The Future of American Christianity

[Lark]

The decline of church membership, especially in the last 20 years, has been so sharp it's worth its own visual:

20 years is incredibly fast for a cultural shift like that. But I do think it coincides with a general decline since 2000 of American and specifically young American institutional trust. Trust in the church, trust in the government, trust in media, trust in generalized leadership and authority is really at an all time low and religion/church is especially part of that institutional sect.

I wonder what the alternative is?

That's a very sharp decline, what would the equivalent graph be that's experiencing an uptick? Cosplay? Comic Con?

 

[Lark]

If only people trying to limit opportunities and even basic common decency for LGBT people

Well, I know I mentioned the businesses being closed or penalized in the UK or persons excluded from professions as therapists in the UK because they where heteronormative, maybe you didnt read about it. Or care about it. Anyway, it would be a mistake to characterize those individuals as trying to limit "even basic common decency" for anyone, they cant conform with what's demanded by increasing LGBT militancy. I think its wrong to say they cant work, cant run a business as a result, that feels like a violation of human rights to me. I know you dont see it that way and I'm sure you have your reasons and have no doubts about.

I'm sure that mindset is not without precedent in human history too. You know if you think about it.

 

[JocktheMotie]

I wonder what the alternative is?

That's a very sharp decline, what would the equivalent graph be that's experiencing an uptick? Cosplay? Comic Con?

Based on my social media, it's astrology, MLMs, and adherence to a left vs right political ideology.

 

[Coriolis]

Well, I know I mentioned the businesses being closed or penalized in the UK or persons excluded from professions as therapists in the UK because they where heteronormative, maybe you didnt read about it. Or care about it. Anyway, it would be a mistake to characterize those individuals as trying to limit "even basic common decency" for anyone, they cant conform with what's demanded by increasing LGBT militancy. I think its wrong to say they cant work, cant run a business as a result, that feels like a violation of human rights to me. I know you dont see it that way and I'm sure you have your reasons and have no doubts about.

I'm sure that mindset is not without precedent in human history too. You know if you think about it.

"Heteronormative"? Does that mean viewing heterosexuality as right and anything else as wrong? Does it come with a license to exclude people who are not heterosexuals from whatever you are offering to others on the open market? If so, then I would sanction this behavior, too. We no longer allow it directed toward women, blacks, Catholics, the disabled, etc. and we are finally realizing we can't allow it toward LGBT folks, either. Compare how many LGBT people have been killed or assaulted just for being LGBT, with how many straight/cis people have been killed or assaulted just for being straight/cis, and then tell me who is being militant. Self-preservation is a fundamental human right.

 

[Mole]

What would Jesus do?

To answer the question we need to know who Jesus is, and almost everything we know about Jesus is found in the New Testament.

And the New Testament tells us -

Jesus lived in a Judaic community, based on marriage, yet he never married. - The first red flag -.

Jesus never made love with a woman. - The second red flag -.

Jesus never had children of his own. - Never took responsibility for those dependent on him -.

Jesus loved John his disciple. - An imbalance of power -.

And Jesus loved other people's children. - Child sexual abuse was not a crime prosecuted under Judaic law or Roman law -.

 

[Red Memories]

What would Jesus do?

To answer the question we need to know who Jesus is, and almost everything we know about Jesus is found in the New Testament.

And the New Testament tells us -

Jesus lived in a Judaic community, based on marriage, yet he never married. - The first red flag -.

Jesus never made love with a woman. - The second red flag -.

Jesus never had children of his own. - Never took responsibility for those dependent on him -.

Jesus loved John his disciple. - An imbalance of power -.

And Jesus loved other people's children. - Child sexual abuse was not a crime prosecuted under Judaic law or Roman law -.

How in the actual heck did you twist the life of Jesus to this level.............good lord. That's like saying me a childless virgin who cares about children is secretly a sexual predator. Your logic is ridiculous. Why must you keep trolling legitimate discussions like this?

 

[Totenkindly]

How in the actual heck did you twist the life of Jesus to this level.............good lord. That's like saying me a childless virgin who cares about children is secretly a sexual predator. Your logic is ridiculous. Why must you keep trolling legitimate discussions like this?

No, he'll never let up. He gets something out of this behavior.
But maybe the graveyard will come back into play...

