Exegesis, Time, Judgment, St. Paul - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#15087016
jakell wrote:Being tolerant of White Identitarians is not the same as sharing their philosophy or being 'racist'.


It is enabling/racist adjacent.

Your own assessment of their status probably come from you conflating ethnonationalists and civic nationalists (alt right and alt lite), and tends to be done by many Leftist commentators who seem to love inflating these things in order to create a heroic narrative for themselves and their group (like they're living in a novel).


I'm aware of the distinction between the Alt-Right and Alt-Lite. This does not give the Alt-Lite a "free pass" nor does it mean it isn't problematic.
#15087017
Donna wrote:The most powerful individuals of the global ruling class, that is those who belong to and replicate the hegemony and power of the bourgeois class through finance and energy, are overwhelmingly white men from Europe, Britain, and America. More so, they recognize that their power rests on severing the working class of these nations from the rest of the world.


Of course most of the global elite are white men, the West has been the most powerful civlisation for the last four hundred or so years. It was the first to industralise and European powers had colonial empires whereas most other nations and peoples did not. The United States is the sole global superpower. Obviously the global elite will be mostly white. This is changing, however, and for a long time the global elite has included Asians from Korea and Japan, now China and India. Are the Japanese and Korean bourgeoisie not part of the global elite?

Donna wrote:I am referring to structural power, not arbitrary or localized power.


And yet this incidence of localised power and racism denied a white person an opportunity on the basis of their race. It is still racism irrespective of whether it is structural or localised. This proves that anti-white racism is possible and does happen.

Donna wrote:National identities, yes, but this isn't the same thing as white identity. National identity in European societies now include POC French, POC British, POC German, and so on.


However the majority ethnic groups in Europe have always been white. There are national identities, i.e. Germans, French and English as nationstate identities and the ethnicities which have historically been the majority within these nationstates. These ethnicities have always been white.

Donna wrote:As noted above, those national identities have evolved and divorced themselves from racist forms. They are no longer "white identities" and only someone with a racist agenda would try to argue that being French or British or German is predicated on your skin color.


These nations have historically possessed majority white populations. To say that this fact is racist is absurd.

And ethnic Germans, French and English were always white. It was not racism but a mere coincidence. POC citizens in these countries are part of the nationstate but belong to different ethnic groups with their own traditions and identities.

I never said that having white skin made someone German, French or English. An English person with a German passport would not be ethnically German but it would make them German in so far as they belong to the German nationstate.

Donna wrote:You are imposing a modernistic construction--whiteness--on pre-modern societies.


These hardships took place in modern times. Or would you not consider the early 20th century a modern historical epoch?

Donna wrote:You seem to be unusually apologetic of white identitarianism though. You don't get to do that and not get called out for racism, my guy.


It is not white identitarianism. All people deserve the right to an identity and to not feel ashamed of it. This is very different to dehumanising people of other races or debating their IQ, for example, as the far right do. It does not matter whether we are whites, blacks or whatever we are, we should not be made to be ashamed of our ethnicities. In fact it is shaming different peoples and nations for historical crimes that causes further destabilisation of relations between nations and communities.
#15087018
Donna wrote:It is enabling/racist adjacent.

It's worth considering that via overreaction, people such as you become the enablers, as I said:
jakell wrote:The 'threat' from such people tends to be exaggerated, and on balance it probably pays to observe and leave them be rather than feed them via they opposition and attention they crave...


Donna wrote:I'm aware of the distinction between the Alt-Right and Alt-Lite. This does not give the Alt-Lite a "free pass" nor does it mean it isn't problematic.

Many, including myself, do not consider civic nationalists to be problematic.
#15087020
Rich wrote:That's a filthy racist Marxist lie. Look at the US, Indians, Taiwanese, Filipinos, Pakistanis, Singaporeans, Iranians, Japanese, Malaysian, Nigerian Chinese, Sri Lankan and Indonesian Americans all have higher median incomes than White Americans. And within White Americans Jews earn on average considerably more than non Jewish White people. Also the big Tech companies have far more power to control the culture than energy companies.


