Future of religion

[Saint Crusaders]

I see you are already deep in the discussion. I won't react to any previous message. I just want to share my point of view on the original question.

I believe that humanity is going through something that could be characterized as the Hindu concept of "Kali Yuga" (dark (iron) age full of conflict, sin and divergence from the Spiritual world caused by the evil ifluence of the demon "Kali").(Although not Hindu myself, I believe in this concept). Because of this, humanity is giving up on Religion. The only things that interest us are those in material world. The spiritual essence of everything around us is of no importance for today's human. It got replaced by the materialistic essence. Humanity will become more atheist, more immoral and stuck in conflicts, pain and suffering. Religion and Spirituality will be abandoned altogether. Religion will make a comeback though. Because after this iron age, a golden age will come back again. People will find Spirituality again. Atheism will be non-existent. Our souls will be focused only on what is of divine origin and spiriutal in nature. We will be not conserned about the materialistic. The natural order of things will come back in place. This is an endless cycle. First is the golden age, than the silver age followed by bronze age and finally the iron age before the cycle starts again.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

you mean besides the fact that most christians don't consider them contradictions?

All 492 of them? Sounds like some serious mental gymnastics to me.

that someone else got it wrong does not really have any bearing on other attempts at the same

I consider religion discredited in concentric circles.

Obviously, the Catholic Church is the most severely discredited. An ugly history of policies that got people killed, from opposition to stem cell research to opposition to condoms in Africa. The latter can be interpreted as caring more about their policies than the survival of polyamorous and/or promiscuous people or whatever, but the former kills monogamous people as well.

But the more general concept of Christianity paved the way for the toxic existence of the Catholic Church. Any other denominations are still, at best, legitimizing a holy book full of contradictions, a means to teach that holy book that relies on teaching us not to trust one another's judgment on morality and still defer to some middleman interpreting a bunch of scripture written by some primitives. It's not good enough that some other denomination "doesn't share Catholicism's opposition to stem cell research," it still shares the same core elements of unreason that led people to accept that misguided opposition. And by being more "progressive", it buys religion goodwill on the cheap, legitimizing religion's toxic continued existence, and paving the way for more unreason that allows more people to be brainwashed into accepting toxic ideas. Why else do you think religious districts tend to be Trump districts?

Other popular religions include Islam, which kills people in an even more direct manner than opposing stem cell research. Islam cannot be embraced as an alternative to Christianity; and the others probably aren't mainstream enough to take on that role. Anything short of an outright rejection of religion as a whole is a half-measure.

[Punished UMN]

Since the topic of religion and abortion rights came up, I might as well comment on it.

Some people who know me might find this surprising, but I actually have no strong opinions on the matter. I’ve been on the Internet for a few years and have heard a variety of arguments from both camps, but frankly none of them are particularly convincing. I lean pro-choice mostly because the people I agree with on other issues, issues that I have firmer opinions on, tend to lean pro-choice.

To me, the issue boils down to this question: what counts as a person? If a fetus is a person, then abortion is callous murder plain and simple. If it is not, then abortion is no more objectionable than clipping one’s fingernails. And that definition of personhood thing is a really, really sticky issue that I haven’t yet been able to answer to my own satisfaction.

To the best of my knowledge the fundamentalist Christian position is that personhood begins at conception, but it’s not something I know in any great detail. I’d be very pleased if someone more versed in Christian theology than I am (UMN, you on this thread yet?) is willing to enlighten me on what the current Christian consensus on the definition of personhood is, what theological/scriptural justifications exist for that position, and whether that varies significantly between the various flavours of Christianity.

In Christian theology, all human beings are persons in that they bear the divine image and as such are elected to salvation and entitled to the dignity afforded by the divine image.

[Kowani]

Since the topic of religion and abortion rights came up, I might as well comment on it.

Some people who know me might find this surprising, but I actually have no strong opinions on the matter. I’ve been on the Internet for a few years and have heard a variety of arguments from both camps, but frankly none of them are particularly convincing. I lean pro-choice mostly because the people I agree with on other issues, issues that I have firmer opinions on, tend to lean pro-choice.

