PDA

View Full Version : Will we have religion year 3000?



Kadagar_AV
09-25-2008, 01:52
Coming from Sweden, one of the most agnostic/atheistic countrys in the world (I believe), I find this question interesting.

Now, as the social climate in Sweden is rather, well, cold against religion, most religious people who come here stops believeing in whatever diety they used to. And even if they dont, the next generation will. This has led me to believe that a modern society can function well without dogma.

Christians, Muslims, and so on.

As science progress, religion seem to lose influence more and more, except for newer ones like New Age who gains supporters.

Thus, as the poll shows, the discussion is: Will there be religions around year 3000?

Oh, and please play nice...

This is not intended for religion-bashing, nor science bashing. But an open discussion:)

:sweden:

ICantSpellDawg
09-25-2008, 02:20
They'll be around. The beauty about unknowable answers and the seemingly infinite nature of the galaxy is that there is always another hiding spot for God. People crave hope and create religions out of anything - look at scientology, the Green movement, Peta, etc. They constantly seek superlatives. I'd be suprised to see Christianity or it's monotheistic compatriots die out. Hinduism and east asian spirituality I would bet against. I also wouldn't be suprised if we fell back into another dark age of sorts.

seireikhaan
09-25-2008, 02:22
They'll be around. The beauty about unknowable answers and the seemingly infinite nature of the galaxy is that there is always another hiding spot for God. People crave hope and create religions out of anything - look at scientology, the Green movement, Peta, etc. They constantly seek superlatives. I'd be suprised to see Christianity or it's monotheistic compatriots die out. Hinduism and east asian spirituality I would bet against. I also wouldn't be suprised if we fell back into another dark age of sorts.
Just out of curiosity; why do you bet against the eastern religions?

LittleGrizzly
09-25-2008, 02:26
People crave hope and create religions out of anything - look at scientology, the Green movement, Peta, etc.

Peta ?! the green movement ?! you may not like these organisations and believe that thier beliefs are based on faith rather than fact but having faith in something does not make it add up to religion, if religion counts as having faith in something (something other than a unprovable god) then religion will be around as long as humans aren't machines...

I think there will still be some form of religion around, but it will be much rarer and not along organised religion lines.... in other words much better...

ICantSpellDawg
09-25-2008, 02:28
Just out of curiosity; why do you bet against the eastern religions?

They are currently being supplanted, they are not always written down and they contain more knowable untruths. Judeo-Christianity shrouds itself in universal verbage, parables and figurative storytelling. It also promotes a selflessness that is reveared by the hearts of even the most cynical atheists who are frustrated by the organizational aspects of it. I think that it has the right mix of history, ethics, shadowed historical claims and followers to make it a main contender in the years to come. Plus it is true and the only way to God.

Another beautiful angle of this topic is that in the realm of non-scientific speculation - religion tends to win out. Plus - you asked for our opinions.

LittleGrizzly
09-25-2008, 02:31
I would have though that the fact christianity is an organised religion might turn people off it, all the downsides that come with organised religion, though i suppose on the other hand the organisation strives to sustain and grow itself, am i right in thinking hinduism and east asain spirituality are less organised ?

Sasaki Kojiro
09-25-2008, 03:23
New ones will spring up, the old ones will become old fashioned but some will like them because they are "authentic"

Eastern religions are popular because they are non-western and philosophy focused.

Lemur
09-25-2008, 03:25
I'd like to point out that by the year 3000 we will be in direct, armed conflict with the minions of Lord Xenu. And we will be led by the thawed-out, re-animated head of Tom Cruise.

Koga No Goshi
09-25-2008, 03:28
Would we really count "causes", even very passionate ones, as religions? I don't really think it quite fits. (This inre: there will always be groups like Peta, etc.)

ICantSpellDawg
09-25-2008, 03:39
Would we really count "causes", even very passionate ones, as religions? I don't really think it quite fits. (This inre: there will always be groups like Peta, etc.)

I wouldn't be suprised if they transform into religions. The most absurd spiritual nutters that I have ever met happen to be "people of the earth" and newage people associated with animal rights groups.

Samurai Waki
09-25-2008, 03:47
No. I don't think humanity will survive the next 1000, or if we do, we'll be something entirely different. Rise of the machines and all that.

CountArach
09-25-2008, 09:37
Christianity is too large, established and wide-spread to completely die out. New religions will spring up (Look at Scientology for example) in addition to this. However, I think that the trend towards wide-spread Atheism/Agnosticism will continue and the vast majority will have no religion.

Sigurd
09-25-2008, 09:45
Christianity is too large, established and wide-spread to completely die out. New religions will spring up (Look at Scientology for example) in addition to this. However, I think that the trend towards wide-spread Atheism/Agnosticism will continue and the vast majority will have no religion.

I think that if the second coming of Christ hasn't happened yet by 3000 A.D, Christianity would be made up by small sects.
If Christianity is the universal correct religion, we are all living on a paradisaical earth by then. :beam:

Kralizec
09-25-2008, 11:27
I'm sure there will always be marginalized cults like scientology, but I honestly wouldn't dare to guess wether religion would be such a massive social phenomenon 1000 years from now.

Husar
09-25-2008, 16:38
If Christianity is the universal correct religion, we are all living on a paradisaical earth by then. :beam:

Or in the fiery pits of hell.

