Much has been made of the 4T being synonymous with a Crisis. My observation has been that crises are merely enablers for society to make the generational transitions. Crises don’t even have to be dealt with effectively in order to resolve the 4T and start the 1T. I propose here that resolving the 4T is all about converting the Nomad.

The players are
• The Nomads, who seek the stability that society never offered them and are therefore averse to the disruption of tradition and who require a viable substitute for it in order to be converted;
• Heroes, whose stability came from nurturing elders and are therefore open to progress, to which conservatism is seen as a hindrance;
• Artists, who are children during the 4T and are generally compliant to the resolution that is reached by their elders but who also easily take the lead from (or even help to lead) the younger Prophets ;
• Prophets, who are too young to remember the conflict that required resolution during the previous 4T and therefore are not bound by that resolution.

Here are our history lessons:

The Reprisals were children during the Reformation. Stability to them was Catholic control of society, which was being disrupted. As the Reformation cooled off, they were a large part of the force attempting to move society back toward Catholicism. To the Elizabethans however, this conservative move back to Catholicism was a hindrance to progress. Accepting the ideals of the Reformers, they were prepared to accept a Protestant monarch as the head of the church instead of the pope. The Spanish Armada victory allowed the Reprisal to find their stability in the Crown. The “Merrie England” 1T was held together a compromise that the break from Rome would be complete as long as the kings influence over the church was not to be questioned. The Parliamentaries abided by the decision of their elders - One did not question the king on church matters. But the Puritans were too young to appreciate the issues that led to this unconditional loyalty.

The Cavaliers were children during the Puritan Awakening. Stability to them was a strong monarch in charge of church matters, which was being disrupted. They became a force in restoring the Stuart monarchy, following Cromwell’s Protectorate. The Glorious however largely accepted the Puritan ideas and helped establish the constitutional monarchy that gave more power to the churches, under the condition that they pledged allegiance to crown. The Cavaliers accepted the compromise that the church hierarchies would keep things in order. The Enlighteners abided by the decision of the elders – One did not rock the boat in the organized church. The Awakeners however were too young to ever agree to such a thing.

The Liberties were children during the Great Awakening. Stability to them came in the form of both church tradition and royal tradition. With church tradition in a way that was mostly positive, royal tradition took more precedent. The Republicans fought for and institutionalized Awakening values and ultimately created a Constitution that provided the stability that the Liberty gen required - a contract was entered into by all thirteen colonies and would be honored by all. The Compromisers accepted the decision of their elders and for the next 26 years, the issue of slavery was largely untouchable. The Transcendentals however never agreed to such a thing.

The Gilded were children during the Transcendental Awakening. Stability to them meant that the national contract would be left alone. In the South, there was resentment toward abolitionists who were threatening the agreement. In the North, there was resentment toward secessionists who were threatening to abandon the national experiment. The Civil War and Reconstruction resulted in a forced, revised contract that meant that the Union would continue. However, it was also understood during the Gilded Age that the federal government would not spark any new flames by becoming too ambitious. The Missionaries however were not bound by any such tacit agreement and they lost no time bringing the Progressives with them.

The Lost were children during the Missionary Awakening. Stability for them was a cautious government. They were notably comfortable with the laissez-faire mood of the 1920s. While circumstances forced them to accept an expanded role of government first in domestic matters and then internationally, the Greatest generation brought with them an ethic that would make the final conversion easy: The Lost would accept an expanded role for the United States, based on the premise that Americans would be a patriotic, church-going people whose purpose would always be for the spread of Christianity and the containment of Communism. The Silents agreed to the decision of their elders, and so did society in general. Then the Kennedy assassination awakened Boomers to whom all of that would be called into question.

GenX were children during the Consciousness Revolution. Our stability was an America that was based on traditional moral principles and patriotism. Having experienced the disruptive 1960s and 1970s, we largely welcomed the Reagan revolution as a counterweight. Then the Millennials came along remembering none of that, seeing the Religious Right as a bunch of theocrats wanting to run everyone else’s lives, instead of mostly well-meaning individuals who were tired of seeing the country humiliated.

However, the Millennials have brought with them an ethic of tolerance and coexistence that will be key to converting the Xers. We will likely see an end to both the Religious Right and the TEA party very soon, since there are virtually few winnable battles left to wage. Since the goal of the Left is to see both groups go away, I somewhat expect a deal to be reached that will allow those who have moral objections to same-sex marriage to coexist with those who don’t. That is, some sort of legal protection for churches and others who do not wish to participate. According to this prediction, neither side will rock the boat concerning this agreement. Then a new generation of Prophets will rise up who will not know the meaning of the words “tolerance” and “coexistence.”

