Any arguments that a "traditional" Christianity could return?

Ive been reading recently and i see a lot of people like Houellebecq and Nietzsche say that the " traditional" christianity has declined and cannot come back.

This is usally in some way due to the progress of liberalization that has made the views seem unnaceptable.( If im explaining elements of this wrong i apologise please correct)

I have spoke to many people online who post these " return to tradition" videos and i always ask them if they are socially succsesful.If the answer is yes and they live in a liberal society i often find that they admit to not expressing these beliefs among others for a fear of isolation.

Is their any arguments that a " traditional" christianity could return in any form and reimpose its values on society.

Attached: constantine.jpg (500x412, 55.84K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integralism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessional_state#:~:text=A confessional state is a,states have been confessional states.
prri.org/research/emerging-consensus-on-lgbt-issues-findings-from-the-2017-american-values-atlas/
today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2019/10/21/paranormal-beliefs-ghosts-demons-poll
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Demographics. Fundamentalists have the most children out of every other group. All demographic groups in the West are declining -- except sincerely religious people. The only reason the populations of Western Europe are stable is because of immigration, usually from Islamic countries. My prediction is that the Muslims and the traditionalist Christians are going to outbreed everyone and then there'll be civil wars between them (the French generals are already predicting future civil wars because of the Muslims). Atheism is dysgenic; it will die out because atheists are hedonists and do not breed.

Traditional Christianity existed since Christ established Church and it exists today untouched.

It's called Orthodox Christianity.

Attached: 0SOdM30wA7s.jpg (900x1059, 731.06K)

Traditional Christianity existed since Christ established Church and it exists today untouched.

It's called Presbyterianism.

Attached: Presby.jpg (4031x1745, 1.3M)

Amen

>unironically think that Protestantism is true Christianity

Lol. Christianity without Platonism is the gayest thing in the world. It's a sect of many, not a religion of the One.

Attached: 53c57e698389c_thumb.jpg (463x550, 57.65K)

Attached: murkowski-romney-ap-jef-220405_1649174794040_hpMain_16x9_992.jpg (992x558, 73.48K)

Thats a good argument i suppose however i wanted to ask about westernised muslims. It seems that islam now has a crisis in that many seem to be adopting liberal beliefs taht move to western societies.

Wont this continue as more generations get culturally involved in the west?

Jokes on you idk what that means I just follow the Lord Jesus Christ not pagan philosophies.

Attached: 1649122706272.jpg (960x916, 59.4K)

Orthodox are based but Catholicism is the true denomination. The arguments for the papacy in the early church are overwhelming.
Assimilation occurs but not that much. Most British Muslims want Shariah for example.

Ive also just realized that as long as the educational and cultural institutions exist that propogate a liberal ideology.

Then it would make no difference on the amount of children they would just become assimilated in the systemn of thought.

Its only deep down now, no going back

Hahahaha dude your religion is russian state controled. For centuries the emperor apointed the high priests (i dont know how they are called, bishops?)

Why would you want to? Christianity is a death cult that has forever consigned humanity to mediocrity. The only reasonable argument I guess is if you're non-European and love slavery.

You don't even know what you mean by "traditional", and if you knew anything about christian history you'd know that's an absurd concept.

extremely based

Yes, a traditional Christianity is necessarily anarchic.

Attached: 41jb4jDIpeL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (324x499, 24.12K)

What are you talking about bro?
Traditional morals based on natural law and divine revelation.
Traditional politics with the Catholic Church as the basis for law and social policy. This is called integralism because the Church is integrated into the political structure, eg. Holy Roman Empire.
I assume this is what OP is talking about. A society based on Christian faith and morals.

That's all meaningless word salad, apart the the one tangible point that just makes the statement even more absurd. The Catholic Church has always existed and has always imposed partial influence over nations, so there's no "return" you can have there, it already exists.

>This is called integralism because the Church is integrated into the political structure, eg. Holy Roman Empire
You mean the same Holy Roman Empire that didn't like what the Pope was doing so they waged war on his supporters and tried to replace him with a pro-German Pope they invented?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integralism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessional_state#:~:text=A confessional state is a,states have been confessional states.

If you think the liberal societies of modern Europe are based on Catholic teaching you're insane. They murder babies by the millions and they support fags/transgenders/etc.

Abuse doesn't negate proper use.

You could have just come out and said "I want abortion and homosexuality banned" instead of trying to play around with these historical concepts you don't understand. Abortion and sodomy were both banned almost everywhere not that long ago, they were even banned in the atheistic soviet union at one point.

Oh yeah? What was this "proper use" that you think is more important than waging war on the head of your own religion?

