Then obviously I was wrong -- stopping to think won't tell you anything.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Future of Religion
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
I think religion will change, but not disappear. I'm hoping with my heart that all forms of fundamentalism will die off, as people see how harmful it is to humanity. Hopefully there will be far more 'live and let live' styles of religion, and non-religious philosophies.
It'll take a while.
It'll take a while.
Interesting article and so much truth in that....but I am always reminded of the Bible's predictions with regard to religion in this time period....here is why....
The author of the article said regarding the situation in this 21st century...
"Social change undermines religions which don’t accommodate it: earlier this year, Pope Francis warned that if the Catholic Church didn’t acknowledge its history of male domination and sexual abuse it risked becoming “a museum”. And their tendency to claim we sit at the pinnacle of creation is undermined by a growing sense that humans are not so very significant in the grand scheme of things.
Historically, what makes religions rise or fall is political support – Linda Woodhead
Perhaps a new religion will emerge to fill the void? Again, Woodhead is sceptical. “Historically, what makes religions rise or fall is political support,” she says, “and all religions are transient unless they get imperial support.” Zoroastrianism benefited from its adoption by the successive Persian dynasties; the turning point for Christianity came when it was adopted by the Roman Empire. In the secular West, such support is unlikely to be forthcoming, with the possible exception of the US. In Russia, by contrast, the nationalistic overtones of both Rodnovery and the Orthodox church wins them tacit political backing."
If political support is what makes religions rise to success, then who are they worshipping? If we are looking at religions who rely on that political support and it is withdrawn, what becomes of that body? If it folds, then the power supporting it was from man, not God. What God supports cannot be brought down by man.
From the Bible's perspective, all religion that does not follow or obey the teachings of these scriptures will come to nothing because of this very thing. If they have been found wanting in their actions and beliefs....their conduct in the world, and their reliance on 'worldly' "friends", then none of those religions have God's backing....and never did.
James 4:4...likens them to adulterers....."You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God."
Imagine! Those friendships with the worldly rulers made these ones into enemies of God. Why? Because Jesus' admonition was to be "no part of the world" because it has no support from God. (John 18:36) It is ruled by his adversary. (1 John 5:19)
In "the time of the end", predicted by the Bible, (which I believe by the evidence that we are living in right now) it says in Revelation that the powers that be, who were former 'lovers' of an entity called "Babylon the great" (a collective of the world's false religions) will turn on all those religions and destroy them....including Christendom which has always been up to its neck in politics.
It is interesting that at no other time in history would these rulers be able to collectively rid the world of its most most divisive element. Reliance on religion is waning in this age of science. It will only be able to accomplish this removal by means of the next governmental system predicted in the Bible to rule the world for a very short time....a one world government under the increased powers of the United Nations. It will promise "peace and security" which all the world longs to see, but it will be a hollow promise. (1 Thessalonians 5:1-4) It will unleash the greatest tribulation the world has ever seen. (Matthew 24:21)
The Bible actually says that these rulers will even lament her passing, because she has always supported them in their wars and other agendas.......as will the commercial elements who profited from her...but her demise will be permanent. (Revelation 18:4-11)
So from my perspective, I just see the Bible's prophesy unfolding before my eyes.....it can't come soon enough for me....all false religion is an affront to the true God. It is he who is directing things to accomplish his purpose and bring about the rule of his own Kingdom that is about to crush these rulerships out of existence and replace them with a government that will actually fulfill its promises to bring peace and security to this earth. (Daniel 2:44)
Last edited:
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Religion is taught that it heard the voice of human science. Recorded man father voice speaking.
And wrote it's evidence as proof of what was heard as caused by the choice man's sin...fake mother female theme maths in science.
Exactly why it was written.
All scientists claim any spiritual advice schizophrenic. As it was heard. Brain changed.
Yet a healthy natural man group theories for their own life attack. Why they knew. They lived advised by change.
The only negative conscious advice human knew first was cell loss from their owned bodies. Rationally.
