\u201cReminding you that all religions were once new\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The original phrase is applied to music, and the point is that all the music we label \u201cclassical\u201d today was once simply \u201cmusic\u201d. Classical is what has stood the test of time, but just because it is old, or because it has remained popular, doesn\u2019t automatically mean it is \u2018better\u2019. Indeed, it doesn\u2019t seem clear that there is any objective way of assessing \u2018betterness\u2019 in music. Is religion much different? If so, how?<\/p>\n
Certainly one approach is to judge them by their \u201cfruits\u201d. But then why aren\u2019t more people flocking to Jainism? And why haven\u2019t blemished in Christianity\u2019s history led to the revocation of its \u201cclassical\u201d status?<\/p>\n
I decided to post on this because of a recent article by Michael Shermer about Scientology<\/a>, which some of my colleagues have been discussing. Is there anything different about mocking or threatening a new<\/em> religion, as opposed to doing the same towards a well-established older one?<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-1007838336555600096?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"