What paradigm will replace Christianity?

[sandandfoam]

There are some who are saying that Christianity as a paradigm of the western world is beginning to crumble especially among educated circles. Given it's troubled history maybe it needs to die and be reborn anew, perhaps a new paradigm is needed for the 21st century...but would that be? What could replace it? A renewed version of Christianity or some version of it, or a new spirituality perhaps? Secularism? materialism? atheism or agnosticism? What do you see becoming the new paradigm of the western world as the old one starts to decay in the 21st century that would fulfill peoples inner needs?

Football.

 

[9Westy9]

Football.

Hasn't that already happened?

 

[Sleeppy]

There won't be time. Everything else will crumble first, and already is.

 

[9Westy9]

There won't be time. Everything else will crumble first, and already is.

funny

 

[InformedIgnorance]

If capitalism is a facade then what is really going on?

As I said, wealth consolidation - it has been a recurring theme throughout history with aristocracy, upper classes, corruption in communism and so forth... It is a constant throughout 'civilisation' all that differs is how it is viewed, what it is called and how it is achieved.

The only truly omnipresent paradigm.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It is a constant throughout 'civilisation' all that differs is how it is viewed, what it is called and how it is achieved.

How is that a constant? That's like saying "equal rights" is a constant throughout "civilization" and all that differs is how "equal rights" is viewed and "how it is achieved." Using that definition of "constant" the racist slavery system in the US was "equal rights" because the dominant group at the time "differed" in how "equal rights" was viewed in that they believed the slaves weren't equal to them. Consequently, they achieved "equal rights" by providing "equal" races with with their respective "equal rights."

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

There won't be time. Everything else will crumble first, and already is.

Whats crumbling ? Things seem better today then 500 years ago don't they ?

 

[InChrist]

According to the scriptures the next paradigm will be a one-world religion which will incorporate and promote Satan's initial lie to humanity "you will be as God". This religion will be all inclusive and appealing to occultists, mystical and pseudo-christians, eastern religion adherents, and even humanists and atheists because it will be all about Self and reaching one's full potential, godhood, enlightenment, or next evolutionary step.

 

[Quagmire]

According to the scriptures the next paradigm will be a one-world religion which will incorporate and promote Satan's initial lie to humanity "you will be as God". This religion will be all inclusive and appealing to occultists, mystical and pseudo-christians, eastern religion adherents, and even humanists and atheists because it will be all about Self and reaching one's full potential, godhood, enlightenment, or next evolutionary step.

What particular verses are you basing all this on?

 

[Sleeppy]

Whats crumbling ? Things seem better today then 500 years ago don't they ?

Documentary called "Prophets of Doom."

Prophets of Doom (2011).DVDrip.avi | PutLocker


I think people are venturing further and further into everything - raping it all as they go. We live in a world where profit is a god, for many people. It's hard for advancements to be made and implemented, if they're not too profitable.

 

[InChrist]

What particular verses are you basing all this on?

This idea is not based on one particular verse, but on many passages and an overview presented throughout the scriptures in regard to Satan's lie and agenda for humanity and opposition to the Creator which culminates at the end of the age or human history as we know it.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

How is that a constant? That's like saying "equal rights" is a constant throughout "civilization" and all that differs is how "equal rights" is viewed and "how it is achieved." Using that definition of "constant" the racist slavery system in the US was "equal rights" because the dominant group at the time "differed" in how "equal rights" was viewed in that they believed the slaves weren't equal to them. Consequently, they achieved "equal rights" by providing "equal" races with with their respective "equal rights."

Actually no, it would be like saying 'rights equalisation' is, not 'equal rights' - it is the process, in which case we could see it as how even back when there were slaves, there were those people who attempted to change the system or to simply ignore the system and to ignore race; in which case yes, 'rights equalisation' (or perhaps we might consider this the 'empowerment of the downtrodden' etc) has been (and continues to be) a constant force within society - the strength of that force changes over time, in large part due to the perceived inequity of those rights etc, however it exists so long as there is a group that is perceived as being treated inequitably.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually no, it would be like saying 'rights equalisation' is, not 'equal rights' - it is the process, in which case we could see it as how even back when there were slaves, there were those people who attempted to change the system or to simply ignore the system and to ignore race; in which case yes, 'rights equalisation' (or perhaps we might consider this the 'empowerment of the downtrodden' etc) has been (and continues to be) a constant force within society - the strength of that force changes over time, in large part due to the perceived inequity of those rights etc, however it exists so long as there is a group that is perceived as being treated inequitably.