Brains can change in cell loss and not be schizophrenic. What you lie about.
So when science preaches two preachings yet rationally it is the exact same preaching. Cosmos. Space. Reactions in space. What I know as a human.
Our heavens sit in space is not space reacting. What rational humans know.
Then science says cells they study as a whole human is where we came from. Not rational.
No he says microbes. Also not rational. As he is studying microbes as microbes. His life from sperm ovary small human advice
Animals or trees don't talk about what is living inside their bodies.
Says to the spiritual human. You are not allowed to believe anything else. But my science.
The same one minded dogma of science. Is science.
I live inside water oxygen heavens. Every single form looked at exists in its owned body. Natural. No storyteller.
What human science looks at is all naturally present bodies living within the exact same environmental condition. Natural. Formed. Self owned.
Tries to coerce by their stories.
Claiming only what they think is reality. One mind. One belief. One enforced status.
How then did human science tell a human scientist that science is wrong.
By being schizophrenic their selves?
The mind state of a thinker proves how wrong it is.
Science says don't believe in spirit.
Science says don't believe you came from another spirit. A science status.
I don't. I know I came from sperm and ovary. Human vision memory says bio life came from the eternal. The parents. Not a science discussion.
As first parents are deceased. Science is wrong. First parents are always highest human form. Human.
Not any ape.
Reason. A human today in any lower human form did not mutate into an ape human
Yet it says it's terms to its own science mind. Just human thought only. So you are not right in life as your claim righteous notified.
As manifestation of spirit is already proven.
If manifestation of spirit were not proven we would own no belief as there would be no reason to believe.
Science tried to claim only mentally disturbed humans see spirit.
Science then says I can explain why.
Says it is a mind condition. Yet science the mind condition caused the manifestation. Human cause.
They introduced it their selves.
So you would ask them how do you know about false spirit manifestation?
All humans equal first own the subject why is a human life changed?
If science word described human says in a diction use from eternal. Then he meant it.
I am told I am schizophrenic if I believe in it.
Then why is it written in a diction ARY claiming correct word use explanation by humans?
How does a human know they are changed?
Seen spirit manifestation. I suppose they are all schizophrenic too.
If a product fused changes and you see a spirit. How did a spirit form pre exist to be held inside of fused form?
If it never originated from a place of spirit?
Science tries to claim it owns all answers.
Why does spirit form show it pre existed form in conversion conditions?
Why does science lie when science said it believed a pre existing form unknown to science changed before creation existed?
Science says I know reactive science in a space condition only. The science status.
Yet earth mass and it's heavens not reactive space?
Reason water oxygen the ground support of life for anything manifested.
Science forced a space to be massed owned to own status reaction. Had to achieve it inside of mass as a machine body. The machine body mass first not reactive.
Which is not a reaction in space.
Why would first human memories discuss time shift in a nuclear condition? Inside of a machine?
We are not reacted inside of a machine. A resource after a reaction.
Water present oxygen after tree life is not any reaction.
Religion owned a moral purpose against the sciences practiced. Some of its groups now have preached against humans spiritual understanding as small groups of choice. Which does not make religious practice defunct because science says so.
Science said if you believed in the evil spirit you were schizophrenic.
As a self mind inherited science human cause and effect.
Believing in a status that science cannot prove does not make you wrong. What existed before any reaction was thought upon.
The psyche proves it knows otherwise as you would never have supported a reaction. You would claim evolution after reaction owned reaction plus evolution for self human status.
Yet you don't.
Science owns the one enforced historic status itself.
Religion was a human diverse expressed reasoning against unnatural loss and life sacrifice. So it had to preach two conditions
Natural holiness first natural presence natural life. Then......
Reason natural was changed. That status one science.
The answer one God in one science sacrificed life.
You have to own life first before it can be sacrificed. As a man defined as a man by his man penis. Bio life form.
The Bible owns historic data asides from stories. Seeing science began its own journey first as just stories.
Religion said we lived upon our own entity planet earth.
