What will happen to organized religion in the next 50 years?

[Gomeza]

I would caution in you using the government of China as an absolute source. I don't think you truly believe the Chinese government finds joy in spreading the truth, and does not believe in the use of propaganda.

The Chinese government is expressly atheist, and is an unreliable singular source of information.

The Chinese government puts the Christian population around 25 million while many independent sources conservatively put it at 60 million.

Can't post URLs, I found this on BBC news, UK, online magazine, article titled "Christians in China: Is the country in spiritual crisis?"

That may all be true but I would add never use a Christian organization as a reliable source of information, especially when the information they are offering is self serving. In attempting to validate such claims it has been my experience that a credible source with nothing to gain by manipulating the truth is generally the most reliable. I agree that this may exclude the Chinese government on many issues but what do you think they have to gain by offering inaccurate figures in this instance?

Another thing i find rather humorous is how every Christian sect considers all other Christians as "not true Christians" until they do a head count in a foreign country. Then anyone who owns a Bible or a crucifix is gladly included in the numbers.

 

[Desfox]

That may all be true but I would add never use a Christian organization as a reliable source of information, especially when the information they are offering is self serving. In attempting to validate such claims it has been my experience that a credible source with nothing to gain by manipulating the truth is generally the most reliable. I agree that this may exclude the Chinese government on many issues but what do you think they have to gain by offering inaccurate figures in this instance?

Another thing i find rather humorous is how every Christian sect considers all other Christians as "not true Christians" until they do a head count in a foreign country. Then anyone who owns a Bible or a crucifix is gladly included in the numbers.

Well I was citing BBC, not exactly a Christian source. My point is that refuting my point with Chinese government propaganda doesn't work. I guess you could say the same for me, so I will try to find more specific "non-Christian" independent sources

It is true that Christians often play the head count game, but in this case, the numbers are mainly divided up between Protestants and Catholics who I believe are both Christians. Just because all the people of the Church are not perfect and don't follow my views, lead to my points being invalid.

 

[Breathe]

Another thing i find rather humorous is how every Christian sect considers all other Christians as "not true Christians" until they do a head count in a foreign country. Then anyone who owns a Bible or a crucifix is gladly included in the numbers.

This has not been my experience with Christians or Christian groups at all. How odd. The closest I've encountered to such a thing is "Catholics are odd Christians".

 

[rusra02]

I too have always had a problem with beliefs held by so many people of so many religions and sects which almost flippantly dismisses the damnation of all of humanity except themselves. It is sadly amusing to hear this from so many different groups around the world. You use the word "trickster", I would expand on this by adding that to adhere to a belief of such exclusivity by which all of humanity is condemned except an historically miniscule segment can be nothing more than a man made con. One designed to solicit action, subscription or wealth from those not discerning enough to realize that the God they claim to be serving must be redefined as fallible, spiteful, vain and unloving.

How else could a being capable of this be defined?

The Bible tells us that "[God] does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) And that "God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) One purpose of the global preaching work of Jws is to help 'all sorts of men to be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth.' (1 Timothy 2:4) Doesn't sound like exclusivity to me.

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Gomeza]

This has not been my experience with Christians or Christian groups at all. How odd. The closest I've encountered to such a thing is "Catholics are odd Christians".

It does seem odd considering that there have been Christians right in this very forum who have referred to other Christian sects as false religions or not true Christians.

 

[Gomeza]

Well I was citing BBC, not exactly a Christian source. My point is that refuting my point with Chinese government propaganda doesn't work. I guess you could say the same for me, so I will try to find more specific "non-Christian" independent sources

It is true that Christians often play the head count game, but in this case, the numbers are mainly divided up between Protestants and Catholics who I believe are both Christians. Just because all the people of the Church are not perfect and don't follow my views, lead to my points being invalid.

For the most part I am not disagreeing with you. I also sense that you are trying to offer a reasonable argument backed with credible sources (which is a little refreshing in a public forum) but . . . . the reason we got sidetracked in discussing the growth of Christianity in China is because of a contention where you implied that this growth is to such an extent that it offsets the worldwide decline in organized religion.

The world's major organized religions are in decline in the western world, I've lived long enough to see this with my own eyes. Third world birth rates are primarily responsible for stemming this decline but there are also other reasons that some religions are experiencing growth in some countries. In China for example, despite centuries of missionary work, it was only when certain social freedoms were introduced to their society that religious subscription began to grow. The exponential growth in this case due to an existing void.

