New Religions

[Gxg (G²)]

I realize Pope Francis is a Jesuit but do really think he named himself after Francis Xavier rather than Francis Assisi? He certainly seems to be following the pattern of the latter.

Seeing what the Vatican has said is interesting. Specifically, it is interesting to see the claim that the name was chosen after St.Francis of Assisi and yet the New Pope is a Jesuit like St.Francis of Xavier. For many, it's an issue of duality.

Even in the event that attempts to play down the choice of name occur, St.Francis of Assisi would still be significant and seen in connection with St.Francis of Xavier since Xavier is a part of the spiritual heritage of the Jesuits (more shared from here in previous discussions on what Xavier did). Modern Jesuits see St. Francis of Assisi as the patron saint of community organizing, even though by today’s standards his actual views would be regarded as militantly orthodox and he would have seen the conflation of the corporal works of mercy with specific political programs as mystifying. If he is an orthodox reformer in the mold of St. Francis of Assisi and a missionary in the spirit of St. Francis Xavier, he will need to start close to home.

I don't think he follows Liberation Theology in the purse sense of the word. In fact, he got a lot of flack in Argentina because they felt he didn't support the Liberation Theologians within his order sufficiently.

More than aware in regards to the accusations and the ties he had to groups against Liberation theologians....although what he does speak on has many overlaps with Liberation Theologians and it is that reason why many feel he's in the best position to advocate for Liberation Theology. As it is, there are many versions of Liberation theology .....seeing where capitalism has been used to aid others/liberate them (for there are differing forms of capitalism and capitalistic practice) - and other famous Liberation leaders were just for that - Marcus Garvey being one of them when it came to addressing issues via using Capitalism to help others. ..for
Marcus Garvey was considered the the paramount Liberation theologian ahead of his time for his advocacy for helping blacks in their economic struggles - even though his focus was based on addressing things from a Capitalistic perspective and helping blacks develop property while also advocating seperatism so that the poor in black communities could actually be helped rather than doing things on the terms of oppressors (more shared here and here )

.

Noam Chomsky did an excellent presentation on the dynamic of where the Pope stands on not being 100% for Liberation Theology as many understand the definition of the term even though he speaks out against many of the things Liberation Theology does....

Chomsky on the Pope's Radicalism - YouTube

Noam Chomsky (April, 2013) Interview (Hugo Chavez's death, Pope, and other topics) - YouTube

I don't think it is an accident that they picked a South American who was at the same time Italian.

Very true - as there were others who could have been chosen, some of whom were Dark-Skinned African Cardinals....and others were hoping for that since that'd be much more potent in many ways in light of how we've not had a dark-skinned Pope for centuries..

But to have someone who was from South America and yet tied to the older world as well....that's something we have to see as being significant.

I think we have to be honest and acknowledge that Europe, for the most part, has abandoned Christianity.

It really depends on where one looks - for in Russia, abandoning isn't the case and the same goes for many places throughout the area. And Dr. Philip Jenkins did an excellent presentation on the issue I was very thankful for in how Europe has not been lost:

Dr Philip Jenkins: God's continent, today's realities - YouTube

 

[smaneck]

If he is an orthodox reformer in the mold of St. Francis of Assisi and a missionary in the spirit of St. Francis Xavier, he will need to start close to home.

I don't see many signs that Pope Francis is all that interested in missionary endeavors. As for St. Francis of Assisi being an 'orthodox reformer' he went about as far as anyone could in embracing apostolic poverty without getting thrown out of the church.

and it is that reason why many feel he's in the best position to advocate for Liberation Theology.

I think it is probably fair to say he would achieve the goals of Liberation Theology via different methods. His critique is against 'unbridled campitalism' but he doesn't endorse socialism, per se. (And here I mean socialism in the Marxist sense, not the silly American sense which wants to label Obama a socialist.)

Very true - as there were others who could have been chosen, some of whom were Dark-Skinned African Cardinals....and others were hoping for that since that'd be much more potent in many ways in light of how we've not had a dark-skinned Pope for centuries..

I don't think race was so much the issue here. Keep in mind that the Pope also has to be the Bishop of Rome which is why historically most of the Popes have been Italian. After the disastrous Avignon Papacy there has also been a certain reluctance to elect non-Italians. Also, in order to reform the Vatican, you need to understand it. Keep in mind that Ratzinger resigned precisely because at his age he couldn't handle the internal politics of the Vatican despite the fact he was an insider. They needed to have someone who could speak Italian as well as Latin, so at least they can't be talking behind his back too easily.

But to have someone who was from South America and yet tied to the older world as well....that's something we have to see as being significant.

I'm sure that is why he was chosen.

It really depends on where one looks - for in Russia, abandoning isn't the case and the same goes for many places throughout the area.

I was thinking of Western Europe. On an average Sunday less than 5% of Western Europeans will attend church. This is compares with about 30% in the US.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think that Christianity becoming more focused to the global south might tangentially mellow out the American Evangelicals.

