"Original Sin"....Just Another term for our animal nature?

[The Pandector]

IMO what's interesting is that religions change either relatively slowly, or abruptly (by conquest). So the full set of control systems for an integrated society generally won't be "synchronized".

Hypnalis:
You may have noticed me enjoying boundary discussions caused by the effect of science on religion. They happen because science changes much faster than religions can, so there's always some drama while the slower-adapting part catches up. i.e. there's a time element: cultures must adapt, but not too quickly.

I think we're finally nibbling around the edges of something nutritious. There is an unspoken assumption that 'religion' must change over time, that our religious beliefs must evolve along with...

Evolve along with what, exactly? I fully reject the idea that religion must 'keep pace' with human cultures. Quite the contrary, it is often religious belief that reigns in some of our foolish cultures' most self-destructive impulses. When those brakes fail, civilizations crumble. If religions 'kept pace' with cultures, there would be no such braking action at all. But that's not what I want to talk about.

There is a much deeper dispute here, but it doesn't get much play, and I think I know why.

That religions must morph along with the times is a construct of a mind which thinks of religion as a useful ploy. I agree wholeheartedly with this analysis. Non-religious people, in search of political power, will alight on the power of religion every time. Let's face it, fear of eternal hellfire is an unparalleled motivator. Skillful and worldly-wise politicians have been using this ploy since around the time of the first prostitute. No dispute from over here.

As the devil would have it, this is the foundation of the 'history of the church'. However, there is a church that not so many people know about; I'm going to call it 'the body of Christ', which I'll simply define as well-documented in the Bible. This entity and whatever entity the lords of this world are promoting... are not the same thing. Yes, they are much the same, but then, imitation is the name of the game if you hope to attract adherents. At least as confusing is the fact that the impostering is done as much as possible in the midst of the body of Christ. Paul referred to these people as wolves.

So much of our conversation here falls into the devil's trap of conflating the body of Christ with the false edifice referred to as the church. It is certainly a fountain of evidence against actual faith, but believers will strive towards a personal relationship with God. As that relationship forms, the things of this world grow strangely dim and their citizenship is transferred to the kingdom of heaven (not to the edifice). Unfortunately, for the rest of their natural lives, they are saddled with the history of the church as if it were their own. Sadly, not that many believers fully come to grips with the dichotomy between body and church, though it was prophesied.

As for keeping up with the times, maybe the most attractive thing to me about Christianity is that it is timeless. The principles it operates on are eternal. Eternal truths don't need to keep up with the times; the times ought to strive to stay anchored in eternal truths. The false edifice, to continue to attract adherents, must keep up with the times.

 

[Au Naturel]

@Au Naturel

I left evolution out of the human-centric part of that post deliberately, as I said at the end.

Mentioning any science whose name starts with the word "Evolutionary" risks igniting a "Culture War" skirmish these days, and at best the discussions are boring, So I side-step them.

I think we have the same view of the development of religions though. In the past I used "evolution" to describe the process of moving towards ever powerful supernatural figures at the cost of losing their "human archetype" characteristics. But believers of all stripes find that approach even more uncomfortable than the aggressive "New Atheist" approach, so I rarely use it.

FWIW that's because I view religions as a natural side-effect of how human brains work, and things that are natural, evolved, and irrational don't upset me at all. I can simultaneously that all religions are both "right" and "wrong" - my only application to the skill of "double-thinking" that underpins modern politics

Similarly, I think it's natural that moral codes and laws develop to fit the context. So low-tech farmers and nomad hunters will settle on different codes. And more integrated "city-dwelling" societies will need a different set.

IMO what's interesting is that religions change either relatively slowly, or abruptly (by conquest). So the full set of control systems for an integrated society generally won't be "synchronized".

And now, in the 21st century, we've "lost the plot" entirely /lol. Society is becoming more and more intolerant in the name of tolerance. But is in denial of the fact that the whole point of rules for living together is to balance all the different interests and needs /lol.
It's starting to feel like the setup for an antediluvian declining/decaying civilization" High Fantasy novel /lol.

"Uncompromising political discourse", a hallmark of our times, is an oxymoron.

Everything evolves. My thinking evolves. Ideologies and religions evolve. Stability lasts until the environment changes, and then the natural variations that are most compatible with the new situation come to dominate the space.

A paradigm shift happens when the existing thinking lacks the variation needed for the new environment. That's like when a species goes extinct and another species moves in to take the niche. This applies to scientific theories and religions and businesses and technologies and ideologies and even nation states.

I'm not going to argue the evidence for biological evolution. Evolution is the process of achieving homeostasis after an environmental change. It is a mathematical truth. If the environment remains stable for a long time and is disturbed, you get punctual equilibrium. If the environment changes slowly, you can have a steady state evolution.

Politics is the art of compromise and it is the only way to govern a state with citizens holding incompatible views. Losing that does indeed lead to dystopian territory.

 

[The Pandector]

Politics is the art of compromise and it is the only way to govern a state with citizens holding incompatible views. Losing that does indeed lead to dystopian territory.

I agree with the logic, but wonder at the premise. Why does the existence of incompatible views require any response by the state whatsoever? Why is compromise the goal? I don’t feel the need to compromise with positions I’m convinced are in error.