 

[Gomeza]

The Bible tells us that "[God] does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) And that "God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) One purpose of the global preaching work of Jws is to help 'all sorts of men to be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth.' (1 Timothy 2:4) Doesn't sound like exclusivity to me.

So, can 'all sorts of men be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth.' without signing up for your religion or adhering to your religion's beliefs? I'm guessing that the answer is no . . . which sort of has you making my point for me.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

"In 50 years they will be talking about pre-atomic and post-atomic religious observance."

Religions are going through a step change as great as any in the past.

Islam is lagging well behind in this change, but will no more be able to avoid it than an other religion will.

The rate of religious decline is linked to the education levels of the general population and the freedom of the social mobility of that population. if populations disperse so does the cohesion of the religion.

There will always be more peripheral membership of a religion than central core, that is the nature of all organisations.

In most countries religion is completely removed for the central power structure of that state. Where it is able to take a dominant role in law making and enforcement it will continue to have a superficial domination of that society. I say superficial because such domination is imposed and not through choice, and will have few lasting effects when that power is resisted and removed.

The structural nature of religion will change, It will have a greater emphasis on lay leaders and private worship, rather than multitierd authority and grand places of worship.

The ongoing battle between church authority and the wishes of the laity will increasingly move toward who controls the finance... in most cases the laity.

 

[Road Warrior]

Are we witnessing the death knell of this type of worship? If the current trends continue what will organized religion look like in 50 years?

No doubt, like it has done for centuries, religions evolve. As mankind become more sophisticated as a species, his spiritual development will also become more sophisticated. This is why fewer people follow dogmatic religions, but don't give up their spiritual journey. It's why we have several self-named "atheists" on this forum who also believe in the supernatural ("woo"). I believe there is a spiritual component to existence even though I am not certain of its exact nature.

Most religious groups in USA have lost ground, survey finds - USATODAY.com

When it comes to religion, the USA is now land of the freelancers.
The percentage. of people who call themselves in some way Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation. The faithful have scattered out of their traditional bases: The Bible Belt is less Baptist. The Rust Belt is less Catholic. And everywhere, more people are exploring spiritual frontiers — or falling off the faith map completely...................Among the key findings in the 2008 survey:

• So many Americans claim no religion at all (15%, up from 8% in 1990), that this category now outranks every other major U.S. religious group except Catholics and Baptists. In a nation that has long been mostly Christian, "the challenge to Christianity … does not come from other religions but from a rejection of all forms of organized religion," the report concludes.

• Catholic strongholds in New England and the Midwest have faded as immigrants, retirees and young job-seekers have moved to the Sun Belt. While bishops from the Midwest to Massachusetts close down or consolidate historic parishes, those in the South are scrambling to serve increasing numbers of worshipers.

• Baptists, 15.8% of those surveyed, are down from 19.3% in 1990. Mainline Protestant denominations, once socially dominant, have seen sharp declines: The percentage of Methodists, for example, dropped from 8% to 5%.

• The percentage of those who choose a generic label, calling themselves simply Christian, Protestant, non-denominational, evangelical or "born again," was 14.2%, about the same as in 1990.

• Jewish numbers showed a steady decline, from 1.8% in 1990 to 1.2% today. The percentage of Muslims, while still slim, has doubled, from 0.3% to 0.6%. Analysts within both groups suggest those numbers understate the groups' populations.

 

[A Troubled Man]

No doubt, like it has done for centuries, religions evolve. As mankind become more sophisticated as a species, his spiritual development will also become more sophisticated.

Odd, it would seem that as mankind becomes more educated, the "spiritual" is winding up on the shelves right alongside the other myths and superstitions.

This is why fewer people follow dogmatic religions, but don't give up their spiritual journey.

Exchanging one crutch or vice for another is not a sign of sophistication.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Exchanging one crutch or vice for another is not a sign of sophistication.

Addicts will swear the opposite

 

[beerisit]

The Bible tells us that "[God] does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) And that "God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) One purpose of the global preaching work of Jws is to help 'all sorts of men to be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth.' (1 Timothy 2:4) Doesn't sound like exclusivity to me.

​

​

​

​

​

​

This is so lame it isn't worth anything. A god who is all powerful can't achieve what he wants. Really sad god, I think.

 

[Road Warrior]

Exchanging one crutch or vice for another is not a sign of sophistication.

