The need for the duration of anything is not to be separated from the need for duration of the individual. It doesn't necessarily have to be the hope to live forever personally, it can also be the dwelling in a presupposed higher duration. The name that the biblical inhabitants of ante-diluvian Babylon wanted to make for themselves needs some world to remember that name. The conditions of memory need to stay basically the same. Also, in classical antiquity the concentration on fame and progeny located itself in an eternal Kosmos. What was excluded in those concepts was the possibility for a person to be eternal themself. Christianity changed that: a person could live eternally in a relation to the God. When the concept of an external God because less self-evident in the Enlightenment, the concept of the persistence of a person had to be reevaluated. One such concept, that is supposed to persist and thus be the condition of any duration was of course rationality (Kants first antinomy). Two innovations came with this: That duration has a direction: the thought of progress. Also: Not everyone is seen to participate in it in the same degree: one of the reasons of the racisms and sexisms in Enlightenment discourses. The problems that came with those innovations we still feel today: the strive for endless economic growth or a blindness for cultural contextual conditions of thought. This also had its impact on theology: God, ratio and humanity fell in one for Feuerbach, Strauß et al. It seems, for the first time, persistence was in the hand of the humans. Humanity as a genus, which is in each person. So if humanity is the basis for its own persistence, itself is who has to „make it last"; it also has to keep the world the way it has always been. This kind of theology bears reactionary potential. Therefore, a need exists to explore other ways of thinking the persistence of a human person and the genus. One way is reevaluating the persistence of God as apart from humanity.