To me, the issue boils down to this question: what counts as a person? If a fetus is a person, then abortion is callous murder plain and simple. If it is not, then abortion is no more objectionable than clipping one’s fingernails. And that definition of personhood thing is a really, really sticky issue that I haven’t yet been able to answer to my own satisfaction.

To the best of my knowledge the fundamentalist Christian position is that personhood begins at conception, but it’s not something I know in any great detail. I’d be very pleased if someone more versed in Christian theology than I am (UMN, you on this thread yet?) is willing to enlighten me on what the current Christian consensus on the definition of personhood is, what theological/scriptural justifications exist for that position, and whether that varies significantly between the various flavours of Christianity.

In Christian theology, all human beings are persons in that they bear the divine image and as such are elected to salvation and entitled to the dignity afforded by the divine image.

would that mean that calvinism believes the non-elect are "non-persons", so to speak?

[Punished UMN]

In Christian theology, all human beings are persons in that they bear the divine image and as such are elected to salvation and entitled to the dignity afforded by the divine image.

would that mean that calvinism believes the non-elect are "non-persons", so to speak?

I'm not a Calvinist and consider Calvinism to be fundamentally unchristian, so I don't really know.

[Kowani]

would that mean that calvinism believes the non-elect are "non-persons", so to speak?

I'm not a Calvinist and consider Calvinism to be fundamentally unchristian, so I don't really know.

fair enough

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

In Christian theology, all human beings are persons in that they bear the divine image and as such are elected to salvation and entitled to the dignity afforded by the divine image.

...that just punts the problem one step down, though. What, then, is a "human being"? What theological justification exists for a fetus being a human being but an unfertilised egg not being one?

And, perhaps relevantly for the future, how will Christian definitions of personhood and humanity come into play once genetic modifications start becoming more commonplace?

[Tarsonis]

In Christian theology, all human beings are persons in that they bear the divine image and as such are elected to salvation and entitled to the dignity afforded by the divine image.

...that just punts the problem one step down, though. What, then, is a "human being"? What theological justification exists for a fetus being a human being but an unfertilised egg not being one?

This is an inane question for the sake of being contrarian. We already make this distinction in literally every school of thought, there doesn't need to be a uniquely theological justification.

And, perhaps relevantly for the future, how will Christian definitions of personhood and humanity come into play once genetic modifications start becoming more commonplace?

This is a far more interesting question, though it would largely fluctuate my denomination and largely would depend on the types of modification. A gene therapy to cure something like downsyndrome would he largely lauded and excepted. More specific modifications to bring about the so called "designer babies" would be largely rejected.

Though personhood and humanity would not be an issue.

[Dowaesk]

you mean besides the fact that most christians don't consider them contradictions?

All 492 of them? Sounds like some serious mental gymnastics to me.

that someone else got it wrong does not really have any bearing on other attempts at the same

I consider religion discredited in concentric circles.

Obviously, the Catholic Church is the most severely discredited. An ugly history of policies that got people killed, from opposition to stem cell research to opposition to condoms in Africa. The latter can be interpreted as caring more about their policies than the survival of polyamorous and/or promiscuous people or whatever, but the former kills monogamous people as well.

But the more general concept of Christianity paved the way for the toxic existence of the Catholic Church. Any other denominations are still, at best, legitimizing a holy book full of contradictions, a means to teach that holy book that relies on teaching us not to trust one another's judgment on morality and still defer to some middleman interpreting a bunch of scripture written by some primitives. It's not good enough that some other denomination "doesn't share Catholicism's opposition to stem cell research," it still shares the same core elements of unreason that led people to accept that misguided opposition. And by being more "progressive", it buys religion goodwill on the cheap, legitimizing religion's toxic continued existence, and paving the way for more unreason that allows more people to be brainwashed into accepting toxic ideas. Why else do you think religious districts tend to be Trump districts?

Other popular religions include Islam, which kills people in an even more direct manner than opposing stem cell research. Islam cannot be embraced as an alternative to Christianity; and the others probably aren't mainstream enough to take on that role. Anything short of an outright rejection of religion as a whole is a half-measure.

