In the assumption that religion, although practiced by man, is given to him by revelation that is not man.
If we favor something more progressive then the original, what is wrong with the original?
Is it then right to say that the Original is in fact NOT the truest? On what grounds?
Is it then right to say that if something is nearly true of the original, it is sufficient for the achievable objective of that original? On what grounds?
Finally, can the truest form a religion not be conservative and restrictive? On what grounds?
That Which is Only Partially True, is not Completely True. It is either then Not True, or something else...That looks true.
In some, probably most cases the oldest form of religions are the most conservative and restrictive, examples include Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism. In Theravada Buddhism, the oldest Buddhist school, Nirvana is limited to the sangha, or monks. Lay people could only hope for a favorable rebirth and hopefully, eventually be reborn as a monk, then achieve Nirvana. The later schools of Buddhism; Mahayana, Zen, Tibetan, etc., are more liberal and extend the concept of Nirvana to include the lay population; Mahayana Buddhism has more adherents than Theravada. Same goes for Hinduism; the later schools of Hinduism (Bhakti Hinduism especially) are more popular than classical Hinduism. And for Christianity, the Catholic Church taught that people can only develop a relationship with God through the Church. Then the Protestant Reformation occured and subsequent churches emphasize personal relationships with the divine.
If this were true, would original scientific theories be the most true? I’m sure original theories are steeped in mistakes, so surely an original religion would have wrong conceptions of their morality, or their social views. I think everything should reform if it feels it's wrong or could be more logically consistent (for instance, if Christianity reformed away from homophobia, it wouldn't be totally un-Christian