Viking
09-25-2008, 17:01
Other: impossible to tell. What's a religion? It's a rather relative thing; and, even if we define the word 'religion' to be the biggest religions in the world as of today, how on Earth could we know?

Hooahguy
09-25-2008, 17:30
judaism will keep going on forever....
we survived thousands of years anyways.....
whats another thousand to us?

macsen rufus
09-25-2008, 17:53
Judeo-Christianity shrouds itself in universal verbage, parables and figurative storytelling. It also promotes a selflessness that is reveared by the hearts of even the most cynical atheists who are frustrated by the organizational aspects of it. I think that it has the right mix of history, ethics, shadowed historical claims and followers to make it a main contender in the years to come. Plus it is true and the only way to God.

But WHICH Christianity is the "only" one?

Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Mennonite, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Presbyterian, Quaker, Anglican, Pentecostal, Anabaptist, Mormon, Anglo-Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Celtic, Shaker, Coptic, Jehovah's Witness, Christian Science, Amish, Assyrian....

or one of the other churches that doesn't trip off the tip of my tongue?

Personally I expect this tendency to schism will multiply in the coming years. Hard times have a habit of breeding millenial cults and I think these will flourish as people look for scapegoats and salvation in equal measure. I also believe the eastern traditions will hold on well, many are essentially atheistic due to their very different conception of God, and will be less prone to apostasy in the face of "abandonment" by God.

But after another 1000 years, that is just too long a window to guess really. Depends how far we fall in the meantime.

Lemur
09-25-2008, 18:37
Don't you idiots realize that by the year 3000 we will all be kneeling before Zod (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxS8toqwXN0&feature=related)?

ICantSpellDawg
09-25-2008, 20:10
But WHICH Christianity is the "only" one?

Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Mennonite, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Presbyterian, Quaker, Anglican, Pentecostal, Anabaptist, Mormon, Anglo-Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Celtic, Shaker, Coptic, Jehovah's Witness, Christian Science, Amish, Assyrian....

or one of the other churches that doesn't trip off the tip of my tongue?

Personally I expect this tendency to schism will multiply in the coming years. Hard times have a habit of breeding millenial cults and I think these will flourish as people look for scapegoats and salvation in equal measure. I also believe the eastern traditions will hold on well, many are essentially atheistic due to their very different conception of God, and will be less prone to apostasy in the face of "abandonment" by God.

But after another 1000 years, that is just too long a window to guess really. Depends how far we fall in the meantime.

I think that the tendency toward schism will both increase and decrease. I see a more widespread return to Roman Catholicism for those in similar faiths - like High Church Anglicans, real presence Lutherans and some eastern rite catholics that have not yet resumed links to Rome. On the other hand I think that there will be more schism among the already schismatic churches and smaller denominations. Among these schisms will be those like in Unitarianism where many congregations rejected christianity. An outright rejection of faith will continue, but I don't see it happening in an avalanche.

I see smaller christian groups that are highly dogmatic as being the big losers - both to high church practices or heresy. The churches with less dogmatism will become more universalist in scope and reject christianity as anything other than a philosophical outlook.

Rhyfelwyr
09-25-2008, 20:55
TuffStuff we are told that during that during the falling away period the true Christians (the elect) will be driven out from the established churches (which will all commit abominations such as introducing homosexual clergy etc), but God will give them strength as they are persectued.

I do believe the apocalypse will come well before 1,000 years have passed, although not as soon as some others think, I'm not really into date-setting.


But WHICH Christianity is the "only" one?

Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Mennonite, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Presbyterian, Quaker, Anglican, Pentecostal, Anabaptist, Mormon, Anglo-Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Celtic, Shaker, Coptic, Jehovah's Witness, Christian Science, Amish, Assyrian....

or one of the other churches that doesn't trip off the tip of my tongue?

For all we know no denomination could hold the correct interpretation of the Bible right now. But nearly all the one's you listed above will get you into Heaven if you follow them truly. Also Mennonites are Anabaptists BTW.

Caius
09-25-2008, 22:04
We won't make it. The CERN project will lead us to death in some years.

Koga No Goshi
09-25-2008, 22:09
TuffStuff we are told that during that during the falling away period the true Christians (the elect) will be driven out from the established churches (which will all commit abominations such as introducing homosexual clergy etc)

Oh man, seriously, do you believe this is new? Ask someone who has worked in seminaries for a long time and they will tell you it's not. And there's a reason. What's easier for a gay man to give up than sex with women? The priesthood has probably been a social shunt for gay people throughout most of the Church's history.

Rhyfelwyr
09-25-2008, 23:12
Oh man, seriously, do you believe this is new? Ask someone who has worked in seminaries for a long time and they will tell you it's not. And there's a reason. What's easier for a gay man to give up than sex with women? The priesthood has probably been a social shunt for gay people throughout most of the Church's history.

I mean an open acceptance of homosexual clergy. In any case, what you say is irrelevant to the Protestant churches which are allowing this to happen, since most of them don't practise clerical celibacy anyway.

KarlXII
09-25-2008, 23:13
Coming from Sweden, one of the most agnostic/atheistic countrys in the world (I believe), I find this question interesting.