Same-sex marriage is not the defining issue of this Turning, let alone this Saeculum. It's a victory, but no more important than tackling the overreaching security complex erected by the neoconservatives, and much less important than finding a solution to economic inequality and particularly catastrophic climate change.

Actually, I see the security industrial complex and economic inequality as being the primary issues. Global warming is significant, but I think that's going to be a 1T resolution, mostly because it's going to be a technological fix rather than a "force these people to act like this" fix, which is what 4T's are about.

Gay marriage is not actually a core issue, it's a side show, and it really was the right's battle to lose. They probably never would have lost it if they hadn't pushed to defense of marriage acts, etc. Sacred cows tip the easiest. Now when we start seeing the bankers and congress in prison, the NSA and Homeland Security dismantled... That's where you see the 1T. It's those two inevitable things that have to go down.

Originally Posted by Einzige

Same-sex marriage is not the defining issue of this Turning, let alone this Saeculum. It's a victory, but no more important than tackling the overreaching security complex erected by the neoconservatives, and much less important than finding a solution to economic inequality and particularly catastrophic climate change.

The defining issue is the disparity between the traditional values and patriotism of the previous saeculum and the redefinition of them following the Consciousness Revolution. A side effect of this would be the interests of establishment Republicans that the Religious Right have unwisely enabled in order to get their coalition. That is, the military industrial complex, the global banking industry, etc. (all of which have plenty of support from Democrats, as well). The resolution will be for social conservatives to settle for whatever assurances they can receive in exchange for going away as a political movement.

Let’s discuss the specific issues that you have raised (and some that you have not) and how we might expect them to be resolved:

Same-sex marriage is here to stay. Whereas Roe v. Wade was arguable reversible, this one can never be as long as there is a USA. This has opened the door to complete sexual freedom (which was clearly a goal of the CR). Some on the Right have argued that the door is now open for group marriages, legalized pedophilia, and other bizarre possibilities. There is also concern that churches and businesses will be face civil and criminal penalties for following their consciences and refusing to participate in ceremonies that they do not agree with. (The latter is already happening.) It is easy for me to see a compromise where there are assurances (perhaps an act of Congress that can be overturned in the next Saeculum) that satisfy conservatives on these issues.

Socialized healthcare is also here to stay. The resolution will be for Republicans to feel that they have some control over how it is to be implemented. Likewise, the overreaching security complex is here to stay, the resolution of which will be for liberals to feel that they have ownership of it.

Since economic inequality and climate change reversal are intangible goals, it will simply be a matter of feeling that the government is “doing something about it.”

Also, as the character of the military and law enforcement changes, so will be the Left’s attitude toward them.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Now when we start seeing the bankers and congress in prison, the NSA and Homeland Security dismantled... That's where you see the 1T. It's those two inevitable things that have to go down.

Don’t hold your breath!

Originally Posted by JDW

Same-sex marriage is here to stay. Whereas Roe v. Wade was arguable reversible, this one can never be as long as there is a USA. This has opened the door to complete sexual freedom (which was clearly a goal of the CR). Some on the Right have argued that the door is now open for group marriages, legalized pedophilia, and other bizarre possibilities. There is also concern that churches and businesses will be face civil and criminal penalties for following their consciences and refusing to participate in ceremonies that they do not agree with. (The latter is already happening.) It is easy for me to see a compromise where there are assurances (perhaps an act of Congress that can be overturned in the next Saeculum) that satisfy conservatives on these issues.

Churches and other religious congregations are completely free to restrict marriage to whoever they feel they want to marry. for example, a Catholic priest might refuse to marry a divorced person whose previous marriage was not annulled. My Rabbi won't marry unless both people are Jewish. I don't see the problem with clerics refusing to marry two men or two women.

Businesses are another issue. They are in business to sell a product or a service. We don't allow businesses to only sell to whites. Same thing. Businesses are free to cater to a niche. With my straight, fine brown hair, I'm not the market for a salon selling hair relaxing products, for example. However, if I wanted to go in there to purchase something for my S.O.'s sister, they aren't allowed to say that "my kind" can't shop there.

Originally Posted by JDW

Don’t hold your breath!

