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...?

[Matt Damon™]

Eventually, Judaism.

Judaism will be extinct outside of a few remnant haredim by 2100.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Eventually, Judaism.

I wonder if you're dumber when you're being a Moderate Hero, or not being one. Posts like this make it a tough call.

Care to explain that?  Eventually, all people will follow Judaism.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Eventually, Judaism.

I wonder if you're dumber when you're being a Moderate Hero, or not being one. Posts like this make it a tough call.

Care to explain that?  Eventually, all people will follow Judaism.

You might then want to change your policies (Yes, I am thinking of one in particular) towards converts...

[Josh/Devilman88]

Easy question, Islam.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Eventually, Judaism.

I wonder if you're dumber when you're being a Moderate Hero, or not being one. Posts like this make it a tough call.

Care to explain that?  Eventually, all people will follow Judaism.

LMAO.

If you want me to explain by the way, you probably should as well (basically explain why all will one day follow Judaism instead of simply saying so.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You have to seperate "Christianity" from "the Churches", I think. The former is either going nowhere or never existed (not really) in the first place (not for a very long time, anyway). As for the latter...

The Churches as institutions will continue to decline unless they can radically change what they are; but of course the decline of churches is no different to the decline of other mass-membership organisations, such as political parties, unions or the whole world of clubs, societies and associations. And the same comment apply to all of those, frankly. The decline of that sort of organisation, that sort of institution is a serious problem IMO. Yes they all had (and have) their flaws and could all act appallingly at times, but...

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While I agree with you and George Bernard Shaw "that the trouble with Christianity is that no-one has ever tried it" that is not the perception most people will have. For most people the church is christianity, or an essential part of it. So any attack on one, has clear knock-on effects for the other and so if they want to improve....

I agree on the second bit however.

[GMantis]

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

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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."

[GMantis]

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."

You said it would be happening very soon. That's what Christians thought in 33 AD and during Nero's rule and before the year 1000 and before 1033 and whenever there was a great crisis.
Anyway, how would you define very soon?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Our Lord and Savior obviously has a tardiness problem.

[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.

[© tweed]

Jesus predicted the apocalypse within the lifetime(s) of his followers.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024&version=9;

Mat 24:34 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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."

You said it would be happening very soon. That's what Christians thought in 33 AD and during Nero's rule and before the year 1000 and before 1033 and whenever there was a great crisis.
Anyway, how would you define very soon?

2 Peter 3:3-5  3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed.

2 Peter 3:8-10  "8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.  The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief."

[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.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Eventually, Judaism.

I wonder if you're dumber when you're being a Moderate Hero, or not being one. Posts like this make it a tough call.

Care to explain that?  Eventually, all people will follow Judaism.

LMAO.

If you want me to explain by the way, you probably should as well (basically explain why all will one day follow Judaism instead of simply saying so.)

When the Moshiach comes, all people will return to G-d, and His religion, Judaism.  That is a basic part of the religion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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 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.

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus predicted the apocalypse within the lifetime(s) of his followers.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024&version=9;

Mat 24:34 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

he is referring to the generation that witness the events Jesus had been talking about:

Mat 24: 32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

It's a pretty long list of events Jesus mentions in Mat 24: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2024;&version=31;  

As an interesting note, the "fig tree" mentioned in Mat 24:32, quoted above, is widely believed to refer to Israel, and figs are used to symbolize Israelis in the Old Testament.  So, Jesus is actually giving another sign by referring to the "fig tree" - when you see Israel come out of its dormancy, then that is another sign Christ's return is drawing near.

[© tweed]

that is one of the many popular interpretations.  one of the problems with it is that he was addressing a group of disciples directly and constantly uses pronouns such as 'ye' and 'you' as if he is directly addressing those before him.


also, everywhere else in the NT the phrase 'this generation' refers to the generation present at that time, such as in Matthew 11:16, Luke 7:31, Mark 8:12, etc.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

you can readthe Olivet Discourse, of which Mark 13:32 is part, and judge the context for yourself:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2013&version=31

---

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"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

that is one of the many popular interpretations.  one of the problems with it is that he was addressing a group of disciples directly and constantly uses pronouns such as 'ye' and 'you' as if he is directly addressing those before him.

actually, he is NOT addressing the disciples directly, that's why you're getting hung up on trying to link "this generation" to the generation of ~30AD.

And it is easily provable that he is NOT addressing the disciples directly:

Matthew 24:15 "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—..."

Mark 13:14 "When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains...."

So, the audience is everyone (past, present, and future) who reads the Olivet Discourse

[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.