What will replace Christianity?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I take it as a postulate that mankind, as a collective, is incapable of believing in nothing at all for any length of time. Although Christianity is practically defunct, I can't imagine any of these as acceptable replacements:

Science, or Reason? Aristotle long noted that a great many aspects of human awareness are impervious to reason. Not to mention, most of the "science" advocated by these people can
be dismissed as scientism, which is just a new age fad.

The evolutionary advancement of mankind? Read through any Youtube discussion, and then try to accept this with a straight face.

Oprah style self-help? Pure self-delusion.

Asian religion? For Westerners, who have no connection with the tradition, indeed, have no patience with tradition, and just read a few badly-translated texts, just another new age fad.

Hedonism? Simple escapism, and one that thinking people garner no satisfaction in after
repeated indulgence.

"Spiritual, but not religious?" Another form of self-deception, and a particularly insidious one at that.

I am confident that some mass system will replace all of this, but I have no idea what form it would take ...

Well, pretty interesting question, maybe the most important of the future of the human being. I'm happy to see that some people authorize themselves to think about such questions.

Well, first, concerning Christiannity. Personally, I think it still have some big future but just on the short term. I mean, unless Obama rules all the problems of the world in the years to come, I think things will go worse to worse concerning politics and economy. That would make a lot of despaired people, and more and more as long as it lasts. Despaired people who live in less and less stable societies psychological speaking, and who are more and more emotionally fragile.

I think that some new churches, like the evangelical ones, could profite of that climate to spread a lot, and arround the world, look at what happen in western Africa for example. I think that these evangelical moves, if they wanna spread, they will have to go over their conservatism side, they will have to go over the "Bible belt way to see things". I think they will have to focus on the conscensual things, and to put a maximum on a "charismatic religious way of life". I think they can really spread in that way and I think they can have in the future a political influence that would make think that Bush was an agnostic. The growing of a radical belicose Islam against West/Christiannity would help in this.

Well, I think this can happen but it wouldn't last a long time to me. So, I also think that Christiannity has not a lot of future. It is no more productive of sens and perspectives on the long term, its history is behind it, I think that what I described before could be its "song of the swam", its last firework display, possibly a huge one. But, in the end I think it will blast, and so, in the end, well, Christiannity could seriously decline, and, step by step, maybe finishing as what is zoroastrism now...

What to replace? Well, what is religion useful for in a human society? When you find the answer to this question, you find the answer to yours... That will be the more pertinent, lucid, way, which will be able, by what it would be, to carry the best perspectives on the long term that would do the job, well, so, the strongest way.

That said, I think that Islam is in its end too, and that it would blow up too, after the same kind of spreading than Christiannity, maybe just less charismatic. Would the both go to the "promised armageddon"? Well, some want it on both sides, we can just hope that the fascination for appocalypse wouldn't spread at the point that most of people go in it and so erase the human being from the Earth.

So, if the human being has still some future, I would be very surprised that there would be only one thing to replace. The former religious borders would be mainly down but new ones would arise, arround new things. So there would be several new religions, or at least several ways in the same spirituality (a bit like shiha/sunni in islam or catholic/protestant/orthodox/and so on in Christiannity).

I say in the same spirituality because I personally consider that a religion is a spirituality, that it's a spirituality praticed by several people, which suits with the ethymology of the word "religion". Christiannity, Islam, Bouddhism, and so on, are spiritualities to me. Religions are the ways that humans unified themselves arround them and practice them.

So, in that sens, I disagree with your:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To me, it will be spiritual and religious.

So, once again, to me, the question is: What is religion, and so spirituality, useful for in a human society...?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Jesus Christ himself will replace Christianity.  He is coming very soon.

One would think that after getting burned so many times, you would stop making those predictions:
http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm

nice strawman argument, but my statement in no way set a date.

Mat 25:13 “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming."

Arround Christmas, a TV channel, maybe the best we have in France, a franco-german one named "arte", did a serie of documentaries with high experts of christianism on how did christiannity was born and how it has spread until the middle age. There were 10 episodes, only speeches of historians, very interesting.

Well, I didnt see all episodes but I saw the one which explained how the bible has been built.

What has been cool in the construction of the book is that everybody can find what he wants in it.

There were a lot of christian texts that they possibily could have been put in it. And the balanced people who were those who build the Bible, chose, for the NT, to put some texts giving different ways for Christianism in order to give to believers the most large vision of witnesses of Jesus' teaches. So, one can cite Mathew, the other John, the other Mark, and so on. Maybe it won't say the same thing, but that's all Christian, so that's all OK. Cool.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Jesus Christ himself will replace Christianity.  He is coming very soon.