Wait until the first Millennial dominant congress comes forward. What do you think they're going to do? Let me tell you, it's either going to be either the NSA or the banks, because that hate runs deep.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Actually, I see the security industrial complex and economic inequality as being the primary issues. Global warming is significant, but I think that's going to be a 1T resolution, mostly because it's going to be a technological fix rather than a "force these people to act like this" fix, which is what 4T's are about.

There's a strong element of "force these people to act like this" especially when it comes to the CEOs of fossil fool companies who refuse to change the "technology" (type of energy) they supply in exchange for their profits.

Economic equality issue hangs upon the repeal of Reaganomics, which has continued and which the Republicans continue to impose upon us. Part of Reaganomics is allowing the banks to be unregulated and too big to fail; the Republicans never cease their efforts to repeal the reforms which Sen.Warren and the Democrats developed and passed. Nor would the GOP ever support more stringent actions.

Gay marriage is not actually a core issue, it's a side show, and it really was the right's battle to lose. They probably never would have lost it if they hadn't pushed to defense of marriage acts, etc. Sacred cows tip the easiest. Now when we start seeing the bankers and congress in prison, the NSA and Homeland Security dismantled... That's where you see the 1T. It's those two inevitable things that have to go down.

If bankers engage in further misbehavior, then you could see some of them in prison indeed. If they don't misbehave much, or if they don't precipitate another great recession, then they won't be put in prison. My indications are that there could be a recession at the end of this decade, but the worry over it will be greater than its actual bite.

As for NSA and Homeland Security being dismantled, that would have to occur in the 4T, if the anti-war movement wins. Otherwise, however desirable, such action is unlikely in a 1T. Reform of the NSA is likely, perhaps as soon as a sane congress is elected (which will depend on younger people learning how to vote in a civically-responsible manner), but cabinet departments once set up rarely if ever get taken down.

In fact, it is unlikely any reforms you desire will happen unless you and your cohorts start voting in midterm elections. Occupying the streets and voting for presidents is not going to do it.

Originally Posted by JDW

Since economic inequality and climate change reversal are intangible goals, it will simply be a matter of feeling that the government is “doing something about it.”

They are quite measurable, and in that sense at least, tangible.

That was a good summary of nomads in history.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There's a strong element of "force these people to act like this" especially when it comes to the CEOs of fossil fool companies who refuse to change the "technology" (type of energy) they supply in exchange for their profits.

The above is obviously not sustainable. In fact if we keep using the earth as a trashcan for CO2, we could face an existential threat. If we are in fact facing the 6th major extinction event and creating our own new geologic era, the Anthropocene, then any continued emissions of CO2 could wipe us out or crash the human population.

Economic equality issue hangs upon the repeal of Reaganomics, which has continued and which the Republicans continue to impose upon us. Part of Reaganomics is allowing the banks to be unregulated and too big to fail; the Republicans never cease their efforts to repeal the reforms which Sen.Warren and the Democrats developed and passed. Nor would the GOP ever support more stringent actions.

The continuation of the FIRE economy is also not sustainable. The FIRE economy requires the strip mining of the real economy and when the real economy crashes due to the weight of too much debt and upward migration of wealth, it will take the FIRE economy with it.
FIRE = Finance, insurance [including bogus insurance like auto extended warranties], and real estate.

If bankers engage in further misbehavior, then you could see some of them in prison indeed. If they don't misbehave much, or if they don't precipitate another great recession, then they won't be put in prison. My indications are that there could be a recession at the end of this decade, but the worry over it will be greater than its actual bite.

See above. Strip mining anything isn't sustainable. Wealth disparity can only go so far, as can the share of GDP devoted to paper shuffling.

As for NSA and Homeland Security being dismantled, that would have to occur in the 4T, if the anti-war movement wins. Otherwise, however desirable, such action is unlikely in a 1T. Reform of the NSA is likely, perhaps as soon as a sane congress is elected (which will depend on younger people learning how to vote in a civically-responsible manner), but cabinet departments once set up rarely if ever get taken down.

