Types of religion

[achilles12604]

I was thinking . . . .dangerous I know. There seems to me to be at least two types of religions. Those that profit the creator either financially or powerfully, and those that do not profit, and in some cases harm, the originator.

In the first category would be religions like Scientology, Mormonism, and possibly Islam.

In the second would be Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity.


Now if someone has financial gain from starting their religion, then the validity of the religion is in question well before they ever start to defend it because the motivation for beginning the religion could simply be a desire to dupe those around them and gain great wealth.

So my first question, are there other categories to be considered for the creation of other religions? What would the impact be on their validity due to these other categories?

Basically, what reasons are there for starting a religion?

[pwsoldier]

For starters, I would definately put Christianity in the first category rather than the second.

This topic is a tricky one because, realistically, all organized religions are going to have some type of system in place for collecting money to support their operational needs. The major difference then is between the profiteers and the religions who use the funds soley for legitimate funding of their respective ministries.

That being said, I think it's important to look at what these churches are spending their money on. For example, I know from experience that the LDS (mormon) church doesn't turn a dime of profit from the money it collects. All of it goes towards church projects, regional budgets, missionary efforts, or humanitarian charities. I imagine some of the smaller Protestant sects of Christianity are probably the same. One does have to wonder, however, about the lavishness of the Vatican and the luxuries that some Southern Baptist ministers enjoy. And I think it goes without saying that Scientology is almost entirely a profit-oriented religion.

I don't know much about the administrative structures of the Eastern religions, but I think you're right about them being less profit-oriented. I think that's why non-theist Asian religions like Buddhism and Taoism are gaining popularity in the West. People are tired of having collecting plates shoved in their faces every week.

To answer your first question, no, I don't think there are other categories. Religions are either created for the sole purpose of gaining profit, or they aren't. That's not to say that some religions that fall into the second category aren't going to end up turning a profit just because they didn't originally intend to. Public reception is a hard thing to estimate. That being said, I don't think a religion's ability to make a profit has much of an impact on that religion's credibility. There will always be outside observers who will be skeptical of Father Bob's financial intentions, but that doesn't mean that his pews are going to be any less full on Sunday. When people go to church, they usually look at the message, not the budget of that church, which is a shame.

To answer the second question, religions that aren't created soley for profit are created for the purpose of answering questions that aren't answered by the religions already in existence, or at least to give better answers than the ones already provided. There's always going to be people who feel that no religion can explain our existence properly, and if those people are able to create their own set of beliefs and sell it to the public, then voila! A new religion emerges.

[Goat]

I was thinking . . . .dangerous I know. There seems to me to be at least two types of religions. Those that profit the creator either financially or powerfully, and those that do not profit, and in some cases harm, the originator.

In the first category would be religions like Scientology, Mormonism, and possibly Islam.

In the second would be Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity.


Now if someone has financial gain from starting their religion, then the validity of the religion is in question well before they ever start to defend it because the motivation for beginning the religion could simply be a desire to dupe those around them and gain great wealth.

So my first question, are there other categories to be considered for the creation of other religions? What would the impact be on their validity due to these other categories?

Basically, what reasons are there for starting a religion?

I don't count "Christianity" as in the second category per say. If you look at the televangelists, the Vatican, the lavish life styles of SOME Southern Baptist ministers, PTL was called 'Pass the Loot' for a good reason, it seems that there are many people who are willing to fleece the faithful.

Since there are congregations that do meet the ideal of the second, rather than the
fact of the first, I would say there should be a category between, where their is the ideal, but the faith of the believers have been taken advantage of by opportunists.
I think that Christianity and the way it has been set up is very vulnerable to that.

[achilles12604]

I was thinking . . . .dangerous I know. There seems to me to be at least two types of religions. Those that profit the creator either financially or powerfully, and those that do not profit, and in some cases harm, the originator.

In the first category would be religions like Scientology, Mormonism, and possibly Islam.

In the second would be Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity.


Now if someone has financial gain from starting their religion, then the validity of the religion is in question well before they ever start to defend it because the motivation for beginning the religion could simply be a desire to dupe those around them and gain great wealth.

So my first question, are there other categories to be considered for the creation of other religions? What would the impact be on their validity due to these other categories?

Basically, what reasons are there for starting a religion?

I don't count "Christianity" as in the second category per say. If you look at the televangelists, the Vatican, the lavish life styles of SOME Southern Baptist ministers, PTL was called 'Pass the Loot' for a good reason, it seems that there are many people who are willing to fleece the faithful.

