What is the future of Christianity?

[wil]

Namaste Saltmiester, some interesting points to ponder.

I still think Chistianity should be spread by example. Be love, be compassion, be grace, be in the image...

folks will ask how you can stay calm in the storm, and you tell them

folks will ask why do you offer your help, and you tell them

but me, I'm the radical...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Saltmeister!

Perhaps Christianity should become a secret society (but not a cult) for specially devoted and dedicated people who are sincere in what they want from it. Kept and preserved in secret for those who will keep it sacred and respect its meaning. Like an artifact of the ancients. Buried underground like treasure. Precious.

Hmmm...sounds like the Freemasons to me.

Perhaps the "True Christianity" is the "quiet Christianity" as opposed to the "loud Christianity".

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I have heard it said (from a source outside of Christianity) that there is no such thing as good or evil, only passive and active. Active overrides passive.

There is a "common" train of thought that leads people to believe volume equals correctness...which upon further inspection is pretty obviously not the case. How often have I seen the Millsian Utilitarian philosophy proudly trumpeted on pretty much every board here? "The greatest good for the most people!" Has anybody who has "blindly" made that exclamation ever took notice of what it entails?

I find an irony, in people who advocate such fundamentalist democracy, often find themselves in the fray supporting the "rights" of minority groups. Gay marriage comes immediately to mind. By Utilitarian ethics, that puppy should have been laid to rest long ago. The greastest good for the most people has already spoken, multiple times, that they do not want this. Yet, the gay marriage issue persists, often promoted by some of the same people who blindly advocate a Utilitarian ethos. Yes, I do find that ironic.

Mills' Utilitarianism is the rationale used to entertain, and ultimately approve, the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The greatest good for the most people.

"The greatest good for the most people" means the lesser people will pay, perhaps dearly, for going against the grain. "The greatest good for the most people" sounds wonderful, as long as you are personally one of the most people. What if you are one of the lesser people? This is not rhetorical, this is a sincere question to anyone.

"The greatest good for the most people" is fundamentally flawed, because everyone, at some point in their life, in some aspect of their life, will find themselves outside of the "greatest good." That's life. Utilitarianism does not allow for mercy, for mercy's sake. It does not allow for tolerance of "lesser good" or "lesser people." It does not allow for forgiveness. It is a humanist response, not a Christian one, despite the pleas I hear from Christians to use that philosophy. Which shows once again that labels are at best a means of reference, but are by no means exclusive in application. BTW, there may be humanists that do not promote Mills' Utilitarianism, but frankly I have yet to meet one. Seems the first "lesser" people on the list to be done away with, according to them, is the Christians...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

Originally Posted by wil

I still think Chistianity should be spread by example. Be love, be compassion, be grace, be in the image...

folks will ask how you can stay calm in the storm, and you tell them

folks will ask why do you offer your help, and you tell them

but me, I'm the radical...

*Gulp*...if you're "the radical," and I've been saying the exact same thing you say here in different words for years, what does that make me???

Hee-hee-hee-hee

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, wil!

*Gulp*...if you're "the radical," and I've been saying the exact same thing you say here in different words for years, what does that make me???

Hee-hee-hee-hee

tweedle dom?...

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by wil

I still think Chistianity should be spread by example. Be love, be compassion, be grace, be in the image...

I think a belief is spread via Faith. Not just believing, but doing per the will of another.

There was a show awhile back on PBS where a science teacher said something like, "If I hear it I might not believe it, and if I read it I might forget it, but if I do it... then I know it."

I think that is similar to what you said.

[China Cat Sunflower]

What is the future of Christianity?

If you're looking for a prediction, I'd say that it continues on pretty just like it is for as far as our eyes can see. I think that the big denominations will see a bit more balkanization, so to speak. There is a tension between the values of people in developed nations and people in the third world, particularly Africa, and the developing world, especially Central and South America where believers have much closer to the bone spiritual needs, and the Church plays an activist political role on issues of justice and civil rights. I think that micro religion will become more popular. Have your own Christian church in your living room with friends. Independent neighborhood churches will continue to do well, I presume.

As an aside: If you look at how Christianity breaks down into denominations and divisions, it's all along socio-economic lines. Really poor people believe and practice their faith in markedly differents ways than the affluent.

Chris

[juantoo3]

tweedle dom?...

LOL! Good one...but I was thinking more like what my Poli Sci Prof told me once: "It's hard to tell the extremists apart without a program."

IOW, I think my former self was far more of a reactionary. My current self is far more moderate, with reactionary tendencies.

Anybody here ever read the Unabomber Manifesto? Talk about ultra-conservatism! The thing is, I find myself in agreement with Kaczynski on a lot of his points...I just fail to see why he took those thoughts to the conclusions and actions that he did.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, China Cat!

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I think that the big denominations will see a bit more balkanization, so to speak.

Would that include Bohemianization?

There is a tension between the values of people in developed nations and people in the third world, particularly Africa, and the developing world, especially Central and South America where believers have , and the Church plays an activist political role on issues of justice and civil rights. I think that micro religion will become more popular. Have your own Christian church in your living room with friends. Independent neighborhood churches will continue to do well, I presume.

I can see this. I can also see how some of these "micro religions" seek "much closer to the bone spiritual needs" a la Thoreau. How ironic, a liberal minded philosopher of almost two hundred years ago finding himself and his avocation as the poster child for reactionary conservatives. My, how times have changed.

As an aside: If you look at how Christianity breaks down into denominations and divisions, it's all along socio-economic lines. Really poor people believe and practice their faith in markedly differents ways than the affluent.

I agree, but cultural lines were neglected is this assessment. Why would a member of an African Methodist Episcopalian church want to be anything like a member of the Church of G-d in Christ, or a member of a Southern Baptist church? Yes, the divisions are largely along socio-cultural and economic lines, by choice. The wealthy tend to be "stock, run of the mill" Episcopalians (as have the vast majority of US Presidents), the poorest of the poor tend to fend for themselves, or seek solace in the Salvation Army or a Catholic Charity. (Indeed, it seems to me, if any "denomination" can be said to span the spectrum, it is most likely the Catholic church.) This assessment, obviously, being of the US specifically. How it breaks down in Europe I do not know.