Inventing a new religion

[YIOSTHEOY]

Acharya has NOT been back here to this forum in 8 years.

But the thread has taken on a life of its own having been resurrected time and again since then, most recently by Felix today.

I like to cover thread history for resurrections like this first.

As to the original question, “starting one’s own religion and attracting followers to it” is like starting a new nonprofit corporation.

Moses essentially did this back in 1450 BCE although not on purpose, he was simply called to it by the Powers Above or else by schizophrenia – remember that when you talk to God it is called prayer but when God talks to you it is probably schizophrenia.

Confucius and Siddhartha and Jesus and Muhammad did the same thing in their turn as well.

Of all of them, Jesus was the most successful with Muhammad in a close second place when you add up all their various respective sects – Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Sunni, and Shia.

Getting back to Belinda’s most recent comment, you really don’t need antiquity – the tv evangelical Protestants prove that every Sunday morning with their dial-a-prayers and online donation crusades.

Getting back to LuckyR’s most recent, I learned in Comparative Religion 401 (an upper division course which took a look at all the 12 major world religions) that the 2 things all religions tend to teach is (1) a reverence for all life in all forms and (2) the brotherhood of humanity. Not your 2 things.

Whereas the issue of God in Philosophy asks regarding the feasibility of either position taken on God-ness – whether a God does exist or does not exist or must exist – the issue of God in the various world’s religions is whose God is valid and whose is false??

If you go by headcount, I would have to conclude that among all the sects, the Catholics and the Sunni’s each at about 1.2 billion are in a tie for first.

If you can justify adding up all the Christians from the 3 schisms (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) then this wins out with 2.2 billions over the combined Muslims of 1.6 billions (Shia and Sunni).

As far as atheists and agnostics go – they are hardly a drop in the bucket.

Religion is no doubt still the opiate of the masses and also of a lot of intellectuals and philosophers as well.

[Steve3007]

Getting back to Belinda’s most recent comment, you really don’t need antiquity – the tv evangelical Protestants prove that every Sunday morning with their dial-a-prayers and online donation crusades.

Yes, but they're still ostensibly representing a reasonably ancient religion, not evangelizing on behalf of a new one, aren't they?

[YIOSTHEOY]

Getting back to Belinda’s most recent comment, you really don’t need antiquity – the tv evangelical Protestants prove that every Sunday morning with their dial-a-prayers and online donation crusades.

Yes, but they're still ostensibly representing a reasonably ancient religion, not evangelizing on behalf of a new one, aren't they?

These vipers may claim so but I don't see any correlation.

I was thinking more in terms of the origins of the Catholic Church going back to antiquity and the various schisms spinning off from them -- the Orthodox Church in 1054 AD and the Protestants in 1500 with Luther and Henry 8th.

[Steve3007]

But if they didn't claim so, I wonder if they'd still get the same level of donations? Presumably the profit comes from being a parasite on the antiquity and venerability of their chosen host - the protestant church, which at 500 to 800 years old I suppose still counts as "old", despite being a youngster in the history of Christianity in general.

[YIOSTHEOY]

But if they didn't claim so, I wonder if they'd still get the same level of donations? Presumably the profit comes from being a parasite on the antiquity and venerability of their chosen host - the protestant church, which at 500 to 800 years old I suppose still counts as "old", despite being a youngster in the history of Christianity in general.

It's too bad that Jesus does not have a legal patent on his stuff, and then checks back in with us every few centuries to designate whom he determines is following his own stuff the closest.

I am pretty sure the gay and lesbo ministers would not get points that way.

That would bring on honesty in preaching and also new demand for Dionysus the ancient Greek hedonist as well as a designated cult icon.

[Steve3007]

It's too bad that Jesus does not have a legal patent on his stuff, and then checks back in with us every few centuries to designate whom he determines is following his own stuff the closest.

I thought that was pretty much what was supposed to happen, isn't it? Second-coming and all that?

