Will there be the creation of another religion?

[UnafraidOne]

I'd like to think it's because they become convinced based on the merits of the religion itself. I grew up a Christian, but I remain a Christian because of my conviction of Jesus. Nobody needs to coerce me, control me, or threaten me. I actively engage myself in a worshiping community out of my own desire to do this, my own desire to be part of it out of my own devotion and dedication to the teachings and way of Jesus.

If you were to ask me why someone should become a Christian, I would offerr the same statements. I wouldn't want someone to convert out of a need to conform, or a need to stand out; not for fear of hell and punishment, or desire for paradise and reward. But rather because of the standing merit of Jesus as encountered in the Gospel itself. If they don't believe then they don't believe, if they do believe then they do believe.

At least as far as my own religion is concerned. I would imagine that such sentiments exist elsewhere as well. Judaism, in fact, actively deters others from converting. A potential convert is turned away at least three times before being accepted and going through the conversion process.

-CryptoLutheran

But what do the merits of Jesus Christ have to do with the validity of his teachings?

If I said "Simon Peter was crucified upside down in order to salve Christ's ego" - (following the accusation that Peter would deny him three times) - then what standard do you use test the truth or falsehood of the spiritual claims Jesus Christ made, or the loftiness of moral heights he reached?

 

[Zoness]

Not everyone needs a sense of ultimate meaning or purpose. They live their life, making their own meaning. That's good enough.

This has worked for me so far.

And to continue you on the question in the thread of how religion works without coercion. Simple, people want community if anything else. Not everyone wants to figure out absolutely everything by themselves, many people are perfectly ok with having a religion dictate their morality, worldview and cosmological understanding of the universe....good for them. Sometimes people just want to explore alternatives to whatever their standard way of thing is as well, I don't believe all religion is evil and coercive. I do get antsy when people say there religions are free of blood and coercion because history and personal cases do contract that a great deal but I do not believe "mind controlled" zombies is what every faith shoots for.

I do sort of have a problem with forcibly indoctrinating kids without mercy, I feel like that does more harm than good. If I ever went back to my birth religion (Catholicism) I'd probably do for my kids what my best friend's parents did: They raised him in the faith and teaching and Catechism and then all three of them got to choose if they were going to be confirmed. My best friend (the middle child) who is a boy and his older brother both chose it but the youngest sister denied it because she felt that women always have been and will always be underrepresented in that faith. Pretty articulate for a 7th grader at the time.

Sorry if I got a little rambling, I feel there are all sorts of tangential subjects related to this question since religion in the framework of culture is going through drastic changes.

 

[ViaCrucis]

But what do the merits of Jesus Christ have to do with the validity of his teachings?

If you're talking about objective, empirical evidence then that seems to be rather beside the point since we aren't talking testable, observable phenomenon; but rather talking matters of faith, religion, and spirituality.

If I said "Simon Peter was crucified upside down in order to salve Christ's ego" - (following the accusation that Peter would deny him three times) - then what standard do you use test the truth or falsehood of the spiritual claims Jesus Christ made, or the loftiness of moral heights he reached?

I'm persuaded by the weight of the Jesus I encounter in the Gospel. Not that I am convinced by reason, but rather am compelled by the gravity of the person. I find that beside my rational mind there is a deep conviction, something welling up inside of me that makes the bold leap to faith.

If you are requiring something verifiable, rational, and testable then I'm afraid I can't help you there.

But if we are talking why people of religious faith have such religious faith, then I posit that it has more to do with conviction and the discovery and meaning in the radically other or numinous. Something that transcends the rational senses and experiences. This, in contrast to the proposition that religious and spiritual individuals are this way due to the control and sway of the powerful.

One can adopt a religious system easily in order to conform to the powers that be; but true conversion and conviction cannot be birthed from mere conformity to the status quo. Fear of the gods, hell, etc may work to keep people morally in check, but it works as a rather lousy basis for a life of faith. Ultimately it arises not out of conformity or fear, but from conviction.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

As we work our way into the twenty first century and increase in our knowledge of ourselves and the place we inhabit what will be the fate of the major religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) - and what if anything will replace them?