Just as toxic masculinity produces a host of social and psychological problems for men, white supremacism also produces limited economic outcomes for white-passing people but the white American working class still continues to cut off their nose in order to spite their face.

You must be joking, the base for electing Trump and Brexit didn't come from Wall Street or the City of London. No its the traitor corporate elite that are allying with Marxist and Cultural Marxists to flood western countries with immigration in order to force down indigenous westerners wages and living standards.


Europe, America, the UK and the Commonwealth, all of these countries are gravitating toward a more closed, introverted economic order that accommodates right-wing populism, nativism and austerity. This is not a trend that has originated organically from the people, but from the Western ruling class. The historically cynical US ruling class wanted someone like Trump in power in order to shake up how the American government dealt with China and the sentimental British ruling class fully embraced Brexit in order to preserve their romantic notions of British institutions. And the rubes fall for it, hook in mouth.

It's true that liberals eat out of hand the color revolutions that always turn into shit, but conservatives get suckered by populist windbags who are pushing the interests of the elite.
#15087029
Donna wrote:Just as toxic masculinity produces a host of social and psychological problems for men, white supremacism also produces limited economic outcomes for white-passing people but the white American working class still continues to cut off their nose in order to spite their face..

Maybe these people are not actually stupid and don't need the ministrations of people who think they know what is better for them.

It was exactly the same with Brexit voters in the UK, the metropolitan elite looked down their noses at them, and still do after all this time.
#15087032
Political Interest wrote:Are the Japanese and Korean bourgeoisie not part of the global elite?


The bourgeoisie in Japan and South Korea are more or less satellite classes of the Western ruling class and these societies do internalize white supremacism.



And yet this incidence of localised power and racism denied a white person an opportunity on the basis of their race. It is still racism irrespective of whether it is structural or localised. This proves that anti-white racism is possible and does happen.


Discriminatory? Yes. Let me be clear, prejudice against white-passing people is real and it isn't okay. But I'm not going to call it racism because people of color simply do not possess structural power and structural power is not the same thing as as having the arbitrary power of a bureaucrat or officer.



However the majority ethnic groups in Europe have always been white. There are national identities, i.e. Germans, French and English as nationstate identities and the ethnicities which have historically been the majority within these nationstates. These ethnicities have always been white.


Wrong again. These ethnicities have always had similar ethnographic features, but to say that pre-modern, medieval or ancient Europeans "have always been white" is again an unjustified projection of a modern construction onto a world and cosmos where it did not exist.


These nations have historically possessed majority white populations. To say that this fact is racist is absurd.


What is your point? The identity of these nations have since evolved. Are you trying to argue that Black French or Black British aren't real Frenchmen or Britons? :eh:

And ethnic Germans, French and English were always white. It was not racism but a mere coincidence. POC citizens in these countries are part of the nationstate but belong to different ethnic groups with their own traditions and identities.


It is racism if you believe that German, French and English identity is exclusive on the basis of race.

I never said that having white skin made someone German, French or English. An English person with a German passport would not be ethnically German but it would make them German in so far as they belong to the German nationstate.


"Eithnic English" and "Ethnic German" are no longer scientifically accurate descriptions as modern genomics now shows that everyone is a mixture of everyone else. As descriptions they are socio-historical and geological constructions, they evolve with the cultural development of nations and subsequently change as societies change. There is no "eternal" English or German ethnicity.


These hardships took place in modern times. Or would you not consider the early 20th century a modern historical epoch?


I'm sorry, were you being specific?


It is not white identitarianism. All people deserve the right to an identity and to not feel ashamed of it. This is very different to dehumanising people of other races or debating their IQ, for example, as the far right do. It does not matter whether we are whites, blacks or whatever we are, we should not be made to be ashamed of our ethnicities. In fact it is shaming different peoples and nations for historical crimes that causes further destabilisation of relations between nations and communities.