The point is when a socio-cultural "constant" universal to human society is viewed differently, defined differently, and different methods are used to achieve it, how is it a constant? You claimed that my application of this to "equal rights" was inaccurate, but you didn't actually say how. You asserted that I was wrong, rephrased the term I used, and then showed how my argument would apply given the new term. But you never demonstrated how the same definition of "constant" you used doesn't apply to equal rights. You just asserted it didn't, and proceeded as if this assumption was a given.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I meant a constant paradigm for (or continual driver of) societal events as opposed to a 'constant' force; and as I mentioned it is the process itself which is used to achieve those 'equal rights', thus it is the empowerment process which is such a driver as opposed to the desired outcome, yes it is that desire which triggers the utilisation of such a process, but without such a process there is no triggering, because there is no option by which to achieve such an outcome - so the desire is not the driver, it is however what triggers (and perhaps modifies the strength of) the driver which is the capacity to achieve such outcomes, which is the availability of the process.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I meant a constant paradigm for (or continual driver of) societal events as opposed to a 'constant' force; and as I mentioned it is the process itself which is used to achieve those 'equal rights', thus it is the empowerment process which is such a driver as opposed to the desired outcome.

I'm still not clear I'm afraid. There is no constant paradigm for societal events or continually driving them which we can term "wealth consolidation." Humans seem to have always wnated "more" but as you point out what "more" means, how it is defined, and how it is achieved changes. That's a changing social paradigm, not a constant. The same is true for equal rights. Human social groups have always sought "equal rights," but as what humans think equality is changes over time, so do the the social paradigms. If group X is not "equal" to group Y, then the act of group X treating group Y differentially isn't a violation of equal rights as long as one calls "equal rights" equal distribution of rights among equals. And as you definition of a constant allows for a variation of what a society calls this constant, then racially based class differentiation falls entirely within the constant social paradigm of "equal rights." At least as much as "wealth consolidation" does.
Again, I don't see how a social constant can be a constant if it involves different social conceptions and different social mechanisms. What's constant?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Just because the approach (a parallel would be to consider tactics) change that does not change the underlying paradigm (where the parallel would be strategy)... I am not sure how else to explain it - the underlying conceptual avenue to achieve a conceptual outcome remains the same, it is merely the implementation of that avenue that alters.

 

[Quagmire]

This idea is not based on one particular verse, but on many passages

How about sharing a cpl of those with us?

and an overview presented throughout the scriptures

Not presented, perceived. Which means that's it's up to you to explain, specifically, what the perception is based on.

in regard to Satan's lie and agenda for humanity and opposition to the Creator which culminates at the end of the age or human history as we know it.

This..:

According to the scriptures the next paradigm will be a one-world religion which will incorporate and promote Satan's initial lie to humanity "you will be as God". This religion will be all inclusive and appealing to occultists, mystical and pseudo-christians, eastern religion adherents, and even humanists and atheists because it will be all about Self and reaching one's full potential, godhood, enlightenment, or next evolutionary step.

...is a pretty specific and precise prediction. That being the case, it shouldn't be difficult at all for you to give a few specific and precise examples from the Bible in order to demonstrate what the prediction is based on.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Just because the approach (a parallel would be to consider tactics) change that does not change the underlying paradigm (where the parallel would be strategy)... I am not sure how else to explain it - the underlying conceptual avenue to achieve a conceptual outcome remains the same, it is merely the implementation of that avenue that alters.

But you didn't limit the change to mechanism (and rightly so). "wealth consilidation" can run the gamut of greater prestige from hunting prowess to owning a corporation. Likewise, "equal right" can run the gamut from ensuring class differentiation so that equals have the same rights to attempts to assure that all humans have the same rights as all humans are equal. So while I would agree that human nature involves the accumulation of items of value (including immaterialistic items such as social approval), I don't quite see how this constitutes a social paradigm or how capitalism is a facade as a result of it.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I agree, my point was on the fact that 'equal rights' was outcome not process, so if you had said something along the line of attempting to make people's rights more equal then I would have agreed, because attempt like consolidation denotes that it is an activity/process that can be used to modify behaviour (such as to adjust for racial prejudice) with a set of values etc in the same way as chrisitanity and other religions usually propose a set of values and standards of behaviour than can be seen as a series of processes by which to modify other behaviours.

Perhaps I just fail at attempting to explain my reasoning as well as failing at english... which is a bit of an issue given the fact that it is my native tongue.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

According to the scriptures the next paradigm will be a one-world religion which will incorporate and promote Satan's initial lie to humanity "you will be as God". This religion will be all inclusive and appealing to occultists, mystical and pseudo-christians, eastern religion adherents, and even humanists and atheists because it will be all about Self and reaching one's full potential, godhood, enlightenment, or next evolutionary step.

You do realize that the whole pre tribulation rapture belief system was made up in the early 1800's. Why did no christians before this time believe it?