It came to me the other day that one major change occurring is others realizing what has been practiced within the world of Christianity and that actually seeing what it is would lead to clearer definition of how things are..

For more clarity, one can go to Moralistic Therapeutic Deism: The De Facto Religion of Many Christians | One In JesusOne In Jesus

Growing up and seeing this in action (as noted in the review from Princeton ), I can honestly say that what's preached more so and practiced in many places is Deism more so than what others wish to note - and it doesn't take quitting being a Christian in order to realize that. Of course, there does seem to be a return to Deism by many and it's not surprising in light of how often those in the history of the U.S have been propped up by others as examples of Christianity when they were in fact opposite of that.

For reference:

• "Mystical Sites - U.S Captitol / Vigiliant Citizen" ( )
• "Educate Yourself /Vigiliant Citizen"
• THOUSAND LIES - THE NATIVE AMERICAN
• Sins against Native Americans - PoliticsInHeaven"
• -"The Hidden Hand that Shaped History | The Vigilant "( )
• Monumental Myth « The Centrality and Supremacy of Jesus Christ

Psywar: The Real Battlefield is the Mind

The Hidden Faith of The Founding Fathers 2010 - YouTube

George Washington was a freemason and a deist. He wouldn’t take communion with his wife. ...and he was also what's known as a Unitarian ..and due to his Unitarian views, held stances that supported both Christian principles and non-Christian beliefs such as Deism and other things. For reference:

• Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington.
• George Washington, David Barton and Unitarianism
• American Revolution: "I Think, Therefore I Am...a Unitarian"

One can also go here and here. John Adams spoke harshly at times about Christianity and religion in general in his private correspondence. He was a Christian Unitarian that believed the church service was good for everyone because it promoted morals and values among the masses. Thomas Jefferson, as a Diest, went so far to deny the divinity of Christ. He even created his own compilation of Jesus’ life from the gospels, which he entitled, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.” He removed all evidence of the “supernatural” for a presentation of Jesus as a good moral teacher who is only to be admired, not worshipped. And there are other examples of where things they did/began were FAR from being what the Lord had in mind with Biblical laws​

In example, there are pictures showing the Founding Fathers as gods..which is not surprising seeing that most of the Founding Fathers were very much into Freemasonry. There was one statue I remember seeing of George Washington IN D.C that had him in the form of a Greek GOD when I was visiting the place back in 2009. Seemed like they were trying to express the regal nature the president seemed to have and take it to another level, just as others have done often..

Additionally, the dome of the Capitol features in its occulus an incredibly significant painting that reveals the philosophical, spiritual and political aims of the Founding Fathers. Right in the very centre of the cast iron dome in the U.S Capitol is a painting of George Washington, ascended to the pantheon of ancient greek deities.

​

Astonishingly poor theology for 'one nation under God', but evidence of the high esteem George was held in by his 19th century successors. The building was completed (from memory) in the 1820s.

And there are many others besides that.

It's not hidden. I'm surprised many more don't talk on the ways the Founding Fathers were often deified multiple times and no one said anything on it for centuries. I'd wager that many don't tend to look for it due to assumptions they've already accepted on the Founding Fathers being fully dedicated believers and soldiers for Christ as has often been said by others in the Religious Right and others who had an idea of Christianity in mind which they supported/felt the FOunders did as well ( with the use of Biblical Language/scripture in their speeches being what influences others to see the history of the nation as being Christian in origin ), thus causing confirmation bias and people seeing what they have already been trained to see/zoom in on....even when the other darker aspects of what were present in the nation's founding/consistently growing are out in the open...from the monuments of our capitol to the things presidents swear into before taking office (like Bohemian Grove, if not aware of it - very dark reality )...and a lot of other mess.

But all of that is noted to say that what was advocated as 'Christianity' in the history of our nation - and still is by certain camps in the Religious Right - is now being revealed for what it always was when it comes to the many ways it went counter to Christ - and how those claiming to practice Christianity are being revealed for what they have always practiced...​

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The ultimate fate of relatively small (but successful) world views is about as unpredictable as the weather. Since they tend to lack both a significant mundane power base as of yet, and also have not established most (or even many) of their beliefs as part of the societal status quo, their continued existence relies entirely on factors that cannot be foretold.

I doubt that too many people in the early 2nd century CE saw Christianity as the Next Big Thing that was going to dominate the Western world for nearly two millennia. "Please. That syncretist crackpot sect about a god who died like a traitor in the backwaters of the Empire? Yeah, right." (And before Christians get any ideas about this being a sure sign of the extra-special status of their religion: virtually the same could be said about Islam, or even about Mormonism. It can hardly get any weirder than Joseph Smith's tale of golden plates, magical translation hats, mystical underwear and people becoming the gods of their own planets.)

But of course, it's fun to speculate nonetheless.

Just imagine a future where the Raelians hold approximately the societal status that Christians hold these days, with scholarly institutions teaching courses on ufology and researchers debating the historicity of Rael's revelation.

Or a future where Scientology breaks up into different sects that are at war with each other.