How do you generalise? Going to ignore that jab at Islam and focus on Christianity.
You. An anti-atheist. So basically the atheist version of the Salafi Muslim. Or the Christian equivalent of the Salafi Muslim, Traditionalists (Im guessing. Sorry if im wrong).

You talk about the generalising. That Catholic Church led to everything bad. Basically that Catholics are intolerant right? Even though, these days anti-theists are the ones going around insulting religious people and provoking them. You talk about freedom. Yet the next minute you're asking for ban on the Christian cross and the Muslim Hijab. Talking about women's freedom. Yet your idea of freeing her, is stripping off her clothes and dancing for men, because apparently thats freedom. Your idea that everything bad in this world came from religion and the belief in a higher deity, is completely wrong. Religion has its bad. But its good outnumbers its bad. You may disagree with me there. Of course, you're an anti-atheist. I would say a lot more here. But I do not have the time. But I believe this is a good starting post before I submit a better worded and full argument post against yours.

[The Alma Mater]

You talk about the generalising. That Catholic Church led to everything bad. Basically that Catholics are intolerant right?.

No, they are arguing that the organisation known as the Catholic Church has caused much misery and suffering due to the decisions its management (the Vatican) made.
Does not mean all invidual Catholics are bad people - though one can of course question why a good person would willingly join an organisation that caused so much suffering and continues to do so even this day. Compare it to someone joining the Klan while not being racist. It is an odd thing to do.

[Page]

Since the topic of religion and abortion rights came up, I might as well comment on it.

Some people who know me might find this surprising, but I actually have no strong opinions on the matter. I’ve been on the Internet for a few years and have heard a variety of arguments from both camps, but frankly none of them are particularly convincing. I lean pro-choice mostly because the people I agree with on other issues, issues that I have firmer opinions on, tend to lean pro-choice.

To me, the issue boils down to this question: what counts as a person? If a fetus is a person, then abortion is callous murder plain and simple. If it is not, then abortion is no more objectionable than clipping one’s fingernails. And that definition of personhood thing is a really, really sticky issue that I haven’t yet been able to answer to my own satisfaction.

To the best of my knowledge the fundamentalist Christian position is that personhood begins at conception, but it’s not something I know in any great detail. I’d be very pleased if someone more versed in Christian theology than I am (UMN, you on this thread yet?) is willing to enlighten me on what the current Christian consensus on the definition of personhood is, what theological/scriptural justifications exist for that position, and whether that varies significantly between the various flavours of Christianity.

In Christian theology, all human beings are persons in that they bear the divine image and as such are elected to salvation and entitled to the dignity afforded by the divine image.

Most Christians agree that fetuses that die go to heaven and also that ensoulment happens at the moment of fertilization, but if forced to consider the implications of that, with anywhere from one third to one half of all zygotes spontaneously self-aborting, at minimum, 40% of all souls in heaven are fetuses who never experienced a single thing on Earth.

Are they granted sentience? And if God is alright with essentially creating souls to be instantly sent to heaven, why did all of us on earth get the short end of the stick? We not only have to suffer but risk damning ourselves ourselves hell?

[Dakini]

That the church admits to being wrong about abortion? I don't think that's likely. The Catholic Church is pretty stuck in their ways, especially when it comes to controlling women, hating the LGBTQ+ community, hiding child molesters and hoarding insane amounts of riches while many of their followers live in poverty.

Pro-life isn't pro-control, it's pro-life. According to you, 45% of women believe in having themselves be "controlled". 54% of all American Christians believe in LGBT acceptance with both younger and older Christians being more accepting of them. Most churches are not accepting of abusers-- abusers can have faith in God, but they will be pariahs in the congregation setting.

Surveys of anti-choicers show it's mostly about controlling women, not about being pro-life. If people were actually pro-life, they'd support prenatal programmes for pregnant people, they would be in favour of making sure that children are being fed, that they're able to access health care and education. If they cared about reducing the number of abortions, they'd support comprehensive sexual education programmes and the accessibility of contraceptives (you know, things that are actually effective at reducing the number of abortions).

