in the inquisition or crusades.

They did not hold rallies, marches, or economic boycotts to protest the sins of those outside the church.

The ancient faith was not focused on how enjoyable their religion was, but were focused on seeking the truth and living that truth in spite of persecution or even death.

The ancient church sincerely studied to know the Scriptures, and be assured they were not misled.

The ancient church did not think that religion was about them. It was not about how they felt. It was about the Almighty God, and fulfilling His plan for mankind.

The church has evolved. Most posts so far, seem to think that this is a good thing. I actually question if it is a good thing. For example, Jesus said when I return will I find faith on the earth.

Jesus did not mean, would He find people who believed on Him. There are millions who believe on Him. In fact those who believed on Him in His day, sought to kill Him. (comp Jn 8:31 and jn 8:40.)

He knew that people would believe on Him. They would sign tracts and so on, but His question was would they believe Him? Would He find "THE" faith when He returned. Would He find people who were living true to the faith?

It is a legitimate thought

Art

I don't have a regular church anymore as I have moved and haven't been able to find one. But God is still an important part of my life. I hope that someday we will see faith back in America like my grandparents saw. Faith that was strong and unwavering. Guess I'm just a dreamer.

Art,

As you may already know, I’m not a Christian, although I was at one time. In fact, most of my family was, and still are Christians. A few of my uncles are preachers and some of my cousins have become preachers. They are all Free Methodists, and quite reasonable in their approach to religion. None of them are radical fanatical. They don’t preach fire and brimstone. They aren’t hot to proselytize, at least not outside of their churches, although they will certainly encourage anyone who exhibits an interest in their religion. They are quiet, meek and yet quite devout. Christianity is part of their daily lives, not merely left at the doorstep of the church.

You’d think that being raised by such a reasonable group of clearly loving and non-pushy Christians that I would have naturally become one of them for life. However, I should maintain also that while most of my family was like this, I also had some uncles that were non-believers. Ironically, these uncles were clearly the most intelligent members of our family, and recognized to be so by everyone within the family. They were also quite decent men. Just because they were non-believers doesn’t automatically mean that they were rowdy trouble-makers. On the contrary they were quite positive and productive and lived lives that were every bit as ‘saintly’ as any of the believes in my family.

My reasons for rejecting the religion had nothing at all to do with my own personal experience with the Free Methodist Church. My reasons for rejecting the religion actually came to pass after I decided to teach it! I was quite young at the time (still in my teens) and I decided that if I was going to teach the religion to others I had better have all the answers correct, so I turned to Bible study in the very real and naïve belief that I would indeed find all of the answers to any possible question.

Well, what actually came to pass is that I once I started asking legitimate questions of the Bible (not question to denounce it, but sincere questions to support it), I realized that the answers were not to be found within the book anywhere. After several years of Bible study (and conversations with preachers) I finally realized that I could not teach the religion to someone else because the questions they would ask cannot be answered. I also realized at that time that since the answers were not forthcoming then why should I believe it myself? And at that point I realized that there was no reason to believe it outside of a mere desire to believe it, and that was not good enough. So I rejected it as being without merit.

HOWEVER,….

I had always believed in ‘god’ for reasons I can’t easily explain. I was intelligent enough to realize that just because the biblical stories have no merit that doesn’t mean that there’s not ‘god’. That’s simply the wrong picture of god, and that’s how I accepted this. So I was able to toss the Bible out as mythology without the need to reject god.

I’ve never rejected the idea of a ‘creator’, but I do reject the biblical stories, at least as having been from god.

In any case, I’d rather see the religion be changed, than abandoned completely. I think a modern reasonable version of Christianity would be a good thing. A version that isn’t so radical. A version that can accept modern scientific ideas, and social civil rights.

Personally, I’d rather see the religion ‘replaced’ altogether with a more pantheistic view of the world. But in all honestly, I think that’s a bit much to expect of the masses, especially over a short period of time. So seeing Christianity being adapted to a more modern view of life I think is a good thing and I welcome that notion. Although, there will always be the radical fundamentalists. I’m not sure how the Bible can be used as is with out ‘rewriting’ it which seems to me to not make much sense.

My only point is that I would like to people to realize that it doesn’t need to come down to either Christianity or Atheism. The choice just doesn’t need to be like that. We can believe in god and a creator without associating that creator with the stories that came out of ancient Mediterranean mythologies. If only people can realize that they can get out from under this mythology without losing touch with God it would be a wonderful thing. And if modifying Christianity slowly over a longer period of time is the pathway for that realization then I’m all for it.