Or an organized Wiccan faith that tries to implement some sort of centralized administrative body, uniting all the different sub-sects.

Or a world where non-theistic spirituality reigns supreme, incorporating all of the scientific knowledge we've gained since the agrarian age gradually came to an end, replacing the simplistic creation myths of old with more complex ones.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have for a while argued that there is a growing new religious movement happening in the United States.

Elements of its formation exist in several coalescing streams:

1) Finneyist Revivalism
2) Neo-Calvinism
3) Christian Reconstructionism/Dominionism
4) Fundamentalism
5) Neo-Conservatism
6) American Exceptionalism and Messianism
7) Christian Triumphalism

I would describe it as "Americaism" or "Americanist Fundamentalism"; as there is a fundamental stress placed upon the United States of America as a central element of religion: Exceptionalism (America is unique and exceptional among all nations), Messianism (America's founding is a prophetic, messianic event in history), Israelism (America is a blessed, chosen nation of God).

The American founding fathers are re-imagined into a pantheon of infallible saints, a new apostolate through whom God establishes a new, sacred covenant with promises of historic destiny (e.g. Manifest Destiny). This fabulist's America is governed by Divine Law, it is a Theonomist nation of covenant--obey God's laws and God will cause the nation to prosper, do away with God's laws and the nation shall crumble.

This narrative is cloaked in nominally Christian clothing by yoking it with strains of Revivalist Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism; permitting the modern "prophets" of the religion to speak against the "evils" of the age, namely progressive politics and the loss of white Christian (mostly Protestant) prestige.

By religionizing what should be mere political disagreements among differently-minded persons, the entire dynamic becomes re-read as good vs. evil, God and Satan vying for the soul of the American nation--a covenant, messianic nation instituted by God by inspired individuals known (the founding fathers).

I don't see this new religion going away anytime soon. And I really am arguing that it is a new religion, whether it is breaching the barrier toward independent religious tradition or not is still to be seen. But I am rather convinced that this religious movement exists independent of the historic Christian faith with its emphasis and reliance upon the ancient Creeds and confessions; but instead has formulated an entire theology and mythology rooted and founded in a uniquely American identity; though even its "America" is a revisionist one, an invention, a fable invented during living memory.

It is a moralistic religion, one that places the onus of divine favor upon moral, spiritual purity based upon conforming to a moralistic rule--a moralistic rule generally claimed to be "biblical" but formed rather piecemeal from cultural mores dating variously from the Victorian and post-second world war periods. To be at fault morally is to invoke disfavor from the American God; again because God's favor/disfavor depends upon the morality of the covenant nation. When the covenant nation lives according to the right theonomy, God blesses the nation with prosperity; when the nation acts contrary the nation suffers.

This is the narrative one must read also when trying to parse American politics, because a large segment of the American public filters the entire political realm in this theological framework.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lesliedellow]

My guess is that most, if not all, of them, will have limited life expectancy. Like the so called "prosperity gospel" within Christianity, it and they are a product of the age. In order to have a long term future, a religion needs to address the perennial concerns of mankind, and address them successfully.

It is actually extremely difficult to get a new religion going - at least if it is to be more than a passing fad. Today just four of them account for about 75% of mankind, and they were all founded centuries, if not millennia, ago.

 

[Mediate]

So we've before asked "where do you see current religions in the future?" but I want to pose a variation on that question: Where do you see NEW religions in the future? In this case I say that a "new" religion is any religion founded no earlier than the beginning of the 19th century with an emphasis on 20th century spiritual movements. Do you see an explosion in any of these faiths happening in the next century or two? How about entirely new beliefs?

I believe that certain things will continue to grow; I imagine the formation of new, syncretic pagan faiths and sort of UFO-ish religions gaining legitimacy (compared to their cultish offshoots). My idea of UFO religions stems from ideas in tomes like the Urantia Book gaining popularity. Of course I see Pantheism or general "Spiritism" taking the biggest leap among religions for its information structure and almost entirely laissez-faire approach to beliefs.

Thoughts?

I see differently. To me, as mankind learns more about reconciling language together, more about consciousness, psychology, about morality, compassion, empathy, desire, about the history of religions, about concepts that arise in lots of faiths, about human nature, about commonalities in man, about crime and violence and about science and the natural world, we will begin to notice more similarities and commonalities and connections between all these things.

I hope, that some day humanity might all sit silent for a moment and just be grateful for the world, the body, the mind, and each other. That a common faith upon which the singular, all-transcendent, all-reaching God, in however many languages or cultural concepts he may be expressed, is known as a God who knows the differences of man, who is accepted as trancendent of a singular 'doctrine', who is known for the character of compassion, mercy, forgiveness, unity, oneness, empathy and peace.

As I understand it, such a day will come at some point, headed by the true God and verified by Jesus and the many other people of spirit.

