If our present rate of technology/science continues, even the Pope and Catholicism will change.

Let me make a prediction--which none of us on this site will live to see come to fruition.

I predict that most of Christendom will finally proclaim that Jesus is a symbol and his death/resurrection an allegory for a spiritual renewal. They will admit that Jesus as portrayed in the Christian Scriptures really did not exist.

If our present rate of technology/science continues, even the Pope and Catholicism will change.

If we have a major worldly cataclysm--economic meltdown, hit by a meteor, or something else to cause a stop to the present climb of cultural and scientific advances--people won't be worried about the present state of the Christian religion. But in this case, it might get stricter or even disappear.

Of course, Islam could conquer the world, as well. But even over centuries, it will change and evolve.

I predict this based on the changes in Christianity in the last 2,000 years. In my 58 years, I have seen shifts, including attitudes by my and younger generations about sex outside of marriage.

There will be no rapture and Jesus isn't coming back. In time, Jesus will take his place among the myths of other dying/resurrected gods. I am not saying the religious faith will disappear, but Christianity will not survive the ages.

Where can Protestantism be Headed?

In terms of an organized approach to religion or spirituality for humanity doesn't it make sense to ask where a particular organized religion could possible lead us?

In the Western World, particular the USA, Christianity is without a doubt the single largest organized religious entity.

One reason that this is true is because all of the sects of Protestantism and Catholicism are combined under a single label of "Christianity" because all of these various religions are based on the central theme that Jesus was the messiah or "Christ" that was supposedly predicted in the Old Testament.

However, beyond this central theme, Protestantism and Catholicism clash in many ways. Often to the extreme where many Protestant evangelists don't even recognize Catholicism as a "True Christianity". I've been personally shocked myself to realize just how many Protestants actually don't even recognize Catholicism as a valid form of "Christianity".

So this bring to light a very troublesome question concerned the ideal of any "organized religion" that claims to represent "Christianity".

It's crystal clear that there are many different sects of Protestantism from thing like the Amish who use the religion to reject technology. They still run around in horse-drawn carriages and refuse to use modern technology (although as a practical matter they are finding that more difficult to do with every passing decade)

Still, the bottom line is that they have quite radical beliefs, compared with other forums of Christianity that apparently have no problem with technologies, etc. There's clearly a huge diversity the rainbow of Protestant Christian beliefs.

Now, if the Protestants refuse to acknowledge the Catholic Pope as the final word on interpreting "God's Word" (the bible), then who will interpret that word?

Well, originally Protestantism began with the idea that each individual should interpret the scripture for themselves and that no single human should be given that position.

Yet, that's not at all what Protestantism has evolved to become. In fact, if you try to tell a Protestant fundamentalist that you'd very much like to interpret the scriptures for yourself, they will vehemently tell you that you've got it all wrong and start explaining to you precisely who they feel it should be interpreted!

So what do these fundamental Protestants amount to? They clearly amount to nothing more than specific individuals who would like to take the place of the Catholic Pope and have the final word on how the bible should be interpreted.

Well, on a personal level that's fine. That's what protestantism was meant to me. Each person takes their own personal interpretation. In that sense, protestantism cannot even become an "organized religion" because who would be the organizer? Someone would need to claim to have the ultimate interpretation before there could be a 'leader' of the organization.

This is the whole idea behind Catholicism. One voice that speaks for God. The idea is that God supposedly recognizes the church and its structure and therefore uses the appointed pope as a medium through which to convey his desires to humanity.

The Protestant Fundamentalists want to reject that notion, yet they don't truly accept it either. They still want to be the the Pope. They want to be the one to tell everyone what they must believe!

So all that Protestant Fundamentalism amounts to is nothing more the disgruntled people who want to be the Pope.

And when you get these Paper Popes together they will inevitably disagree and argue even with each other. And the term "Paper Pope" comes from the fact that they are all claiming to have the correct interpretations of the scriptures or doctrine (i.e. the written word or paper).

So what chance does Protestantism ever have of becoming the central religion of humanity?