Wars of choice generate a lot of debt without any positive effects. If said debt went towards Rag's Planeteer ^TM project, you'd get positive effects. I think it better to pay folks $15/hour to go around gathering up plastic pollution , paying folks to major in chemistry, industrial engineering, chemical engineering so we can recycle all that plastic. Plastic pollution is really bad, but few know about it.
A lot of plastics contain chemicals which are endocrine disruptors. Endocrine disruptors are carcinogens in an indirect manner. They usually bind to estrogen receptors and scramble normal hormone signals. That's why DDT was banned. DDT scrambled estrogen signals in bald eagles and resulted in too thin eggshells. I'd also toss in an option to pay $17.00 in student loan forgiveness to do something about that problem as well. Endocrine disruptors also compromise reproductive ability in wildlife and humans, cause type II diabetes and other crap. Finally, plastic is a valuable source of feedstocks if we could find a way to process them. The more feedstocks from plastics = the less oil we'd need.

In fact, it is unlikely any reforms you desire will happen unless you and your cohorts start voting in midterm elections. Occupying the streets and voting for presidents is not going to do it.

Perhaps the actual problem is one of a failure to communicate. Millies by definition weren't around during the Conscious Revolution. Perhaps all they need is a single broad concept which originated therefrom. Like who knows, perhaps Xer's are supposed to decruft the 2T and distill it down to something simple.
So, let's see how the ones here read this post and see if some lights come on, eh?

Originally Posted by Kepi

Wait until the first Millennial dominant congress comes forward. What do you think they're going to do? Let me tell you, it's either going to be either the NSA or the banks, because that hate runs deep.

That's at least 20 years off, if not more, given that we've yet to see an Xer dominated Congress.

Civics take charge of Congress halfway through a 1T, traditionally in our history. The American Revolution happened when the Awakening Generation was kicked out of being representatives and the Liberty Generation took over the next time they met, and the Liberty Generation essentially said "screw England!" whereas the Awakening Generation controlled Continental Congress before had hemmed and hawed over not enough representation and other matters.

But anyway, are you really willing to wait the 20 years that it'll take for Millennials to take power? And I mean who knows what the 2030s will be like--perhaps by then instead of getting rid of the two offending things, Millennials would have found other ways to handicap those institutions and thus their existence continues. Or perhaps those institutions will no longer exist due to Xer actions, or perhaps those institutions will have taken over and they're our new overlords--praise be to the dollar and our security! *you guys with the tape recorders heard that right? Good.*

So yeah, waiting for a Millennial Congress... good luck with that.

Xers should be taking over now. This November marks 20 years of Boomer control of Congress, and that's about how long a generation lasts in having control. Boomers took control in 1995 (though there was some power sharing with the Silent in terms of percentages going on in the early to mid 1990s), and unless there's a gigantic purge in the next election, likely will have it closer to 25 than 20, which will likely either mean Gen X's time at "power" will either be vastly shortened, or delayed a little bit longer. And it's the Nomad control half of a 4T is when things really start getting done, because by then they've--as this thread postulates--signed on to whatever the new plan is, or at least agreed to institute a high-security police state that is their default answer to every Crisis situation (if you doubt me, look what the Reprisal Generation via Queen Elizabeth I did to create "Merrie England"... it was "Merrie" all right, if you were the right kind of Protestant, weren't related to known dissidents, weren't trying to cut in on the state-run wool monopoly, and didn't mind being at war constantly, sending your sons off to fight and ensure the Netherlands didn't fall back under the control of the Empire and Catholicism.

Hmm... sounds rather familiar...

It's even understandable that they'd react that way, IMO. For when Nomads see that their options are limited, stripping everything down to bare bones efficiency and lock everything down by going to a constant state of Red Alert. It's grueling and nearly mindless, but we'll live to survive another day, that's for sure.

So if anything, a challenge to the NSA and the Banks will likely come in the 1T if we wait for a Millennial controlled Congress, making the GI takeover of society by kicking out one of their own who'd signed on to Lost Generation paranoia a la McCarthyism, seem a warm up round to ending the "fear state".

~Chas'88

Control of Congress periods by generations:

Lost Generation Control: 1937 - 1955
GI Control: 1955 - 1977
Silent Control: 1977 - 1995
Boom Control: 1995 - present (perhaps it'll end in 2017? If not then, most likely 2019)
X Control: 2017/2019 - 203?
Millennial Control: 203?

So good luck waiting for the 2030s.

If X does have a rather short time at the helm, would that imply a relatively short First Turning, followed perhaps by a lengthy Second Turning?

Originally Posted by Einzige

If X does have a rather short time at the helm, would that imply a relatively short First Turning, followed perhaps by a lengthy Second Turning?