Well, let's first look at the rise of religious fundamentalism/extremism since the late 1970s. (For contrary to the beliefs of many, this trend did hardly start with 9/11, nor is it confined to muslims alone: )
The most commonly cited events in this context are the Israeli election of 1977 (where reactionary - and often religious - right-wing parties gained the upper hand for the first time in the nation's history), the election of the reactionary Pope John Paul II in 1978, and the Iranian revolution of 1979 that culminated in the establishment of a reactionary religious regime.

Many people see this trend towards totalitarian religious ideology as a strengthening of religion, seemingly returning it to its former place as the sole defining force behind a culture or society.

But I think that the opposite is true: what we see here are the death-throes of world views that have already lost their ascendancy, and now try to re-gain their former glory by force. But any world view that needs to enforce itself with arms (and antagonized even scientific fact in an attempt to turn the clocks back) has already lost.

Don't get me wrong: extremists are a danger to us all, and it's perfectly possible that they might win the global struggle. It would not be the first dark age in history, and it's never guaranteed that ignorance and fanaticism do not prevail.
But barring such a plummet into darkness, there's no way that the outdated religions will return to power. They've lost, and in a way, they even know it. That's why they flex their muscles so much, trying to antagonize their rivals and growing ever more extreme and totalitarian in the process.

If the replacement is another religion, what might it look like? And if religions are done away with altogether is there anything other than the vast reservoir of scientific knowledge that will serve as a substitute - that is, a cohesive coherent body of thought that will give humanity answers to questions such as 'where did we come from', 'where are we going?', 'what is the ultimate purpose to our lives?' - or maybe 'how can we find a sense of meaning?'.

Oh, new religions will manifest, just as they always have throughout the long history of mankind - and they will incorporate our current state of scientific knowledge, if they are to survive past their infancy. Our species has a very specific need for spirituality, and science alone cannot fill that gap. That's not to say that the next big religion will be theistic by default - perhaps the next big "religion" might even be a secular one. It's impossible to tell at this point.
More than most other generations, we live in an age of transition.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Oh, there is an option that I have not addressed yet: reform.
It's perfectly possible for world views to persist for millennia, provided that they manage to incorporate new insights and newly discovered facts.
Accordingly, even the religions that are around today might very well survive much longer, provided that they are willing to change. It's only the harbingers of stasis and stagnation that will always be left behind, no matter how hard they struggle to enforce the status quo.

 

[LoAmmi]

Oh, there is an option that I have not addressed yet: reform.
It's perfectly possible for world views to persist for millennia, provided that they manage to incorporate new insights and newly discovered facts.
Accordingly, even the religions that are around today might very well survive much longer, provided that they are willing to change. It's only the harbingers of stasis and stagnation that will always be left behind, no matter how hard they struggle to enforce the status quo.

I see being able to incorporate new information into a religion being very important. I often wonder why the Orthodox Jews seem to have decided to stop at some point. I find a more flexible system to be in keeping with what it is supposed to be. That's just me, of course.

 

[UnafraidOne]

Well, let's first look at the rise of religious fundamentalism/extremism since the late 1970s. (For contrary to the beliefs of many, this trend did hardly start with 9/11, nor is it confined to muslims alone: )
The most commonly cited events in this context are the Israeli election of 1977 (where reactionary - and often religious - right-wing parties gained the upper hand for the first time in the nation's history), the election of the reactionary Pope John Paul II in 1978, and the Iranian revolution of 1979 that culminated in the establishment of a reactionary religious regime.

Many people see this trend towards totalitarian religious ideology as a strengthening of religion, seemingly returning it to its former place as the sole defining force behind a culture or society.

But I think that the opposite is true: what we see here are the death-throes of world views that have already lost their ascendancy, and now try to re-gain their former glory by force. But any world view that needs to enforce itself with arms (and antagonized even scientific fact in an attempt to turn the clocks back) has already lost.

Don't get me wrong: extremists are a danger to us all, and it's perfectly possible that they might win the global struggle. It would not be the first dark age in history, and it's never guaranteed that ignorance and fanaticism do not prevail.
But barring such a plummet into darkness, there's no way that the outdated religions will return to power. They've lost, and in a way, they even know it. That's why they flex their muscles so much, trying to antagonize their rivals and growing ever more extreme and totalitarian in the process.