But I don't want JUST that. I want the Catholic religion to be the official confession of the State. I want the Catholic Church to be the basis of law and politics. I want subsidiarity and localism. I want the state's main purpose to be not "protecting rights" but instilling virtue and spiritual fortitude into its citizens. Integralism is a serious political theory, not just "kill homos", although that's obviously a part of it.

Most Christians in Africa are quite conservative/traditional. Additionally, high birth rates in Africa and high apostasy rates in the West mean that African Christians will make up an increasingly large share of the global Christian population, though it's plausible that they'll eventually give up on religion too.

>It seems that islam now has a crisis in that many seem to be adopting liberal beliefs taht move to western societies.
>Assimilation occurs but not that much. Most British Muslims want Shariah for example.
That varies widely depending on the country. The majority of American Muslims support same-sex marriage: prri.org/research/emerging-consensus-on-lgbt-issues-findings-from-the-2017-american-values-atlas/
I agree that Muslims in Western Europe are on average much less assimilated.

You can't compare American Muslims to European Muslims. Muslim immigrants to America are going to be highly educated and wealthy because American immigration requirements are hard to bypass unless you're Mexican. American Muslims are the Muslims who managed to get a visa and could afford the trip there. Euro Muslims are fake refugees and economic migrants who come in lorries and dinghy boats.

When you integrate the church and the state, the church gets severely influenced by politics and is no longer 'a religion' so much as a government faction. We have seen this many times, they fail on their ideals at least as much as anyone else when they are in put in that position, and their followers stop seeing them as a special moral authority and start seeing them as just another organization body that they are 'free' to complain about and disobey whenever they can get away with it.

If you did some reading about the times when this system was in effect, this would become clear almost instantly.

We've seen from the success of various Islamist movements that you can in fact have a successful integrated society in the modern day.

Anyway, I don't mean that Bishops should be princes or members of parliament. I mean that the Catholic church should be recognised in some official capacity, perhaps in the constitution, as the State religion, similar to what Ireland has. Its morals should be the basis for the law, and its family-oriented social teachings should be promulgated wherever possible. Franco's Spain and Salazaar's Portugal are good examples of this.

People look this way and that way trying to predict the outcome of religion and the future of mankind. Some look to philosophers. Some look to scientist. Some look to the advancement in technology. The truth of the matter is Jesus Christ is going to manipulate history to his desire, by His spirit. If you read the acts of the apostles you will see the spread of the church by the spirit. You can not predict the spirit. Even today I know of 5 out of the 200 Christian’s I know who are full of the spirit. There is always a remnant. God hides the beautiful workings of His might from the scoffers and unsaved. You sound like Elijah who said “all have fallen away and only I am left” God said “I have reserved for myself 7000 who have not bent the knee to Ball” they are here now among us, but God has not revealed this truth to everyone.

>like Ireland has
Ireland has legal homosexuality and abortion. You don't remotely know what you're talking about.

Yeah and I was bringing up Ireland merely to cite an example of a country today which has Christianity recognised officially in its constitution, not because I believe they are the ideal society. This was obvious from my words. I don't believe your reading comprehension is that bad user. I just think you're not willing to engage in good faith, so there's no point talking anymore.

Depends, most who speak about ''retvrning to tradition'' are people outside of it, and stay outside of it, as they want to use it as leverage to get something. Living in actual tradition is something most of them will not do. Christian tradition still lives in different forms, there are still Catholics that don't follow Vatican 2, there are orthodox churches etc. It most likely will not mirror some past glory, but they will continue passing down their traditions to the future.

True Christianity will never be mainstream, globally. Most people were always faking it, or were led by false prophets, which is how we got to where we are today. We can only increase its power within our own lives, and this is how God can work through us

MATTHEW 7
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

aren't they led by a homosexual paki?

About half of the countries in Europe havw the same deal where the Church nominally has some status in the government, and most of those are super gay and liberal. You don't even know what you're asking for.

>The arguments for the papacy in the early church are overwhelming.
That's good because Orthodox Christianity has never been about abolishing the Papacy or any other such protestant idiocy.
Unless you want to argue that early Christians demanded the Pope to assume the role of a sovereign instead of the empire. In which case I'd like to point out that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are a product of the same imperial system rather than vehicles of spiritual resistance.

Attached: Christian schisms solution.jpg (960x720, 80.18K)

I will never understand why people purposefully strawman others. Did I ever say that institutional recognition of the Catholic religion is enough? No. My post went on to say that the Catholic Church should be the basis for law and social order, that the State should have as its main aim the promotion of virtue and spirituality. Why don't you just read about integralism instead of being arrogant?

when you say traditional christianity are you talking about the actual early christian communities or muh deus vult larp shit

>just accept my meaningless word salad instead of applying your knowledge of actual situations
No, you low IQ zoomer.

You're going to have a hard time convincing modern people to take supernatural beliefs seriously.