No, it just means the Boomers overstayed their welcome. Generations tend to hand off power halfway through a Turning or just a little bit after the halfway point as the GI generation shows.

Looking at this current congress, and calling it "boomer-controlled," shows just how little correlation there is between generations and congress. Boomers are a liberal or at-least split generation. Congress today is right wing. That's not due to Boomers. That's due to the people of all generations electing a right-wing congress.

If Millennials "control" congress, but three or four active generations vote right wing, then you'll have a right-wing millennial congress too.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Churches and other religious congregations are completely free to restrict marriage to whoever they feel they want to marry. for example, a Catholic priest might refuse to marry a divorced person whose previous marriage was not annulled. My Rabbi won't marry unless both people are Jewish. I don't see the problem with clerics refusing to marry two men or two women.

Listening to those on both sides of the issue of religious freedom, I hear those on the Left “assuring” social conservatives that they are protected under the First Amendment. The problem is that many of Court’s decisions come down to a 5-4 vote, and even to that point is an expensive journey for a company such as Hobby Lobby. As conservatives see it, one more liberal justice and it’s all over. Since I am not the best person to understand the mindset of the Left, let me ask you for an honest answer to a question: If the Court were to enforce civil or criminal penalties against a church that refused to marry a same-sex couple, to what extent would you be willing to stand up for that church’s First Amendment rights? (I know many who I think would gladly accept such a ruling as the final, authoritive word on the matter.) Regardless, I believe there is a genuine fear on the part of the Right concerning this.

Businesses are another issue. They are in business to sell a product or a service. We don't allow businesses to only sell to whites. Same thing. Businesses are free to cater to a niche. With my straight, fine brown hair, I'm not the market for a salon selling hair relaxing products, for example. However, if I wanted to go in there to purchase something for my S.O.'s sister, they aren't allowed to say that "my kind" can't shop there.

Are we talking about selling someone or cake or actually catering the event? The former I could probably go along with, but it would be tyranny to be forced to attend an event one did not agree with. Also, if I refused to rent to a gay couple who smoked, had pets and had a poor credit history, would the burden be on me to prove that I did not discriminate against them for being gay? There is a lot here that makes me feel vulnerable.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They are quite measurable, and in that sense at least, tangible.

Regulation would be tangible. An end to the problems would not be.

Originally Posted by JDW

Since I am not the best person to understand the mindset of the Left, let me ask you for an honest answer to a question: If the Court were to enforce civil or criminal penalties against a church that refused to marry a same-sex couple, to what extent would you be willing to stand up for that church’s First Amendment rights? (I know many who I think would gladly accept such a ruling as the final, authoritive word on the matter.) Regardless, I believe there is a genuine fear on the part of the Right concerning this

I can answer this, and I can do so in a transhistorical sense:

The bargain which Millennials are striking with each other is such that the First Amendment rights of churches will be preserved, In exchange for an internal liberalization of church attitudes through the mechanism of generational turnover.

Consider this occurrence from earlier in this Fourth Turning:

A small Appalachian church in Kentucky is being called racist for passing a vote that banned interracial couples from the church.

The Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church voted 9 to 6 on Sunday to ban interracial couples from church services or functions, with the exception of funerals.

Stella Harville, 24, and her fiance Ticha Chikuni, 28, are the couple that prompted the church's actions. Harville is white and Chikuni is black. The couple met at Georgetown College in Kentucky where both went to school and are scheduled to marry in July 2012.

Harville is in graduate school in Indiana and Chikuni is working at Georgetown College, but when the couple visits Harville's parents in Pike County, Ky., they usually go to church with her parents.

Harville's parents Cathy and Dean Harville have been church members for decades. Cathy Harville has taught Sunday school at the church and Dean Harville was a deacon there and is currently the church's secretary. They consider the church's 42 congregants their family.

But after a service in June where Stella Harville and Chikuni participated by singing and playing the piano for a hymn, the family was shocked when then-pastor Melvin Thompson approached them after the service.

Interracial Couple Prompts Church Ban

"There seemed to not be a problem and then all of a sudden the pastor at the time came up to [Chikuni] and told him he could not sing anymore," Harville said. "That floored us. We wanted to know why."

The next week, Cathy and Dean Harville met with the Thompson and were shocked to hear their pastor say that members of the congregation had said they would walk out if Chikuni sang again. The parents wanted to know exactly who had a problem with their future son-in-law.