Oh, new religions will manifest, just as they always have throughout the long history of mankind - and they will incorporate our current state of scientific knowledge, if they are to survive past their infancy. Our species has a very specific need for spirituality, and science alone cannot fill that gap. That's not to say that the next big religion will be theistic by default - perhaps the next big "religion" might even be a secular one. It's impossible to tell at this point.
More than most other generations, we live in an age of transition.

You are talking of the religions as though they themselves have some sort of interest in exerting power. I don't know, maybe.

A radical improvement would a replacement of this symbiosis of the religious and the religion with information more egalitarian (less power hungry). And which could nonetheless fulfill peoples' desire for meanin/spirituality.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

You are talking of the religions as though they themselves have some sort of interest in exerting power. I don't know, maybe.

Oh, the established religions most certainly do.
It's not entirely without reason that the current Pope has preached against the "tyranny of relativism", that churches try to demonize anything beyond themselves by insisting that secularization was directly responsible for the greatest crimes in 20th century history, or that more literalist groups feel threatened by new scientific discoveries in evolutionary biology, geology, or astrophysics.
It's not so much "exerting power" as "ascertaining their own existence". See, world views - especially exclusivist world views - are based on the assumption that they are the most accurate interpretation of reality, holding the keys to understanding life, ordering society and so forth. So if a world view starts to lose its former position as the primary force in a society, it tends to react to this threat to its very existence.

A radical improvement would a replacement of this symbiosis of the religious and the religion with information more egalitarian (less power hungry). And which could nonetheless fulfill peoples' desire for meanin/spirituality.

The problem is: there are people out there who are very much geared towards authoritarian/hierarchical arrangements. Not only on the part of those who want to be in power, but also on the part of those who want to follow clearly established sets of rules.
Just look at how successful Islam is, not in spite but BECAUSE of its intense legalism. There are rules for virtually everything: how to eat, how to use the rest room, how to sleep, how to have marital intercourse, how to wipe your nose...

 

[seeking Christ]

It's not so much "exerting power" as "ascertaining their own existence".

This seems to be an important distinction! In your previous post on the matter, you stated quite plainly that religions are power hungry. I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind with your refinement here, but I would add that (at least in many cases) it's not the religion itself that's power hungry, but specific leaders of it. It also seems that most religious leaders must be people who are power hungry to begin with, and this catch 22 may be responsible for more of the accompanying evils than any religion has ever been.

You also mentioned a time line of the late 70's being a peak of extremism or fanatacism, at least in some specific places in the world. In the US that ground swell seemed to be the '60 with it's Jesus movement, and I can't tell if Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar spurred that on, or were simply part of a greater influence. Either way I don't think too many would agree that cycle peaked before 1980, despite the major setbacks like Swaggart, and the Roman Catholic Priest child molestation scandals.

The problem is: there are people out there who are very much geared towards authoritarian/hierarchical arrangements. Not only on the part of those who want to be in power, but also on the part of those who want to follow clearly established sets of rules.

FULL STOP. Yes, that is the problem. Much more than any religion could ever be, in my opinion. Certain things just don't mix well!

 

[Alexanderdefender]

It won't be created in the sense that it's been around for a long time, just repackaged and sold as candy.

The occultists over at the United Nations hope to usher in the pure doctrine of Lucifer, or Luciferianism. You'll have to make a pledge towards him or you can't be part of the "cool kids club".

Do some research on David Spangler (anagram - Grandpa's Devil). Here is one of his quotes:

” . . . Lucifer comes to give us the final gift of wholeness. If we accept it then he is free and we are free. That is the Luciferic initiation. It is one that many people now . . . will be facing, for it is an initiation in to the New Age . . .”

Apparently he's a good friend of Oprah, who is a known New Age pusher. And the name of her network is "OWN", which is NWO backwards (New World Order).

That's about it, call it whatever wether it's Neo-paganism, Pantheism, New Age, Nihilism, it's really all the same.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It won't be created in the sense that it's been around for a long time, just repackaged and sold as candy.

The occultists over at the United Nations hope to usher in the pure doctrine of Lucifer, or Luciferianism. You'll have to make a pledge towards him or you can't be part of the "cool kids club".

Do some research on David Spangler (anagram - Grandpa's Devil). Here is one of his quotes:



Apparently he's a good friend of Oprah, who is a known New Age pusher. And the name of her network is "OWN", which is NWO backwards (New World Order).

That's about it, call it whatever wether it's Neo-paganism, Pantheism, New Age, Nihilism, it's really all the same.