I personally believe that the hardcore fundamentalist approach to the biblical stories can only bring grief and hardships between people. Surely this can’t be from a loving God.

Like I say, I believe in God. I just don’t believe in the biblical version of God is all.

If you'll excuse the interjection of an atheist, I would like to make some comments based on personal experience.

In the late 60's early 70's, (imagine "That 70's Show" on TV),
sitting around in the basement, testing our intellect, pressing our insights, sharing and comparing our knowledge, mostly based on experience. Music of the era in the background, we discussed "confidentailly" our religious views. Confidentially; because they would not have been accepted by our elders, NONE of them:view or elders.

By the mid 70's to early 80's as, young adults, many had broken 'faith' with the ritualistic 'chuch' and doctrine of their youth - most of my friends were more openly admitting their agnosticism, but never overstepping the threshhold to atheism - except for me!

As this generation became parents, many of those I mentioned went back to church, mostly wondering if this was not the best moral ground for thier children. NOW - between the final years of the baby-boomers and the offspring of the baby-boomers, was a middle ground generation (generation X). They supplied the VOICE that spoke out.

The half-hearted and often hypocritical attemps, of the baby-boomers, to return to 'church' combined with the more open nature of generation X allowed 'our children' question, openly and revolt, if needed, against much of the ritual and doctrine.

Today, I have many friends and peers, stretching the length of my life time, and the majority of my current friends are in thier late 20's up to 38 (generation X), and I am fortunate that my son has included me in his life and so I know many young adults between 19 and 25 - the generation of the end of the baby-boomers.

I believe that generation X, who once thought they were a middle ground generation, with insufficient numbers to be considered influential as a generation - has, in fact, harolded by voice and action alone, the changes we see in the 'evolution' of religion.

I have witnessed this change, it has happened, and continues to evolve. No longer a topic discussed in the dark of a basement with peers.

The several posts above mine have made very good and valid points. As this whole scenaro has taken place (over the last 35 year or so)there has, naturally, been an increase in the 'actions' of the fundamentalist factions. It is these activities (actions) that have made those of faith or those questioning 'what to believe' to draw back further from the 'old beliefs'.

While fundamentalism is currently a thorn in the side of many, it is on a bush that no longer bears the flower that makes pollination possible.

It will die - it's just a matter of time and a new belief, with more confomity and broad minded concepts is already taking its place.

Is this a bad thing? Only to those whose ego will not allow them to concede to the evolution at hand, for they will die in the same box that contained the limited scope of thier vision.
That is a sad thing, because this life has so much more to offer.

Hi Art.

I haven't read the responses yet, but I will. I'm sure they are interesting ; certainly to me.

The article touches a lot of bases and the overview does display that a different texture is coming around. Where it goes could be difficult to elucidate more than it complicates the way of life of the Christian experience.

I contemplate the clarity of our witness constantly and am more saddened than joyful about the way we are among ourselves and with others that do not share our excitement and joy. But my personal observance is always paramount to me. I'm much more conscious of my own walk than how others walk, primarily for the witness I have of the Lord responding to favorable aspects of His word in us, and working with what we each give Him to work on us with, if that makes any sense.

The history of Christianity is colorful and viewed, it seems, in a billion ways.

I'm most concerned with the Church giving the appearance of Pharisaic indifference towards the Lord, and displaying a dissimulative appearance of being similarly disaffected and erroneously depicting personage at the expense of selfless devotion to a faith, hope and love that projects grace, mercy and peace to all of mankind. One of my greatest sorrows is the man based self preservation of the Church that confounds the denial of the flesh at the heart of what gives us a greater access to the promises of God in Christ.

Despite all of the wrinkles and warts and imperfections we bear in His name, He is always enthroned in His truth and reaching out to all and that's the beauty of His Word.

It prospers in the light of day and the darkest hours of the night. Always powerful and never taken lightly ( hot or cold ), as indifference.

Thank you for the refreshingly honest and sincere post. Forgive me for deleting some of it for brevity. I do want others to read this, and see your honest evaluation.

After stating that you knew a number of non believers in the community you grew up in and they were as decent (actually more decent to me because they were not hypocrites) as the believer, you go on to say:



Of course I totally agree with you. I could not teach their religion. It is full of holes, and makes no sense. It cannot be supported by the Bible. In fact, the Bible condemns their beliefs.



