The emergent church

[fluffy]

Are the exclusive religions you speak of concerned with this trend ? Have you heard of any ideas to reduce or reverse the exodus ?

[concernie]

Are the exclusive religions you speak of concerned with this trend ? Have you heard of any ideas to reduce or reverse the exodus ?

The purpose of the Enlightenment's overthrowing of monarchies—toppling throne and altar—was to separate Church and State so as to neutralize the Church. Since the Enlightenment, the Church has diminished as a politico-religious force. The current exodus from orthodoxy is being manipulated from the cultural and political levels. Since the Church has been castrated, it is largely ineffective against the reign of the money power and the press, the two primary pillars of modernity. This isn't a very optimistic view, but I believe it's the most accurate. Reversing this can only be a long and complicated endeavour. But I doubt very much it will happen before we all are forced down the road of empire.

[fluffy]

The current exodus from orthodoxy is being manipulated from the cultural and political levels.

I disagree. I think most of those exiting in favor of the newer churches are rebelling against inflexibility, against an unwillingness to keep abreast of the times in terms of finding a way for Christian faiths to co-exist with scientific discovery. In nutshell, the reluctance of fundamentalist churches to let go of a literalist view of the Bible may just spell their inevitable extinction.

Since the Church has been castrated, it is largely ineffective against the reign of the money power and the press, the two primary pillars of modernity.[/quote]

I agree that greed and pride are at the root of much that is amiss with society today. I don't see this as the fault of church or government or the media, these are but tools for those clever, hungry and unscrupulous enough to use against us. In the end it is up to us to steel ourselves, and our children, against them.

[concernie]

I disagree. I think most of those exiting in favor of the newer churches are rebelling against inflexibility, against an unwillingness to keep abreast of the times in terms of finding a way for Christian faiths to co-exist with scientific discovery.

Even these reasons could have been induced through social engineering. The notion that traditional Christianity is in opposition to science is not true. Transhumanism and technocracy are not science but alchemical mysticism

In nutshell, the reluctance of fundamentalist churches to let go of a literalist view of the Bible may just spell their inevitable extinction.

Fundies believe the current world will go extinct before they do. I don't think they are concerned with selling themselves out merely because the world wants them to. Emergent churchers have totally aligned themselves with this world, that is why society is tolerant of them. But that doesn't say much, because their ideals are the same.

[fluffy]

Emergent churchers have totally aligned themselves with this world, that is why society is tolerant of them. But that doesn't say much, because their ideals are the same.

There's that "we've got it right and you don't" thing again. I don't think I'm alone in the thought that since there is no decisive proof one way or the other about God and heaven and hell and just where did we all come from, then there is no one who has it right, and no one who has it wrong. At best we can have something that works for us, but if what works for us includes dictating what is right for someone else then don't you think their strategy might be ready for a little revision? I think people in general are growing much more respectful of the rights of others to make up their own mind in matters spiritual and this is just where many of the mainstream traditional religions are missing the boat big time, and why those same people are looking elsewhere for spiritual inspiration.

[concernie]

There's that "we've got it right and you don't" thing again. I don't think I'm alone in the thought that since there is no decisive proof one way or the other about God and heaven and hell and just where did we all come from, then there is no one who has it right, and no one who has it wrong.

Are people not allowed to believe in exclusive, absolute truths? Seems like a double standard to me.

I think people in general are growing much more respectful of the rights of others to make up their own mind in matters spiritual and this is just where many of the mainstream traditional religions are missing the boat big time, and why those same people are looking elsewhere for spiritual inspiration.

People are becoming more tolerant of everything other than Christianity. The proof of that is in the media where merely criticizing modernity is considered hate and intolerant, but it's open season on traditional Christianity. This is a fake form of tolerance on behalf of post-modernists.

[cliffy1]

Are people not allowed to believe in exclusive, absolute truths? Seems like a double standard to me.

People are becoming more tolerant of everything other than Christianity. The proof of that is in the media where merely criticizing modernity is considered hate and intolerant, but it's open season on traditional Christianity. This is a fake form of tolerance on behalf of post-modernists.

You seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between the disdain for traditional Christian religion and the disdain for the rigidity and intolerance of traditional Christianity. From what I have seen, the attack is on the intolerance and judgmental nature of traditional Christians toward every other religions or non-religion they disagree with. Kinda of like your intolerance and disdain for the emergent churches.

[fluffy]

Are people not allowed to believe in exclusive, absolute truths? Seems like a double standard to me.

Don't get me wrong, everyone one is entitled to their beliefs even if they do employ a double standard. I'm just pointing out that an obvious possibility for the loss of numbers in the traditional Christian faiths is due to the double standard they employ, in particular the whole tolerance, love and compassion for their own kind, forget the rest. Does not this sort of hypocrisy tend to drive away people looking for guidance towards a moral lifestyle? For whatever reason, people find it much easier to question authority in all its forms these days, and the "blind faith" that traditional Christianity has asked for for centuries is not so freely given any more. I'm not here to argue who is better, just saying that the strategy employed by some religions obviously isn't working when it comes to promoting new membership. I would think that might give them cause to consider their future, especially if they have an aging congregation. We're going to see a lot of baby-boomers finish their time in this world in the next couple of decades, are there replacements in the wings?

[Sneaksuit]

I disagree. I think most of those exiting in favor of the newer churches are rebelling against inflexibility, against an unwillingness to keep abreast of the times in terms of finding a way for Christian faiths to co-exist with scientific discovery.

Even these reasons could have been induced through social engineering.

According to Sociologist Reginald Bibby in his book Restless Gods, Fluffy is correct. Although there is somewhat of a religious rejuvenation taking place inside and outside the churches in Canada, the traditional churches refusing change are losing new membership in the new spiritual marketplace. Bibby notes however, not to underestimate the wealth of the traditionalists, such as the Catholic church, "whose global resources of this powerful multi-national corporation ensure its survival pretty much forever".

[concernie]

Although there is somewhat of a religious rejuvenation taking place inside and outside the churches in Canada, the traditional churches refusing change are losing new membership in the new spiritual marketplace.

And why do traditional churches need to change?

[Sneaksuit]

Are people not allowed to believe in exclusive, absolute truths?

It's reasonable to assume "God" wants us to discover absolute truth, but if you think you've found it in the interpretation of arbitrarily chosen writings by a few religious pointy-heads with their own agendas, it is surely "exclusive" and evidently results in bigotry.

People are becoming more tolerant of everything other than Christianity.

Let your behavior change their minds.

[Sneaksuit]

And why do traditional churches need to change?

The evolution of religion ensures they will change or die.

[concernie]

The evolution of religion ensures they will change or die.

According to whom? Evolution is a belief system of itself. Evolutionary biology, on the other hand, has predetermined limits. Darwinism is more superstitious than any traditional church. It's not empirical or scientific; it's occult alchemy. In other words, the alchemical transformation takes place through the supposed evolution of the species, with man having the ability to manipulate that evolutionary process through black magic and transhumanism. This is Renaissance magic repackaged as scientific discovery.

[Nebula]

Nothing could be more superstitious than believing in /worshipping a fabled creator with zero evidence of its existence.

[Sneaksuit]

The evolution of religion ensures they will change or die.

According to whom?

History. As human belief evolves religions evolve, which is the reason the more than 41000 denominations of Christianity evolved from each other and from Judaism, which evolved from polytheism and so on, back to the neolithic religions of fertility, animism, shamanism, etc. Have you discovered that this universal trend has stopped?