 

[Coriolis]

How in the actual heck did you twist the life of Jesus to this level.............good lord. That's like saying me a childless virgin who cares about children is secretly a sexual predator. Your logic is ridiculous. Why must you keep trolling legitimate discussions like this?

I at least consider some of that description to be false. There is strong evidence that Jesus was indeed intimate with, if not actually married to Mary Magdalene. Whether there were any children, we don't know. The evidence for this is routinely dismissed or ignored by most Christian denominations as their doctrine and world view benefit from the notion of a single, celibate Jesus with no women of significance in his life except his mother.

 

[Red Memories]

I at least consider some of that description to be false. There is strong evidence that Jesus was indeed intimate with, if not actually married to Mary Magdalene. Whether there were any children, we don't know. The evidence for this is routinely dismissed or ignored by most Christian denominations as their doctrine and world view benefit from the notion of a single, celibate Jesus with no women of significance in his life except his mother.

I don't see why this would be such an odd worldview considering the fact there are saints who have had mystical marriage to Jesus. This implies Jesus did have some kind of intimacy in a least point.

 

[Coriolis]

I don't see why this would be such an odd worldview considering the fact there are saints who have had mystical marriage to Jesus. This implies Jesus did have some kind of intimacy in a least point.

I see it the opposite way. It is easier to imagine spiritual marriages with someone who has had no marriage at all - the implication being that Jesus was "above" ordinary marriage in the flesh. There is plenty of evidence of his relationship with Mary Magdalene in writings that were excluded from the canonical Bible. I never understood this. If someone wants to follow Jesus, it seems they would want to learn all they could about him. Politics of the early church, however, dictated what was included and what was deemed heretical.

If you are interested in learning more about this, I recommend Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels. (The link is to a free download.)

 

[Mole]

How in the actual heck did you twist the life of Jesus to this level.............good lord. That's like saying me a childless virgin who cares about children is secretly a sexual predator. Your logic is ridiculous. Why must you keep trolling legitimate discussions like this?

It is called Critical Thinking, which is almost unknown here. Here we must believe what we are told, lest we be called a troll.

Most come here to feel good, not to practise Critical Thinking. And they punish anyone who dares to Think Critically.

To read Critical Thinking click Critical thinking - Wikipedia.

 

[Mole]

How in the actual heck did you twist the life of Jesus to this level.............good lord. That's like saying me a childless virgin who cares about children is secretly a sexual predator. Your logic is ridiculous. Why must you keep trolling legitimate discussions like this?

It's awful: we have those who can't Think Critically policing those who can.

 

[Coriolis]

It is called Critical Thinking, which is almost unknown here. Here we must believe what we are told, lest we be called a troll.

Most come here to feel good, not to practise Critical Thinking. And they punish anyone who dares to Think Critically.

To read Critical Thinking click Critical thinking - Wikipedia.

Looks more like creative writing to me - also a valuable skill, but a bit off the mark in this discussion.

 

[Lark]

It is called Critical Thinking, which is almost unknown here. Here we must believe what we are told, lest we be called a troll.

Most come here to feel good, not to practise Critical Thinking. And they punish anyone who dares to Think Critically.

To read Critical Thinking click Critical thinking - Wikipedia.

Remember that time Mole you decided that everyone who did not agree with you were stalking and trolling you?

Just saying.

I commend your efforts to think critically but I think you could maybe look up rationalizing when you're at it and decide if that is what you've been doing. Good luck with the critical thinking in future. Its a worthy goal.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well, all of this is nothing unseen.

In other words development and education eventually start to push out traditional forms of religion, that can't really stick upon the increasingly educated population (especially if they are in most traditional form). Therefore you just go in this direction until you reach the point that religious people of all shapes and sizes are a clear minority. Therefore everything suggests that is how it will be with US as well, which seems to be on this path as well. However for the country this is still relatively new development and therefore creates discomfort. Especially since it tilts the two party system.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Not a huge fan of David Frum, but I agree with his thoughts in this thread. It's in response to something Tucker Carlson said, and I think it's an appropriate place to put it.

 

[ceecee]

Not a huge fan of David Frum, but I agree with his thoughts in this thread. It's in response to something Tucker Carlson said, and I think it's an appropriate place to put it.