One would think that after getting burned so many times, you would stop making those predictions:
http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm

nice strawman argument, but my statement in no way set a date.

Mat 25:13 “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming."

Arround Christmas, a TV channel, maybe the best we have in France, a franco-german one named "arte", did a serie of documentaries with high experts of christianism on how did christiannity was born and how it has spread until the middle age. There were 10 episodes, only speeches of historians, very interesting.

Well, I didnt see all episodes but I saw the one which explained how the bible has been built.

What has been cool in the construction of the book is that everybody can find what he wants in it.

There were a lot of christian texts that they possibily could have been put in it. And the balanced people that were those who build the Bible, chose, for the NT, to put some texts giving different ways for Christianism in order to give to believers the most large vision of witnesses of Jesus' teaches. So, one can cite Mathew, the other John, the other Mark, and so on. Maybe it won't say the same thing, but that's all Christian, so that's all OK. Cool.

don't know what you're trying to say, but there is no contradiction within scripture:

Mat 25:13 “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming."

Mark 13:32 ""No one knows about that day or hour"

Luke 12:40 "You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."

John 21:22  22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

1Thes 5:1-2 "Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night."

Well, outside of the fact that, as always, the sentences are taken out of the context and so that it's more easy to make them say what we want.

I just wanted to point out by what I said the part of relativity of what the Bible can say when some see an only truth in it. That's all.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

don't know what you're trying to say, but there is no contradiction within scripture:

Mat 25:13 “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming."

Mark 13:32 ""No one knows about that day or hour"

Luke 12:40 "You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."

John 21:22  22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

1Thes 5:1-2 "Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night."

Well, outside of the fact that, as always, the sentences are taken out of the context and so that it's more easy to make them say what we want.

is that so?!

out of context in what way?...in that, to your chagrin, they proved my point that the bible clearly states that no one will know the day of Jesus Coming?

or...out of context in that they're not referring to Jesus' second coming?  in that case, then the onus is on you to give the "correct" context.

I speak in general. In what you said for example it can suits to: Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour". It is not mentionned the day and hour of what.

But really, I speak in general, here it is question of Christianity in general, no? Keep cool that's not specific to Christianity, that's specific to the not fair ones. All those who are not fair take sentences here or there out of the context of something to make it say what they want. I don't say all christians do that when they cite, but some do. There's just to hope you don't...

I just wanted to point out by what I said the part of relativity of what the Bible can say when some see an only truth in it. That's all.

I can't understand that statement.

Unless historians gave me wrong informations, I'm sorry you can't.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I just wanted to point out by what I said the part of relativity of what the Bible can say when some see an only truth in it. That's all.

I can't understand that statement.

Unless historians gave me wrong informations, I'm sorry you can't.

why don't you try rewording it, then maybe I'll understand what you're attempting to say.

In any case, the New Testament states over and over again that the date of the 2nd Coming is unknowable and not meant to be known by man.  To me, that leaves very little "relativity"

Well, OK.

So I'll take my paragraph again. According to the experts I heard in the serious document I spoke about:

There were a lot of christian texts that they possibily could have been put in it. And the balanced people who were those who build the Bible, chose, for the NT, to put some texts giving different ways for Christianism in order to give to believers the most large vision of witnesses of Jesus' teaches. So, one can cite Mathew, the other John, the other Mark, and so on. Maybe it won't say the same thing, but that's all Christian, so that's all OK. Cool.

The only thing I could precise here is what is underlined. I meant according to historians I heard, the different evangiles don't say the same thing and some are not OK the one with the other one. Those who made Bible, those who decided which christian texts will compose the NT decided to do that to give to believers the largest panorama of the witnesses of Jesus' teaches.

This plus the fact that these texts are just some witnesses of what said a Preacher who claimed, and surely sincerely thought, speaking in the name of what they called an only "God", to me, it really gives some relativity to what some see as an only "truth".



Well, outside of this, and back to the main topic of this thread.

Speaking about texts, so about words and about the future of religions. I really tend to think that in the future concerning the relationship, the communication, between the human being and the "whole thing" which has passed for a long time, and maybe still for some times, in monotheist cultures, by words, by speaking - in monotheism we communicate with "God" by speaking to him with our language - I really tend to think we could go beyond this in the future. That we could give more importance to the energies we feel in our environment, and that we could try to know better these energies, in order to canalize them and maybe to act on them, more than to supplicate or just speak to an only "God" for such or such thing.