Science is the only practice that contradicts natural advice self and human first.
Thinking abstract science.
Science as a group abstracted itself from its non science practice. Religion dedicated itself to life. Serving the human family. Healing and brain entrainment practices.
How science affected and coerced their organisation by elite control is their choice.
And wrote it's evidence as proof of what was heard as caused by the choice man's sin...fake mother female theme maths in science.
Exactly why it was written.
All scientists claim any spiritual advice schizophrenic. As it was heard. Brain changed.
Yet a healthy natural man group theories for their own life attack. Why they knew. They lived advised by change.
The only negative conscious advice human knew first was cell loss from their owned bodies. Rationally.
Brains can change in cell loss and not be schizophrenic. What you lie about.
So when science preaches two preachings yet rationally it is the exact same preaching. Cosmos. Space. Reactions in space. What I know as a human.
Our heavens sit in space is not space reacting. What rational humans know.
Then science says cells they study as a whole human is where we came from. Not rational.
No he says microbes. Also not rational. As he is studying microbes as microbes. His life from sperm ovary small human advice
Animals or trees don't talk about what is living inside their bodies.
Says to the spiritual human. You are not allowed to believe anything else. But my science.
The same one minded dogma of science. Is science.
I live inside water oxygen heavens. Every single form looked at exists in its owned body. Natural. No storyteller.
What human science looks at is all naturally present bodies living within the exact same environmental condition. Natural. Formed. Self owned.
Tries to coerce by their stories.
Claiming only what they think is reality. One mind. One belief. One enforced status.
How then did human science tell a human scientist that science is wrong.
By being schizophrenic their selves?
The mind state of a thinker proves how wrong it is.
Science says don't believe in spirit.
Science says don't believe you came from another spirit. A science status.
I don't. I know I came from sperm and ovary. Human vision memory says bio life came from the eternal. The parents. Not a science discussion.
As first parents are deceased. Science is wrong. First parents are always highest human form. Human.
Not any ape.
Reason. A human today in any lower human form did not mutate into an ape human
Yet it says it's terms to its own science mind. Just human thought only. So you are not right in life as your claim righteous notified.
As manifestation of spirit is already proven.
If manifestation of spirit were not proven we would own no belief as there would be no reason to believe.
Science tried to claim only mentally disturbed humans see spirit.
Science then says I can explain why.
Says it is a mind condition. Yet science the mind condition caused the manifestation. Human cause.
They introduced it their selves.
So you would ask them how do you know about false spirit manifestation?
All humans equal first own the subject why is a human life changed?
If science word described human says in a diction use from eternal. Then he meant it.
I am told I am schizophrenic if I believe in it.
Then why is it written in a diction ARY claiming correct word use explanation by humans?
How does a human know they are changed?
Seen spirit manifestation. I suppose they are all schizophrenic too.
If a product fused changes and you see a spirit. How did a spirit form pre exist to be held inside of fused form?
If it never originated from a place of spirit?
Science tries to claim it owns all answers.
Why does spirit form show it pre existed form in conversion conditions?
Why does science lie when science said it believed a pre existing form unknown to science changed before creation existed?
Science says I know reactive science in a space condition only. The science status.
Yet earth mass and it's heavens not reactive space?
Reason water oxygen the ground support of life for anything manifested.
Science forced a space to be massed owned to own status reaction. Had to achieve it inside of mass as a machine body. The machine body mass first not reactive.
Which is not a reaction in space.
Why would first human memories discuss time shift in a nuclear condition? Inside of a machine?
We are not reacted inside of a machine. A resource after a reaction.
Water present oxygen after tree life is not any reaction.
Religion owned a moral purpose against the sciences practiced. Some of its groups now have preached against humans spiritual understanding as small groups of choice. Which does not make religious practice defunct because science says so.
Science said if you believed in the evil spirit you were schizophrenic.
As a self mind inherited science human cause and effect.
Believing in a status that science cannot prove does not make you wrong. What existed before any reaction was thought upon.
