Welcome to Gaia! ::

Contradicting themselves at different points in time isn't the issue. Any intellectually honest person's beliefs will change over time as evidence and experience leads them to rethink old assumptions.

The issue with certain religious groups isn't that their morality has changed, it's that they won't admit to that fact. If your god is moral and unchanging, then all his past actions must be moral, even if it's something as commonly accepted as immoral as, for example, the mass slaughtering of babies. That leaves you in the position of either burying your head in the sand or outright saying that mass baby slaughter is moral.

This is neither how causality nor logic works. If this is not clear, please examine the case of the following analogy.

If I say "Red is a word describing a color" - then play the telephone game until the end result is "Radish and turds are scribed on the floor" - what part of the corresponding gibberish exactly invalidates the primary statement? In what way do the two statements being different, in any way, shape or form, indicate that either statement is wrong?

Then said religion would need to update.

I believe that Christianity needs to update a Bible or added a newest testament or something.

If you are unable to see the point from that example, then please replace with this example.

Initial phrase "Alex Henshaw has blond hair." Final phrase "Isaac and Shawn has blown there."

Alex Henshaw, in the initial phrase, is entirely made up - so there is no presupposition of truth there. However, there is still absolutely no way to establish truth of that statement by the secondary statement. Point still stands; this is not a valid method of testing falsity.



Of course not.



Why do you assume that a divine truth must be eternal/unchanging? How do you reconcile that point of view with the fact that most religions teach the opposite? What would you even consider an example of a divine truth that is subject to the type of alterations you are describing?

If this is the first time you realized that you were unconsciously assuming this to be an aspect of religion, do you still hold to such a concept now? Why or why not?

Except it is a valid test because again its going to change the context of the original 'unflawed' teaching as far back as they say its unflawed. Before that, sure, it could be like teaching stories culturally passed down. But I was saying mostly for the claim that its unflawed, or consistent, or the unchanging eternal truth etc.

I suppose an eternally consistent god could change its argument to suit the times xp thus change would occur. But thats assuming changes didn't occur to their claims of history, only was added to. Itd only be the case really if their arguments change over time but if the history is inconsistent well, I suppose they flavored history to their perspective? Is that fine to do? I guess others were doing it to. But then this entire point assumes too much and I likely won't remember it next time we argue unless I reread this mound of text.

I suppose flavoring history was in their benefit and why not take advantage of it like most cultures would try to do. But the problem is when people claim its factually sound today when its obviously not the case.

No.
Everything besides history/mythology specifically can be learned in other ways from it. Try again, and yeah, just was curious and so I posted the efforts of my curiosity. It wasn't an aid to an argument I was making.

Its still stronger than your argument.