Probably the closest thing that exists to such an idea at present is something like Baha'i, wherein the followers generally accept that God, as transcendent and universally known as he is across the world, is expressed and seen with many names and many titles and many culturally specific stories, but essentially all these things come from the same compassionate source adn the differences only arise from man's need to apply such titles and definitions. That the separatism in religion comes only as a result of the flaws of man.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I have for a while argued that there is a growing new religious movement happening in the United States.

Elements of its formation exist in several coalescing streams:

1) Finneyist Revivalism
2) Neo-Calvinism
3) Christian Reconstructionism/Dominionism
4) Fundamentalism
5) Neo-Conservatism
6) American Exceptionalism and Messianism
7) Christian Triumphalism

I would describe it as "Americaism" or "Americanist Fundamentalism"; as there is a fundamental stress placed upon the United States of America as a central element of religion: Exceptionalism (America is unique and exceptional among all nations), Messianism (America's founding is a prophetic, messianic event in history), Israelism (America is a blessed, chosen nation of God).

The American founding fathers are re-imagined into a pantheon of infallible saints, a new apostolate through whom God establishes a new, sacred covenant with promises of historic destiny (e.g. Manifest Destiny). This fabulist's America is governed by Divine Law, it is a Theonomist nation of covenant--obey God's laws and God will cause the nation to prosper, do away with God's laws and the nation shall crumble.

This narrative is cloaked in nominally Christian clothing by yoking it with strains of Revivalist Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism; permitting the modern "prophets" of the religion to speak against the "evils" of the age, namely progressive politics and the loss of white Christian (mostly Protestant) prestige.

By religionizing what should be mere political disagreements among differently-minded persons, the entire dynamic becomes re-read as good vs. evil, God and Satan vying for the soul of the American nation--a covenant, messianic nation instituted by God by inspired individuals known (the founding fathers).

I don't see this new religion going away anytime soon. And I really am arguing that it is a new religion, whether it is breaching the barrier toward independent religious tradition or not is still to be seen. But I am rather convinced that this religious movement exists independent of the historic Christian faith with its emphasis and reliance upon the ancient Creeds and confessions; but instead has formulated an entire theology and mythology rooted and founded in a uniquely American identity; though even its "America" is a revisionist one, an invention, a fable invented during living memory.

It is a moralistic religion, one that places the onus of divine favor upon moral, spiritual purity based upon conforming to a moralistic rule--a moralistic rule generally claimed to be "biblical" but formed rather piecemeal from cultural mores dating variously from the Victorian and post-second world war periods. To be at fault morally is to invoke disfavor from the American God; again because God's favor/disfavor depends upon the morality of the covenant nation. When the covenant nation lives according to the right theonomy, God blesses the nation with prosperity; when the nation acts contrary the nation suffers.

This is the narrative one must read also when trying to parse American politics, because a large segment of the American public filters the entire political realm in this theological framework.

-CryptoLutheran

Very excellent points you raise - and interesting you should note what you did in light of what has happened during the past couple of elections. It was amazing to me how often people would spiritualize the events as if each and every choice was an Act of God - and all would do so in the name of God guiding America back to its Christian roots.

But as many have noted, there's a false narrative on the matter that is not really considered for what it is...

 

[Rocmonkey]

And with post-Christian U.S, although other doors have opened up for many things, I am afraid for other things as well.

Sadly, it does seem that secular humanism is a dominant force and something that's seeking to dominate in many ways - although where we're at is tolerance being the new religion, IMHO. And a view of "tolerance" that's intolerant toward Christianity because of its traditional stance that it is supreme and the best out of all other roads...the way to the Lord. It makes no sense as to why others demand Christians to be tolerant of other religions/beliefs - all of it based on moral relativism/the belief that there are no absolutes - and yet they are aggressive in making absolute statements and new religion to proclaim itself as the only way to salvation.

All these things are necessary for us to focus on...and thus, I thank you for making the thread available.

That was very intelligently stated! Kuddos! (If I knew how to send you Kuddos I would. )

If I may say, it seems these days every group out there is demanding, as you said, that Christians tolerate them. But they outright refuse to tolerate, or even acknowledge, the sacred and time-honored Christian ideals or the impact they have had on the world. If one is only tolerant of their own views then one isn't tolerant at all. That view becomes their religion by simple default.

 

[Zoness]

That was very intelligently stated! Kuddos! (If I knew how to send you Kuddos I would. )

If I may say, it seems these days every group out there is demanding, as you said, that Christians tolerate them. But they outright refuse to tolerate, or even acknowledge, the sacred and time-honored Christian ideals or the impact they have had on the world. If one is only tolerant of their own views then one isn't tolerant at all. That view becomes their religion by simple default.

Which of these time-honored ideals will survive forever? A lot of them seem obvious to me and most people, religious or not, would agree that being good to your neighbor and not killing people are pretty decent ideas. I don't see hatred of gays on religious ground or young Earth creationism surviving past the next few decades though. In a few decades, these ideas won't be regarded as Christian at all. Personally that's fine with me, there are some awful things that world religions have been discarding very slowly over the last few centuries.