The psyche proves it knows otherwise as you would never have supported a reaction. You would claim evolution after reaction owned reaction plus evolution for self human status.
Yet you don't.
Science owns the one enforced historic status itself.
Religion was a human diverse expressed reasoning against unnatural loss and life sacrifice. So it had to preach two conditions
Natural holiness first natural presence natural life. Then......
Reason natural was changed. That status one science.
The answer one God in one science sacrificed life.
You have to own life first before it can be sacrificed. As a man defined as a man by his man penis. Bio life form.
The Bible owns historic data asides from stories. Seeing science began its own journey first as just stories.
Religion said we lived upon our own entity planet earth.
Science is the only practice that contradicts natural advice self and human first.
Thinking abstract science.
Science as a group abstracted itself from its non science practice. Religion dedicated itself to life. Serving the human family. Healing and brain entrainment practices.
How science affected and coerced their organisation by elite control is their choice.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Literalism is getting a thrashing from the internet...I think the literalists will have to try and cordon off their own little alternative reality internet. We see this playing out in our recent politics. Science-denial, etc is forming up and influencing politics through the internet as well...but I think that effort is doomed to fail. A last gasp of some white, male-dominated Christianity is making a shameful scene.
I see myth as preceding religion. Myth moves and grows in our unconscious, our souls and we discover it there, not create it.
Our modern myth hinges on individual value, free will and the idea that we each differently have a part to play in a world where at the same time as we all seem out of tune, we all find ourselves on the stage together practicing our roles and wanting to make them work all together...a project bigger than any one person can wrap their heads around.
My interest is in finding the pieces of our myths, old and new, and trying to find a way to engage with others in a process of discovering what a new mythic practice might look like. Literalism will be fringe at best I think.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Religion is not on the decline.
Since the year 2000, religion has made resurgence whereas atheism and agnosticism are on the decline.
The growth rates of the Abrahamic religions from 1910-2010 were as follows: Judaism .11%, Christianity 1.32%, Islam 1.97%, and Baha’i Faith 3.54%.
Atheism was growing at a rate of 6.54% from 1910-2010 but dropped to a growth rate of 0.05% from 2000-2010. Agnosticism was growing at a rate of 5.45% from 1910-2010 but dropped to a growth rate of 0.32% from 2000-2010. That demonstrates that both atheism and agnosticism are on the decline but also that there are many more agnostics than atheists.
Statistics from: Growth of religion - Wikipedia
Atheism growing? No, atheism is actually on the decline!
16 March 2016, 07:56
Atheism is not growing despite what atheists may say. Real surveys and statistics say atheism is on the decline worldwide. Sorry atheists but atheism is not on the rise nor is it winning. It's still the minority and a declining one at that.
The Pew Research Center's statistics show that atheism is expected to continue to decline all the way into 2050 with a continued growth of religion. Other research also shows a huge surge in growth for Christianity in China which is currently the world's most "atheist" nation because of the atheist communist government suppressing religion, the research suggests that China will soon become the world's most Christian nation within 15 years.
This is simply history repeating itself: Christianity prospered in Rome back in the ancient era when it was suppressed and it still grew in the militant atheist soviet Russia when it was suppressed there only a century ago with the majority of Russians today now also identifying as Christian. Just goes to show that atheist suppression of religion still doesn't stop religion.
Sources:
The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050
Religiously Unaffiliated
China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years
http://masterrussian.com/russia/facts.htm
Atheism growing? No, atheism is actually on the decline!
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Either we are all children of a loving creator, manifestations of divine consciousness; in which case our relationship with that creative consciousness will continue to evolve, personally and collectively. Or we are not, in which case it won’t matter.
Unless one doesn't want to see others as being as prosperous and well-educated as most in the Western countries are, and where religions are on the decline (probably related to the education part and the freedoms associated with such), then I can't see why other nations wouldn't follow such - other than because their freedoms are actually curtailed in some way or because a belief system is just more resistant to passing into history. It might take a while but that seems the way forward, apart from another more encompassing religion arising, but which might not appear to be a religion - so an ideology perhaps. Hopefully one that didn't cause conflict with other beliefs but did have the welfare of all humans, all other life, and the planet as priorities.
firedragon
Veteran Member
In general, this is a sociological question.