Conspiracy much? Also, perhaps reading a bit too much of Texe Marrs' lunacy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Alexanderdefender]

Conspiracy much? Also, perhaps reading a bit too much of Texe Marrs' lunacy.

-CryptoLutheran

Nope, I know of him but have never read his stuff. Don't make assumptions, please.

The UN is a major proponent in spreading occultism through "Lucifer publishing/trust" later changed to "Lucis trust" because it was too obvious.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nope, I know of him but have never read his stuff. Don't make assumptions, please.

The UN is a major proponent in spreading occultism through "Lucifer publishing/trust" later changed to "Lucis trust" because it was too obvious.

So what you're saying is that the United Nations is actually a clandestine shadow government that is propagating a religious occultism centered on a fake name for the devil?

And, allow me to guess:

This Luciferian religion is actually rooted in the ancient Occult Babylonian religion started by Nimrod in Genesis, and is the root of Egyptian and later Babylonian religion. Also this occult religion has been infused into the beliefs of--for example--the Roman Catholic Church and (as another example) is the source of the round wafer used in Communion actually being an Egyptian sun disk that represents Ra. Possibly, also, is involved the Christogram IHS found in Christian art; possibly also the all-seeing eye of Providence.

Am I off base?

Fundamentalist conspiracy theories sound awfully exciting, like all conspiracy theories, but the problem of course is that like all conspiracy theories they are as false as they are absurd.

Such conspiracy nonsense has no place in the lives of people of faith.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Alexanderdefender]

So what you're saying is that the United Nations is actually a clandestine shadow government that is propagating a religious occultism centered on a fake name for the devil?

And, allow me to guess:

This Luciferian religion is actually rooted in the ancient Occult Babylonian religion started by Nimrod in Genesis, and is the root of Egyptian and later Babylonian religion. Also this occult religion has been infused into the beliefs of--for example--the Roman Catholic Church and (as another example) is the source of the round wafer used in Communion actually being an Egyptian sun disk that represents Ra. Possibly, also, is involved the Christogram IHS found in Christian art; possibly also the all-seeing eye of Providence.

Am I off base?

Fundamentalist conspiracy theories sound awfully exciting, like all conspiracy theories, but the problem of course is that like all conspiracy theories they are as false as they are absurd.

Such conspiracy nonsense has no place in the lives of people of faith.

-CryptoLutheran

From a faith perspective yes, it has no place because in the end they're fruitless. You see the point though, they believe it to be real.

I won't even address the rest of what you said, too many presuppositions.

Let me ask one thing, though, do you think/believe Satan is a real entity?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let me ask one thing, though, do you think/believe Satan is a real entity?

Yes.

What I don't believe is that there is a massive behind-the-scenes conspiracy or a secret cabal of devil enthusiasts pulling all the strings.

I'm sure the devil would like us to think he's got that kind of control, but if we confess Christ is risen from the dead, then we also confess the devil is defeated and in bondage.

A chained dog can still bite, but he is still constrained to his leash.

Human beings are more than capable of being petty, rotten, and awful to each other. That is what we mean when we talk about the problem of Sin in the world.

Even without a devil, there'd still be plenty of crap in the world because of our own sin.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Alexanderdefender]

Yes.

What I don't believe is that there is a massive behind-the-scenes conspiracy or a secret cabal of devil enthusiasts pulling all the strings.

Ok, great! We are actually closer in agreement then we both thought of each other to begin with. And for the record I don't buy into the fearmongering perpetrated by the ilk of Alex Jones, David Icke, Jordan Maxwell etc.

I'm sure the devil would like us to think he's got that kind of control, but if we confess Christ is risen from the dead, then we also confess the devil is defeated and in bondage.

The main problem with fundamentalist conspiracies is that they take God's control and place it into the hands of a group such as the illuminati (such an overused term these days), I'm aware of that and I don't give them that kind of power in my mind, that can be quite self defeating.

A chained dog can still bite, but he is still constrained to his leash.

Human beings are more than capable of being petty, rotten, and awful to each other. That is what we mean when we talk about the problem of Sin in the world.

Yes I'm in full agreement. We have to look at ourself in the mirror and recognize our sin instead of pushing it on some unseen force, wether Christian or not. I hope that's not what was portrayed in my post, I simply stated a few things. David Spangler isn't well known amongst conspiracy circles, at least not that I'm aware of, so if that has anything to do with Texe Marrs it would seem to be a coincidence.