Obviously it hasn't got a prayer in hell. It couldn't possibly become the central religion of humanity. It doesn't even have a central spokesperson. Sure, the Protestant Fundamentalists will argue that Jesus is the central spokes person. But that's the problem right there. Jesus isn't physically here to lead.

Therefore the only way that a religion can be built upon these scriptures is to have some central authority decide what they mean and what God ultimately wants in every given situation. And that's why Catholicism recognized the need for a Pope.

But the protesting Protestants renounce a central Pope. And that leads to chaos. We end up with nothing more than a bunch of individual self-appointed Paper Popes, each arguing for different interpretations, and simply accusing the others as being "False Christianity".

But how is that ever going to work as a central unifying organized religion for humanity?

The simple truth is that it can't work.

Catholicism at least has a shot at that potential end because of the central Pope. One voice to which no one can argue. Christianity, as an organized religion, must have a central single authority. It truly is a fascist religion based on a fascist God. What God says goes. The God in this religion is the ultimate dictator. That's what he is. It is necessarily a fascist religion with a single diety as the dictator.

But Protestantism cannot support that type of thing since it is being driven by self-appointed Paper Popes would would simple like to be the Pope without any need for the approval of Catholicism.

I can tell you how many Protestant Paper Popes I've spoken with who totally reject and refuse to allow my interpretations of ancient history and scriptures. So these Paper Popes are not about to allow individual personalized interpretations of the Bible. They want to dictate to others what the Biblical scriptures are supposedly demanding from people.

They want to be POPES.

So really Protestantism as an "organized religion" can never become the central religion of humanity. And the many varied and diverging sects of Protestantism is its own proof of this fact.

There are even "Christian Churches" starting up now that claim to be "Gay Christian Churches". And of course the hardcore protestant fundamentalists are going to argue that those Churches are "False Christianity" because they can dredge up stuff from the Bible that suggests that God does not approve of homosexuality. So once again, the Protestant Paper Popes are trying hard to become POPES and tell everyone just precisely how they need to interpret the scriptures.

It's never going to work as Protestantism. If the Protestants want for their to be a central authority they're going to need to return to the Body of Christ in Catholicism and worship the Pope as the only person on Earth who has the correct interpretations of the Word of God.

That's the only way it could work.

Protestantism can never stand alone as a single organized world religion, and the many diverging sects and denominations of protestantism are the proof in the pudding as they say.

So it's either going to need to be strict Catholicism, or the Paper Popes are going to need to conceded that every individual interpretation of the scriptures is valid and they'll have to acknowledge even Gay Christian Churches, even if they personally feel that they could argue against them using scripture. That doesn't matter because if the point to Protestantism is that there is no Pope, then everyone's personal interpretations must be accepted as equally valid to everyone else's.

There can be no valid self-appointed Paper Popes.

That's simply not going to work as the basis of a grand unified religion for all of humanity.

So Protestantism simply cannot fly as a valid organized world religion. It clearly fragments very quickly into diverse and often highly argumentative sects and denominations. Because ultimately it's based on a myriad of diverging opinions of individual self-appointed Paper Popes.

It simply can't work as a world religion for humanity.

There can be no future in it with its current form. It's never going to fly as a unifying world religion. Only Catholicism could have a prayer of that with it's single central official Pope.

So all protestant fundamentalists need to convert to Catholicism and worship the Pope as the voice of God if they sincerely want a central world religion.

Protestantism as the basis for a world religion is a lost cause.

Of course, as a "Personal Walk with God" it can work. But in that form there's no need for any Paper Popes telling people how to interpret the scriptures because as a "Personal Walk with God" every individual is free to interpret the scriptures in whatever way feels right for them. Including even choosing which "scriptures" or "historical legends" they feel drawn to. There's really no need to even restrict people to just the biblical scriptures at that point.

But Protestantism cannot support that type of thing since it is being driven by self-appointed Paper Popes would would simple like to be the Pope without any need for the approval of Catholicism.

I can tell you how many Protestant Paper Popes I've spoken with who totally reject and refuse to allow my interpretations of ancient history and scriptures. So these Paper Popes are not about to allow individual personalized interpretations of the Bible. They want to dictate to others what the Biblical scriptures are supposedly demanding from people.