Religions as always will evolve. The internet is helping. But I dont what you mean by helping or hindering. In what way?
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
The last few chapters of Revelations gives an idea. No more the lighted candle, no more the voice
of the bride and bridegroom - but a cage of every hateful and unclean bird.
That's where we are about now - but a lot more in the future.
IMO, most people are gonna be surprised when they see what happens to religion!
You see, I think the Harlot of Revelation 17 & 18, is religion, representing all belief systems that have led people away from getting to know their Creator, i.e., Yahweh / Jehovah.
I wonder how many on this forum think the Earth’s largest political entity, aka the UN, will destroy all well-founded religious institutions?
That would be a shock, wouldn’t it? I think it’s coming.
You see, I think the Harlot of Revelation 17 & 18, is religion, representing all belief systems that have led people away from getting to know their Creator, i.e., Yahweh / Jehovah.
I wonder how many on this forum think the Earth’s largest political entity, aka the UN, will destroy all well-founded religious institutions?
That would be a shock, wouldn’t it? I think it’s coming.
Ok, we can all provide stats and analysis
Why is religion suddenly declining? | OUPblog
WVS Database
But since 2007, things have changed with surprising speed. From about 2007 to 2019, the overwhelming majority of the countries we studied—43 out of 49—became less religious. The decline in belief was not confined to high-income countries and appeared across most of the world.
And china...
Religion in China - Wikipedia
Note christianity at 2.53% of population, althought it is a huge population and just 2.53% means more people than many other countries it is still a small percentage of the population
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that the internet can only make religion more relevant because it gives people everywhere more connectivity and an additional forum for the discussion of religious topics.
Large religious groups can connect and share between the diverse members that constitute them no matter how far apart they actually live and small religious groups can achieve a wider audience and public attention through the internet.
Everything about religion is magnified as a result of the internet. It's a wonderful opportunity for the growth of religion thought. It seems to me that religion can only get better for everyone.
Just as the printing press meant everyone could have access to a primary religious text in their own home, the invention of the internet brings convenient access to religious texts, religious discussion, and answers to FAQ from anywhere! The future of religion? It can only get better.
I suppose another question would be: Is there anything about the internet that would work against religion?
Objections to religions are not new. Even though there is also an increased forum for ideas that directly oppose religion, there isn't anything substantively new about the objections. Really there isn't any danger to religion on the whole from opposing views that wasn't there already. If those ideas are actually significant enough to cause a decline in religion, then the decline occurs regardless of the existence of the internet.
A more serious problem for religion is that religion is not a thing people can do via internet simply because they are on the internet. Congregating is an essential aspect of religion and the internet simply cannot replicate that. It's possible for people to become disconnected from religion by an over-reliance on technology. Sure, events can be streamed via internet, but observing some religious event while you lounge on your couch, nap in bed, use the restroom, or go for a power walk is quite a bit different from being an active participant in a religious event. So the biggest problem might be the illusion of participation that can evolve from the convenience of being able to connect in a somewhat superficial way with other people who are actually immersed in a religion.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Religion/Spirituality is God's Gift to humanity. Spirituality won't go away, because people's Quest will always be there, as Spirit is our True Self
Internet might make a shift from 1 Religion to the other, or temporary to Atheism, or to Spirituality without a defined Religion. The Quest will not stop
That is one of the Great Marvels of God, the unsolvable Koan "who is God?", together with humans curiosity, that's impossible to completely destroy
@stvdvRF
Last edited:
First, I find the internet is helping religion in the sense it helps spread Jesus' words of Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8.
The 'good news of God's kingdom' (Daniel 2:44) is now spread on a grand international scale just as Jesus said.
What is next in store is: the powers that be will surprisingly turn on the religious world - 1Thessalonians 5:2-3.