 

[gord44]

Probably the closest thing that exists to such an idea at present is something like Baha'i, wherein the followers generally accept that God, as transcendent and universally known as he is across the world, is expressed and seen with many names and many titles and many culturally specific stories, but essentially all these things come from the same compassionate source adn the differences only arise from man's need to apply such titles and definitions. That the separatism in religion comes only as a result of the flaws of man.

That's something you see in many paths. some aspects of Buddhism, Sufism, Hinduism. It's not new. Putting aside doctrine and man made constructions and focusing on the divine spark in all humanity.

 

[Zoness]

I have for a while argued that there is a growing new religious movement happening in the United States.

Elements of its formation exist in several coalescing streams:

1) Finneyist Revivalism
2) Neo-Calvinism
3) Christian Reconstructionism/Dominionism
4) Fundamentalism
5) Neo-Conservatism
6) American Exceptionalism and Messianism
7) Christian Triumphalism

I would describe it as "Americaism" or "Americanist Fundamentalism"; as there is a fundamental stress placed upon the United States of America as a central element of religion: Exceptionalism (America is unique and exceptional among all nations), Messianism (America's founding is a prophetic, messianic event in history), Israelism (America is a blessed, chosen nation of God).

The American founding fathers are re-imagined into a pantheon of infallible saints, a new apostolate through whom God establishes a new, sacred covenant with promises of historic destiny (e.g. Manifest Destiny). This fabulist's America is governed by Divine Law, it is a Theonomist nation of covenant--obey God's laws and God will cause the nation to prosper, do away with God's laws and the nation shall crumble.

This narrative is cloaked in nominally Christian clothing by yoking it with strains of Revivalist Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism; permitting the modern "prophets" of the religion to speak against the "evils" of the age, namely progressive politics and the loss of white Christian (mostly Protestant) prestige.

By religionizing what should be mere political disagreements among differently-minded persons, the entire dynamic becomes re-read as good vs. evil, God and Satan vying for the soul of the American nation--a covenant, messianic nation instituted by God by inspired individuals known (the founding fathers).

I don't see this new religion going away anytime soon. And I really am arguing that it is a new religion, whether it is breaching the barrier toward independent religious tradition or not is still to be seen. But I am rather convinced that this religious movement exists independent of the historic Christian faith with its emphasis and reliance upon the ancient Creeds and confessions; but instead has formulated an entire theology and mythology rooted and founded in a uniquely American identity; though even its "America" is a revisionist one, an invention, a fable invented during living memory.

It is a moralistic religion, one that places the onus of divine favor upon moral, spiritual purity based upon conforming to a moralistic rule--a moralistic rule generally claimed to be "biblical" but formed rather piecemeal from cultural mores dating variously from the Victorian and post-second world war periods. To be at fault morally is to invoke disfavor from the American God; again because God's favor/disfavor depends upon the morality of the covenant nation. When the covenant nation lives according to the right theonomy, God blesses the nation with prosperity; when the nation acts contrary the nation suffers.

This is the narrative one must read also when trying to parse American politics, because a large segment of the American public filters the entire political realm in this theological framework.

-CryptoLutheran

Great assessment, looking through this description it certainly feels like its happening everywhere now. I'm sure it will only get more intense if nationalism continues to flare up over the coming years.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Probably the closest thing that exists to such an idea at present is something like Baha'i, wherein the followers generally accept that God, as transcendent and universally known as he is across the world, is expressed and seen with many names and many titles and many culturally specific stories, but essentially all these things come from the same compassionate source. . . .

That's something you see in many paths.... Putting aside doctrine and man made constructions and focusing on the divine spark in all humanity.

Save that with something like the Baha'i Faith there's no need to put aside doctrine because the teachings of the Faith itself--including its scriptures--explicitly endorse both unity and the validity of all the other great religions.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Dialogues]

That's something you see in many paths. some aspects of Buddhism, Sufism, Hinduism. It's not new. Putting aside doctrine and man made constructions and focusing on the divine spark in all humanity.

It's not just sufism that teaches it, but the Qur'an states in many verses that prophets were sent to all peoples. Islam does not claim to have a monopoly on truth, and inculcates respect for all prophets and their teachings.

Peace.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I have for a while argued that there is a growing new religious movement happening in the United States.

Elements of its formation exist in several coalescing streams:

1) Finneyist Revivalism
2) Neo-Calvinism
3) Christian Reconstructionism/Dominionism
4) Fundamentalism
5) Neo-Conservatism
6) American Exceptionalism and Messianism
7) Christian Triumphalism

I would describe it as "Americaism" or "Americanist Fundamentalism"; as there is a fundamental stress placed upon the United States of America as a central element of religion: Exceptionalism (America is unique and exceptional among all nations), Messianism (America's founding is a prophetic, messianic event in history), Israelism (America is a blessed, chosen nation of God).

The American founding fathers are re-imagined into a pantheon of infallible saints, a new apostolate through whom God establishes a new, sacred covenant with promises of historic destiny (e.g. Manifest Destiny). This fabulist's America is governed by Divine Law, it is a Theonomist nation of covenant--obey God's laws and God will cause the nation to prosper, do away with God's laws and the nation shall crumble.