>Machen
Based. Christianity & Liberalism, What Is Faith and The Christian View of Man are all excellent.

Attached: ChristianViewOfMan-680x1024.jpg (680x1024, 122.73K)

This, and these tradcath zoomers know this very well, that's why they don't even try to convince you of their religion. They just play around with memes.

Ironic considering how many people believe ghosts and demons exist.

today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2019/10/21/paranormal-beliefs-ghosts-demons-poll

>Ironic
retard

You don't see the irony that some people refuse to believe in God but believe in ghosts?

His statement was not ironic, you mongoloid. He didn't say anything about believing in ghosts. You could have simply said "you are wrong".

In any case, most of the people who "believe" in ghosts are just sort of open to the concept, and many of them also believe in God. The one person I can think of IRL who believes in that sort of thing is a Christian.

I think Zizek would have a better answer to this, but I'll summarize what he said about Nazis:
Nazis wish to return to a glorious past, a fictional one which they invented. Everytime a nazi tries to go back to the past, he is actually creating something new.

I agree with Zizek and no Christianity won't make an eternal return, if it does, it would be in a completely different form.

>Does proving that there's a devil prove there's a God?
You can believe in the afterlife of a non-Abrahamic religion after all, why not believe in ghosts but no Gods as well?

Muslims breed more because most of them are poor compared to Christians

Nope Christian fundamentalists, or, in other words, Christians who take their faith seriously, have 5+ children on average. This is because Christianity is based upon patriarchal family values and forbids contraception and abortion.

The issue for me is that even the realists who say this sort of thing about "returning to traditional christianity", those who openly want to back to feudalism, are advocating for one particular time within 2000 years of christianity as if it is the only one that counts. Why aren't they talking about tradition in the context of the 1st century christians? Why not Roman christianity before the fall? Why not colonial American protestantism? Above all else, why not just the current tradition?

In other words, anyone who fits the image you want to create and follows the 20th century Catholic model that you have decided is the real one out of 2000 years of christian history.

Those numbers seem rather high. I assume there's a very low threshold for 'belief'. As in 'maybe they're out there.'

Of those who believe that maybe ghosts and demons exist, how many actually act on that belief? How many hold seances? How many feel the need to ward off the evil eye? Do they carry around holy water?

Idk what you're talking about. The Catholic Church was set up by Christ. Protestants came about in the 1500s. But the birth rate thing applies to Protestants as well because they share the same family values.

>His statement was not ironic, you mongoloid. He didn't say anything about believing in ghosts. You could have simply said "you are wrong".
I don't think what he said was ironic and I don't think he is wrong. I was talking about a specific type of modern person who is dismissive toward the Bible specifically because of it's supernatural elements (the miracles of Jesus, people being raised from the dead, ect.) but still believe in ghosts and demons. I think there is some irony there.

That's not what you said, faggot. Instead of coping this hard just take the loss and learn to write like less of a retard.

The catholic church's current model of dealing with contraception and abortion was set up around the early 20th century, it was quite different before then.

Trying to use protestants as an example is silly. Most people in the west are either catholic or protestant and the west has a non-replacement birth rate.

????
Theres no head of the whole Orthodox Church. Theres the heads of the national churches, and Russia didnt even have a Patriarch from 1721 to 1918. And the balkan countries have been secular republics since their modern formation in the 19th century.

*Constitutional monarchies, they became republics later.

Christianity is fundamentally based upon a deal with the devil, except you are the devil. In exchange for casting yourself as an irredeemable piece of garbage without a shred of virtue you receive future salvation as a grace from god himselves. You can't impress a personal pact like this upon a population using the authority of a man made power structure. The acceptance of christ is a personal level decision and the demands of a state are impersonal. It's a total perversion of the mystic rite of maturity: from formless innocent child human to named adult devil.

Yet another reason to fucking hate organized christianity. It doesn't even respect the transcendental element of its own genesis. Organized christianity chalks its Ws and Ls based upon laws and top down controlled behaviors rather than bottom up freedom. What kind of fucking gymnastics do you have to go through to equate a 1:1 pact between a devil and a deity to building an emergent hierarchical structure filled with physical ranks and stations that impose the law like a tyrant?

Sorry, but I know myself better than to sign a pact that says I'm lesser than what I am. I am not devoid of vitality. I am not devoid of grace. I am not devoid of power. And I acknowledge my potential. Only a fool would mistake a temporary shade of his present circumstances for the totality of his conscious existence. Today I am the devil, tomorrow I am something else. If I cast myself as the devil, if I sign that pact, I forget who I will be. It's a cursed bargain. It uses innocence as fuel for its oppressive ambition.

Absolute braindead argument. If they simply get bred out of existence naturally how did they arise in the first place?