However, my real question in the OP is aimed more at Protestantism as an an 'organized' religion. It seems to me that Protestantism is basically based on rebellion and the protesting against having a single authority speak for God.

If Jesus was to come back most of Christainity would not accept him, more than likely label him the anti-christ. Because he will not come back as the conquering hero they expect. (just as he did not quite fit what the jews thought he would be).

Yes, I got off topic a bit. (Grin.)

Protestantism is no longer about rebellion--protestant sects quash "heresy" every bit as much as the Catholics did (and still do, though without burnings, etc.). Protestantism was about not needing a go-between between humans and gods, but the very existence of preachers belies this.

Groups splinter, such as the Mormons, but I don't think there will ever be a "greater" Protestant church on the level of the Catholic church.

Cowboy replied:

Not true. Yes SOME have this applied to them, but as a general note, it's not true. That is why I continuously state that if anyone else has a different interpretation of the scriptures being referred to confront me and tell me how they think it is interpreted, then that person and I would discuss our different beliefs. NOT one of us have a TOTAL understanding of the scriptures. Heck the scriptures itself tells us to commune with one another about the scriptures. If one doesn't wish to discuss the particular interpretation(s) that is there problem, there fault, it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the religion itself for it tells us to do quite the contrary.

This is pretty much replied to your entire post, it was all discussing basically what I quoted.

I have no idea where it is headed, but I do know that I originally left it to explore other possibilities and realities. I was led to believe that I would find tolerance, among other things.

What I found in Paganism and other such religions is an extreme hatred toward Christianity and complete intolerance for all Christians. Not all Pagans are like this, but the vast majority. I found a lot of other negative and scary things, but I'm not going to argue about religions. I have come full circle, explored all the religions, teachings and belief systems and have returned to Christianity. Where the various leaders of various denominations are taking Christianity is of little importance to me.

So the very term "Christianity" takes on a whole new meaning. Just as you've said here, you have "returned" to Christianity, yet at the same time you give no importance to where various religious leaders or denominations are taking "Christianity".

But why would I bother "confronting" you if I have a different interpretation from yours?

Who are you with respect to these scriptures that I should need to "confront you" and your interpretations?

We each have our personal walk with God.

Moreover, if these texts are to be viewed as potential historical documents, as you often suggest, then there would be no reason at all why a person should restrain themselves to just this tiny biased sliver of history. Thus we should look at all of human history from the vantage point of all cultures.

When I do that, I see many failings in the Hebrew stories that can easily be explained away via the history of other cultures. Therefore I take in to account a far larger picture of humanity and come to the following conclusions:

1. The Old Testament is entirely Zeus-like fables.
2. Jesus was most likely a Mahayana Buddhist
3. The New Testament is most likely superstitious rumors.

That's "My Interpretation" of the whole biblical account of "God" in the greater context of humanity as a whole.

Clearly you object to "My Interpretations" of human history and instead you would prefer to just focus on the Hebrew Scriptures alone in an attempt to support them as being some sort of intentional "divine word" inspired by our Creator.

However, if you intend to put forth that perspective then my original stance holds: You should simply honor Catholicism and acknowledge the officially appointed Catholic Pope is most likely the person that "God Chose" to speak on his behave. And there's no need at all for any Protestantism and all their varying sects and denominations and opinions on what the scriptures might mean.

In short, Protestantism itself has no merit.

So there is no reason why I should "confront" you if you and I have different interpretations. We should simply agree to disagree and honor each others rights to have our own personal interpretations of any and all spiritual accounts that may historically be associated with mankind. There's really no reason why we should even restrict ourselves to just the writings and/or rumors of a single ancient culture. And even to a lesser degree to a very biased and selected cannon of stories collected from that single culture clearly with the intent in mind to support a particular fable or rumor.

I see no reason to be restricted by any of that.

