Hi again,
rereading my earlier post, I said the following...
>>>
Think of Jesus as a savior of all people and all times. Those who were around BC got a dose of his Good Stuff retroactively
>>>
Thinking it over, I'm not sure if I can affirm this or not. I'm a little confused about the Before Christ / After Christ significance. If anyone really is interested I guess I could find out more info from somewhere.
Maybe someone else around here knows...
But moving along...
richlevy said...
>>>
The Vatican has a problem in that, if they come down too hard on other religions, people go around committing hate crimes and atrocities. If they are too accomodating and inclusive, they become less unique and run the risk of losing their identity and message in a sea of multiculturalism. This document was written in 2000 and basically says "we're going to play nice, but let's not forget who's top dog around here".
>>>
The goal of the Vatican is to evangelize the world, aka spread the Good News. I agree that if this is done 'heavy handed' then it is counterproductive. Take the Jehova's Witnesses for example. They are a very heavy handed in the way they spread their 'good news', and I think it is very counterproductive as it makes them look bad in the eyes of other religious people who disagree with them.
I'm not sure what you mean by accomodating and inclusive, maybe you can explain more.
>>>
However, if you've ever read anything about 'brand identity', you can see the issues they have to deal with.
quote:From an interactive website to a business card, a brand must be recognizable, differentiated and help build customer loyalty.
>>>
I think I can see what you mean, but when you look at every religion closely, you will see their uniquenesses and similarities- you have to research or ask.
I think you are comparing evangelization and business marketing. Yes, there are similarities, but I would say the stakes are pretty high when it comes to shopping for a religion.
To take your analogy, someone who is trying to sell their religion better know what they are selling (or else the buyer should be entitled to a refund!) Sadly, many people don't know their own religion very well, let along other people's beliefs.
>>>
Religion is an idea. It is one idea in a marketplace of ideas.
Anything in a marketplace usually differentiates iteself from the others by branding.
>>>
Can I take an example. Let's look at evolution. The idea of evolution came about with Darwin. Did he decide to market a new brand of idea when he proposed that less evolved animals over millions of years changed and evolved?
Did the person who built on that idea and showed that the engine that powers evolution is in fact these little things called genes decide to break off and form a new sect with this new idea?
These people tossed their ideas out into the world with the evidence they had, and then let people either accept what they said, or reject it.
And then we come to the question of truth. Yes, these folks happen to be preaching something pretty funky with their double helixes and man from monkies ideas, and yes there are alternative ideas that one can choose to believe in place of evolution, but does what one believe
change the truth of evolution? Cut and paste this concept to the discussion of religious truths.
Shopping for religious ideas is looking for a truth to believe in. The fact that there are many different truths being advertised does not change the fact that some are truer than others, and there is one out there that is TRUE.
Hey in all honesty, maybe they are all wrong, but that's not what the RCC teaches, and its not what I try to believe (and that is the word- try - its not always easy)
>>>
Heaven (or enlightenment) is the prize in many of the world's religions. It's the equivalent to the toy suprise inside a cereal box or the frequent flyer miles attached to a credit card. Noone can prove it exists, and everyone understands that those who are rewarded don't usually come back to show those still working towards those rewards (expect in certain instances always witnessed by someone else). In some cases, the desire for confirmation leads to sightings in the frost on a window, a knot in a tree stump, etc.
>>>
I don't have time to post why right now, but I don't agree with the main idea of the above.
>>>
The interesting area in all of this is the effort to treat religion as a science. Religious science is an oxymoron. Religion is based on faith, which is the existence of belief without proof.
>>>
Not quite... I would say that yes, you need faith to believe in any religion. Yes, the proofs used in science can't completely be used to prove ane religion. But I'll tell you this, facts can disprove a religion!
If there was a religion out there that preached that the sun was a giant plush orangutan, I would call any follower of that religion a bona fide looney. On the other hand, I wouldn't call a Buddhist or a Moslim a looney. I might disagree with them, but I wouldn't think they are off their rocker.
There are folks out there that keep preaching the end of the world, and they set a date and time. Some people believe them, and follow their prophet... until the day comes... and the sun goes up and down, and everything is as it always was. These folks just had their religious belief pulled out from under them through rock solid facts.
Then there are those that believe in something despite rock soild facts. Folks that don't believe in evolution, or folks that peg the beginning of the universe at around 6000 BC. These guys all seem to be ignoring a mountain of scientific facts that prove they are wrong.
A true religion is not contradicted by scientific fact.
____
okay folks, fire away