"'Me, for one,'" Cathy Harville said that Thompson replied. She said he added, "'The best thing [Stella] can do is take him back where she found him.'" She said the pastor would not tell her any names of people who took issue with Chikuni.

Cathy Harville was taken aback. "There's no love at all in that and that really hurt me," she said. "They are both Christians and they both try to live a Christian life and serve God. There is nothing in the Bible that we found that tells us that the couple should not be married."

Thompson could not be reached for comment.

Thompson has since been replaced with a new pastor who said that everyone was welcome at the church and the Harville family said the issue was dropped, but at a recent meeting Thompson, who is still a member of the congregation, brought up the issue again and asked that it be discussed at a business meeting among the church's men.

"Grown men cried at that meeting," Cathy Harville said. Three men voted to bring the issue before the church for a vote, and two voted against it, so the matter went before the congregation this past Sunday.

Harville said that of 42 members, very few stayed for the meeting after church and even fewer voted. She said most congregants wanted no part in the vote.

The motion read, in part: "The Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church does not condone interracial marriage. Parties of such marriages will not be received as members, nor will they be used in worship services and other church functions, with the exception being funerals."

And: "The recommendation is not intended to judge the salvation of anyone, but indicated to promote greater unity among the church body and the community we serve."

Had the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church not conceded this issue internally, we would have - justifiably - compelled them to do so in the First Turning.

They would have been allowed to do this until the end of this Saeculum. Likewise, churches will not be compelled to integrate homosexuals into their rank-and-file until the next Saeculum after this coming one.

All that's left to add is that this is predicated on an unconscious agreement that Christianity is on its way out the door. I expect a Saeculum or two of mass irreligion, followed by the creation of a new spiritual ethos.

Originally Posted by JDW

Regulation would be tangible. An end to the problems would not be.

But the problems you mention can be measured, as to their "end." Global warming, and economic equality, are quite measurable. If you say the measurements can't be exact, I would agree there. But, results can be determined to the satisfaction of most historians and observers.

Incidentally, JDW, if you think that the coming centuries will be harsh on Christianity, consider what your people did in the twilight of antiquity.

With the enactment of laws and edicts that punished pagan practices, Constantius II (337 - 361) marked the beginning of formal persecution of paganism by the Christian Roman Empire.[4][5]

From the 350s, new laws imposed the death penalty for attendance and participation in pagan sacrifices and the worship of "idols."[16] Temples were shut down[2][5] and the traditional Altar of Victory was removed from the Senate.[6] There were also frequent episodes of ordinary Christians destroying, pillaging, desecrating and vandalizing pagan temples, tombs and monuments.[7][8][9][10]

These harsh imperial edicts had to contend with the immense popularity of paganism among ordinary folk and the passive resistance of governors and magistrates.[2][17][18][19] The anti-pagan legislation that began with Constantius would in time have a detrimental influence on freedom of thought during the Middle Ages and serve as a precedent for the horrors of the Inquisition.[20]

The ideology of the Antichrist and the False Prophet is really just the bad conscience of two thousand years ago.

Originally Posted by Einzige

Incidentally, JDW, if you think that the coming centuries will be harsh on Christianity, consider what your people did in the twilight of antiquity.

What my people did????? You assume a lot if you think the "Christian" Roman Emperors were my heroes!

Originally Posted by JDW

What my people did????? You assume a lot if you think the "Christian" Roman Emperors were my heroes!

I didn't say they were your personal heroes. I am saying you'd never have heard of Christianity without them.

They built the towering edifice upon which Western civilization stands. That edifice is now patchworn and rotting. Something new must be built, but the old must be torn down first. This demolition process has been underway since the Enlightenment; the American Revolution that Christian conservatives here cherish so deeply was part of that process.

This demolition will not be completed in our lifetimes, or those of our children, or their children, or theirs, or theirs. The next Saeculum will probably do no more than finally peel back the last layer of facade; it remains to a MegaAwakening to construct something genuinely new and sturdy.

A new spiritual order will probably not understand the individual as a cohesive, coherent unit of life, a soul in a mortal shell. "A" will =/= "A".

Originally Posted by Einzige

I didn't say they were your personal heroes. I am saying you'd never have heard of Christianity without them.

They built the towering edifice upon which Western civilization stands. That edifice is now patchworn and rotting. Something new must be built, but the old must be torn down first. This demolition process has been underway since the Enlightenment; the American Revolution that Christian conservatives here cherish so deeply was part of that process.