The great replacement theory was created by terrorist, white supremacist and dead neo Nazi David Lane. He took this idea directly from Nazi propaganda - hence the 14 words/88 precepts so revered by the current crop of human garbage. Also see Wotansvolk movement. So I have a REAL issue with David Frum (who should fucking know better as a Jewish person) chalking this up to a rise in secularism. These are two different things, one is an actual threat to everyone, one is no threat at all. David Lane (white supremacist) - Wikipedia

As a side note - JD Vance has chosen the Tucker Carlson White Power Hour lane to drive his senate campaign in. He's already self identified as a nationalist (although I'm surprised that took as long as it did) and that the biggest threat to the universe is cancel culture. There is absolutely no difference in any of these people so I would hope one would no longer attempt to sift the "good conservatives/Republicans/right wingers". How many times do they need to keep proving it?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

The great replacement theory was created by terrorist, white supremacist and dead neo Nazi David Lane. He took this idea directly from Nazi propaganda - hence the 14 words/88 precepts so revered by the current crop of human garbage. Also see Wotansvolk movement. So I have a REAL issue with David Frum (who should fucking know better as a Jewish person) chalking this up to a rise in secularism. These are two different things, one is an actual threat to everyone, one is no threat at all. David Lane (white supremacist) - Wikipedia

As a side note - JD Vance has chosen the Tucker Carlson White Power Hour lane to drive his senate campaign in. He's already self identified as a nationalist (although I'm surprised that took as long as it did) and that the biggest threat to the universe is cancel culture. There is absolutely no difference in any of these people so I would hope one would no longer attempt to sift the "good conservatives/Republicans/right wingers". How many times do they need to keep proving it?

I admittedly don't know anything about any original "replacement theory." I'd assumed it was about Carlson, and I don't know anything more than he went on some tirade recently about a "great white replacement" or something - which I didn't bother looking into because I don't have the stomach for it. But I'd assumed Frum was being facetious in using "replacement" to basically say the only group that really needs to worry about being wiped/replaced are (pseudo) Christians and that they are doing it to themselves. I kinda saw it as "take a close look at how you're practicing this religion, because you're discrediting it." It's entirely possible I'm wrong.

ETA: I mean, I've been going on this tangent myself the past couple years, after seeing the 2019 Pew polls. So it's possible I'm inserting some of my own thinking into it.

 

[ceecee]

I admittedly don't know anything about any original "replacement theory." I'd assumed it was about Carlson, and I don't know anything more than he went on some tirade recently about a "great white replacement" or something - which I didn't bother looking into because I don't have the stomach for it. But I'd assumed Frum was being facetious in using "replacement" to basically say the only group that really needs to worry about being wiped/replaced are (pseudo) Christians and that they are doing it to themselves. I kinda saw it as "take a close look at how you're practicing this religion, because you're discrediting it." It's entirely possible I'm wrong.

Basically the "Great Replacement", is a far-right conspiracy theory which claims that a global elite is colluding against the white population of Europe to replace them with non-European peoples, written by Renaud Camus and adopted by David Lane for a more American audience. Renaud Camus was a gay icon and his journey from LGBTQ vanguard to this is just bizzare. Anyway I don't think a lot of people are aware but this theory is the core of many mass shootings in recent years.

The 'white replacement theory' motivates alt-right killers the world over | Race | The Guardian

So what Tucker Carlson is doing is just putting this out there in the hopes of another mass shooting of Mexicans shopping at Walmart or Muslims sitting in a mosque or Jews gathering at a synagogue because - "they" are trying to replace you white people. I guarantee there will be someone that attempts or is successful in the coming months that will credit Tucker Carlson speaking on the subject as a motivating factor in their manifesto. I don't see how his commentary can be considered free speech or freedom of the press.

 

[Mole]

What we do know from the data is that young people are very slowly not joining the major religions.

This slow trend is occurring every year and is accumulative, and it shows no sign of reversing, or being replaced.

Of course some young people are joining popular, not mainstream, religions, but these numbers are proportionately small, and don't reverse the trend of slow attrition.

So the future of Christianity ends not with a bang of the return of the once and future Jesus, but with the whimper of young people slowly slipping away.