Which of the following is most likely to become a major religious force?

[Blue3]

These are probably the "new" religions that are most well-known in Western countries right now.

Which of the following is most likely to become a major religious force?

[DC Al Fine]

I would guess Bahai. They and Scientology are the most "organized" and have already outlived their founders. Of those two, Scientology's best days  are probably behind it, which leave Bahai.

[All Along The Watchtower]

"Cute" Ironicism

[Greatest I am]

These are probably the "new" religions that are most well-known in Western countries right now.

Which of the following is most likely to become a major religious force?

None of the above.

It seems to me, that with religions on the wane, that the atheist churches will be the church of the future as well, as Gnostic Christianity which, as an ideology is quite close to that but with an esoteric ecumenist leaning.

Regards
DL

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

esoteric ecumenist

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I don't believe Spiritism counts as a religion, but I voted for it.  Otherwise Baha'i for the reasons DC stated.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't believe Spiritism counts as a religion, but I voted for it.  Otherwise Baha'i for the reasons DC stated.

There are actually Spiritualist churches still out there, directly descending from the organizations of the magic-lanterns-and-ectoplasm bad old days. These days they have a lot of overlap with other groups in the New Age spirituality constellation. For example, I'm pretty sure the traditional rivalry between Spiritualism and Theosophy is a thing of the past and has been for several generations.

And some variant of neo-Spiritualism or generalized Western pop esotericism is, unfortunately, probably the correct answer. Apparently almost a third of the American population believes in astrology now for, you know, some effing reason.

[Greatest I am]

esoteric ecumenist

Hurt your head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZJys45MLWI

Regards
DL

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I didn't watch the video (even though having someone explain this term actually does seem kind of interesting to me) because I'm listening to a Shostakovich concerto right now, but I know what the word "esoteric" means on its own and what the word "ecumenism" means on its own. I support ecumenism already, but please explain, without personal attacks if possible, why religion that's based on ~secret knowledge~ that few people can understand is "better", more democratic, more progressive, more rational, or whatever else than religion whose teachings are available for any interested person to examine and come to a conclusion about.

ETA: I watched the video and I'm willing to concede that the phrase isn't an oxymoron (because it's using a slightly idiosyncratic definition of both individual words, as I suspected), but that's it. Also, I looked up James Cutsinger, and while his work seems interesting, I have to warn you that if you're looking for an understanding of religion that supports a broadly liberal political and moral project (as you seem to be), the Traditionalist School, as its name implies, really isn't the place to find it.

[Greatest I am]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You cannot as it cannot really be used on it's own. You have to put an adjective like esoteric or exoteric to know it's meaning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is better because it is a truth that many are called but few find the way.

Here is the way the Jesus I follow, not the Jesus you follow, taught, and you might remember that in Christianity and the bible, it says clearly that Jesus had one way to teach the masses and another way to teach his disciples. Almost every religion has that type of hierarchy.
 
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
   
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not restrict where I find wisdom. One hour reading a philosopher on justice will give a reader more wisdom than the whole bible will if the reader is a literal reader of both books.

Cherry picking the best wherever I find it is what being an esoteric ecumenist is all about, as compared to idols worshipers of some genocidal God that they somehow see as good.

Regards
DL

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You cannot as it cannot really be used on it's own. You have to put an adjective like esoteric or exoteric to know it's meaning.

Sorry, but this is a personal-dictionary use of the word. The vast majority of people who use the word "ecumenism" use it on its own (or with an adjective like "Christian", "Buddhist", "interfaith", etc. rather than "esoteric" or "exoteric") and know exactly what they and others mean by that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question is whether this aspect of the strategy that Jesus used in His teaching ministry should have been, or could have been, maintained for the remainder of Church history. The vast majority of Christians throughout history have held that it should and could not. Also, similar strategies are used in teaching Mahayana Buddhism, which (unlike Vajrayana) is not generally regarded as an esoteric religion.

If you're using "esoteric" to mean something that focuses on self-knowledge and mystical experience rather than the sociocultural aspects of religion (which is how Cutsinger is using it), then preferring it is definitely a more defensible position, but a lot of the time it does seem like you use it to mean a religion that's proprietary about its teachings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If.

[Greatest I am]

You cannot as it cannot really be used on it's own. You have to put an adjective like esoteric or exoteric to know it's meaning.