Even without a devil, there'd still be plenty of crap in the world because of our own sin.

Undoubtedly!

 

[UnafraidOne]

Oh, the established religions most certainly do.
It's not entirely without reason that the current Pope has preached against the "tyranny of relativism", that churches try to demonize anything beyond themselves by insisting that secularization was directly responsible for the greatest crimes in 20th century history, or that more literalist groups feel threatened by new scientific discoveries in evolutionary biology, geology, or astrophysics.
It's not so much "exerting power" as "ascertaining their own existence". See, world views - especially exclusivist world views - are based on the assumption that they are the most accurate interpretation of reality, holding the keys to understanding life, ordering society and so forth. So if a world view starts to lose its former position as the primary force in a society, it tends to react to this threat to its very existence....

Yes, the world view which directs action, demands belief/conversion, attempts to control thought and influence or force types of conversation - is the product of people who wish to accomplish such things. In turn, as they succeed they create a world more like them - with more people like them in it. People who will strive to control in order to ascertain their own existence, as you put it, by propogating the religion down through the centuries.

The religion is the bait and the hook, the original fisherman will train others to fish for men and women, so that others will be more like him, and he will have eternal existence.

I will return soon to finish this post.

 

[seeking Christ]

Yes, the world view which directs action, demands belief/conversion, attempts to control thought and influence or force types of conversation - is the product of people who wish to accomplish such things. In turn, as they succeed they create a world more like them - with more people like them in it. People who will strive to control in order to ascertain their own existence, as you put it, by propogating the religion down through the centuries.

The religion is the bait and the hook, the original fisherman will train others to fish for men and women, so that others will be more like him, and he will have eternal existence.

I will return soon to finish this post.

You start out being correct, as i bolded. You then make an inexplicable left turn and blame it all on religion, making no connection for your logical leap at all. I trust you'll see why this looks like blatant error?

 

[UnafraidOne]

The problem is: there are people out there who are very much geared towards authoritarian/hierarchical arrangements. Not only on the part of those who want to be in power, but also on the part of those who want to follow clearly established sets of rules.
Just look at how successful Islam is, not in spite but BECAUSE of its intense legalism. There are rules for virtually everything: how to eat, how to use the rest room, how to sleep, how to have marital intercourse, how to wipe your nose...

Well, yes, of course those who are willing to follow and those who want to control are often the same people.

If you are a disciple of John the Baptist you are more likely to tell others to come and follow you.

Which is the point, a new religion - or replacement - should in my opinion attempt to take all of this into account, and set mankind free.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

This seems to be an important distinction! In your previous post on the matter, you stated quite plainly that religions are power hungry.

I think you misunderstood me there. (Which might quite possibly be my fault, as I apparently did not communicate my point effectively.)

"Power hungry" implies ulterior motives that have nothing to do with their beliefs, and everything to do with ruthless individuals trying to exploit the gullibility of others: religion as a means to an end so to speak.

I don't think that's it at all, at least in most cases. It might be tempting to attribute all extremism to such obvious villainy, but the truth has far less to do with twirly moustaches and evil laughs, and far more to do with an inherent quality of absolutist world views.

Extremism usually starts with the feeling that your world view (which, of course, is THE TRUTH) is under attack by outside forces - which you conceive of as malevolent and patently untrue.
And as strong convictions are almost always inextricably tied to your conception of your personal identity, determining not only what you believe but who you are as a person, this qualifies as an existential threat.

Thus, world views that cannot cope with change tend to betray signs of fundamentalism, ascertaining their own survival by radical opposition to the perceived threat. Totalitarian claims to power are thus almost a secondary phenomenon: something that happens when extremists achieve a position where they get to call the shots. Before that, such people tend to conceive of themselves as victims of a superior, malevolent foe trying to wipe them out.

You also mentioned a time line of the late 70's being a peak of extremism or fanatacism, at least in some specific places in the world.

Not so much a peak as a notable shift in the balance of power. Things are MUCH worse today than they were back then. Basically, religious extremism started to gain ground (and considerable political power) on several fronts during the 1970s. Perhaps exactly because the zeitgeist of the 60s had declared authoritarian religion a dying phenomenon.