Well, maybe that's not very clear, but I really think that it could be pertinent for humans to go over the "relation by words", for the communication with the energies that rule us, which were before symbolized by an only "God" in our societies.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

So I'll take my paragraph again. According to the experts I heard in the serious document I spoke about:

There were a lot of christian texts that they possibily could have been put in it. And the balanced people who were those who build the Bible, chose, for the NT, to put some texts giving different ways for Christianism in order to give to believers the most large vision of witnesses of Jesus' teaches. So, one can cite Mathew, the other John, the other Mark, and so on. Maybe it won't say the same thing, but that's all Christian, so that's all OK. Cool.

The only thing I could precise here is what is underlined. I meant according to historians I heard, the different evangiles don't say the same thing and some are not OK the one with the other one. Those who made Bible. Those who decided which christian texts will compose the NT decided to do that to give to believers the largest panorama of the witnesses of Jesus' teaches.

This plus the fact that these texts are just some witnesses of what said a Preacher who pretented or sincerely thought speaking in the name of what they called an only "God", to me, it really gives some relativity to what see as an only "truth".

Speaking about this, about texts, so about words and about the future of religions. I really tend to think that the relationship, the communication, between the human being and the "whole thing" which has passed for a long time, and maybe still for some times, in monotheist cultures, by words, by speaking, in monotheism we communicate with God by speaking to him with our language, I really tend to think we could go beyond this in the future, that we could give more importance to the energies we feel in our environment, and that could try to know better these energies, in order to canalize them and maybe to act on them, more than to supplicate or just speak to an only "God" for such or such thing.

Well, maybe that's not very clear, but I really think that it could be pertinent for humans to go over the "relation by words", for the communication with the energies that rule us, which were before symoblized by an only "God" in our societies.

let me give you a little advice:  stop listening to the so-called "experts", for they know very little because they have spent most of their time studying the opinions of other so-called "experts" and not enough time studying the subject matter itself - the bible.

I have been reading the bible for over 16 years, the only contradiction I have found is the following:

1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four  thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

Was it 4000 or 40000 stalls?  I don’t know nor is it a doctrinal matter.  Seems to be simply a copying error.

As far as the compiling of the New Testament…you don’t even need the New Testament to preach Jesus Christ, you can use the Old Testament to do so, as the Apostles did.  And I have yet to find a single doctrine in the New Testament that doesn’t have a basis in the Old Testament.  Yet I have never heard any of the so-called TV experts state that fact, because they’re too busy reading each other’s opinion to even realize that fact.

Also, don’t be a dofus, the vast majority of shows on TV about Christianity are only created to slander Christianity, and even a biblical novice can refute 99% of the claims TV makes against the bible.

Well, I certainly, won't convince you about what I mean, and that's not my purpose at all, I was just exposing what I wanted to expose on it.

Concerning the TV documentaries I spoke about and the experts you don't agree with. In US, I don't how are TV shows which talk about Christianism but, the one I spoke about has been made in Europe, and, the historians which were in came from the whole West, even some from Israël, and they said things which went in the same sens.

It wasn't an attack against Christianism, they make searches, they take fact and they say: "Here's what we know on the topic, here's what is, here are the facts". They just show some results of research.

After, do they try to manipulate? Well, the objectivity is a myth, every human is subjective, and believers are maybe more than others given they don't care about facts that contradict their beliefs (Hy to creationists...).

So, I don't know, maybe you're sincere when you claim there isn't contradictions, but on the other hand I don't need you to tell me who I should trust. The experts I heard sounded honnest and non-militants, sounded they just wanted to make the best they can their job of historian. This plus the fact, that the tone of the documentaries wasn't militant at all, made that I gave some trust to what I heard.

Historians vs. Believers. Oh, one never know, I might be wrong, but pardon I give less subjectivty to historians, especially when it sounds they just wanna make their job.

I reject the very premise of this thread.  Christianity, particularly Catholicism, is growing faster than ever.  Just not in the West.

Euh, pardon, but, where the hell did you see that Catholisism were growing faster than ever?? Frankly, it's a mistake in your sentence or what??

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

As for me telling you whom to listen to regarding what’s in the bible…I merely stated that you should  pick up a bible yourself if you are curious as to what the bible itself says it says and how the bible itself says it was written and why the bible itself says it was written.  And when you read the bible, do so WITHOUT using a study guide.

You'll find it the deepest, yet tightest, book ever written.

Yes, yes, for sure that would be the best way for me to speak about it, but, the few i know about Christianism and the few I know about the things in general make that I don't want spend time to give interest to the monotheist texts. May you can respect this will. That's why when I speak, I tell from where I speak, here historians of that TV documentary.

