What future for Christianity

[goliah]

The validity of the Christian tradition rests upon the efficacy of theology as a valid human intellectual endeavour. That 'discipline' is coming under growing question not only by history, but by a successful athiest publishing assult and now by something even more profound and unexpected: the first testable proof for faith. One confirmed by this contributor.

Three essays on the future of Christianity, including an introduction and download links. http://thefinalfreeedoms.blogspot.com/

 

[Ethan77]

I think it (as a whole) will dwindle due to the way christians behave rather than any scientific evidence against it. Eventually christians will recognize this and will change, and probably it will resurge.

 

[Gibberish]

Generally education and science will take precedence over religion and religion will merely be a social entity to explain the scientific voids that currently exist, which is smaller and smaller as the years go by.

People will continue to hold on to religion for an explanation of their purpose in life beyond the life they know. I also think the accepted religious texts will more openly be exposed as the political tools they are and will have less of a tyrannical hold over what we society should be allowed to accept.

 

[Ethan77]

The scientific voids continue to grow larger- every new discovery opens up a whole new range of questions, many of which cannot be answered through experiments.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The scientific voids continue to grow larger- every new discovery opens up a whole new range of questions, many of which cannot be answered through experiments.

Thats not really true. Say we have a scientific breakthrough, yes, that creates new questions, but only as it relates to the new body of knowledge.

For example, there are a lot of questions about evolution, but evolution itself is not in question, but rather, science is learning more and more as to the nature of it.

As a Christian, I cannot understand why a minority of Christians are so knee jerk to science. Faith and science have nothing at all to do with each other.

The Bible “contains all things necessary to salvation” it is the inspired and authoritative source of truth about God, Christ, and the Christian life. However, the Bible does not contain all necessary truths about everything else. The Bible, including Genesis, is not a divinely dictated scientific textbook. We discover scientific knowledge about God’s universe in nature not Scripture.

 

[Gibberish]

The religious stance on science is the ultimate "Moving Goal Post" fallacy.

Granted this is not the majority of Christians, as Southern Democrat stated above, but they are the more vocal Christians.

 

[Ethan77]

Thats not really true. Say we have a scientific breakthrough, yes, that creates new questions, but only as it relates to the new body of knowledge.

For example, there are a lot of questions about evolution, but evolution itself is not in question, but rather, science is learning more and more as to the nature of it.

As a Christian, I cannot understand why a minority of Christians are so knee jerk to science. Faith and science have nothing at all to do with each other.

The Bible “contains all things necessary to salvation” it is the inspired and authoritative source of truth about God, Christ, and the Christian life. However, the Bible does not contain all necessary truths about everything else. The Bible, including Genesis, is not a divinely dictated scientific textbook. We discover scientific knowledge about God’s universe in nature not Scripture.

You mistake my meaning. I'm saying that the universe is so vastly complex that they cannot answer every question and besides this some answers are unattainable.

 

[Gibberish]

You mistake my meaning. I'm saying that the universe is so vastly complex that they cannot answer every question and besides this some answers are unattainable.

Answers are only unattainable given knowledge restrictions. If the knowledge is obtained then the answer will be available.

Yes the universe is complex and every 1 answer brings 10 more questions but that doesn't validate the existence of a divine entity.

 

[goliah]

Those natural 'restrictions' to knowledge and understanding have been withdrawn. That is the nature of the paradigm change taking place by way of this new interpretation and proof. Check it out for yourself. You have nothing to loose but your illusions.

http://www.energon.org.uk
http://thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com
http://www.dunwanderinpress.org

 

[Felicity]

Ever read Revelations? Christians know how the story ends.:2razz:

 

[EAGLE1]

Isnt the future some big event called The Rapture? Or the second coming of Christ?

Id like to know what the future of a person recently arrived in heaven is, any thoughts?

 

[Felicity]

Isnt the future some big event called The Rapture? Or the second coming of Christ?

What's called "the Rapture" is an extra-Biblical fabrication.

Id like to know what the future of a person recently arrived in heaven is, any thoughts?

Heaven is outside of time--it's eternity, so there is no "future" for a person in heaven, technically. But the Bible states that "eye has not seen nor ear heard" what awaits us in heaven. Can't help ya there.

 

[Gibberish]

Ever read Revelations? Christians know how the story ends.:2razz:

As long as you assume John of Patmos was referring to a distant future event and not referring to Rome under the rule of Nero when writing revelations.

 

[INTROtoBILL101]

I think it is greatly unfair to group Christianity as a whole anymore. When you such vastly different denominations, how much sense does it make to give Christianity a collective future. When you have some Christians who believe in the strict word for word interpretation of the Bible and believe there is no alternative to abide, to Christian denominations that have come to believe in Evolution and the right of a woman to choose whether or not to keep a possible child.
Throughout history, Christians have not been happy with a way of thinking and split and formed their own methods of teaching and understanding Christ. We see how some of the more liberal Christian groups have evolved their thinking over time to incorporate faith in Science as a core part of their beliefs.
I'm not responding to this as any one group of Christianity, though I did attend Catholic School for two years. I think Christianity and Religion in general is a very solid rock for people to lean on who need it. I've found that one can believe in the almighty w/o devoting him or herself to an organized religion. While this receives scolding from those who believe on the hard core level I will never personally offend anyone for their Religious beliefs.
Christianity will continue and endure as will Judiasm and Islam. As long as people have a voice and people will listen the ideas will spread. Some people will lose faith along the way while others will find renewed born-again faith. We see it all the time. There is no definative future. I hope Christ didn't have a definative future for Christians in mind. I don't think he'd be too happy the way the Puritans treated those who didn't follow the word, neither would he approve of the way our "Christian" nation treats the poor, or rather doesn't treat it.
My only hope for Christians and other Religious and non-religious groups is this. That whereever their future takes them, they respect the right of everyone else to an equal future without being imposed upon and without receiving unfair treatment for not following the "correct" beliefs.