But they're not doing that because they don't actually care about "life". They care about controlling women.

And yeah, thanks for trying to surprise me with the idea that there are women with internalised misogyny as though I wasn't aware of this.

[Greater-Bharat]

Atheists: I BeLiEvE iN tHe ScIeNtiFic MeThOd.
Mfw I realize I've seen these people get only Cs and Ds in Physics all my life:

[The Alma Mater]

Atheists: I BeLiEvE iN tHe ScIeNtiFic MeThOd.
Mfw I realize I've seen these people get only Cs and Ds in Physics all my life:

Who says atheists believe in the scientific method ?
They just do not believe in gods.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Atheists: I BeLiEvE iN tHe ScIeNtiFic MeThOd.
Mfw I realize I've seen these people get only Cs and Ds in Physics all my life:

In my personal experience, everyone in school I knew that made a deal out of religion was a dumbass. Anecdotes mean nothing.

[Dakini]

Atheists: I BeLiEvE iN tHe ScIeNtiFic MeThOd.
Mfw I realize I've seen these people get only Cs and Ds in Physics all my life:

wtf are you talking about? You are aware that in most of the world, physicists are much less religious than the rest of the population, right?

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

Atheists: I BeLiEvE iN tHe ScIeNtiFic MeThOd.
Mfw I realize I've seen these people get only Cs and Ds in Physics all my life:

In my personal experience, everyone in school I knew that made a deal out of religion was a dumbass. Anecdotes mean nothing.

Huh- Must've been self-projecting

[Elsa De Arendelle]

Islam will take over the entire world, then all atheists will be Muslim by force whether they like it or not. Then Jesus comes back to save those who believed in Him and destroy the wicked and cruel. The kindhearted followers of Jesus will inherit this earth and another earth after 1000 years. So religion will always be with us even after this human era ends.

[Tarsonis]

Islam will take over the entire world, then all atheists will be Muslim by force whether they like it or not. Then Jesus comes back to save those who believed in Him and destroy the wicked and cruel. The kindhearted followers of Jesus will inherit this earth and another earth after 1000 years. So religion will always be with us even after this human era ends.

debatable.

[Neutraligon]

Islam will take over the entire world, then all atheists will be Muslim by force whether they like it or not. Then Jesus comes back to save those who believed in Him and destroy the wicked and cruel. The kindhearted followers of Jesus will inherit this earth and another earth after 1000 years. So religion will always be with us even after this human era ends.

Hahahahahahaaha. Nice joke.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Surveys of anti-choicers show it's mostly about controlling women, not about being pro-life.

That source seems a tad dicey. "Self-reporting" can incentivize anyone to pretend to be on the opposite side of the issue than they're on (like when Trump voters pretended to be Clinton voters) but also, the things they're referring to are pushing it to conflate with wanting to "control" women.

The one about political power? The same plurality of voters, male and female, that keeps abortion legal is the same plurality of voters that elects more men than women into politics. Are they "misogynist" too, or is it just a matter of different assumptions on what each sex's skills look like, and different opinions on which are more valuable to politics? Difference is, each are seeking office of their own accord, and choosing leaders of their own accord. They are not forbidding women from going to the polls on election day.

The MeToo movement needed to happen, but it has its downsides. People who were wrong on Rolling Stone think they know better than a judge about Jian Ghomeshi. It needs to be dissented against. No movement should be conformed to blindly.

Blaming it for Trump is also dicey. Santorum isn't the wokest guy on gender issues either yet Trump went ahead of him. Evidently it's more about race than gender.

This whole thing comes across treating people as if they're obliged to NOT dissent against feminism, when quite frankly every worldview should be dissented against. That's how we know whether or not they stand up to scrutiny.

In any case, conflating dissent against it with wanting "control" is still dicey.

If people were actually pro-life, they'd support prenatal programmes for pregnant people, they would be in favour of making sure that children are being fed, that they're able to access health care and education.

Libertarians support abortion rights, which might not have been protected without their help. They also oppose all the things you mention. Are you implying libertarians don't care about the children of women who genuinely wanted them? Or the children of women whose boyfriends didn't show their true colours until the baby was born?