Sorry, but this is a personal-dictionary use of the word. The vast majority of people who use the word "ecumenism" use it on its own (or with an adjective like "Christian", "Buddhist", "interfaith", etc. rather than "esoteric" or "exoteric") and know exactly what they and others mean by that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question is whether this aspect of the strategy that Jesus used in His teaching ministry should have been, or could have been, maintained for the remainder of Church history. The vast majority of Christians throughout history have held that it should and could not. Also, similar strategies are used in teaching Mahayana Buddhism, which (unlike Vajrayana) is not generally regarded as an esoteric religion.

If you're using "esoteric" to mean something that focuses on self-knowledge and mystical experience rather than the sociocultural aspects of religion (which is how Cutsinger is using it), then preferring it is definitely a more defensible position, but a lot of the time it does seem like you use it to mean a religion that's proprietary about its teachings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If.

In philosophical circles, it is said that the definition of words happens after a general discussion.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

Plain talk precedes the more complicated thinking.

Gnostic Christians are perpetual seekers who, even if we think we have the ideal ideology, we accept it but raise our bar of excellence and keep seeking as to not become idol worshipers of the ideals we have found as best.

I gave you James Cutsinger's definition and I chose it as the best to represent my definitions views and thinking.

Live with it as I, as a Frenchman, will not argue the definition of words further than what I have already offered.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

 
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
   
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

The question is whether this aspect of the strategy that Jesus used in His teaching ministry should have been, or could have been, maintained for the remainder of Church history. The vast majority of Christians throughout history have held that it should and could not.

The vast majority of Christians have always been divided and fighting amongst themselves from the times before the Crusade, where they were so busy killing each other that they almost lost all of Europe to the Muslims. They have continued to split till we have now, what, 3,000 denominations.

Where in hell did you get the "majority". Who is the majority?

As to the methods Jesus taught for enlightenment, you might remember that most sages and guru promote meditation and fasting so I think that that method has lasted before and after Jesus.

Regards
DL

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Where in hell did you get the "majority". Who is the majority?

Every Christian church or denomination of appreciable size since Late Antiquity has agreed on making the same creeds--whatever those creeds may be--normative for everyone. The main historical barrier to common people understanding the creeds (lack of mass literacy) is, I hope, not a state of affairs that you wish to revive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't what I meant by "similar strategies". I was referring to expedient means. (Feel free to argue that this constitutes a form of esotericism if you like--that's a perfectly defensible contention--but I don't think most scholars of the mainstream Mahayana schools would agree with you.)

[Greatest I am]

Where in hell did you get the "majority". Who is the majority?

Every Christian church or denomination of appreciable size since Late Antiquity has agreed on making the same creeds--whatever those creeds may be--normative for everyone. The main historical barrier to common people understanding the creeds (lack of mass literacy) is, I hope, not a state of affairs that you wish to revive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't what I meant by "similar strategies". I was referring to expedient means. (Feel free to argue that this constitutes a form of esotericism if you like--that's a perfectly defensible contention--but I don't think most scholars of the mainstream Mahayana schools would agree with you.)

You cannot get 3 people in a room agreeing on much of anything. I also do not know what that creed is.

As to your view of all the denominations having the same creed, B.S.

Some have gay clergy and some outlaw it. To some, heaven is another planet and to the sane, this one is. The supernatural thinkers are even further out in the goof zone. A majorly that claim an affiliation yet never go to their church or temples are not a majority. That only truth that can be said of the majority of theists is that they are hypocrites and or liars.

The creed sets the standard of Jesus. His standard says that there are no Christians.

You cannot prove me wrong.

Regards
DL

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This creed is upheld by the Catholic Church (this is the current Anglophone Catholic translation of it), the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the churches of the Anglican Communion (and Anglican realignment movement, Continuing Anglican movement, etc.), the Lutheran state churches of Northern Europe and their sister denominations in North America, the various Reformed denominations, and more. The brackets around "and the Son" are because this is a theological difference between Eastern and Western Christianity. This is basic, Christianity 101 or even World Religions 101-level stuff.

Even if there were substantially different creeds in every denomination, I would still be right, because what I was referring to was the general principle of having a single creed or set of creeds that's at least nominally normative for all believers. The second-largest Christian denomination could be Oneness Pentecostalism or something and I'd still be right.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Other:  Scientism
You will be castigated for not accepting scientific "truths" and your reputation sullied.

[Greatest I am]

Where in hell did you get the "majority". Who is the majority?