Now, as the social climate in Sweden is rather, well, cold against religion, most religious people who come here stops believeing in whatever diety they used to. And even if they dont, the next generation will. This has led me to believe that a modern society can function well without dogma.
:sweden:

I've found that Sweden has quite more agnostics than athiests. In my time living there, I've met more "Well, it's very well possible God exists, but I can't just base that off a book" than "No God." kind of people. Of course, as is with most Western nations, it depends on where you live. Stockholm was always less religious than say, Gothenburg, where I've lived and found quite an amount of religious followers there.

Koga No Goshi
09-25-2008, 23:15
I mean an open acceptance of homosexual clergy. In any case, what you say is irrelevant to the Protestant churches which are allowing this to happen, since most of them don't practise clerical celibacy anyway.

Well I read what you said about the elect and such.... and I've read the Bible and I don't believe there's a Biblical basis for it. All the Bible says is that a majority will be misled into false religion and false prophets. And that true elect will be a minority. I would say, if you define the true elect as people who really follow the teachings and such of Christ, they are already a minority who mostly don't go to church and probably have been for quite some time.

Hosakawa Tito
09-26-2008, 00:00
Hopefully we make out better than Charleton Heston did...but some form/forms of religion have been with the human species since time out of mind.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/planetoftheapes2.jpg

KukriKhan
09-26-2008, 01:15
So, we're asked to look forward 40 generations. Maybe looking backwards 40 generations would be instructive world events in 1008 (http://www.answers.com/topic/1008). A pretty rough period, even though they didn't have nukes, or credit market meltdowns. :)

Given our species' tendancy to move from generalist to specialist, I'd guess that yes, religion will exist in 3008, but look (to us, if we could trvel forward in time) a lot more cultish - religions with 20 or so followers, rubbing shoulders with other close-but-not-identical religions of 100 people, and so on.

Unless some verifiable miracle-worker becomes widely known. Then, maybe a more universal religion would prevail.

Either way, I'd be surprised to discover, in 3008, a still-standing Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or even animist formal religion.

Strike For The South
09-26-2008, 03:46
I think that the tendency toward schism will both increase and decrease. I see a more widespread return to Roman Catholicism for those in similar faiths - like High Church Anglicans, real presence Lutherans and some eastern rite catholics that have not yet resumed links to Rome. On the other hand I think that there will be more schism among the already schismatic churches and smaller denominations. Among these schisms will be those like in Unitarianism where many congregations rejected christianity. An outright rejection of faith will continue, but I don't see it happening in an avalanche.

I see smaller christian groups that are highly dogmatic as being the big losers - both to high church practices or heresy. The churches with less dogmatism will become more universalist in scope and reject christianity as anything other than a philosophical outlook.

OH YEA! Well I think there will be no more Catholics. Long live the Baptists!!!! HAHAAHHAAHAHAH:whip:

Kadagar_AV
09-26-2008, 05:21
Swedishfish, we just had a poll in our biggest newspaper, the question was "is it ok for politicians to be openly religious"
7% answered yes
68% answered no, they should be atheists or keep it from public view
25% answered they dont care

I know this poll was not "spot on" this topic, but should give a hint:)


Indeed we have more agnostics than atheists, but it's very hard to say who is what.

Me as an example, I do believe in a greater than human "will", however, I do not put much faith in a 2000 year old (and revised) book.

Does this make me a atheist or a agnostic? Depends on the view of "god" I guess:)

Tuff,
Judeo-Christianity shrouds itself in universal verbage, parables and figurative storytelling. It also promotes a selflessness that is reveared by the hearts of even the most cynical atheists who are frustrated by the organizational aspects of it. I think that it has the right mix of history, ethics, shadowed historical claims and followers to make it a main contender in the years to come. Plus it is true and the only way to God.

Isnt it just a liiiiittle but assumptious to claim it is "true". Also, how can you be sure it is the only way to a hypothetical god? As an example, a buddhist monk living a 100% good life, not hurting anyone and doing his best to make the world a better place... Would he be condemned to a hypothetical hell, cause he is of the "wrong" religion in your eyes?

Rhyfelwyr
09-26-2008, 10:49
Well I read what you said about the elect and such.... and I've read the Bible and I don't believe there's a Biblical basis for it. All the Bible says is that a majority will be misled into false religion and false prophets. And that true elect will be a minority. I would say, if you define the true elect as people who really follow the teachings and such of Christ, they are already a minority who mostly don't go to church and probably have been for quite some time.

Indeed, the elect are a minority. The doctrine of predestination is well founded, check my sig for Biblical support on it, it's one of many such passages. I'm not sure what you mean about the elect not going to church. Believing the doctrine of predestination isn't necessary for getting into Heaven as faith or (if you believe predestination), grace is. It is just an issue for theological debate over how people come to gain salvation.


Also, how can you be sure it is the only way to a hypothetical god? As an example, a buddhist monk living a 100% good life, not hurting anyone and doing his best to make the world a better place... Would he be condemned to a hypothetical hell, cause he is of the "wrong" religion in your eyes?

Unless he was 100% perfect and never sinned or thought of sinning, then yes. The gift from God is forgiveness of our sins. Buddha does not offer that as far as I know, nor does any major religion. Except maybe Sikhism, but that's another issue...