Racism is a lot more complex than frog memes on 4chan. Believe it or not, it does matter if you are white-passing and in denial of your privilege.
#15087034
jakell wrote:Maybe these people are not actually stupid and don't need the ministrations of people who think they know what is better for them.

It was exactly the same with Brexit voters in the UK, the metropolitan elite looked down their noses at them, and still do after all this time.


One of the trappings of white supremacism that our elites love is anti-intellectualism and the mistrust of expertise by the masses.
#15087091
jakell wrote:It seems you look down your nose at these people too, you despise the masses in spite of your claims to cherish them. They've started to notice this and is why you have been losing.


I definitely look down my nose at racist Americans who think they know better than doctors and scientists.
#15087139
Donna wrote:The bourgeoisie in Japan and South Korea are more or less satellite classes of the Western ruling class and these societies do internalize white supremacism.


Yes, they are satellite classes but they also have their own autonomy. The only reason they are satellites is because they are in the US sphere of influence and not because they are considered outsiders. In fact the American bourgeoisie love to include Korean and Japanese bourgeois elements.

Donna wrote:Discriminatory? Yes. Let me be clear, prejudice against white-passing people is real and it isn't okay. But I'm not going to call it racism because people of color simply do not possess structural power and structural power is not the same thing as as having the arbitrary power of a bureaucrat or officer.


Except it is structural power because the power to discriminate when you hold power as part of a structure is structural. You can imagine what this would look like if it was in a court of law or the police, for example.

Donna wrote:Wrong again. These ethnicities have always had similar ethnographic features, but to say that pre-modern, medieval or ancient Europeans "have always been white" is again an unjustified projection of a modern construction onto a world and cosmos where it did not exist.


Fair enough, I will rephrase this. The peoples of Europe have always been made up of Germanics, Celts, Slavs, Finnic peoples who now all fit the definition of whiteness as defined by modern standards. These peoples formed ethnic identities.

Donna wrote:What is your point? The identity of these nations have since evolved. Are you trying to argue that Black French or Black British aren't real Frenchmen or Britons? :eh:


No, they are real Frenchmen and Britons, however they have their own ethnic identities with distinct traditions and histories. You cannot change this fact. For you to reduce European ethnicities to whiteness and claim that a German has no ethnicity is in itself a reinforcement of white supremacism. You see, an ethnic German is not German because he is white but because he belongs to the German ethnos which was the product of Germanic and Celtic tribes. It is the same with Norwegians who are the product of the ethnogensis of Finnic and Norse peoples. That they are white is a mere coincidence and as we both agree, white identity is a product of modernity.

Donna wrote:It is racism if you believe that German, French and English identity is exclusive on the basis of race.


I never said it is exclusively based on race. If I moved to China and acquired Chinese citizenship then had a child with a white woman there, the child would not be Han Chinese even if it spoke fluent Mandarin and was completely assimilated. Or would you consider such a person Chinese?

Donna wrote:"Eithnic English" and "Ethnic German" are no longer scientifically accurate descriptions as modern genomics now shows that everyone is a mixture of everyone else. As descriptions they are socio-historical and geological constructions, they evolve with the cultural development of nations and subsequently change as societies change. There is no "eternal" English or German ethnicity.


Of course not, there is no pure race. But again this is not a question of race. Ethnic groups are made up of several racial and subracial elements, they are not homogenous. This is why I am not a racist and do not oppose interracial marriges, for example. I do not believe in racial purity.

And yes I do believe that people can be assimilated into a different ethnos but this is a slow process and cannot happen on a mass scale in modern times. You cannot have mass immigration on the scale we are seeing into Europe and think this will produce any type of synthesis or equilibrium.

