Two aspeccts of religion

I don't normally write about religion probably because I am not too sure one philosophy is static enough to maintain a continuous course. I peeves me when people talk about culture as a static object. Any religion faces this eternal dilemma : dogma v inclusion. For instance, when the protestant movement was started by this exact conflict of ideas.

It is delusional for any religion to assume that status quo will maintain over the years. Let me illustrate this example in Hinduism. Hinduism, for the uninitiated is home to many gods. Even the chief god changes over time. For instance, when Hinduism was practiced (initial few centuries or maybe many centuries) as in the times of most archaic of texts, the Rg Veda, Indra was the chief god. However, the power of Indra gave way to other gods as the Aryans settled down into more organized societies and the natural wonder of thunder did not hold its sacred mysticism. Indra has a huge number of hymns, 280 times compared to Vishnu(6) and Shiva(5). (footnote:I hate the Aryans out of India theory without proof. I feel national pride is one thing but it should never be mixed with facts/science. ) Compare that with say Yajur Veda which has a dedicated Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana. What happened ? what caused the tectonic shift in the concept of the main deity, probably the most fundamental facet of any religion. One word, Change. This is not to say Jesus will soon be replaced in Christianity. The main distinction is Christianity is directly associated with Christ. But, Hinduism is not about any one god. It is not Vishnu or Indra who make up the chief tenet of hinduism. Hinduism made them Gods, not the other way around.

Anyways, let us analyze the changes that caused these. First, nomadic lifestyle of the aryans changed to more fixed lifestyle of organized society. Organized society bought about a new class of dedicated professionals who could solely concentrate on the theology and philosophy which is not possible in a nomadic society where everyone has to contribute to the tribe. Change in lifestyle brings about change in religion. The problem is there is always a fraction of the group which is unable to bring themselves to adopt to this. Change can be gradual, over hundreds of years as in case of Indra, or over a few decades as in the case of sati being banned. We are seeing similar changes around us. We hear this culture war around us which range from silly as women wearing jeans to college being a drain on the integrity of our culture to something very serious like how to best remove the stigma of the casteist society.

For someone to say that culture/religion is a monolithic structure and one can and should never change it is utter bullshit