This narrative is cloaked in nominally Christian clothing by yoking it with strains of Revivalist Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism; permitting the modern "prophets" of the religion to speak against the "evils" of the age, namely progressive politics and the loss of white Christian (mostly Protestant) prestige.

By religionizing what should be mere political disagreements among differently-minded persons, the entire dynamic becomes re-read as good vs. evil, God and Satan vying for the soul of the American nation--a covenant, messianic nation instituted by God by inspired individuals known (the founding fathers).

I don't see this new religion going away anytime soon. And I really am arguing that it is a new religion, whether it is breaching the barrier toward independent religious tradition or not is still to be seen. But I am rather convinced that this religious movement exists independent of the historic Christian faith with its emphasis and reliance upon the ancient Creeds and confessions; but instead has formulated an entire theology and mythology rooted and founded in a uniquely American identity; though even its "America" is a revisionist one, an invention, a fable invented during living memory.

It is a moralistic religion, one that places the onus of divine favor upon moral, spiritual purity based upon conforming to a moralistic rule--a moralistic rule generally claimed to be "biblical" but formed rather piecemeal from cultural mores dating variously from the Victorian and post-second world war periods. To be at fault morally is to invoke disfavor from the American God; again because God's favor/disfavor depends upon the morality of the covenant nation. When the covenant nation lives according to the right theonomy, God blesses the nation with prosperity; when the nation acts contrary the nation suffers.

This is the narrative one must read also when trying to parse American politics, because a large segment of the American public filters the entire political realm in this theological framework.

-CryptoLutheran

Historically - as it concerns the nationalism of the U.S developing into a religion in/of itself that does everything in the name of "democracy" (even when it goes against that in the process), some of the ways things have progressed are astounding.

The Puritans originally came to America in order to gain freedom of religion, freedom from the persecution that they were experiencing at the hands of an antagonistic Church of England. And so they fled. In their fleeing they encountered all kinds of hardship and tribulation, and yet they endured and finally made it to the ‘Promised Land’. It was these kinds of experiences, and the relative success of establishing a new nation, that imbued Puritan pastors and theologians with the notion that Divine Providence had carried them into the new land of promise. Indeed, many (if not all) of the Puritans believed that they were truly the new Israel of God, and that they had been given Divine sanction to sack the native Americans (like the original Israel did with the Canaanites), and take their lands (manifest destiny)

Many tend to have a postmillennial view of heritage that believes that America has its rootage in Divine favor and blessedness—as God’s covenant people [As a side note, the interesting thing about this is that most American's who appeal to this age as constituting a "Christian" heritage to our nation are not postmillennial, but premillennial dispensationalists, which is completely at odds with postmil thought]. And it is this kind of mindset that believes that America is exceptional, that is, because we have been blessed of God (as his covenant nation), and thus we can offer things to the rest of the world (even if that means that we, in a utilitarian and pragmatic way impose ourselves on other nations for the greater good; i.e. which is the preservation of God’s new Israel, America) that the rest of the world needs. By the logic of others, we are the dispensers of God’s covenant promises after all

. But people fail to realize that other nations have been exceptional as well and it's theological error trying to assume that a nation being exceptional at many points is either exceptional at ALL points or "exceptional" according to the standards of the Lord. ....and as it concerns God rulling the nation, one would have to see a radical shift where God is honored at ALL points in order for any talk on theocracy established by men to be possible.

There's actually a good book on the issue entitled "Between Babel and the Beast" addressing the issue very well (more here ).

​

And for more, one should consider investigating the work of Roger Olson who has provided a mini and partial review of Peter Leithart’s book, Between Babel and the Beast. (more here ).Leithart challenges a religion that he (amongst others) has labeled Americanism (or the worship of America as God’s special nation, like the new Israel). Moreover, for others who've spoken on the issue. One is Soong-Chan Rah in his work The Next Evangelicalism: Releasing the Church from Western ... - Page 449..and another is Andrea Smith of Native Americans and the Christian Right: The Gendered Politics of Unlikely Alliances.

As the Late Richard Twiss said best:

Richard Twiss: A Theology of Manifest Destiny​

Richard Twiss: Hope For the American Church​

 

[MehGuy]

I ultimately think religion will die. There will always be some people who are spiritual, but I think the mass majority of people will be atheist/agnostic.

Although I do see a revival in spirituality, albeit with a secular mindset. There are many amazing feelings and emotions that can come from religion. I do see a day where people will induce these emotions with technology and enjoy them anyways. There may be a strange hybrid of atheism and religion. One where the mind is tricked into believing in faith yet at the same time not believing in it.

I hope I'm making some sense. I'm writing a novel about the future and this is one concept I have trouble conveying.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I believe that certain things will continue to grow; I imagine the formation of new, syncretic pagan faiths and sort of UFO-ish religions gaining legitimacy (compared to their cultish offshoots). My idea of UFO religions stems from ideas in tomes like the Urantia Book gaining popularity. Of course I see Pantheism or general "Spiritism" taking the biggest leap among religions for its information structure and almost entirely laissez-faire approach to beliefs.