Every Christian church or denomination of appreciable size since Late Antiquity has agreed on making the same creeds--whatever those creeds may be--normative for everyone. The main historical barrier to common people understanding the creeds (lack of mass literacy) is, I hope, not a state of affairs that you wish to revive.

The same creed? You joke. Yes.

Strange then how some creeds have women and gay clergy while the more right wing churches condemn gays and women as inferior with their homophobic and misogynous teachings.

Regards
DL

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Obviously, GIA is a fan of Lewis Carroll since he refuses to use words like "creed" as other people use them.

   “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
        Through the Looking-Glass chapter 6

And just the buffoonish character of Humpty Dumpty, he takes pride in having a cracked version of language that is his alone.

If you must persist in your train of thought, the word you are likely looking for is "doctrine" or "tenet" rather than "creed" .

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To get back to the original question, of the options offered, I think Gaianism is most likely to become a major force. I don't think another revealed religion is likely to take off, so that eliminates Baha'i. Scientology is a scam. UFOs aren't really a thing anymore. Wicca in my experience is primarily for those nostalgic for a past that never was and thus is not posed to become a major force. Levayan Satanism is for those who want to gently mock existing religions. However Gaianism, either as a philosophy or as a religion of its own has the potential to become a major force.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Where in hell did you get the "majority". Who is the majority?

Every Christian church or denomination of appreciable size since Late Antiquity has agreed on making the same creeds--whatever those creeds may be--normative for everyone. The main historical barrier to common people understanding the creeds (lack of mass literacy) is, I hope, not a state of affairs that you wish to revive.

The same creed? You joke. Yes.

Strange then how some creeds have women and gay clergy while the more right wing churches condemn gays and women as inferior with their homophobic and misogynous teachings.

Regards
DL

You're being willfully obtuse. Ernest has already pointed out that you're using the word "creed" incorrectly; moreover, what I've said over and over again that you refuse to acknowledge I'm saying is that, within a denomination, the same creed is normative for the laity as is normative for the clergy. This is the last time I'm going to say this.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Where in hell did you get the "majority". Who is the majority?

Every Christian church or denomination of appreciable size since Late Antiquity has agreed on making the same creeds--whatever those creeds may be--normative for everyone. The main historical barrier to common people understanding the creeds (lack of mass literacy) is, I hope, not a state of affairs that you wish to revive.

The same creed? You joke. Yes.

Strange then how some creeds have women and gay clergy while the more right wing churches condemn gays and women as inferior with their homophobic and misogynous teachings.

Regards
DL

You're being willfully obtuse. Ernest has already pointed out that you're using the word "creed" incorrectly; moreover, what I've said over and over again that you refuse to acknowledge I'm saying is that, within a denomination, the same creed is normative for the laity as is normative for the clergy. This is the last time I'm going to say this.

Good as your B.S. is just that.

If you fly the cross, then take whatever heat it brings.

I do as a Gnostic Christian but understand the Christian blinders might effect your vision and moral sense.

Regards
DL

On a competently moderated board, your pompous, disingenuous, thread-derailing verbal abuse would have started getting deleted on sight years ago.

I'll spare you my regards,
NT

[Blue3]

I think Gaianism has the most potential, followed by Spiritism and UFO religions.

Baha'i, when you dig deeper, is still too socially conservative compared to the types of people it will need to attract to continue to grow (especially in regards to homosexuality).

[John Dule]

Satanism is definitely the most philosophically sound of these, though UFOs are cool too.

[Greatest I am]

Where in hell did you get the "majority". Who is the majority?

Every Christian church or denomination of appreciable size since Late Antiquity has agreed on making the same creeds--whatever those creeds may be--normative for everyone. The main historical barrier to common people understanding the creeds (lack of mass literacy) is, I hope, not a state of affairs that you wish to revive.

The same creed? You joke. Yes.

Strange then how some creeds have women and gay clergy while the more right wing churches condemn gays and women as inferior with their homophobic and misogynous teachings.

Regards
DL

You're being willfully obtuse. Ernest has already pointed out that you're using the word "creed" incorrectly; moreover, what I've said over and over again that you refuse to acknowledge I'm saying is that, within a denomination, the same creed is normative for the laity as is normative for the clergy. This is the last time I'm going to say this.

So read it as religion and that does not change the fact that the mainstream religions are homophobic and misogynous and therefore immoral.

You seem to want to kill the messenger so that you can obtusely ignore the message and immorality of the foul mainstream religions.

Regards
DL