Comments on: The New Mysticism

By: MichaelBingham

MichaelBingham — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:53:42 +0000

Uh, you do realize that Vlad is not anywhere close to being atheist, right? Besides that, he probably is one of the most open-minded people I know. He just hates it when Christianity is "watered down" to make it appeal to broader base. Christianity has to stand for SOMETHING, or as we've seen, so–called Christians will fall for anything.

By: ReknihtSdrawkcab

ReknihtSdrawkcab — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:16:00 +0000

I was about to read your post on Karen Armstrong. I stopped at the 1st paragraph, but I’m going to critique your post anyway, justified by the fact that I’m familiar with you line of lazy thinking, I have no idea who you are, and I'm not going to read any info about you. But that doesn’t really matter. I’ve not heard whatever close minded sensation is at the top of the atheist charts, but I can already tell you it’s bad.

By: sonny valore

sonny valore — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:56:21 +0000

i agree conservatism is a bigger draw, from rush limbauugh to bill oreilly, than have a bigger following than any liberal counterpart but i still think people water down religion to accomodate as many as possible even though like you said it isnt working..

By: VladTodor

VladTodor — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:23:02 +0000

Your country is the US? To me it seems that religious conservativism is a bigger draw than liberalism, in part because of the psychology of rigorous dogma and the straight answers of conservative churches. It's the more liberal denominations that are bleeding parishioners. If the watering down is part of a strategy to fill seats, I don't think it's working. But I would be interested in your perspective if you see things differently.

By: sonny valore

sonny valore — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:09:55 +0000

Yea I agree religions have been watered down to accomadate everyone so that god can be everything to anyone regardless of your moral fabric. I think this trend is mostly in our country where our population has become more and more diverse and institutions wanting to fill seats.

By: VladTodor

VladTodor — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:09:56 +0000

No religion is ever truly static, individually or corporately. I don't begrudge change, just certain directions, I suppose. On keeping the nice parts, yes, you're right. Even beyond that, the less seemly parts may be retained, but pushed to the side in a re-oriented theology. There's a lot to say about that, too.

By: Ted_Gee_Seal

Ted_Gee_Seal — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:41:21 +0000

I wonder, hasn't all of Christianity to one degree or another embraced the idea of keeping the nice parts, while dropping the less easily defensible?

Very few if any of us practice Christianity the way we did when the words were new, or even when the Bible as a collection of books was new. Is this change in practice robbing religion of its content, or just acknowledging that each stage of religious growth has its own context?

I like to feel that there's plenty to talk about in that conversation, because religion surely can't stay static when its central figure is infinite.