But there were many people of African descent who became assimilated into European ethnoses, for example Alexander Pushkin or Samuel Coleridge-Taylor. You can also meet many people in England who are English but not white. They are English and I do not dispute this at all. Therefore my position is not racist and I am not reducing European ethnicity or identity to race.

Donna wrote:I'm sorry, were you being specific?


The conditions of the British working class were appalling through much of the 20th century and still are. And no it's not a case of them being slightly uncomfortable, they were utterly appalling.

Donna wrote:Racism is a lot more complex than frog memes on 4chan. Believe it or not, it does matter if you are white-passing and in denial of your privilege.


What privileges do I have?
#15087171
@Verv

Transitioning between Judaism and Christianity.

For I made it clear to you that those who are Christians in name, but in reality are godless and impious heretics, teach in all respects what is blasphemous and godless and foolish.... For even if you yourselves have ever met with some so-called Christians, who yet do not acknowledge this, but even dare to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, who say too that there is no resurrection of the dead, but that their souls ascend to heaven at the very moment of their death - do not suppose that they are Christians, any more than if one examined the matter rightly he would acknowledge as Jews those who are Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistae, and Meristae, and Galileans, and Hellelians, and Pharisees and Baptists, but that though called Jews and children of Abraham, and acknowledging God with their lips, as God Himself has cried aloud, yet their heart is far from Him.

— St. Justin Martyr, translated from the Greek, Dialogue 80.3-4 (circa. AD 155-170).

The implication is Jews who do not deny the resurrection of the dead or participate in the other heresies do have their hearts "close to God." - These are clearly Jews who are deemed close to 'orthodox' Christianity, closer indeed than some Christians. From the passage quoted above one can only conclude that even as late as the mid 2nd century, lines are not clearly drawn between "Judaism" and "Christianity"... The line is between Jew and Jew, between Christian and Christian.*


* See: Daniel Boyarin, Justin Martyr Invents Judaism, Church History 70:3 (September 2001): 427–461
#15087263
Political Interest wrote:Yes, they are satellite classes but they also have their own autonomy.


You're conflating autonomy with hegemony.


Except it is structural power because the power to discriminate when you hold power as part of a structure is structural. You can imagine what this would look like if it was in a court of law or the police, for example.


The hypothetical scenario you described is an example of arbitrary power, not structural power. It is discrimination based on the personal whims of one individual who occupies a powerful office.


Fair enough, I will rephrase this. The peoples of Europe have always been made up of Germanics, Celts, Slavs, Finnic peoples who now all fit the definition of whiteness as defined by modern standards. These peoples formed ethnic identities.


Those identities contain only cultural content though, have evolved closely with the secular nation-state and have since become universally-embracing world-cultures as the conditions of the nation-state changed. To identify with one's Germanic-ness or Celtic-ness on anything other than purely cultural terms is clearly a racist innovation.


No, they are real Frenchmen and Britons, however they have their own ethnic identities with distinct traditions and histories.


They have indigenous cultures which are engaged in a dialectical struggle with white supremacism. Part of that struggle is integrating themselves into the cultural forms of the colonizer while retaining their indigenous heritage.

You cannot change this fact. For you to reduce European ethnicities to whiteness and claim that a German has no ethnicity is in itself a reinforcement of white supremacism. You see, an ethnic German is not German because he is white but because he belongs to the German ethnos which was the product of Germanic and Celtic tribes. It is the same with Norwegians who are the product of the ethnogensis of Finnic and Norse peoples. That they are white is a mere coincidence and as we both agree, white identity is a product of modernity.


I don't understand what your point is. I have no problem with Europeans 'retaining' or celebrating their traditional cultural identities. It's fine if people wear kilts at a Scottish wedding or wear lederhosen at Bratwurstfest, or dress up as demons for Krampus. But if they want to identify as members of the "white race" they can go fuck themselves.