However, I have been doing some research on the issue of Hell. I think it may be the case that the burning is not literal flames engulfing the damned, but rather it represents a burning desire for God. There is a passage I can't recall where the rich man in Hell asks for the flames to be quenched. If you read how he speaks and holds a conversation, it is clear he is not in physical agony but rather suffering psychologically through being far from God. Hell is where you go if you reject God, not necessarily for punishment (after all, we are born slaves to sin and cannot overcome it ourselves - hence the need for grace aka predestination). Also, Hell is not eternal since it will itself be destroyed in the lake of fire when God triumphs fully over evil. What happens to the souls in Hell I do not know. That's what I understand just now, my views may change as I study the matter.

Meneldil
09-26-2008, 17:16
For all we know no denomination could hold the correct interpretation of the Bible right now. But nearly all the one's you listed above will get you into Heaven if you follow them truly. Also Mennonites are Anabaptists BTW.

Can I get into Heaven even if I don't believe in any of these sects ? If I don't even believe in god ?

Rhyfelwyr
09-26-2008, 17:30
Can I get into Heaven even if I don't believe in any of these sects ? If I don't even believe in god ?

No, or at least not straight away, I'm not sure what happens after Hell is destroyed.

Meneldil
09-26-2008, 17:38
And why not ?

Strike For The South
09-26-2008, 17:47
And why not ?

God likes to play off the cuff

Kadagar_AV
09-26-2008, 17:49
Because God, obviosly, don't care if you are good or not.

He would accept a child molester and mass murderer to ehaven, if only said person confessed his sins and regretted them on his deathbed.

A person living a life of good though, but doesnt believe in god, will be sent to hell.

One of the reasons why I find church doctrine to be a laugh:)

Strike For The South
09-26-2008, 18:05
Because God, obviosly, don't care if you are good or not.

He would accept a child molester and mass murderer to ehaven, if only said person confessed his sins and regretted them on his deathbed.

A person living a life of good though, but doesnt believe in god, will be sent to hell.

One of the reasons why I find church doctrine to be a laugh:)

Why? Everyman sins,

Kadagar_AV
09-26-2008, 18:29
Not in equal amounts though...

I mean... having sexual fantasys about your marreid neighbour and molesting a child is not even on the same scale for me.

But it is in God's eyes, right?

Ironside
09-26-2008, 18:48
Why? Everyman sins,

It's the "all you need is to obey me or feel my wrath, but I'm the good guy"-attitude.

Kadagar, I guess we got our own version of 'laïcité :2thumbsup: , but that doesn't mean that people don't belive in supernatural stuff, although they aren't really worshiping it. It seems to be quite hardcoded to belive.

Personally I would guess that we would have philosophies with some loose supernatural connections as the closest thing to major religions in a 1000 years.

That's provided that we don't screw up and ends up godfearing Nuclearous.

Divinus Arma
09-26-2008, 20:48
Some religions will remain. Others will merge, morph, vanish.

Christianity? I don't think Christianity will survive our inevitable discovery of intelligent life on other planets. Are Christians going to evangelize to extraterrestrial life? :laugh4: No. They will initially demonize other-than-humans until a generation or two passes and their xenophobia dies with them.

That may take longer than the year 3000, if human civilization will survive that long. If we annihilate our progress with nuclear war, we'll just be hitting the "reset" button and starting over. And then religion and all the war that comes with it will continue until we can survive long enough as a species to expand into the universe.

Judaism can survive. Islam and Budhism as well. I can see these three forming an emergent religion with elements of all three. They all share some central concepts, except for Muhammed and rebirth.

Koga No Goshi
09-26-2008, 20:49
Not in equal amounts though...

I mean... having sexual fantasys about your marreid neighbour and molesting a child is not even on the same scale for me.

But it is in God's eyes, right?

I am not a devout believer, Kadagar, but in fairness let me say that in the BIBLE, a sin is merely a deviation from God's intended will. There is no distinction between major and minor. Imperfection is imperfection. You can't be more perfect while still not perfect-- you either are, or you aren't. Thus all humans are equally imperfect and in need of divine intervention for salvation, whether it's an innocent grandma or a hardened child molester.

It is organized religion that has set up hierarchies which resemble our legal system about what's most bad. For instance the Catholics setting up the totally unbiblically based idea of venial and mortal sins. And even today, even when churches may not OFFICIALLY come out and give sins a ranking system, there is among congregations an idea that only certain sins are "really bad." If you read the bible there is no basis to think that those people who go to church everyday and cheat on their taxes and tell white lies are any less a foul sinner than someone who had 48 abortions or is gay. But you'd have a hard time convincing super religious people of that in terms of how they treat other humans.

Koga No Goshi
09-26-2008, 20:56
Some religions will remain. Others will merge, morph, vanish.

Christianity? I don't think Christianity will survive our inevitable discovery of intelligent life on other planets. Are Christians going to evangelize to extraterrestrial life? :laugh4: No. They will initially demonize other-than-humans until a generation or two passes and their xenophobia dies with them.


It's funny you say that because that is almost exactly the reaction Christian colonists in the Americas had to Native Americans, haha. You can even go look up, there are old sketches and drawings of "Satan's little red henchmen" out in the forests worshipping him, and then going out to do his bidding.

Strike For The South
09-26-2008, 21:10
Not in equal amounts though...

I mean... having sexual fantasys about your marreid neighbour and molesting a child is not even on the same scale for me.

But it is in God's eyes, right?