Thoughts?

Came across something rather fascinating recently - as it concerns the rise or continuation of those who are Muslim Open Theists (as opposed to Fatalists/Determinism advocates), seen in Muslim Open Theists, Politics, T. F. Torrance, and Why the God-Man Matters | Theological Graffiti - Digital Etchings on Life and Faith )

 

[Zoness]

Historically - as it concerns the nationalism of the U.S developing into a religion in/of itself that does everything in the name of "democracy" (even when it goes against that in the process), some of the ways things have progressed are astounding.

The Puritans originally came to America in order to gain freedom of religion, freedom from the persecution that they were experiencing at the hands of an antagonistic Church of England. And so they fled. In their fleeing they encountered all kinds of hardship and tribulation, and yet they endured and finally made it to the ‘Promised Land’. It was these kinds of experiences, and the relative success of establishing a new nation, that imbued Puritan pastors and theologians with the notion that Divine Providence had carried them into the new land of promise. Indeed, many (if not all) of the Puritans believed that they were truly the new Israel of God, and that they had been given Divine sanction to sack the native Americans (like the original Israel did with the Canaanites), and take their lands (manifest destiny)

Many tend to have a postmillennial view of heritage that believes that America has its rootage in Divine favor and blessedness—as God’s covenant people [As a side note, the interesting thing about this is that most American's who appeal to this age as constituting a "Christian" heritage to our nation are not postmillennial, but premillennial dispensationalists, which is completely at odds with postmil thought]. And it is this kind of mindset that believes that America is exceptional, that is, because we have been blessed of God (as his covenant nation), and thus we can offer things to the rest of the world (even if that means that we, in a utilitarian and pragmatic way impose ourselves on other nations for the greater good; i.e. which is the preservation of God’s new Israel, America) that the rest of the world needs. By the logic of others, we are the dispensers of God’s covenant promises after all

. But people fail to realize that other nations have been exceptional as well and it's theological error trying to assume that a nation being exceptional at many points is either exceptional at ALL points or "exceptional" according to the standards of the Lord. ....and as it concerns God rulling the nation, one would have to see a radical shift where God is honored at ALL points in order for any talk on theocracy established by men to be possible.

There's actually a good book on the issue entitled "Between Babel and the Beast" addressing the issue very well (more here ).

​

And for more, one should consider investigating the work of Roger Olson who has provided a mini and partial review of Peter Leithart’s book, Between Babel and the Beast. (more here ).Leithart challenges a religion that he (amongst others) has labeled Americanism (or the worship of America as God’s special nation, like the new Israel). Moreover, for others who've spoken on the issue. One is Soong-Chan Rah in his work The Next Evangelicalism: Releasing the Church from Western ... - Page 449..and another is Andrea Smith of Native Americans and the Christian Right: The Gendered Politics of Unlikely Alliances.

As the Late Richard Twiss said best:

Richard Twiss: A Theology of Manifest Destiny​

Richard Twiss: Hope For the American Church​

I'm interested to see how the next generation of Christians will respond to the previous generations of Christians. They lean much more towards tolerance than other groups of Christians and the culture seems more open, brought about by the internet and social connectivity.

It seems to me that people under 30 are much less likely to buy into the "America is God's nation" line now more than ever. I think its because people grow up and realize people from other countries aren't all that bad, it makes it hard to claim superiority. It's sort of like people who hate homosexuals; once they realize their best friend is one its a little harder to hate something that has a human face attached to it.

I think the Internet is and will continue to be a major driver in social change and even religion [until corporations gut it and make it like Cable TV] for some time to come. People will grow up reading the stories from a multitude of religions because its so easy to read that stuff nowadays, that makes it just a bit harder for people of all religions to hate each other.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think the Internet is and will continue to be a major driver in social change and even religion [until corporations gut it and make it like Cable TV] for some time to come. People will grow up reading the stories from a multitude of religions because its so easy to read that stuff nowadays, that makes it just a bit harder for people of all religions to hate each other.

If I may say...

Part of me was reminded recently - in light of the way that information and technology has shifted so much of the way we interact - that it is very much possible for new religions to be developed without them ever having a name officially...or even been seen/acknowledged IN public.

And I have to agree with others noting that one of the DOMINANT religions that has grown up of late is the religion pertaining to Greed and worship of Corporations - the religion no one wants to acknowledge even though we have the background of a Feudalistic System in place (more shared elsewhere)

For a basic review:

• Super-Inc: The Emergence of a Quasi-Religion

• New Corporatism | Peter J. Leithart | First Things

To be more specific, I Was talking to my priest last year and he noted that perhaps it's possible that (if having a Futurism eschatology) that the prophecy in Daniel is not necessarily about the 10-nation confederation of the revived Roman Empire as many conclude from Daniel 7:23-24 / Revelation 17:12-13 (if seeing that as a part of the rise of the Anti-Christ) - but perhaps it's Corporations that represent the 10 nations: Corporate greed from differing parts of the world ruling....and impacting every aspect of life as much as possible in one huge, ensnaring circle that utilizes globalization as a means of connection.