I never said it is exclusively based on race. If I moved to China and acquired Chinese citizenship then had a child with a white woman there, the child would not be Han Chinese even if it spoke fluent Mandarin and was completely assimilated. Or would you consider such a person Chinese?


Due to the contextual dynamics of global white supremacism it's not possible for someone who benefits from white privilege (i.e. someone who is white-passing) to "join" an indigenous culture that experiences systematic othering. This individual can only colonize and consume the cultural content.

Of course not, there is no pure race. But again this is not a question of race. Ethnic groups are made up of several racial and subracial elements, they are not homogenous. This is why I am not a racist and do not oppose interracial marriges, for example. I do not believe in racial purity.


At the very least you seem to believe that race is real, that there is an inseparable union between race and culture, and that culture emerges at least partially from the machinations of race. While you might be able to check off all the boxes of a civil rights ally in 1965, it still appears your beliefs about human culture are rooted in a fundamentally racist cosmos, albeit a tolerant and idealistic one.

And yes I do believe that people can be assimilated into a different ethnos but this is a slow process and cannot happen on a mass scale in modern times. You cannot have mass immigration on the scale we are seeing into Europe and think this will produce any type of synthesis or equilibrium.


I disagree, I believe Europe is doing fine absorbing the refugees that they themselves created.

But there were many people of African descent who became assimilated into European ethnoses, for example Alexander Pushkin or Samuel Coleridge-Taylor. You can also meet many people in England who are English but not white. They are English and I do not dispute this at all. Therefore my position is not racist and I am not reducing European ethnicity or identity to race.


Your position seems to be somewhere in the heavens because I haven't encountered it here on earth yet. You keep resisting my assertion that white identity is a scam to oppress people of color, so where do you really stand on this?


What privileges do I have?


Are you white-passing?
#15087283
Rich wrote:Well I have to say this thread has been thought provoking for me. I realise I have been at fault. In the past I have been far too unaggressive in my Pagan advocacy and far too timid in my attacks on the Abrahamic religions and Marxism.


As I have been one of the only Christians posting in the last 6 pages, and was the starter of this thread, I am glad to hear that this has inspired you. It seems to be a bit opposite of what I wanted :lol: , but I have found that, through passion, we can sometimes punch through to the other side.

Gay sex was not illegal in pagan Rome. in fact there seems to be evidence of unofficial gay marriage, contrast this with the sickening bigotry of Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, the Soviet Union and Castro's Cuba.


It is documented that Emperor Nero married a young boy that he had castrated named Sporus. This may be the first documented case of gay marriage, and certainly it may be the first time a prominent Western politician ever had a same sex marriage.

Bigotry implies that someone has a really unjustifiable perspective, IMO, and so I do not think it is appropriate to refer to a clearly justifiable position (same sex marriage/relations are not positive for society) and say that it is inherently bigoted.

Yes, there are bigoted, aggressive, ugly people who have views like this, but that actually means nothing in terms of how the average person has this view.

Pagan Rome was a million miles from the ideal when it came to women's rights, but within the Pagan Priestesshoods, we see some sort of opportunity for women to gain autonomy and escape marriage. There are no such opportunities in the hideous religions of Judaism and Islam.


I am glad you recognized that, in Christianity, the monastic vocations of women are valid.

You should also be aware that, in Shi'a Islam, women can actually become as high ranking as male ayatollahs -- they are called Lady Mujtahids. This would mean that there are literally women in Iran who outrank in terms of Islamic legal opinion 99% of Islamic clergy in the country.

There are also now Jewish sects that have female rabbis, including even... lesbian rabbis, like Sharon Kleinbaum.

Do you consider that to be legitimate? Obviously, on some level, this woman is a total contradiction to Jewish tradition. I do not really know how she goes about justifying all this other than by suggesting the first dozens of centuries are irrelevant to her status... But, IDK.

What do you think, Rich?
#15087287
ingliz wrote:Among those who seek power and gain from their religion, there will never be wanting an inclination to forge and lie for it.

— Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius, 3rd century Church leader

They saw nothing wrong with fooling the ignorant masses, reasoning that they were ultimately saving a populace steeped in unrighteousness, as the New Testament testifies.

— St. Augustine, 4th century theologian

Isaiah 53 is the fourth of the four “Servant Songs.” (The others are found in Isaiah chapters 42, 49 and 50.) Though the “servant” in Isaiah 53 is not openly identified – these verses merely refer to “My servant” (52:13, 53:11) – the “servant” in each of the previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the Jewish nation. Beginning with chapter 41, the equating of God’s Servant with the nation of Israel is made nine times by the prophet Isaiah, and no one other than Israel is identified as the “servant”:

“You are My servant, O Israel” (41:8)

“You are My servant, Israel” (49:3)

See also Isaiah 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20.

The Bible is filled with other references to the Jewish people as God’s “servant”; see Jeremiah 30:10, 46:27-28; Psalms 136:22. There is no reason that the “servant” in Isaiah 53 would suddenly switch and refer to someone other than the Jewish people.


I do not believe you actually adequately refused what I had written. You are just now using an entirely different argument suggesting that this is just symbolic, but not prophetic.

We believe it is prophetic, and it has been interpreted that way for a long time. Indeed, earlier in this conversation, you seemingly acknowledged it was prophetic, and put forward the idea that the passages were meant to indicate that gentiles would become Jews.

Why would Isaiah 53 not be prophetic?
#15087289
Pants-of-dog wrote:Which Jews, exactly?


In Acts, we know that Jews who were of the Sanhedrin or who were at least attending meetings of the Sanhedrin would do so. Later, we have St. Paul saying that he was receiving a letter addressed to the High Priest in the Temple of Damascus, presumably because the high priest in Damascus was involved in the persecution of Christians.

So you would not support anti-discrimination laws that protect Christians in those places where Christians are currently persecuted?


I personally believe all people have a right to freedom of conscience, freedom to speak their mind, as well. I would not come up with any law, though, that was meant to protect a specific group, but only laws which exist to give all people equal protection of the law and freedom, I guess.

Do you believe in human rights?

So St. paul was not condemning the homosexual lifestyle or identity at all, since he had never encountered this lifestyle or identity.


He was condemning the sin of sodomy, that much is clear, and the sin of sodomy does not have to exist within the context of a lifestyle.

Please provide an example of women’s consent being respected in the Bible.


Rape is penalized in the Bible.

Gay marriage would be an example of gay sex becoming more disciplined. Instead of an intermittent release of pent up energy through illicit debauchery, gay sex would be a part of a loving, permanent, monogamous union.


But sodomy itself is very explicitly not allowed.

You could come up with a means to make alcoholism more disciplined, but it simply isn't allowed.

As I explained earlier, the author of Acts was probably not Jewish and did not witness the events in the Holy Land.


Because the oldest copies are in Greek..?

Do you suppose the Boo of Hebrews was also originally composed in Greek?

If we have a translation and not the original, then we have even less actual verifiable knowledge.


But why is the assumption that the material is wrong. Of course, it is not verifiable. But why is the assumption that they have recorded lies?

That is because the Church successfully ingratiated itself with the Romans, gained political power, then used said power to drive “heretical” groups down and out.


Well, we know that heresies were regional, while the Church was universal. I have heard, for instance, Collyridianism existed in pre-Islamic Arabia and not in other places.
#15087292
ingliz wrote:@Verv



In the World to Come, nations will recognize the Jewish G-d as the only true G-d, and the Jewish religion as the only true religion (Isaiah 2:3; 11:10; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 14:9).

Many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the temple of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths." The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Isaiah 2:3


No.

And the LORD will make himself known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians will know the LORD in that day and worship with sacrifice and offering, and they will make vows to the LORD and perform them.