Here is where we part. I don't understand what makes you think the Bible's history if not valid? Perhaps you could not answer the questions. I would be very interested in the questions that you could not answer. What are they? --- just a couple at a time thanks!



I have never seen the Bible in conflict with science, except when Science did not know the earth not set on top of something, and was round, when the bible said this was the case thousands of years before science discovered it.

In this idea of yours, you would like to make up a religion that fits you. To me it would be you building your own mythology. I understand your angst with the religious community, but where would truth be in all that you created? How do you know it is the truth? Is it just what you feel? Or, is it just what you want? It becomes so subjective.

What are you commandments? None? Have all the sex you want? You understand my point. I don't think you will ever find a higher code of morals than that in the commandments.



Of course it is not. The idea that we can force our religion on others, or that our beliefs make us superior to to others is the basis for so much evil in the world. Witness the Islamic terrorists. What could be worse? Only the crusades and inquisition. Hitler was religious--a believer in the occult.

You never see this in the New Testament of the Bible. I have seen people turn on their own family. They order their members to ostracize loved ones. It is nuts. But it is not in the Bible.

I am not saying that God is a mush mush God. He is not mocked. He punished, and He rid a corrupt people out of the land because they cast their children in the fire to worship their god, but that was done in love. Further, people don't even understand God's plan. They don't know that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, those of the flood and so on will live again, and get a chance to do it right.

They don't know the bible or the God of that bible even though they teach it, as you say, and said very well, they simply chose to believe it, not because they proved it. And the bible tells us to prove all things and hold fast what is true. But they start finding things that are true and they contradict what they believe, and so they feel they must stamp it out.

This is what Paul did before his conversion. It is in everyone of us to a degree. We all have the defense mechanism and we will hurt others to protect what is ours. That is human, not God like, and not what the Bible advocates.

So, give me a question I can't answer, so I can do down the path you went.

art

I agree, it will die, but I am convinced that the atheists have made much more of a contribution than you admit. There are hundreds of books out now, teaching that Jesus did not exist and showing apparent contradictions in the Bible. The belief that the founding father had that God was to be a part of government, but that religion was not, has been reversed. Now people actually believe that the founding fathers intent was not to include God in our country's governance. We must teach evolution, and can't teach creationism. We are pushing God out of the country and the thoughts and minds of its citizens. Celebrities are challenging things publicly. I remember hearing of one lady accepting an award and stating that there would be no thank you Jesus, but rather, she earned it and it was her god. Bill Mayer, has done a lot to promote anti Bible and anti God thinking, and it is becoming so widespread that I personally believe it will not be long until those who profess Christianity will be a laughing stock.

Atheists are not hiding. Many atheists have become radical and assertive, and now are beginning to replace the fundamentalists in their fervor to convert others.

It is interesting, but painful for me to watch.

I love the God of the Bible.

Art

Me too--the Billings Dreamer

Art

I already feel that I have higher morals than taught in the Bible. However, I don’t claim to abide by them as a saint. Having moral values, and living up to them are two entirely different things. But at least I have the value system in place. If I stray from it I pay, and usually that payment is deliver in this life either through actual physical retribution brought about by my complacently, or via emotional retribution, even if that only amounts to the fact that I have remorse that I have failed to honor my own values.

I will give you a quote by Albert Einstein on this one, and I totally agree with it. I never felt a need to turn to religion for moral guidance.

“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” - Albert Einstein

If I knew with absolute certainty that there is not God that wouldn’t change my moral values one iota. In fact, if I knew with certainty that there is a God that wouldn’t change my moral values either because my moral values are already compatible with what God requests. But again, I remind you that this doesn’t mean that I necessarily live up to them like a saint.

Let me take this a step further as well,…

Let’s consider the original Ten Commandments vs. and then teachings of Christ.


Ten Commandments:

I won’t go into all ten, no need to, let me just consider one of them.

*Honor thy mother and father.

This is certainly a good thing to do, but where’s the reverse?

If you think about it, this command fits in quite well with the idea of a man-made religion where the idea is to keep the population under control. It’s a top-down strategy.

But would the real creator of our universe be thinking like this? Probably not.

Although it makes sense to tell people to honor their mother and father what makes much more sense is to command the parents to respect their children, nurture them, and raise them properly. This is quite obviously missing from the religion. Not to imply that is isn’t in there somewhere, but an all-wise God would have known that his would have fallen to the wayside and therefore would have made it one of the major commandments. It’s oblivious (to me anyway) that charging parents with responsibility of nurturing their children in positive ways is vastly more important than making a commandment to tell children to honor their mothers and fathers. To me this single commandment is a telltale sign that these things were written by men who were interested in control over others and instilling the idea of respecting the ‘elders’.