No man is perfect. Dont judge lest ye be judged. We are equally damnable or savable in Gods eyes

Rhyfelwyr
09-26-2008, 21:59
If you recall what I said about Hell being an absence of God rather than a place of physical punishment, then it makes perfect sense that Ghandi and the Dalai Lama and other nice guys, but who were not saved, go there. Hell is where you go if you reject God. And so He leaves you to it.

If you accept Him, He will take you gladly into Heaven and forgive you for your sins (because every human has sinned). Not as a reward for being a good guy on earth, but for achnowledging your sins and accepting God.

Kadagar, it seems this would be a good step for you to take. You do achnowledge your sins, even if you don't want to confess them to God? Being 'less sinful' than A or B doesn't have anything to do with an acceptance or rejection of God, the ultimate factor behind salvation.

TevashSzat
09-27-2008, 02:31
I think they're probably will still be religion, but just nowhere near what it is currently like just like how the role of religion in the western world has changed dramatically over the past 5 centuries

Viking
09-27-2008, 11:27
No man is perfect. Dont judge lest ye be judged. We are equally damnable or savable in Gods eyes

Thus thou shalt not have prisons or courts. Let him without sin throw the first stone. :juggle2:

Meneldil
09-27-2008, 13:46
No man is perfect. Dont judge lest ye be judged. We are equally damnable or savable in Gods eyes

But not if we don't believe in him. I agree with Kadagar that it ultimately makes the christian doctrine laughable.

I was speaking with a swiss guy a few days ago, and at some point, we discussed about religion and what not. When I said I did not believe in any god and never will, he got quite mad and said something among the lines of "Then you'll never go to heaven".

Not only I found that quite offending (who is he to decide if I go to heaven or not), but also ridiculous.

I live by my own moral standards (which admitedly more often than not have a christian basis), and I think I'm overall a decent person. I try not to lie, cheat, harm other people and so on, yet I won't be able to go to Heaven.
On the other hand, any kind of scum can just say "Okay dude, I'm sorry for all my sins, and I admit I believe in you. I really do. Forgive me pl0x." and get his free ticket to the oh-so-wonderful kingdom of god.

That smells hypocrisy IMO. Your god looks like a 10 year old child who gets mad because we don't listen to him.

ICantSpellDawg
09-27-2008, 14:29
But not if we don't believe in him. I agree with Kadagar that it ultimately makes the christian doctrine laughable.

I was speaking with a swiss guy a few days ago, and at some point, we discussed about religion and what not. When I said I did not believe in any god and never will, he got quite mad and said something among the lines of "Then you'll never go to heaven".

Not only I found that quite offending (who is he to decide if I go to heaven or not), but also ridiculous.

I live by my own moral standards (which admittedly more often than not have a christian basis), and I think I'm overall a decent person. I try not to lie, cheat, harm other people and so on, yet I won't be able to go to Heaven.
On the other hand, any kind of scum can just say "Okay dude, I'm sorry for all my sins, and I admit I believe in you. I really do. Forgive me pl0x." and get his free ticket to the oh-so-wonderful kingdom of god.

That smells hypocrisy IMO. Your god looks like a 10 year old child who gets mad because we don't listen to him.

That's funny. You were offended when someone told you that because you don't believe in candyland you won't go there when you die and your impulse is to get upset and start to rationalize your actions as a sure-fire ticket to candyland?

If there is a book that says candyland exists and the only way to get there is through Jesus Christ - faith and decency will get you there. It is a two part deal - faith and decency. Why is that so difficult to accept? Do you expect $200 dollars when you are playing monopoly and haven't passed go?

Some denominations don't even believe that good deeds get you into heaven. Just faith! I guess you're screwed there. They say that good deeds are simply a sign of your faith - that you do them automatically if you are a faithful enough person. Either way, you are out of the loop. Become a Catholic. They are the greatest - we have a dual requirement where you can start with the one that comes naturally and work on the lacking trait.

I used to be an agnostic (for 25 years) a pretty nasty one actually, but then my friend died I became deathly ill, I was fired, met my soul mate and all of my thoughts on existentialism bubbled out. The soul mate thing really did it because it was so absurd to me that such a thing existed. If there is no superlative right or wrong without God (which I truly believe), then why is it wrong to impose your religion on others when evangelism is smiled on in the bible? So then I just started praying and trying to get people to be less opposed to religion - which is the single largest impetus to charity in the world. Plus - why should I give up the faith of my fathers? It isn't like there is something out there competing with it. You can be religious and modern - even though modernity is a jealous lover. We can make the world what we want it to be - and I want it to be more religious, compassionate and Just.

Rhyfelwyr
09-27-2008, 15:31
Good post above, but you really don't need to do good works to get into Heaven, my sig makes that pretty clear.

I don't get what you are complaining about Meneldil. You say you live without God and you choose your own standards over His, but you get annoyed when He doesn't let you into His Kingdom?

As I said in another post, Hell is not a punishment for your sins (you are born a slave to it and can't help it after all), it is just a place without God for those who reject God. They get what they ask for, simple as that.

Meneldil
09-27-2008, 17:06
Good post above, but you really don't need to do good works to get into Heaven, my sig makes that pretty clear.


So basically, what makes someone eligible to Heaven ? Faith ? Even if said person is actually a freaking bastard ?
That's laughable, yeah. If there's a god, and if he saves people (from what ?) only on that basis, then he's a moron :thumbsdown:*


I don't get what you are complaining about Meneldil. You say you live without God and you choose your own standards over His, but you get annoyed when He doesn't let you into His Kingdom?