 

[Felicity]

As long as you assume John of Patmos was referring to a distant future event and not referring to Rome under the rule of Nero when writing revelations.

Couldn't it be both?

 

[Gibberish]

Couldn't it be both?

If I said 'Hi' to you on the street would you take it as me saying Hi to you or me saying Hi to you and possibly every single person that was in my line of sight? It's all a matter of interpretation. You can interpret it anyway you want but that doesn't mean the author didn't have a focus when writing.

 

[ARealConservative]

If I said 'Hi' to you on the street would you take it as me saying Hi to you or me saying Hi to you and possibly every single person that was in my line of sight? It's all a matter of interpretation. You can interpret it anyway you want but that doesn't mean the author didn't have a focus when writing.

I would take it as a question on my current mental state. :mrgreen:

 

[Felicity]

If I said 'Hi' to you on the street would you take it as me saying Hi to you or me saying Hi to you and possibly every single person that was in my line of sight? It's all a matter of interpretation. You can interpret it anyway you want but that doesn't mean the author didn't have a focus when writing.

A-hem....Divinely inspired text. The "author" is both God and the instument through which He conveys His message. Of COURSE there can be intentional multiple meanings!

 

[Felicity]

I would take it as a question on my current mental state. :mrgreen:

Or an accusation.:mrgreen:

 

[Gibberish]

A-hem....Divinely inspired text. The "author" is both God and the instument through which He conveys His message. Of COURSE there can be intentional multiple meanings!

That's assuming it was indeed a divine revelation and not just a man writing his thoughts while living in exile on an island.

I find it interesting that once that dominant population became increasingly healthy, educated, and globally connected, "God" suddenly stopped talking to people after 6,000 years of continual contact.

I also find it interesting that people 2,000 years ago write something and claim divine inspiration it's gospel but if anyone today did it they would be condemned as insane. What special magical abilities did people 2,000 years ago have that made their claims more valid then people of today? That's write, initial ignorance along with a hundreds or thousands of years of traditional acceptance.

 

[Felicity]

That's assuming it was indeed a divine revelation and not just a man writing his thoughts while living in exile on an island.

I suppose--but "authorial intent hermeneutics" is kind of bogus anyway. Texts are meant to be read and interpreted and it's OBVIOUS that there is at least a double meaning in John's symbolism--that's the nature of symbols.

I find it interesting that once that dominant population became increasingly healthy, educated, and globally connected, "God" suddenly stopped talking to people after 6,000 years of continual contact.

Maybe we stopped listening.

I also find it interesting that people 2,000 years ago write something and claim divine inspiration it's gospel but if anyone today did it they would be condemned as insane.

Apostolic authority. And anyway--isn't the Book of Mormon such a text? Many don't think that's "insane"--though many do.

What special magical abilities did people 2,000 years ago have that made their claims more valid then people of today?

My guess is humility.

 

[Gibberish]

I suppose--but "authorial intent hermeneutics" is kind of bogus anyway. Texts are meant to be read and interpreted and it's OBVIOUS that there is at least a double meaning in John's symbolism--that's the nature of symbols.

People read into them what they want. That is why the specific gospels in the canon and the bible were chosen and the rest thrown out. They all said something that the creators of the Christian church politically agreed with.

Maybe we stopped listening.

Or we found out that the wind isn't actually talking to us, that dreams are creations of our subconscious, and that the big pink bunny sitting next to me after I do some acid isn't really God.

Apostolic authority. And anyway--isn't the Book of Mormon such a text? Many don't think that's "insane"--though many do.

The Christian church did have the same acceptance as the Mormon church. If the Church wasn't set as the official religion of Rome, for political reasons, it would have not catapulted to the mega-religion it is today.

In the end people just want something to believe in bigger then themselves and some people will go to greater lengths to accept that "something", this is why we see the creation of hundreds of religions and cults even today.

My guess is humility.

What humility?

 

[EAGLE1]

If heaven has no future then how does anything happen there? How does one experience paradise in a frozen environment? Or is that just another one of those mysteries not open to normal human logic?

 

[Gibberish]

If heaven has no future then how does anything happen there? How does one experience paradise in a frozen environment? Or is that just another one of those mysteries not open to normal human logic?

You're trying to define something that, if exits, is beyond human comprehension. It would be roughly the same as asking a newborn to define the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics.

 

[EAGLE1]

Why or how is it beyond human comprehension? Who is it that is supposed to populate it if not other humans?

For a moment think of yourself, just arriving at the pearly gates and being shown around the place. What do you imagine one might do there? Dont you think that the idea of an eternal paradise is an entirely unhuman concept? I contend that if thats what it is then we as humans have no place there, and certainly no future in it. We would only enjoy it for a certain while.