Affecting truth by “reforming” religion

Canada Free Press ^ | 10/28/15 | Dru Kristenev

[snowcloud]

Is there such a thing as a “reform” religion? Given some thought, a number of questions crop up regarding what is actually a reform religion, particularly when applied to the mosques, synagogues and churches that claim to practice their faith under the auspices of newness.

Starting with this: If one believes in the religion, yet thinks it must be reformed (changed, re-“formed”) in order to be applicable to their lives, then is not the act of reforming the “truth,” making it a new or different truth, in fact, denying that the original “truth” was truth at all

Yes, it sounds convoluted, but mull it over. If an adherent to a religion cannot subscribe to the founding tenets of that belief system, then why follow it in the first place, or follow it just far enough to want or feel compelled to change it? (Get used to this as the whole article is one query after another.)

Is it tradition? The individual feels duty-bound to walk the same road as his ancestors even though he disagrees with the doctrine?

Is it shame? That should the person turn to another faith that speaks more to his belief system he would be shamed by family and friends, even threatened were he to leave a militaristically dogmatic religion such as Islam?

[fwdude]

I thought “reform” always meant Calvinism? That has been my experience when looking into any religious group.

[FreedomOfExpression]

Calvinistic Muslims?

[sparklite2]

Makes me appreciate cafeterias.

"Eat your broccoli, dear."
"I say it's spam, and I say the hell with it."

[Mrs. Don-o]

I never understood the Modernist "reform" Catholics who fail to do the obvious and become Episcopalians. And that includes, all-caps, our "reforming" bishops and other heresiarchs.

Instead, they're hell-bent (that's what I said) on deforming Catholicism into something in their own image and likeness.