Now let’s move onto Jesus. As far as I can tell Jesus never taught a single moral value that can’t also be found in most other religions or even in manmade philosophies. Not need to elaborate on that. There simply isn’t anything at all in the New Testament that I don’t personally view as common sense.

Obvioulsy this may not be true for others. But it’s certainly true for me and so why should I be excluded from a religion that is from my creator? I almost feel like I’m being left out when I read the New Testament because I keep shaking my head saying “yes” and then wondering if they will ever get around to telling me something I don’t already know.



So you believe the Bible says these people will be reincarnated? May I ask where it states this?



Well, you may be satisfied by answers that I do not find satisfying but I’ll give it a shot.

Jesus died for our sins.

Why?

Why was this necessary?

And more to the point, who was “paid” by this act?

Keep in mind here, I’m not asking who supposedly ‘benefited’ from it. I’m asking who was being ‘paid’ for the sins of man? The Devil? Be careful how you answer, because if it was the devil who was being ‘paid’ that opens up a whole other can of worms that can become extremely messy.

On the other hand, if it wasn’t the devil who was being ‘paid’ the who the hell was being ‘paid’?

It certainly wasn’t mankind himself.

Who does that leave? God?

Why would God need to pay himself to forgive the sins of man?

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

The most common suggesting to answer this problem is that God was just showing that he can play by his own rules. But once again, that just opens up a whole other can of worms that has an endless bottom of even more unanswered questions.

You may find an answer that suits you, but I’m 58 years old, and I’ve been asking this question quite sincerely since my teens and I have not found a satisfactory answer yet.

Finally, along these same lines, there is often a mention of Christ having been the ‘sacrificial lamb’ of God to men. But this is absurd. The idea of ‘sacrificial lambs’ was popular in many manmade religions and folklore even many that were far removed from any knowledge of Christianity. This notion of ‘sacrificial lambs’ to appease the angry gods is quite popular in all forms of mythologies and religions.

However, even if it is a valid notion for appeasing gods. How it would work the other way around? God needs to make a sacrificial lamb to man to ‘appease him’ for his sins? This doesn’t even make any sense. So the idea of a God giving a ‘sacrificial lamb’ to appease men is totally nonsensical.

Finally on the same thesis:

If sin is nothing more than disobeying God, and sins can be washed away by nothing more than God’s forgiveness, then why couldn’t God have just forgiven man for all sins and just leave it at that. What with the ‘payment’ of dying on a cross. Who was paid? Who was the ‘sacrifice’ made to appease?

This is central to Christianity, if you can’t answer this question with a clear and unambiguous answer you may as well toss the whole rest of the book away because this is the climax of the whole story.

Who was being ‘paid’ for the sins of man? Why couldn’t God simply forgive those transgressions? Why all the blood and guts? Just for drama?

Edited to add: Just for the record, talk about death being the 'wages of sin' is just mumbo jumbo and addresses nothing. That's just a wordy way to try to avoid the real question. Because the bottom line is that God can supposedly forgive sins and wash them away. The idea that there are 'wages' associated with sins that are 'beyond' God's control is also a nonsensical idea (at least to me it is and I'm the one who isn't buying these kinds of answer. )

As far as I'm concerned there is no answer in the Bible that makes sense. That's my stance and like I say, I've been at this for over 40 years now. It's highly unlikely that anyone on these forums is going to tell me something I haven't already heard a million times before.

He paid our debts, abra, not his own.

We apparently had the block to open blessing put up by an usurper.

The usurper was superceded and accusations against us dropped as moot at the heart of the matter.

There was and is and will not be a debt to be paid.

The note was counterfeit and never legal.

Get it?

very few do.



Contact was always externalized between God and man. That's the story.

But now it is an internal communication.

Those embracing truth can embrace Christ, for his truths.

But an untruthful and disengenuous person will refuse any acknowledgement of truth in Christ.

Truth being the principal and the principle.

Now the church is mad at me again, but oh well....

I understand that Wouldee. But that's not the question.

The question was who was paid?