This demolition will not be completed in our lifetimes, or those of our children, or their children, or theirs, or theirs. The next Saeculum will probably do no more than finally peel back the last layer of facade; it remains to a MegaAwakening to construct something genuinely new and sturdy.

A new spiritual order will probably not understand the individual as a cohesive, coherent unit of life, a soul in a mortal shell. "A" will =/= "A".

So when were the mega-awakenings? Any precedent for such a prediction?

Certainly you don't think that the previous saeculum to our own created such a new religion. You explicitly deny this in your post here. So why would the next mega-awakening accomplish this?

We are in a potential golden age or renaissance.

But the new age religion is another matter. Other cycles are to be consulted on that.

The astrological ages are sometimes used, since Christianity is symbolized by the Age of Pisces, and the New Age by the Age of Aquarius. These ages last about 2160 years each. So, by that measure, another Jesus has not even appeared yet to found the new religion, and won't be born until about the year 2160. It will take another 300 years for it to be established as the state religion, if this is what it will take for it to become the new foundation of the new global civilization being created today, just as Constantine established Christianity for Western Civilization born out of the Roman Empire.

But, of course, Christianity is not the only pillar of Western Civilization. There was Judaism before that. The Greek philosophers, artists and scientists are just as important, and Medieval Europe was in many respects a new creation from out of the Dark Ages by a newly-civilized people.

The 599/600-year religious cycle bears watching. This 600-year cycle coincides with the birth of new religions and religious figures. Based on some Uranus-Neptune conjunctions and oppositions, and eclipse cycles, and related to the Ages, this cycle starts in about 575 BC with a triple conjunction of Uranus and Neptune with Pluto. There may have been earlier cycles too, if 1175 is significant for Judaism. The 575 BC conjunction coincided with the visions of Ezekiel and Isaiah from which Judaism as we know it was developed. Buddha was born soon thereafter, as were Mahavira, Confucius and Lao Tse. This was the time of the first Greek philosophers, and Pythagoras was also born under this conjunction.

The next such cosmic figure was the grand cross of 25 AD between Uranus, Neptune, Jupiter and Saturn. This was the start of Christ's mission.

Next was the conjunction of 624 AD, the time when Islam was born in the events surrounding Mohammed's flight from Mecca to Medina to gather support to re-enter Mecca as the new religious leader of his people.

The opposition of 1223 AD coincided with St. Francis and St. Thomas Aquinas, significant for Catholicism as well as the later Renaissance humanism that followed later on.

The next conjunction of 1821 coincided with the birth of the founders of the Bahai Faith, and Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science), as well as the beginning of the Mormons, and the birth of the Marxist leaders and the later Transcendentalists. This was also the start of what Strauss and Howe call the Awakening 2T of the Civil War Saeculum, and the births of the first Gilded Generation members.

The next such figure will not occur until 2420 AD. So we are still working out the new dispensation given to us in 1821.

But there will be a Uranus-Neptune conjunction in the 2160s. The period following 2420 would be almost 300 years later.

Surprisingly enough, I actually agree with your general timeline - I certainly don't think that I'll live to see the new spiritual paradigm, and I'm only twenty-six today. The point, however, is that Christianity is entering its terminal phase within my lifetime; whatever remains after will be an empty corpse, capable still of commanding the obedience of men but not their love. It is approaching the level of the State religion of the Roman Empire in the Age of Caesar.

The point, then, is to begin peeling it back from its mooring, to make easy the way of what comes after.

Originally Posted by Einzige

Surprisingly enough, I actually agree with your general timeline - I certainly don't think that I'll live to see the new spiritual paradigm, and I'm only twenty-six today. The point, however, is that Christianity is entering its terminal phase within my lifetime; whatever remains after will be an empty corpse, capable still of commanding the obedience of men but not their love. It is approaching the level of the State religion of the Roman Empire in the Age of Caesar.

The point, then, is to begin peeling it back from its mooring, to make easy the way of what comes after.

Well then, we agree on something here. The peeling back continues.

Originally Posted by JDW

Also, if I refused to rent to a gay couple who smoked, had pets and had a poor credit history, would the burden be on me to prove that I did not discriminate against them for being gay?

If you had a "hard" rule that you did not rent to smokers or those with (non-service) pets, and made those rules apparent at the time of application, you should be okay on those counts. Credit scores may be a little trickier since there is more subjectivity there though.