Neither is acting like you know for certain something you do not.

By your standards, do you think a college degree is a crutch for those who aren't able to dig ditches?

Do you have a bumper sticker that says "Reality is for people who can't handle drugs"?

 

[work in progress]

I too have always had a problem with beliefs held by so many people of so many religions and sects which almost flippantly dismisses the damnation of all of humanity except themselves. It is sadly amusing to hear this from so many different groups around the world.

Yes, I'm noticing it being denied or downplayed here, but the simple fact is that any adherent to an exclusivist religion has to depersonalize the non-adherent, if they believe they are going to hell. And this is a big problem in today's multicultural world, where there are so many different faiths present. In the old days as a JW, I never met anyone who wasn't part of a branch on the tree of Christianity, so the scriptural arguments could take off from there. But today, someone out proselytizing has to talk to people who have grown up and have family traditions completely outside of Christianity altogether. What happens in public schools, where children meet all sorts of other kids who belong to other religions...and become friends with kids from religions that are supposed to be destined for hell? Of course this is likely a big part of why fundamentalists are such a big part of homeschooling and movements to destroy public education entirely.

It's easier to condemn people you have no connection with. And regardless of what you here on the contrary, I still recall during the old days, when I was going out door to door with some of the younger congregation members -- who were just a little older than I was -- we would amuse ourselves while walking through strange and unfriendly upscale neighbourhoods by discussing which one of these nice homes we would choose for our home after Jehovah's New Order was established, and virtually all of these miscreants who refused the Truth were gone. It may have been a flippant discussion from young JW's reacting to being treated like outcasts by the wider culture, but it revealed alot about how and why we were able to accept the concept of mass execution so easily.

You use the word "trickster", I would expand on this by adding that to adhere to a belief of such exclusivity by which all of humanity is condemned except an historically miniscule segment can be nothing more than a man made con. One designed to solicit action, subscription or wealth from those not discerning enough to realize that the God they claim to be serving must be redefined as fallible, spiteful, vain and unloving.

How else could a being capable of this be defined?

I thought of the term "trickster" because of a recollection of a few things I read about gnosticism some time ago. Gnosticism became a powerful force that influenced many educated scholars in ancient times. It is usually connected with the purges of gnosticism in early Christianity, and writings against it. But gnosticism has been around as long as there were thoughtful men and women who considered the Problem of Evil to be a problem in the first place. Most people would have just declared that God or the Gods get to do whatever they want, and it's dangerous to even think about questioning them, but the gnostics resolved the problem of evil in the world in the most creative way: the God or Gods of this world were all-powerful creators, but they were psychopaths who amused themselves by tormenting and torturing their creations. And the goal of salvation in Gnostic Christianity was to escape this world, created by the evil demiurge - Yahweh, and discover the path to enlightenment or heaven. In Gnostic Christianity, Yahweh is Satan, and we have to escape from him...not worship him. Not that I ever believed any of this, but I found it to be a lot more creative than traditional theology.

 

[work in progress]

Well being a believer, I don't particularity enjoy talking in these terms, but here goes.

Religion has always been extremely chaotic, with major faiths, minority faiths, and cults competing amongst each other.

As Christianity in America has been shrinking, it has been growing greatly in China (interestingly enough) Islam is also spreading rapidly throughout the world.

The fact is that many religions deal with questions like:
"Why are we here" and
"Where will I go when I die"

They also provide codes for living and discipline.

These ideas will never become unimportant to humanity, so religion(thus organized religion as well) will continue to exist.

Well first, welcome to free for all!

I'm not a believer, but I am a little skeptical of the stories, like the one posted in USA Today about the decline in America's churches. I don't have time to look it up right now, but a couple of years ago, I read an essay about religion in America by an historian who noted that religion is always in flux in America, and has been right from the beginning. At it's founding, the Episcopal Church was the dominant church, and there was a succession of other Protestant churches, like Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian, taking away from them as they grew. I believe the Catholic Church largely rose to prominence as it still does today -- through its own birth rates and immigration. In more recent times we've had the rise of new evangelical churches, cults, and non-denominational mega churches. I'm hearing lately that the mega churches, which enjoyed most of their growth from younger parents with young children, are losing members as their congregations age.