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

Where did all these atheists come from? If a list were to be provided of every individual with theistic beliefs down to atheism – atheist would not even be close to the median. I will admit that my personal experience is limited to time and place, but I was extremely well read, observant and a good listener. I have lived in several states, though almost all were mid-west, and most of that time within or close proximity to the Bible belt. These were not places and those were not times, when one freely admitted to being atheist. It is only in more recent times that those who sought shelter under the ambiguity of agnosticism have felt free enough to get off that fence.



True enough, though I don’t believe all these writings are indicative of atheists as much as they are of the disenfranchised believers. Many still believe in a god, many in Jesus, they only reject the doctrine of individual religious organizations.

I have spent quite a bit of time reviewing the earliest documents and historical records pertaining to the development of the United States. I began this venture at the age of 12, when a class in government caught my interest. I don’t believe those who had the greatest influence in drafting the constitution ever meant for this government to be inclusive of any particular religious belief within its foundations. They were, themselves, a diverse group with regards to belief. For that reason, and because they understood the persecution that existed surrounding beliefs, did they create an environment to allow every person freedom of choice and the right to exercise that choice without persecution. Its not that I ‘want’ to see it that way, for at the beginning of this education, I was still attempting to resolve my own belief issues. In fact, I can still remember at that early age, feeling a great admiration for those who would draft such equality, even if it meant that ‘theirs’ might not be the belief of everyone. Continued research has only served to substantiate what my original discoveries led me to. I still admire those who can keep their own faith without denying others of their right to their own faith.



This has been discussed in several previous threads. The purpose of public education is to produce adults, capable of critical thinking, with the ability to research, theorize, verify, validate and so on. The field of science requires those involved to meet the challenges of that course of study, with an open mind, without bias, and with flexibility to change. These are not qualities creation science has to offer. This would not be a likely course of study to produce the most effective scientists. In the same vein, endowing our children with these same qualities, no matter their chosen field of endeavor, is a benefit to all, with the possible exception of those who choose to limit the ‘possibilities’ by submitting to fundamentalist doctrine.



I will agree; recently, due to the great amount of information we are now exposed to, and have easy access to, that there are many more ‘public’ avenues from which to ‘preach’, even for atheists. However, those same public forums are available to all. So perhaps, for the first time in history, the religious fundamentalists must share equal time and space with those of opposing views. Now, more people are exposed to more than one religious view and with an education that includes the ability to analyze, theorize, verify, and validate, many are finally able to determine through their own research what beliefs they choose to follow.

Lest you misunderstand me, as a person, let me assure you that I am not one of the ‘hardcore’ atheists you refer to, and most of those I know, are like me. My admiration of those who came, so long, before me led to my believe in the righteousness of their thoughts. Each person has the right to determine what they believe, based on the open availabiltiy of choices, and to exercise that belief as far as it hurts no others or detracts from the equity of the law that the whole of a society is bound to. For these reasons, I could not abide in a country where those who profess any belief to be a “laughing stock”.

It is my experience that belief in a higher power is the norm; it is only the restrictive nature of the fundamentalist view that is being denied; not the belief.

That’s a nice quote.

I always say the following;

“If you can’t separate your God from your religion then there is no difference.” - Abracadabra

Ahhh let us see. Even the most remote tribes believe in something other than themselves. Outside of themselves. Historically, religions change, move, evolve. People migrate and culture changes. Why would religion NOT in some way shape or form? Look at every religious sect in the world. There are so many offshoots from the original intent, why is this a perplexing question? Paganism (do not confuse the common day terminology in the nuvo sense) begat Judaism begat Christianity begat Islam. In the mix is a smattering of Taosism, Buddhism, Hinduism, sacred rites of Native Americans, en so on. Ahso...languages also change. Latin in Catholicism, Persian, Arabic, now Farsi...but for religion. Ahh en the issue of Kurdish now. Remember...language IS power. Heavily tied to it. And we can even discuss the evolution of modern day Wikken practices. "Why" is not the question.
Now breath.....
Then take the word philosophy and somehow intermingle it with the word religion. Religions are philosophies...ways of life. Whether ingrained in daily life, habitual, or a passe moment. Someone's coffee in the morning on the porch or a holy war. Take your pick. CHANGE WILL HAPPEN EN IT DOES FOR A REASON. The critical danger in our culture is that desensitization. supposition, and apathy cause some chaotic change. Less calm. Less spiritual. Less settling to allow us to be the change we want to see in the world around us. It all comes down to free will. I never could get for sure if it is "Peace to all men of good will" or "Peace and good will to all men." I hear it so differently so many places and realize there IS a difference. Ahhhhh that is another topic all together.