Market-worship is more so the problem here than anything else. If under its influence, libertarians oppose all these things, it's possible for conservatives to oppose these things other than out of apathy to mothers and babies too. And if you get their motives wrong, good luck convincing them to believe you on anything else. Including said aforementioned policies.

If they cared about reducing the number of abortions, they'd support comprehensive sexual education programmes and the accessibility of contraceptives (you know, things that are actually effective at reducing the number of abortions).

That's like saying "if they cared about reducing the number of actual!murders, they'd support tackling the root causes of crime instead of having more policing." They object to that on principle, and though to me their principles seem pretty warped, there is enough consistency on how they treat actual!murders that they can't all; and don't likely seem to be for the most part; faking it.

And yeah, thanks for trying to surprise me with the idea that there are women with internalised misogyny as though I wasn't aware of this.

That's at least twice you've brought up this talking point. Quite frankly, it comes across as a way to circumvent proving it; by what metric do you call "misogynistic" notions many if not most women agree with? (Putting aside the subjectivity of the word "misogyny" more generally.)

[Insaanistan]

Islam will take over the entire world, then all atheists will be Muslim by force whether they like it or not. Then Jesus comes back to save those who believed in Him and destroy the wicked and cruel. The kindhearted followers of Jesus will inherit this earth and another earth after 1000 years. So religion will always be with us even after this human era ends.

So... not sure what the heck this is, but.

I’m curious: do Muslims and Baha’is count as part of this? Because both also believe Jesus will come back to save the world...

[Muzehnaya]

Other popular religions include Islam, which kills people in an even more direct manner than opposing stem cell research. Islam cannot be embraced as an alternative to Christianity; and the others probably aren't mainstream enough to take on that role. Anything short of an outright rejection of religion as a whole is a half-measure.

This just shows you quite frankly have no clue what you are talking about. In regards to "killing people in an even more direct manner," the current situation in the Middle East is caused by a mix of of petty tyrants, foreign meddling, group grievances (regarding religion, race, culture, etc.), and economic decline. Singling out religion out of this whole web of factors is both lazy and largely unfounded.

And... being opposed to stem cell research? The Islamic Research Council in Egypt affirmed its permissibility, and the Islamic Fiqh Council of the Muslim World League spoke positively of stem cell therapy at its conference in 2003.

[The Alma Mater]

Islam will take over the entire world, then all atheists will be Muslim by force whether they like it or not. Then Jesus comes back to save those who believed in Him and destroy the wicked and cruel. The kindhearted followers of Jesus will inherit this earth and another earth after 1000 years. So religion will always be with us even after this human era ends.

Who are the wicked and cruel in this story ? After all,muslims are followers of Jesus as well.

[Punished UMN]

In Christian theology, all human beings are persons in that they bear the divine image and as such are elected to salvation and entitled to the dignity afforded by the divine image.

Most Christians agree that fetuses that die go to heaven and also that ensoulment happens at the moment of fertilization, but if forced to consider the implications of that, with anywhere from one third to one half of all zygotes spontaneously self-aborting, at minimum, 40% of all souls in heaven are fetuses who never experienced a single thing on Earth.

Are they granted sentience? And if God is alright with essentially creating souls to be instantly sent to heaven, why did all of us on earth get the short end of the stick? We not only have to suffer but risk damning ourselves ourselves hell?

A major idea in the Christian faith is that the universe is not how God wanted it to be and that Christ's coming heralds the restoration of the universe to the state which God desired it, in which all humans, living and dead, will be restored to a state of divine grace (which necessarily includes sentience), and even animals that have lived and died will be brought before God along with all of creation, for God intended for man to shepherd creation, and humanity's return to God's grace herald's the return of all the universe to a state of grace in which there will not be suffering, pain, or death forever.

The whole point of the Christian conception of the universe is precisely that God isn't alright with it. He's not alright with any of how it is. In the prophecy of Isaiah, He seems outright disgusted with how things have turned out, in other texts, he describes it as "groaning" under the weight of oppression.