What will cause 'genuine religion' to stay relevant is the action Jesus will take according to Isaiah 11:3-4 and Revelation 19:14-15 that the executional words from Jesus' mouth will rid the Earth of wickedness.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That has already happened. The Baha'i Faith not just an ideology but a religion that promotes universal education and social justice and has the welfare of all humans and all other life on the planet as its primary goal. Unfortunately many people think it is just like all the older religions so they write it off without giving it a serious look.
That is called the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions.
..... and jumping to conclusions seldom leads to happy endings !That has already happened. The Baha'i Faith not just an ideology but a religion that promotes universal education and social justice and has the welfare of all humans and all other life on the planet as its primary goal. Unfortunately many people think it is just like all the older religions so they write it off without giving it a serious look.
That is called the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions.
A great future is unfolding, every day we move closer to that glorious future.
Baha’u’llah’s vision for the future of humanity centers around the oneness of the planet, the unity of all peoples and nations, and a just and lasting global peace and has said, "So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth. Exert yourselves that ye may attain this transcendent and most sublime station, the station that can ensure the protection and security of all mankind."
Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith outlined the Baha’i vision of the unification of humanity clearly, beautifully and succinctly in March of 1936:
" The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Baha’u’llah, implies the establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races, creeds and classes are closely and permanently united, and in which the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and completely safeguarded.
This commonwealth must, as far as we can visualize it, consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples.
A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature, and will safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth.
A world tribunal will adjudicate and deliver its compulsory and final verdict in all and any disputes that may arise between the various elements constituting this universal system.
A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvelous swiftness and perfect regularity.
A world metropolis will act as the nerve center of a world civilization, the focus towards which the unifying forces of life will converge and from which its energizing influences will radiate.
A world language will either be invented or chosen from among the existing languages and will be taught in the schools of all the federated nations as an auxiliary to their mother tongue.
Aworld script, a world literature, a uniform and universal system of currency, of weights and measures, will simplify and facilitate intercourse and understanding among the nations and races of mankind.
In such a world society, science and religion, the two most potent forces in human life, will be reconciled, will cooperate, and will harmoniously develop.
The press will, under such a system, while giving full scope to the expression of the diversified views and convictions of mankind, cease to be mischievously manipulated by vested interests, whether private or public, and will be liberated from the influence of contending governments and peoples.
The economic resources of the world will be organized, its sources of raw materials will be tapped and fully utilized, its markets will be coordinated and developed, and the distribution of its products will be equitably regulated.
National rivalries, hatreds, and intrigues will cease, and racial animosity and prejudice will be replaced by racial amity, understanding and cooperation.
The causes of religious strife will be permanently removed, economic barriers and restrictions will be completely abolished, and the inordinate distinction between classes will be obliterated.
Destitution on the one hand, and gross accumulation of ownership on the other, will disappear.
The enormous energy dissipated and wasted on war, whether economic or political, will be consecrated to such ends as will extend the range of human inventions and technical development, to the increase of the productivity of mankind, to the extermination of disease, to the extension of scientific research, to the raising of the standard of physical health, to the sharpening and refinement of the human brain, to the exploitation of the unused and unsuspected resources of the planet, to the prolongation of human life, and to the furtherance of any other agency that can stimulate the intellectual, the moral, and spiritual life of the entire human race." – World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 203.
That sounds like a world where a United humanity using Faith and Science are working in Harmony and that is what I see will be the future.
The Baha'i Vision of the Future
Regards Tony
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That's right.
Well such wouldn't satisfy those increasing numbers who don't want any religion so still more a replacement for those who can't stick with the one they currently might have. I was thinking more of an ideology that united us all - if such was possible - and religions (of any sort) are not such.That has already happened. The Baha'i Faith not just an ideology but a religion that promotes universal education and social justice and has the welfare of all humans and all other life on the planet as its primary goal. Unfortunately many people think it is just like all the older religions so they write it off without giving it a serious look.
That is called the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions.