We all know that Christianity was created about 2000 years ago as an underground movement and in response to the current zeitgeist, i.e. Roman occupation and oppression. At the time it was very relevant and taught its followers a certain philosophy that helped them deal specifically with the lifestyle they found themselves leading.

However, as the centuries have gone by it has had to subtly change to accommodate different attitudes and lifestyles and now, in my opinion, finds itself stuck in the middle ages, with the morals and views of that time.

This is why the views of people like i_fight_for_Jesus_Christ and the_truth seem so anachronistic to our 21st century minds. A few hundred years ago they would have been the norm.

Question is, is Christianity like an aging relative who is getting left further and further behind as the human family marches ever forwards, doomed to become a more and more distant voice until finally inaudible or will it have to constantly reinvent itself just to keep up and by doing so move further and further away from its original meaning until it becomes unrecognisable to a Christian of those early days?

Christianity is more like the old nostalgic relative who between hacking coughs keeps blurting out "Well in my day!", you know the one i'm talking about, the one who nobody can stand yet they feel like they have to be nice to, the one who knows everything about anything even though they haven't read a damn thing for ages.... Christianity is the relative you wish would hurry up and die.

theVOID....that is so very true....good analogy....


Darwinism, I had once read a book that went into a good bit of detail about what they thought Christianity in the U.S. would be one hundred years from now.

He talked of the main religion being more "Neo-Paganized" (Environmentally/Astronomy, Self recognition) than what we have today. (Yes Pagans were 1st and Christianity took a lot of traditions from the Pagans, but that's not what he was getting at when talking about the two).

I for one do not see Christianity falling below 50% in the 60 to 70 years...Which is unfortunate for I will not be around even by then.
However, I do see it's control decreasing every year and at least that puts a big smile on my face when thinking of the future.

Thanks Darwinian for giving me a further opportunity to quote my fave poet, Shelley, on christianity:-

" Christianity, like all other religions, rests upon miracles, prophecies and martyrdoms. No religion ever existed which had not had its prophets, its attested miracles, and, above all, crowds of devotees who would bear patiently the most horrible tortures to prove its authenticity. Like other systems, Christianity has arisen and augmented, so like them it will decay and perish. In time men will laugh as heartily at grace, faith, redemption and original sin, as they do at the metamorphoses of Jupiter, the miracles of Romish saints, the efficacy of witchcraft and the appearance of departed spirits."

All we have to do is wait...easy peasy!!

Atheism is on the move it seems, but I don't expect religion to go anywhere.

Christianity is out of date for us atheists, no matter how forward or postmodern they try to be, but whether they'll truly go away in future is another matter...and if they don't, and if religion always stays in the majority, then for the majority of people it's not out of date. Simply because the majority will still be religious!

Religion at least should be a thing of the past....

And when it isn't as old fashioned, it's just committed more of the NTS fallacy and cherry-picking more. And all this cherry-picking and hiding behind metaphors, etc, may indeed mean Christianity is still morphing more - that is, if it has to any further, if the 'moderates' haven't got enough cover as it is.

The only thing is that it will always have to include "Christ" and probably at least some of the other fundamentals...otherwise by definition it just won't be Christianity anymore!

EvF

Atheism is no more on the move than theism is.

I think what EvF perhaps meant was that both attitudes towards atheism, and the amount of people subscribing to atheistic ideas (and secularism, etc) are on the climb.

Atheism itself hasn't moved at all, given it is a disbelief and is rather specific in what it doesn't believe in Theism (as the positive belief) has developed in every possible direction.

(September 5, 2009 at 4:17 am)Darwinian Wrote: However, as the centuries have gone by it has had to subtly change to accommodate different attitudes and lifestyles and now, in my opinion, finds itself stuck in the middle ages, with the morals and views of that time.

Do really you think that what is morally good changes with time?

E.g. Will murder (condemned years ago) be ok in such and such years - accommodating futuristic attitudes, lifestyles, or circumstances (maybe overpopulation)?

(September 6, 2009 at 12:29 pm)ecolox Wrote: Do really you think that what is morally good changes with time?

Yes, morality is an ethical system, ethics are defined by society and are relative to it. What's more it is quite evidence (even using your own bible as an historical source) that morality changes over time.

(September 6, 2009 at 12:29 pm)ecolox Wrote: E.g. Will murder (condemned years ago) be ok in such and such years - accommodating futuristic attitudes, lifestyles, or circumstances (maybe overpopulation)?

Murder is a legal concept (the illegal killing of an individual) and only reflects morality in a rights based society. According to your bible genocide, indeed the wiping out of an entire world's population all bar 8, was justifiable in moral terms.

Kyu

(September 6, 2009 at 12:04 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I think what EvF perhaps meant was that both attitudes towards atheism, and the amount of people subscribing to atheistic ideas (and secularism, etc) are on the climb.

Atheism itself hasn't moved at all, given it is a disbelief and is rather specific in what it doesn't believe in Theism (as the positive belief) has developed in every possible direction.

That's exactly what I meant, thank you.

Sorry if it wasn't clear. Obviously atheism itself can't 'develop' because it's not a fucking ideology.

EvF