[YIOSTHEOY]

It's too bad that Jesus does not have a legal patent on his stuff, and then checks back in with us every few centuries to designate whom he determines is following his own stuff the closest.

I thought that was pretty much what was supposed to happen, isn't it? Second-coming and all that?

Well part of the criteria for "salvation" within Christianity is to "believe the word" without seeing a sign.

The concept is defined as "faith".

This is the biggest flaw within Christianity from a logical or Empirical viewpoint.

Waiting for 2000+ years (it will be 2000 years in 2033 AD -- 17 more years to go) is essentially for most people who have lived 50 to 100 years during the past 20 centuries as no second coming at all.

Every religion has flaws.

The trial of faith issue is a big flaw within Christianity and a stumbling block for all but the 2.2 billions of Christians on the Earth.

The other 4.8 billions of the population cannot get over this hurdle.

[Blake 789]

It's possible for someone to blatantly straight out invent a new religion but what you end up with is something like Scientology or Mormonism the 19th century version of Scientology so it's not generally a good thing. You may possibly be able to count Baha'i as one of the better new religions though it's still very anti-homosexual.

[YIOSTHEOY]

It's possible for someone to blatantly straight out invent a new religion but what you end up with is something like Scientology or Mormonism the 19th century version of Scientology so it's not generally a good thing. You may possibly be able to count Baha'i as one of the better new religions though it's still very anti-homosexual.

Not everyone likes homosexuality.

[Steve3007]

Not everyone likes apple pie.

[Blake 789]

Not everyone likes homosexuality.

So before two consenting adults can have sex with each other they will have to do a some kind of poll of how many complete strangers 'like it' and if they get more dislikes than likes they will have to abstain?

[Belinda]

(Nested quote removed.)


Yes, but they're still ostensibly representing a reasonably ancient religion, not evangelizing on behalf of a new one, aren't they?

These vipers may claim so but I don't see any correlation.

I was thinking more in terms of the origins of the Catholic Church going back to antiquity and the various schisms spinning off from them -- the Orthodox Church in 1054 AD and the Protestants in 1500 with Luther and Henry 8th.

A minor point this but it was not I who made that comment about tv evangelists. I believe that YIOSTHEOY mixed up LuckyR and me when he paraphrased LuckyR and me, a few posts back . One of my favourite points is the great and influential ethic of the Golden Rule as instituted 800-200BC, median 500BC.

I am not very interested in TV evangelists who are religionists only insofar as they earn their livings from the earnings of other religious people.

[YIOSTHEOY]

(Nested quote removed.)

These vipers may claim so but I don't see any correlation.

I was thinking more in terms of the origins of the Catholic Church going back to antiquity and the various schisms spinning off from them -- the Orthodox Church in 1054 AD and the Protestants in 1500 with Luther and Henry 8th.

A minor point this but it was not I who made that comment about tv evangelists. I believe that YIOSTHEOY mixed up LuckyR and me when he paraphrased LuckyR and me, a few posts back . One of my favourite points is the great and influential ethic of the Golden Rule as instituted 800-200BC, median 500BC.

I am not very interested in TV evangelists who are religionists only insofar as they earn their livings from the earnings of other religious people.

Immanuel Kant is the only philosopher I recall who came up with his own golden rule on a strictly philosophical/ethical basis.

Who are you referring to circa 500 BCE please?

[Belinda]

YEOTHEOY,

Karl Jaspers


http://www.britannica.com/list/the-axia ... fast-facts

[YIOSTHEOY]

YEOTHEOY,

Karl Jaspers


http://www.britannica.com/list/the-axia ... fast-facts

I actually read through all that even though you shifted the burden, however I did not see anything about Jesus' golden rule.

What you may be trying to say is to refer to Buddhist Karma and correlating that with Jesus' golden rule.

While that is not impossible to infer on your part, it is still a stretch. Jesus phrased it quite differently.