But, what makes me skeptical about the trend away from organized religion continuing, is that the secular alternatives to the churches are also weakening. The big reason why the churches in Western Europe went into decline was that the state provided most of the basic functions that people had to go to the church for. As an anecdote, I talked to cousins in west Michigan a couple of years back who are not very religious, but joined a new large mega church after they bought a suburban home, because it was the only way to get daycare service for their youngest two who weren't in school yet. As far as I know, they are still members and they depend on their church for after school activities, which aside from football and basketball teams, are almost non-existent in the public schools in their area. If they were living in Sweden or France, or likely even up here where I am in Canada, they might have never bothered entering the church in the first place.

When it comes to forecasting future trends, it seems more likely that a worsening economic malaise, cutbacks in government services, and uncertainty about wars and war-related fallout like terrorism, can only help religion at the expense of secular values. I don't see this as a good thing, but I don't want to have illusions about entering a golden age of free thought, like many intellectuals did 100 years ago.

 

[Breathe]

It does seem odd considering that there have been Christians right in this very forum who have referred to other Christian sects as false religions or not true Christians.

I've not really seen it with long-term members, really -- besides some wariness from the "Unorthodox" groups of JWs and LDS, and I'm usually wary to consider someone on here as a representative of his or her faith. After all, I know of a Buddhist on here who considers Vajrayāna and Pure Land Buddhism to not be Buddhism. I've been on other forums where someone considered people who are not born Hindu and not Indian to not be Hindus, even if they were to convert -- but these people have always been in the minority.

Though, I don't usually take people on the internet as being a representative of his or her faith. There's nutters, bigots, fools, narrow-interpreting religionists, literalists, fundies, creationists and impostors on the internet. Knowing who actually is a member of the religion, and who is a troll, is quite difficult. Thankfully RF is mostly made up of people who are decent, form my experience.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Neither is acting like you know for certain something you do not.

By your standards, do you think a college degree is a crutch for those who aren't able to dig ditches?

Do you have a bumper sticker that says "Reality is for people who can't handle drugs"?

WOW! Talk about going on an emotionally charged rant. LOL!

 

[Gomeza]

Yes, I'm noticing it being denied or downplayed here, but the simple fact is that any adherent to an exclusivist religion has to depersonalize the non-adherent, if they believe they are going to hell. And this is a big problem in today's multicultural world, where there are so many different faiths present. . . . .

When you think of it in these terms it not only contradicts the traditional definition of the God they believe in but also reduces their religious philosophies to self serving justification. And I agree that multiculturalism poses a number of challenges in all aspects of dealing with faith. I have been a proponent of completely removing religion from public schools for years based on an argument of inevitably shifting demographics.

I remember when it was first discussed at a parent teacher meeting 2 decades ago, the only person agreeing with my perspective and fully understanding my argument had just moved there from Brampton . . . go figure.

 

[Road Warrior]

WOW! Talk about going on an emotionally charged rant.

LOL. Hardly "charged" or a rant, but what little emotion there was is humorous in nature. If you think you can get rid of religion or that you are "above it all", I submit that you are wrong on both counts.

Religion can, indeed, be used as a crutch, but that is not its highest function nor purpose. Religions around the world are evolving along with the rest of human society, but anyone who thinks mankind does not have a spiritual component is going against the tide of the rest of humanity.

Does this mean atheists are missing something? I don't know, but I do find it very interesting why some are so staunchly "anti-theist", as Hitchens characterized himself just as some theists are so staunchly "My God or else". IMO, both points of view are emotional extremes and need more study in order to understand what is going on inside their heads.

FWIW, I think mainstream humanity will evolve somewhere through the middle of those two extremes.

 

[A Troubled Man]

LOL. Hardly "charged" or a rant, but what little emotion there was is humorous in nature. If you think you can get rid of religion or that you are "above it all", I submit that you are wrong on both counts.

Religions will see their own ends by their own means; ignorance.

Religion can, indeed, be used as a crutch, but that is not its highest function nor purpose. Religions around the world are evolving along with the rest of human society, but anyone who thinks mankind does not have a spiritual component is going against the tide of the rest of humanity.

Appeal to Popularity fallacy.

It's funny that you said religions are "evolving" when so many of the religious deny evolution.

Does this mean atheists are missing something? I don't know, but I do find it very interesting why some are so staunchly "anti-theist", as Hitchens characterized himself just as some theists are so staunchly "My God or else". IMO, both points of view are emotional extremes and need more study in order to understand what is going on inside their heads.

Seem pretty obvious what's going on in the heads of the religious, a result of childhood indoctrination. Folks like Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al. totally understand that.