Speaking about the Bible, and about Jesus teaches, and about the witnesses of this, I don't doubt that we can find verry deep things in it. I also acknowledge that Christiannity has carried a lot of good things to human societies which followed it. We just have to watch the history of the societies who followed Christiannity to see it.

That said, for me, it remains a human thing, a deep one, maybe very deep, but human, and a thing beyond which humans will have to go if they don't want to stagnate, a thing which carried a lot but which has no more to carry for the future, except maybe some big destructions. In that way, I find the existence of that thread very pertinent.

Oh, you will probably think I'm an ignorant who doesn't know what he says because he hasn't read the Bible (hmm, my path in Christiannity is limited to 2 years of cathechism from 8 to 10 years) but I assume my possition. I can't claim I'm right. Can a human claim it? Can a human really claim he got "the truth"?? I don't claim it but, according to all what I know and what I feel, I follow some personal strong convictions which lead me to not believe in Christiannity, and so not look further in it. And I do all of that without asking the permission of anyone. If someone succed in showing me the pertinence of other ways, I'll listen to it, but by now I'm like that concerning Christiannity: I'm not interesting in going further in it.

Well outside of this, I've to tell you that I spoke during a long time with a Muslim girl who began to got interest in religion by Bible, and then, she's read Quran, since this she became a strong muslim believer, and she says about Quran, exactly all the same things you say on the Bible.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Hmm jmfcst, just a few things. Once again, all what I hear from you on the Bible I heard it from this girl on the Quran.

The main argument you opposite to me is on the fact that Quran wouldn't have been here at what you consider as "the beginning" (6000 before Christ).

Well, I don't want to defend Islam, as I've already told, I don't take monotheism, but maybe you don't know how Islam places itself concerning this? Well, Islam says, to sump up, that it recognizes all prophets from the Jew and the Christian religion, but it opposes that their texts have been modified by men and it opposes that Mohamed had a direct full speech from "God" and that this speech is Quran. Well, that's all. A belief opposite to another one.

Why the hell some believers must feel they have "The truth"?? Don't they feel that it sounds impossible for a human to get the "The Truth"??

Can't you deal with something like: "I'm convinced I'm on a, or maybe the, good way, I've strong conviction about it, but, as the small human I am, maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, anyway I follow my convictions".

Would it be too hard to deal with such things, instead of losing so much time in trying to be sure to have "The Truth". Especially, when on the other side, you have other ones who spend so much times on doing the same thing with other versions of "The Truth" and that in the end, no serious debate can be accomplished, because in the end, we can't really now "The Truth", you're just here, all of you, with your different beliefs that you would like so much it to be the "good" one.

And, instead of trying to find an interest in other versions, something which could help you to go on, to have larger perspectives, a larger panorama of life, you prefer to stay alone with a kind of stupid "this or nothing". Sad, no?

Well, monotheists have already cooperate together in the past. Sounds just that the epoch is less and less to tolerance.

Europe has killed itself in nationalism, I think monotheism could kill itself in "religionism". Nations thought that each one was the best one and so it could eradicate the other ones, I think it could become the same between Christianity and Islam.

But with a far bigger scale, because these both things claim to be universalistic, they exclude the existence of other ones, they are international, and they concern Men far deeper than nations did, plus there is on both side a fascination for apocalypse and the means for a possible apocalypse could be here.

Well, once again, the question of the replacement of all of this is really interesting, and, to me, surely unavoidable for Men to continue, risks of apocalypse or not.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I reject the very premise of this thread.  Christianity, particularly Catholicism, is growing faster than ever.  Just not in the West.

Euh, pardon, but, where the hell did you see that Catholisism were growing faster than ever?? Frankly, it's a mistake in your sentence or what??

Catholicism is growing fast than ever in Africa and Asia.  Thousands of new converts every day.

Euh, please, give me sources of this! I'm curious about it!

No, really, what I see hear and read for years now it is that Christianity is effectively growing a lot around the world, but not Catholicism, Evangelicals, especially Baptists and Pentecotists. And that Catholics are desperately running after them in regions like, yes, Asia and Africa plus Latin America where, there, Evangelicals are growing on already Catholics soils.

Euh, frankly, and according to what I see here, the only perspectives of Catholicism are for me in Europe. In Europe, most of people secularized their minds during the last 30 years or have at least put religion on a side of their life. But now, sounds they are more and more attracted by conservative values and by the past, something which can also be seen by the attempts of "rebirth" of regional cultures and languages. In that sens they're attracted again by their traditional religion, which is, for enough people here, Catholicism.