I sure don't get annoyed because I would supposedly not be allowed into a place that most probably doesn't exist.
I get annoyed because some people pretend they're better than me just because they believe in a so-called god. Even though they're probably as much as a 'sinner' than me, if no more.


*Then I guess each christian sect has its own views about heaven. I'm probably too much influenced by the traditional catholic representation of Heaven, in which bad people go to hell and good people go to heaven.



We can make the world what we want it to be - and I want it to be more religious, compassionate and Just.
Then I guess we pretty much have the same aim, with the exception of the religious part. Religion is probably the best way to promote hatred in the modern world. The less of it the better.

Rhyfelwyr
09-27-2008, 17:37
So basically, what makes someone eligible to Heaven ? Faith ? Even if said person is actually a freaking bastard ?
That's laughable, yeah. If there's a god, and if he saves people (from what ?) only on that basis, then he's a moron :thumbsdown:*

We are all born sinners. Only God's grace can grant us forgiveness for our sins. If sinners went into Heaven, well then it would just be like another earth wouldn't it? It's got to be PERFECT, that is why God does not only forgive us for our sins He removes them from all memory, including His own. So free from our past sins, and free from Satan, we will be perfect in Heaven. Not through our own merits, but by God's grace.


I sure don't get annoyed because I would supposedly not be allowed into a place that most probably doesn't exist.
I get annoyed because some people pretend they're better than me just because they believe in a so-called god. Even though they're probably as much as a 'sinner' than me, if no more.

Well you said it offended you, sounded like you were annoyed. Christians do not believe they are better than you, if they do it is a weakness or their part, and if they do it deliberately then they are simply Bible-thumpers. We are born sinners, God is perfect, no one human is better than the other, least of all in God's eyes. Don't let those kinds of people put you off, its well achnowledged the greatest enemies to Christianity are offer so-called Christians themselves.


Then I guess we pretty much have the same aim, with the exception of the religious part. Religion is probably the best way to promote hatred in the modern world. The less of it the better.

Religion is just another factor that makes people feel like they are in a 'us v. them' scenario. Nationality does it, percieved 'race' does it, lots of stupid things do it. Remove religion and they will take its place in causing wars and violence across the earth.

Unlike racism, extreme ideologies, and to an extent nationalism; religion actually brings many benefits to society.

But remember, that is not its ultimate aim, at least not with Christianity...

Cronos Impera
09-27-2008, 18:27
The problem with the Western Churches is that they've twisted dogma and the Bible to such an extent that the topic has shifted completely form that of the original Christian Church.
From one mutation (The Catholic Church) sprung so many others that is hard to keep track of them.
Lutheranism allowed for: slaughtering of rebel farmers durind the Baumkrieg
Calvinism allowed for: Iranian like punishments for sins (cutting limbs for theft, death penalty for battery and adultery)
Anglicanism allowed for: executions of catholics
Puritanism: executions and civil wars
Catholicism: Inquisition, purges
The other: they just drain money and try to pretend they are cleaner than the rest
Meanwhile in the East traces of the original Church survived and still do to a large extent. The Orthodox Church and Greek Catholic Church have managed along with Coptic Christianity to preserve the original teachings of the Apostles without having to change them for the sake of opportunities and communion with the West. Of course the Eastern Churches use gold and precious stones for building material while some beggar can't buy a pair of shoes but it is also true that the Patriachies invest a lot of money into social services and charity.
If Christianty would need guidance that guidance is likely to come from the East rather than from the West because there lies the original sense of a Chrisitian community.

Strike For The South
09-27-2008, 18:55
Thus thou shalt not have prisons or courts. Let him without sin throw the first stone. :juggle2:

Gods eyes. Dont twist my words. I know all of you like to play "the enlightened man" if you want to argue on christian doctrine with me I'd be more than happy to but dont twist my words.

ICantSpellDawg
09-27-2008, 18:59
The problem with the Western Churches is that they've twisted dogma and the Bible to such an extent that the topic has shifted completely form that of the original Christian Church.
From one mutation (The Catholic Church) sprung so many others that is hard to keep track of them.
Lutheranism allowed for: slaughtering of rebel farmers durind the Baumkrieg
Calvinism allowed for: Iranian like punishments for sins (cutting limbs for theft, death penalty for battery and adultery)
Anglicanism allowed for: executions of catholics
Puritanism: executions and civil wars
Catholicism: Inquisition, purges
The other: they just drain money and try to pretend they are cleaner than the rest
Meanwhile in the East traces of the original Church survived and still do to a large extent. The Orthodox Church and Greek Catholic Church have managed along with Coptic Christianity to preserve the original teachings of the Apostles without having to change them for the sake of opportunities and communion with the West. Of course the Eastern Churches use gold and precious stones for building material while some beggar can't buy a pair of shoes but it is also true that the Patriachies invest a lot of money into social services and charity.
If Christianty would need guidance that guidance is likely to come from the East rather than from the West because there lies the original sense of a Chrisitian community.


You wouldn't happen to be Greek Orthodox, would you? If not one of the faithful, at least raised in it?

KarlXII
09-27-2008, 20:20
Not in equal amounts though...