So there is no reason why I should "confront" you if you and I have different interpretations. We should simply agree to disagree and honor each others rights to have our own personal interpretations of any and all spiritual accounts that may historically be associated with mankind. There's really no reason why we should even restrict ourselves to just the writings and/or rumors of a single ancient culture. And even to a lesser degree to a very biased and selected cannon of stories collected from that single culture clearly with the intent in mind to support a particular fable or rumor

You misunderstand. Or I did not clarify. I do not care where the current "leaders" take Protestantism because I see them and Protestantism as the same as all the New Age religions. They all lead to the same place and I don't like the looks of that place.

I think Catholicism also allows for non-believers to be 'saved' if they are indeed sincere of heart. I don't think they push the importance of a "belief" that Jesus was "The Christ" nearly as much as the Protestant fundamentalists do.

You either do this to frustrate who you're talking to lol or you just merely can't keep things in context. You don't have to confront "me" on the interpretations. Interpretations of the scriptures to be exact. You take it out of context and put it as interpretations of spirituality which could involve something outside the bible. My specific meaning of what I was saying about interpretations was if someone had a different interpretation of the SCRIPTURES, not spirituality in general. I would appreciate if one did this because I know for a fact I don't know/understand the bible absolutely possitively 100% and I do not wish to spread lies about our father, thus I said if anyone had a different interpretation to confront me about. And I would want them to do this not to specifically teach them something. I want to know my error and or show someone their error. Again contrary to what you always try to put it towards, I don't believe nor am I a "spokesperson" for God. I'm merely a messenger and if I misunderstood something about the message I would absolutely love for someone to show me my error. And this all applies to the scriptures of the holy bible. For I already know for a fact i'm not in error about following the scriptures in general. The scriptures are the only absolute thing in the world. The only thing that has stayed the same since the beginning of time.

They weren't even cannonized and chosen to become a part of the "New Testament until the 1600's.

You and I have already had differences of opinions of how scriptures should be interpreted that we were unable to resolve between us. I still feel that my interpretations have merit that you refuse to acknowledge. So evidently you and I cannot come to a consensus on what the scriptures have to say. We would just be forever arguing about it endlessly which can't be good.

Also, I hold that your claims and demands about the scriptures are often totally outrageous and have no merit whatsoever.

For example you're trying to claim that the scriptures have stayed the same since the beginning of time. From my point of view that's impossible. The stories of the New Testament weren't even written until after Jesus died and that was only about 2000 years ago, hardly since the "Beginning of Time".

They weren't even cannonized and chosen to become a part of the "New Testament until the 1600's. So to say that they have remained consistent since the "Beginning of Time" is absurd. They weren't even chosen to be part of the cannon until the 1600's.

They have been translated in to a different language from the original texts, and I personally believe that they were even edited and transcribed specifically with the intent of keeping them in harmony with a pre-determined expectation of what people believed they should be trying to say.

In short, you make outrageous claims about these scriptures that aren't even close to being true. There is nothing about the New Testament that can be said to have remained consistent (or to even have existed at all) since the "Beginning of Time".

Your claim in that matter is what I would called a "Dishonest attempt to try to give the scriptures some sort of merit that they truly do not even possess"

The fact that you even attempt to make these sort of outrageous and indefensible claims causes me to not even be the slightest bit interested in anything you might say about these scriptures because from my perspective you won't hesitate to make up fallacies about them in an attempt to try to validate them. Fallacies that, from my perspective, are truly outrageous and groundless and have absolutely no merit at all.

They weren't even cannonized and chosen to become a part of the "New Testament until the 1600's. So to say that they have remained consistent since the "Beginning of Time" is absurd. They weren't even chosen to be part of the cannon until the 1600's.

They have been translated in to a different language from the original texts, and I personally believe that they were even edited and transcribed specifically with the intent of keeping them in harmony with a pre-determined expectation of what people believed they should be trying to say

Cowboy wrote:

They may not have been in the "new testament" until the 1600's, but nevertheless that's not when they were written. And of course again the "new testament" wasn't written nor could it have been written until Jesus walked the earth, the word doesn't start with the new testament it starts with the old testament. And what you personally "believe" has no merit less you have some form of evidence of such, at least a very little bit of evidence, at least one little thing that is evident to that.