For sure I speak for what I know the best, France, but I really tend to think that in traditional Catholic European countries it happens like that, far more in Italia, Spain sounds on the same kind of track. And, there are also the former communist countries which are now in EU. There, like in Russia where the Orthodox religion is being revived after the death of communism, we can see for example that Catholicism becomes really strong again with the example of Poland and I really feel it's a general trend.

All of that said, I think that Catholicism has really no future, even in Europe, for me they can just go lower and lower. Evangelicals are far more adapted to modernity, to globalization, they are far more flexible, reactive, and adaptable, and they have really understood which means they had to take if they wanted to convert a lot of people, and so they spread a lot around the world, and Catholics just run after them. They spread even in China, where they are forbidden, statistics I heard here or there for that region regularly gives between 100 and 200 millions of converted, especially by peasants, who are by far the most numerous and by far the most unhappy of the regime.

I really tend to think that the Christianity which is being currently rebuild will be very flexible and that it could even break the former borders Catholics/Protestants/other ones. I really think a new universalistic Christianity can born in years to come. A big movement of union of Christians around the world, they could keep differences between them, and maybe still even between each churches, or even between each individuals, but I think they would have the will join them in a great world movement. Something in which I don't believe on the long term, but which on a short time could be really powerful. Well, let us see.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

The U.S. Census doesn't ask religion, so huh?

Neither does France, btw. That's why this map is so peculiar.

Yes.

And I guess that if we just take in consideration those who practice the religion, we would be the same color a Muslim country. Some surveys confirms it, and according to a survey from a serious paper about religions here "Le Monde des religions", 51% of French declare being Catholic, and in this 55% say they are by tradition, 21% say they are because they have faith, and 14% because it matches with values they share.

So, given that the protestants are here such a very few minority, we are far, of that dark purple state on the map. That one might match with the number of people baptized, like me, I'm officially baptized Roman Catholic, but I don't believe in it.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

the industrialized countries are the most boring guesses of the map, everyone knows about them already, and the associated disputes, they're not even remotely what I'm interested in

Some examples show the non accuracy of this map, which, as you acknowledged, is not an academic paper.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Are you trying to say wikipedia is not always 100% accurate sir?  I challenge you to a dual.

To sum up it was a bit short to only have "Christians" with this map. As I said, France might stay high by baptisms but when it comes to declare catholicism, or to practice it, we're at about 50% and 20%, and not at all 80-90%. So, if one is bad, what to think about others. Plus, as someone said before, census is something very different according to countries.

In fact, because all of this, we can't really know what to think about that map, I tend to think it would reflect the traditional establishment of Christianity in the world but that would be an only personal feeling toward this, and anyway that's not that "census".

Well, that said, esthetically that's not unpleasant...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I must say I smile...

But who knows...

Oh no I smile again...

OK, who knows...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I find it hilarious that everyone here thinks that the world is headed to a milquetoast spiritualism or a cosmopolitanism of religions.  All of the data indicates that people are moving towards "hotter" religions, for example evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Islam. 

echoing Gully's polarity, isn't there a first world / third world divide here?

Nah, Evangelicals are taking over in the non-traditionally Muslim Africa, they are very present in Latin America as well, and a huge presence in China too, nevertheless their interdiction.

Also, of course I agree with the huge potential and probability for Evangelical Christianity and its Islamic equivalent to hugely grow in the close future. But, in case they don't blast the world in a crazy apocalypse mood, I think something would come after, it's a matter of decades imo.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Jesus Christ himself will replace Christianity.  He is coming very soon.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Define "very soon".  I remember hearing "He's coming, very soon" back in the 70s.  They told me the end times would begin with lots of wars and natural disastors and they would list a bunch of wars and natural disastors that were occuring at the time and say "see? He's coming!".  Same thing in the 80s.  When I stopped going to church in the early 90s they were still saying the exact same things.  I'm pretty sure it goes back long before the 70s too.

What the hell does "very soon" mean?

It means sooner and sooner today.

There has always been a lot of huge catastrophes for humanity, but today we live in an epoch in which all of them are being thrown in our faces through tubes. All the natural disasters, wars, diseases, etc, happening on the planet constantly thrown in the face, and this with a very fast pace, which doesn't help to take distance, all of this thanks to new technologies, so it's not hard for people to think today 'The End of the World is coming! Look! There has never been so much problems on Earth!'. Nah, it's just that we have more the possibility to be aware of the problems that's all.

Add to this that the technological development we have today permits to make things bigger than before, then when something fails/crashes, the damages are bigger than before.

I mean, I think all of this helps to give credibility to apocalyptic thoughts, and I think it actually does, but well, all of these thoughts would only be the results of a bad psychological, and technical in some cases, handling of new technological possibilities.