Isaiah 19:21

And if they learn well the ways of my people and swear by my name, saying, 'As surely as the LORD lives'--even as they once taught my people to swear by Baal--then they will be established among my people.

Jeremiah 12:16


It also says in Isaiah that the Jews will be called by a new name:

'And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. ' Isaiah 62:2


When the gentiles fully come to be established among them, this becomes the Christian church.

The movement of Judaism is not to make all people part of a single ethnoreligion, but to establish the worship of the rightful God among all nations.

Moreover, I do not think that what you cited could solely be interpreted as they will become Jews indistinguishable from Jews. I think it is too vague to say that it says that.
#15087295
Donna wrote:What a lot of conservative Christians will have to wrestle with in the coming years and decades will be the emergence of a Contextual theology revolution in both Protestant and Catholic thought. The Holy Spirit is illuminating the Church with a planetary impulse toward inculturation and indigenization.

The Christianity of white supremacism is coming to an end.


I agree that we are going to see more people trying to meme inculturation and indigenization into a reality, and this may even be the straw that sends more Catholics and mainline Protestants into Orthodoxy or into increasingly popular Protestant sects and Catholic positions like sedevacantism or SSPX.

It's also worth noting that the time for inculturation may really be passing us because we are experiencing what amounts to a sort of post-culture.

Since the middle of the 20th century in the West, and since the latter half in the rest of the much of the world, there really has been a lot of globalized modes of cutlure - pop & rock music, Hollywood films, etc., plus the general movement towards secular humanism as the golden standard of public dialog. The native cultures that would have made inculturation desirable are no longer even really existent in large numbers, and I imagine the average mission field deals with reaching out to people who have both the modern post-culture culture and elements of a traditional culture.

There are more metalheads in the world than there are tribal people.
#15087310
Verv wrote:I agree that we are going to see more people trying to meme inculturation and indigenization into a reality, and this may even be the straw that sends more Catholics and mainline Protestants into Orthodoxy or into increasingly popular Protestant sects and Catholic positions like sedevacantism or SSPX.


It's a good thing that God's truth isn't a popularity contest, as the Pope Emeritus might say. But I think this assumption is wrong anyway, for years traditionalists have been claiming that progressive theologies are driving Western Christians to Eastern Orthodoxy or the Latin Mass, but I have never seen any definitive proof of causation or that this is even occurring.
#15087319
Donna wrote:It's a good thing that God's truth isn't a popularity contest, as the Pope Emeritus might say. But I think this assumption is wrong anyway, for years traditionalists have been claiming that progressive theologies are driving Western Christians to Eastern Orthodoxy or the Latin Mass, but I have never seen any definitive proof of causation or that this is even occurring.


There's proof that religiosity in general is declining, and that it is tied to liberal denominations falling off, but more conservative denominations are actually growing.

Mainline Protestant churches are in trouble: A 2015 report by the Pew Research Center found that these congregations, once a mainstay of American religion, are now shrinking by about 1 million members annually. Fewer members not only means fewer souls saved, a frightening thought for some clergy members, but also less income for churches, further ensuring their decline.

...

But the liberal turn in mainline churches doesn’t appear to have solved their problem of decline.

Over the last five years, my colleagues and I conducted a study of 22 mainline congregations in the province of Ontario. We compared those in the sample that were growing mainline congregations to those that were declining. After statistically analyzing the survey responses of over 2,200 congregants and the clergy members who serve them, we came to a counterintuitive discovery: Conservative Protestant theology, with its more literal view of the Bible, is a significant predictor of church growth while liberal theology leads to decline. The results were published this month in the peer-reviewed journal, Review of Religious Research.

We also found that for all measures, growing church clergy members were most conservative theologically, followed by their congregants, who were themselves followed by the congregants of the declining churches and then the declining church clergy members. In other words, growing church clergy members are the most theologically conservative, while declining church clergy members are the least. Their congregations meet more in the middle.

