Kaiser_Soze

Are we in the age of the Burger King God? ("You Got it" is their advertising slogan for those that haven't seen it).

Centuries ago (it seems to me), there were fewer "gods" - I suspect the main causes of that (if correct) were the illiteracy of the general populus coupled with just the chosen few (priests, etc) interpreting and preaching the bible. (No need to get into the control aspect here).

These days, where everyone has access to (many different versions of) the bible one can decide for ones self. So far, so good. People can choose a diluted version rather than a hellfire and brimstone one. Fine.

Alongside this the many churches seem to be redefining their beliefs, taking science into account. Great. Other than the fundies, religion appears to be 'progressing' or progressive (allowing womens rights, homosexual relationships/marriage, etc).

BUT - should we let them do so? Shouldn't we call them on it? If people are going to redefine their god out of all recognition from the scriptures, should we just accept it when they say that they're Xian/whatever? Shouldn't we perhaps come up with another term to call them?

In a world of greys are we not being too black and white? After all, to me at least, it seems that no two xians have exactly the same flavour of god. Atheists have nothing more in common (necessarily) than a lack of belief in a god/gods - all others (in context), it seems, can only be called theists as they all have their own personal god.

Whilst one might not like pigeon-holes they are of use - until the hole becomes so large as to be meaningless.

Any thoughts? Or rather, any direction for mine?!

Follower of Christ

Yes, by all means....DO call them on it.
If they cant stand for what the bible teaches plainly and YOU can see it plainly, why not call them on it?

Lord knows Ive tried to but I just get labeled ''fundy'' and they blow me off.

It would be much more effective coming from the world they try to get along with, in my opinion.

Now they theyve catered to science and butchered ''christianity'', I think it would be good for the world to ask them WHY they still hold the facade of christianity over their faces.

Kaiser_Soze

Thanks for your response, FoC. Whilst I may not agree with your religious beliefs at least you stand by them (how far you take it though is another subject and off topic).

BTW, your profile says "Jesus Junky" - does that mean you collect crosses, figurines or just consume a lot of bread & wine?

Ojuice5001

An important advantage of polytheism is the benefits of competition. All worshippers expect to benefit in some way from their dealings with the gods, and a polytheist will pay the most attention to the gods who can benefit him the most. For this reason, and many others, I am surprised that polytheism is still an unpopular view. But since it is, let's see how this applies to the thousands of varieties of Christianity.

Because of the information explosion that started with the printing press, people can choose the religious beliefs that make the most sense to them. Now Yahweh needed for Christianity to survive this new situtation. I still do not know whether the printing press was part of Yahweh's intentions, or the work of another god catching him by surprise. This line of theorizing can proceed without answering that question.

As a side note, if things were otherwise, it might have been an opportunity for the pagan gods to have followers once more. If the pagan gods contacted the right humans, they and Yahweh could easily have competed via printed materials on their own merits. In that situation, surely many would have followed the old gods. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church still persecuted heresy in those days. No one could possibly think that he could publicly advocate worshipping other gods and get away with it. So the revival of paganism had to wait until times were right, which wasn't until the twentieth century.

Okay, back to what Yahweh needed in his religion. First of all, do the gods like to undergo change? No. They have the taste for permanence and are powerful enough to have the permanence they prefer. The gods mostly stay the same through the centuries. Therefore, ancient religions were set up to be as changeless as possible, so that they keep on reflecting the nature of the gods they worship. Now Yahweh was more ambitious than the other gods, and, to achieve his goals, he sometimes needed to change his relations with humans. Nevertheless, he still prefers permanence to a great degree. So medieval Catholicism was like the pagan religions in being slow to change, a repository of timeless doctrines.

But of course, it was inevitable that the printing press would make a huge difference to all society. In view of the multiplicity of voices in a post-Gutenburg society, it wouldn't be enough for Yahweh to only have the one voice he had in medieval times. The reason the Catholic Church has become more irrelevant is because it was designed to be the dominant voice, not one of many. A more adaptable version of Christianity was needed, and that was Protestantism. That's why the Protestant religions have more power to influence society, but the Catholic Church is still around and is still a superior reflection of what Yahweh is actually like. The Catholic Church is Yahweh's true church, but the Protestants are still essential.

We can see from this that sooner or later, two voices won't be enough any more than one voice. If there are all kinds of people in the world, and Yahweh wants all of them to worship him, and they are free to ignore him, Yahweh needs to sell himself. This is of course the meaning of Paul's saying about being all things to all men. All mainstream forms of Christianity give Yahweh some influence over the worshipper, even if it's not much. Catholicism is the version that is actually Yahweh's favorite, but it is technically impossible to bring back a situation where all in the West are Catholic.

Follower of Christ

it just means Im addicted