What surprised me is to witness where others in the world of Theism had the same mentality...

​

The understanding was that the ten kings symbolize the ten regions (kingdoms) on earth. And these ten regions will unite together as one global corporate government - with it being the case that it doesn't even have to be the case that others have to use the terms "ONE world government" in order for that to be the case when actions symbolize impact on a global level. The nature of deception is to keep people decieved/things are not what they are even when they are just that..

And as another noted wisely for brief excerpt:

Technology makes possible the total control of human society by the experts - a class of people shaped by studies in the social sciences and animated by a deep faith in the power of reason to shape the good life, eliminate evil and create our own Eden here on earth without the help of God, thank you very much. From Jeremy Bentham's horrible "panopticon" to Orwell's "Big Brother" to Huxley's "World Controllers" all twentieth century dystopias have featured the use of technology to rationalize, plan and control entire societies from before birth to death. Prophetic voices as diverse as Jacques Elull, Romano Guardini, Wendell Berry, Alexsander Solzhensitsyn, J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis and Pope John Paul II have warned against the dehumanization of man through this type of totalitarianism. The danger that the human race will destroy the planet through nuclear war, though very real in the second half of the twentieth century, has now, I believe been surpassed as a threat by the bio-technology revolution. Bio-technology represents the temptation for man (actually, as Lewis pointed, some men) to sieze control of evolution and re-make the race in their own image, quite likely degrading him in the process.

​

For what we see in our day is truly the rise of the Corporate State - and the individual serving the Corporation while the rise of Neo-Feudalism comes up.

Again, many have felt that there's nothing concrete in scripture rulling out anything in regards to CEOs (led by councils, with heads/one master of them each) as a possibility - especially when seeing the influence they already have.

• The New World Trade Center.doc - Five Doves

As another said wisely on the situation when it came to the signs of knowing the End Times (for excerpt) :

In Revelation 13:16-17 we are told that the False Prophet "causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." The advent of computers, the Internet, and now Radio Frequency Identification makes it possible for this prophecy to be fulfilled. Last year the Bush administration authorized the insertion of RFID chips under our skin. Once this gains acceptance world-wide it wouldn't take much to replace all currency with electronic transactions. ... The EU (European Union) has emerged as the last days revived Roman Empire with "Ten Kings." ...Prophecy speaks of a seven-headed red dragon with ten horns. The dragon is Satan and the heads are the kingdoms of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, Rome, and the kingdom of the Antichrist and False Prophet. Revelation 17:12-13 says, "And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast." The Western Roman Empire fell in the fifth century. The Eastern fell around the fifteenth century. The EU with its many member nations covers the same geographic area and has much in common with the old Roman Empire. Daniel 2:44 says, "And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever."

​

EndGame HQ full length version



Invisible Empire A New World Order Defined Full (Order it at Infowars.com)​

When you understand the concept of plutocracy and the ways that others who are elites/kings tend to like ruling in the shadows - especially those who are bankers/influence the economy to their own ends around the globe, a lot of things tend to make sense. Societies shaped by this Iberian-derived monistic corporatism tend to be characterized by authoritarianism, elitism, clientelism, patrimonialism, familism, etc....you get the point.

Again, I say that because it does seem like we essentially have a world religion that connects all things together while allowing each religion to have its own sphere of influence....except the religion of Corporation dominance is one that is a SHADOW religion influencing everything behind the scenes. Hope that makes sense​

 

[Zoness]

It's an interesting idea, I've never heard it thrown around much because many people who are into Biblical prophecy are also staunchly pro-corporate but you may be onto something about the idea of "spheres of influence" terms of the geographical presence of religions the world over. I wonder if a sizable quantity of Christians have considered that view.

The famous hacker and cypherpunk IgnorantGuru (relevant article here) commented that technology and computers in the 80s had the ability to give tinkerers power over established power structures but that has since inverted when smart people become complacent or locked in miles of legal forms and red tape. Now that technology has significantly outpaced culture and legislation, governments and megacorps alike have began to use against the very people it is meant to help. I'm thinking of NSA spying, wiretapping, data mining, society's "oversharing" problem and weak computer security along with no strong encryption.

Talking about all of this reminds me of Shadowrun where the ten biggest corporations of the world rule it via a concept called extraterritoriality allows them to make laws and standing armies on corporate property and effectively introduces wage slavery by requiring someone working for the megacorp to effectively become citizens.

If you're into fantasy-cyberpunk fusions you might find the game setting pretty awesome and somewhat terrifying given the parallels in our world as is.

I'll have to queue up that First Things link for future reading. How do you feel about the site overall? Do you feel it is a good publication? I'm starting to have interest in religion's relationship with high technology and the increasing worldly dystopia of its use.