I mean... having sexual fantasys about your marreid neighbour and molesting a child is not even on the same scale for me.

But it is in God's eyes, right?

There is such thing as forgiveness in Christianity, it's something we all give and recieve, and the same thing goes for those who sin. However, those who are truly evil/sinful are condemned to their fate. If you molested a child, you have destroyed their life for your own lust. Condemnation or forgiveness is up to God to decide, all we can do is follow our laws. And of course, the Ninth Commandment says "Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife."

Cronos Impera
09-27-2008, 20:24
Yes, I'm Orthodox.
The first reason our Church is stronger than the rest is that we don't bother with "This denomination is better than the rest."
The second reason is that we try to focus on our side of the deal with God rather than bother with the rest of the Christian flock.
"Act as the priest tells you to act and not the way he acts." is a popular Orthodox proverb used to divert the faithfull from the wrongs of the clerigy. The New Testament is more popular than the Old Testament in Orthodox religion classes because it convays more values than the Old Testament.
When the Orthodox complain about the Old Testament the clerigy simpy answers "It's an israeli license. Sorry, you cannot alter the Old Testament nor the day for Easter." We celebrate Easter like the Scriptures tell us in sync with the Jewish one and eat lamb like the Jews do on their Easter.
Though a Bible exists in tongues most people don't read it and persue a relation with God through prayer and attending mass.

Rhyfelwyr
09-27-2008, 20:53
Yes, I'm Orthodox.
The first reason our Church is stronger than the rest is that we don't bother with "This denomination is better than the rest."

You dedicated post #52 to that, pointing out perceived faults with all denominations save your own.


The second reason is that we try to focus on our side of the deal with God rather than bother with the rest of the Christian flock.

Well that's pretty un-Christian in itself.


"Act as the priest tells you to act and not the way he acts." is a popular Orthodox proverb used to divert the faithfull from the wrongs of the clerigy. The New Testament is more popular than the Old Testament in Orthodox religion classes because it convays more values than the Old Testament.

Of course the New Testament is used more extensively than the Old Testament, this is the case for all Christian denominations I can think of.


When the Orthodox complain about the Old Testament the clerigy simpy answers "It's an israeli license. Sorry, you cannot alter the Old Testament nor the day for Easter." We celebrate Easter like the Scriptures tell us in sync with the Jewish one and eat lamb like the Jews do on their Easter.
Though a Bible exists in tongues most people don't read it and persue a relation with God through prayer and attending mass.

Since when did mass have anything to do with our relationship to God? Maybe I am wrong but I thought all churches accepted the Coptic calculation of Easter these days?

Viking
09-27-2008, 22:42
Gods eyes. Dont twist my words. I know all of you like to play "the enlightened man" if you want to argue on christian doctrine with me I'd be more than happy to but dont twist my words.

Hmm, perhaps I did twist your words. It was just that they reminded of that certain Biblical quote, that is quite interesting to say at least.

AlexanderSextus
09-29-2008, 01:34
by the year 3000 we will have so much more of a true spiritual understanding that religion as we know it now will cease to exist. we will actually UNDERSTAND god and ITS nature rather than blindly follow IT or whatever books MAN decided to write.

Koga No Goshi
09-29-2008, 02:12
by the year 3000 we will have so much more of a true spiritual understanding that religion as we know it now will cease to exist. we will actually UNDERSTAND god and ITS nature rather than blindly follow IT or whatever books MAN decided to write.

Do you really think so? Don't get me wrong, I think that these dogmatic religions are going to become increasingly irrelevant as we step into the future. But I think that humanity has become less spiritual, not more, and religion has CONTRIBUTED to that. Religious and spiritual are not at all the same thing whatsoever.

AlexanderSextus
09-29-2008, 04:50
But I think that humanity has become less spiritual, not more, and religion has CONTRIBUTED to that. Religious and spiritual are not at all the same thing whatsoever.

thats my point. we're hopefully going to stop blindly following religions and dogmatic propaganda and truly come to a better spiritual understanding.

We'll realize that the original message of every founder of a dogmatic religion was twisted and distorted over the ages to further the political agendas of the establishments and people who ended up inheriting their respective legacies.

Also, The idea that sexual behavior that does not cause anyone harm is wrong or a sin should be abandoned too.

Gaius Scribonius Curio
09-29-2008, 05:47
This is very interesting question, I'm intrigued.

I voted undecided.

As an atheist who believes that people should have total freedom to worship whoever or whatever they wish without interference from anyone else, I hope that by the year 3000, there is no religious conflict. Honestly however, I don't see it happening.

Whether religion survives without changing or not I believe it will survive, and the diversity will be just as large. As many people have an inherent will to believe, and others are brought up with a reiligion I don't see it falling out of favour, particularly as science does not have all the answers. The question of a God's existence is totally unprovable either way.

It makes sense to me that religions will evolve as the years go by, but that the major religions in the world will still be in a recognisable form. Christianity has lasted for two milennia, Islam for one and a half, and Judaism and Buddhism for much longer than that.

My one hope is that fanaticism of the magnitude that leads to war and destruction in the name of a god, will fade out, but again I don't see it happening. Caledonian Rhyfelwyr is quite right however in saying that if you eliminate religion, race will take its place in causing conflict. In fact we can see that now in the representation of Islam in western society. The word Muslim has become ethnicised, and refers to people who come from Islamic countries rather than staunchly religious people.