For example, we found 93 percent of clergy members and 83 percent of worshipers from growing churches agreed with the statement “Jesus rose from the dead with a real flesh-and-blood body leaving behind an empty tomb.” This compared with 67 percent of worshipers and 56 percent of clergy members from declining churches. Furthermore, all growing church clergy members and 90 percent of their worshipers agreed that “God performs miracles in answer to prayers,” compared with 80 percent of worshipers and a mere 44 percent of clergy members from declining churches.


Washington Post via archive.is

This is applicable for specifically Protestants:

Citing a study published in 2000 by the Glenmary Research Center, Shiflett reports that the Presbyterian Church USA declined by 11.6 percent over the previous decade, while the United Methodist Church lost "only" 6.7 percent and the Episcopal Church lost 5.3 percent. The United Church of Christ was abandoned by 14.8 percent of its members, while the American Baptist Churches USA were reduced by 5.7 percent.

On the other side of the theological divide, most conservative denominations are growing. The conservative Presbyterian Church in America [PCA] grew 42.4 percent in the same decade that the more liberal Presbyterian denomination lost 11.6 percent of its members. Other conservative denominations experiencing significant growth included the Christian Missionary Alliance (21.8 percent), the Evangelical Free Church (57.2 percent), the Assemblies of God (18.5 percent), and the Southern Baptist Convention (five percent).


Christian Headlines

Regarding the Catholics, I was able to find this:

Traditional Catholic parishes run by one society of priests are growing in the United States, defying the trend of decline in the broader American church over previous decades.

Over the past year, parishes run by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, a society of priests dedicated to celebrating the traditional Latin form of the Catholic liturgy, have reported large increases in Sunday Mass attendance. The traditional liturgy that draws attendees is the form of the Mass celebrated before the reforms instituted at the Second Vatican Council, a meeting of the church’s bishops in the 1960s.

In Los Angeles, the fraternity did not have their own church until 2018, but Mass attendance over the past year doubled from 250 per Sunday to 500. The parish’s pastor, Fr. James Fryar, commented for the fraternity’s website that, after his parish added a fourth Mass on Sunday, “another 200 people came.”

The Naples, Florida, parish has been around for less than two years, but close to 400 people attend every Sunday, an increase of 20% from 2018. The pastor, Fr. James Romanoski, told the Washington Examiner the parish has been “averaging a new household — sometimes a family, sometimes an individual — every week” for over a year.
...
The growth of FSSP parishes comes amid decades of decline in the Catholic Church in the U.S., which has been marred by sexual abuse scandals. Since 1970, the number of priests in the U.S. has declined by about 38% to 36,580 in 2018.

In absolute terms, the Catholic population has grown from 54.1 million in 1970 to 76.3 million in 2018, although that is down from a high of 81.2 million in 2005. In relative terms, however, the Catholic population has declined as a share of the overall U.S. population over the past decade, from 24% in 2007 to 20% in 2019. The number of people identifying as former Catholics has skyrocketed from 1.8 million in 1975 to 26.1 million in 2018.


The Washington Examiner

Orthodoxy has a lot of different things happening in it...

For instance, ethnic enclave churches tend to experience difficulties in retaining members because the Slavonic liturgy ceases to be relevant to people. However, there has been growth.

I am not finding the best numbers, but this is from 2011:

(RNS) America’s Eastern Orthodox parishes have grown 16 percent in the past decade, in part because of a settled immigrant community, according to new research.

Alexei Krindatch, research consultant for the Standing Conferences of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas, said the 16 percent growth in the number of Orthodox parishes is “a fairly high ratio for religious groups in the United States.”


Huffington Post

I do not think there will be that much dispute over numbers, but if there is, I'll try to dig some more up.
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 19

However, all other black-majority countries haven[…]

Yes there are many dumb Jews like Marx.... unfo[…]

I guess he's lucky he's not white and they weren'[…]

Man, I was really scared that ISIS was going to co[…]