Intellectual homogeneity ain’t a good thing. Defining a center ground which everyone’s beliefs must straddle is the opposite of intellectual freedom.

The only reason a governing body might get involved is when disrespect is involved. You don’t have to respect someone’s opinion, but you ought not disrespect it. When aggressive disrespect is involved, intervention may be justified.

All of this hinges on the meaning of disrespect. I won’t define what disrespect is, but I will say that it includes derogatory labeling of belief groups to assert inferior intelligence and mental instability of those people. Disrespect includes a persistent pattern of misrepresentation by attributing wild beliefs to a group. These behaviors represent a pattern of disrespect, quite similar to the practice of trolling.

Others may have different understandings of disrespect. But, do we really need authority involvement to achieve the goal?

 

[Hypnalis]

@Au Naturel

We're close to a discussion about equivocation here. Accidently I think, so I don't mind in principle.

But I don't engage in that kind of discussion where religion is also involved, even tangentially. So I'd have to violate a personal policy to reply directly.

BTW my policy is due to something that I don't remember ever happening here. It originated from a "playbook" with "anti-atheist" techniques that foolishly suggested claiming that it takes "faith" to disbelieve in something for which there is no evidence. It's easily refuted, but it's polarizing: you have to go in hard to make the point.

I might come back later and reply to part of your previous post.

 

[Au Naturel]

I agree with the logic, but wonder at the premise. Why does the existence of incompatible views require any response by the state whatsoever? Why is compromise the goal? I don’t feel the need to compromise with positions I’m convinced are in error.

I have a strong aversion to civil war over every dispute.

The cases where war is preferable to compromise do exist - existential threats to the state - but are rare. After a compromise, you can always revisit the compromise if you have popular support that the compromise was a bad one. Sometimes you have to accept the people are not with you even though you think God is on your side. Liberal democracies evolve and don't care if you like the direction they evolve in.

Compromise with another nation-state is different from two factions compromising within the same government, which is different from individuals compromising.

If you find yourself losing compromise after compromise, it is usually because you've lost popular support for your position and THAT is your problem, not that compromising is bad. Compromise kept you from being utterly defeated.

Compromise is how everyone gets something of what they want rather than nobody getting anything. The latter often leads to violence. How much each side has to yield depends on the relative strength of their positions. "Correctness" is subjective. (Insert old saying about making law being like making sausage here.)

Even allowing an alternate POV to exist is a compromise. We go to war over the most trivial things. "Live and let live" is a compromise. For some people, it is a bigger compromise than for others.

 

[The Pandector]

I have a strong aversion to civil war over every dispute.

The cases where war is preferable to compromise do exist - existential threats to the state - but are rare. After a compromise, you can always revisit the compromise if you have popular support that the compromise was a bad one. Sometimes you have to accept the people are not with you even though you think God is on your side. Liberal democracies evolve and don't care if you like the direction they evolve in.

Compromise with another nation-state is different from two factions compromising within the same government, which is different from individuals compromising.

If you find yourself losing compromise after compromise, it is usually because you've lost popular support for your position and THAT is your problem, not that compromising is bad. Compromise kept you from being utterly defeated.

Compromise is how everyone gets something of what they want rather than nobody getting anything. The latter often leads to violence. How much each side has to yield depends on the relative strength of their positions. "Correctness" is subjective. (Insert old saying about making law being like making sausage here.)

Even allowing an alternate POV to exist is a compromise. We go to war over the most trivial things. "Live and let live" is a compromise. For some people, it is a bigger compromise than for others.

Words of much worldly wisdom, I’m sure.

But - just to play the angel’s advocate - I don’t understand your limited alternative set. Your first and second paragraphs both offer the same two options; war or compromise. Frankly, disturbing.

However, none of this is sensical until we name the dispute. For instance, I have noticed a number of times on these boards that there is disagreement about certain spiritual matters. Certainly, we would never expect anyone to compromise their religious beliefs for the sake of a relationship with other people. No compromise of positions is necessary.

We’ve all read posts from people who say those religious conversations are pointless because no one ever changes their mind. If your (editorially speaking) point in discussion was to change the other’s mind, then you probably need some sort of win to help you sleep at night. Sounds like war drums in the distance, right?

There are other reasons for discussion with opposing views. Maybe you feel the need to sharpen your thoughts; a rousing discussion can work wonders. That doesn’t require compromise or war.

I’ve also seen people post to put a point of fact on the record. This is important to people with special interests, and also serves the public interest. Similar to this, some people post facts to counter disinformation campaigns, which do not serve the public interest, but are found with alarming frequency in select religious conversations.

People post for all sorts of reasons, but not all of them require compromise or war. One technique useful to avoid having to make the decision between war and compromise: make a point of not demeaning other people or their beliefs. You see, I’m convinced that just about any topic can be discussed, as long as you maintain your determination to keep your thumb out of the other person’s eye. Because, once a thumb is implanted in someone’s eye, they tend to fall back rather easily into their combat training. The funny thing is when the guy with the bloody thumb attempts to blame the dispute on the guy with the bloody eye.

As they say, you learned everything you need to know in kindergarten. Then age and pride kick in.