Sextus, the whole point of religion is that it is unfathomable. God is the explanation. The nature of religion is faith in what you cannot prove. In other words I don't quite understand your point that we will understand God and religion.

However religion survives one can only hope that difference and freedom are accepted rather than attacked.

Carlos Matthews
10-01-2008, 14:08
*Controversial Post is forthcoming*

As we all know and statistics prove that people of Islamic faith and more religios than of people of Catholism, as in many Europeans for example are not religious when 90% of people from the east are. We also know that many people from the east are here in the west being religious. In the year 3000 it would not be far wrong to assume that one religion shall rule them all.. Islam. This would be a good thing as terrorism would cease to be, religious wars will stop and the world shall grow stronger if it is all united. So in 1000 years i'm not saying that the white man will not exist but the white man will be Islamic.

As a white man myself I do get rather confused about Islam, Muslim, Hindu etc so if I have used an eastern term incorrectly I am sure that you will not use it against me but rather point out which term I have got mixed up. Thank you.

CountArach
10-01-2008, 14:23
*Controversial Post is forthcoming*

As we all know and statistics prove that people of Islamic faith and more religios than of people of Catholism, as in many Europeans for example are not religious when 90% of people from the east are. We also know that many people from the east are here in the west being religious. In the year 3000 it would not be far wrong to assume that one religion shall rule them all.. Islam. This would be a good thing as terrorism would cease to be, religious wars will stop and the world shall grow stronger if it is all united. So in 1000 years i'm not saying that the white man will not exist but the white man will be Islamic.

As a white man myself I do get rather confused about Islam, Muslim, Hindu etc so if I have used an eastern term incorrectly I am sure that you will not use it against me but rather point out which term I have got mixed up. Thank you.
That sounds like a horrible world to me. A theocracy under any religion is a horrible prospect.

Viking
10-01-2008, 15:45
*Controversial Post is forthcoming*

As we all know and statistics prove that people of Islamic faith and more religios than of people of Catholism, as in many Europeans for example are not religious when 90% of people from the east are. We also know that many people from the east are here in the west being religious. In the year 3000 it would not be far wrong to assume that one religion shall rule them all.. Islam. This would be a good thing as terrorism would cease to be, religious wars will stop and the world shall grow stronger if it is all united. So in 1000 years i'm not saying that the white man will not exist but the white man will be Islamic.

As a white man myself I do get rather confused about Islam, Muslim, Hindu etc so if I have used an eastern term incorrectly I am sure that you will not use it against me but rather point out which term I have got mixed up. Thank you.

I don't find it controversial - it's really as good as any future prospect when it comes to accuracy. Prophecies do, after all, tend to fail horribly, the whole lot of them. :smash:

Rhyfelwyr
10-01-2008, 16:43
I doubt Islam will ever be the one world religion. If Islam does spread in the west then it will suffer from the same problems as Christianity as people give up their faith in search of secular pursuits, and liberalism leads to the Quran being taken apart and made to suit the wishes of liberal Muslims. Indeed this is already happening, it can be seen on debates quite regularly on TV, while it used to be unheard of.

It seems more likely that deism, universalism, New Age etc will form the one world religion.

gaelic cowboy
10-01-2008, 17:02
It seems more likely that deism, universalism, New Age etc will form the one world religion.

No I would say that we will have more religon but they will be smaller in adherants its like when they only used to be a couple of channels on telly then everyone watched the same programes then comes satellite and suddenly people are watching niche japanese porn using pogo sticks more choice leads to a leveling of the field.

Gaius Scribonius Curio
10-02-2008, 02:15
*Controversial Post is forthcoming*

As we all know and statistics prove that people of Islamic faith and more religios than of people of Catholism, as in many Europeans for example are not religious when 90% of people from the east are. We also know that many people from the east are here in the west being religious. In the year 3000 it would not be far wrong to assume that one religion shall rule them all.. Islam. This would be a good thing as terrorism would cease to be, religious wars will stop and the world shall grow stronger if it is all united. So in 1000 years i'm not saying that the white man will not exist but the white man will be Islamic.

As a white man myself I do get rather confused about Islam, Muslim, Hindu etc so if I have used an eastern term incorrectly I am sure that you will not use it against me but rather point out which term I have got mixed up. Thank you.

The issue that I have with this is that there is a reason that many Europeans are not as religious as Muslims. It's called the Enlightenment. Basically, under Enlightenment principles, out of which the concept of a liberal democracy grew out of, everything, particularly religion, is open to, and should be subjected to questioning.

Islam hasn't yet undergone an Enlightenment, and according to some, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a Somalian-born, Dutch politician, who is famed for being 'Anti-Islam'), believe that it never will. While the connotation that Islamic states are medievalist is unfair, a lack of Enlightenment principles explains the relatively large fundamentalist population, and the larger role that religion plays in everyday life in the Middle East.

The fact that immigration from Muslim countries to Europe is increasing and that these people are on the whole much more religious than native populations, does not account for a rejection of enligthenment principles on the part of native Europeans. Also despite the marked increase, Muslim populations in Europe are still a small minority in most EU countries.

A good point though. Do you mind providing the source for those statistics? I'm currently writing a research assignment on the place of Islam in Europe, and may be able to use them.

Curio