Since there are congregations that do meet the ideal of the second, rather than the
fact of the first, I would say there should be a category between, where their is the ideal, but the faith of the believers have been taken advantage of by opportunists.
I think that Christianity and the way it has been set up is very vulnerable to that.

PWSOLDIER and GOAT,

You both said similar things concerning Christianity being in the first catagory. While this is off topic, I expected it to be brought up. So allow me to ask you a question so you can prove that Christianity is in fact in the first catagory.


What did Paul, or any of the apostles gain from preaching Christianity, other than abuse, social isolation and possibly even death?

If you can show that the originators of Christianity did in fact gain financial or social power, then yes, Christianity does belong in the other catagory. If not, then your comments are incorrect.

[pwsoldier]

I was thinking . . . .dangerous I know. There seems to me to be at least two types of religions. Those that profit the creator either financially or powerfully, and those that do not profit, and in some cases harm, the originator.

In the first category would be religions like Scientology, Mormonism, and possibly Islam.

In the second would be Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity.


Now if someone has financial gain from starting their religion, then the validity of the religion is in question well before they ever start to defend it because the motivation for beginning the religion could simply be a desire to dupe those around them and gain great wealth.

So my first question, are there other categories to be considered for the creation of other religions? What would the impact be on their validity due to these other categories?

Basically, what reasons are there for starting a religion?

I don't count "Christianity" as in the second category per say. If you look at the televangelists, the Vatican, the lavish life styles of SOME Southern Baptist ministers, PTL was called 'Pass the Loot' for a good reason, it seems that there are many people who are willing to fleece the faithful.

Since there are congregations that do meet the ideal of the second, rather than the
fact of the first, I would say there should be a category between, where their is the ideal, but the faith of the believers have been taken advantage of by opportunists.
I think that Christianity and the way it has been set up is very vulnerable to that.

PWSOLDIER and GOAT,

You both said similar things concerning Christianity being in the first catagory. While this is off topic, I expected it to be brought up. So allow me to ask you a question so you can prove that Christianity is in fact in the first catagory.


What did Paul, or any of the apostles gain from preaching Christianity, other than abuse, social isolation and possibly even death?

If you can show that the originators of Christianity did in fact gain financial or social power, then yes, Christianity does belong in the other catagory. If not, then your comments are incorrect.

I see your point, and you're right about Christianity being an underdog religion with nothing to gain when it was founded. However, these days it's difficult to look at Christianity in a singular sense with so many seperate denominations with every-increasing differences. For instance, Southern fundamentalists believe in Rapture doctrine, while some Catholics and Orthodox Christians I've talked to believe such teachings to be heresy. The way I see it, Christianity is no longer an all-encompassing term. I firmly believe many of today's Christian denominations have secular agendas in their origins. Catholicism was hijacked by the Romans, at the time the most powerful civilization in the world. The Roman Catholic church was made the official religion of the empire. If the church hadn't received an imperial endorsement, it's quite likely that it would have eventually been wiped out. The Reformationists had various reasons for breaking away from the Catholic church, ranging from power stuggles to doctrinal issues to the failed marriage of Henry VIII that led to the creation of the Anglican church. Some modern Protestant denominations seem to spend more time and energy criticizing other religions, to include other Christian denominations, than they do on constructive worship.

Basically what I'm trying to say here is that while the early Christian church may have faced persecution with virtually nothing gained, it's hard to find any elements of that church in modern Christianity. The way I see it, the church that was formed by Christ, led by Peter, and spread by Paul is extinct. It is for this reason that I believe that Christianity belongs in the category of profiteers and power-seekers.

[achilles12604]

I was thinking . . . .dangerous I know. There seems to me to be at least two types of religions. Those that profit the creator either financially or powerfully, and those that do not profit, and in some cases harm, the originator.

In the first category would be religions like Scientology, Mormonism, and possibly Islam.

In the second would be Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity.


Now if someone has financial gain from starting their religion, then the validity of the religion is in question well before they ever start to defend it because the motivation for beginning the religion could simply be a desire to dupe those around them and gain great wealth.

So my first question, are there other categories to be considered for the creation of other religions? What would the impact be on their validity due to these other categories?

Basically, what reasons are there for starting a religion?

I don't count "Christianity" as in the second category per say. If you look at the televangelists, the Vatican, the lavish life styles of SOME Southern Baptist ministers, PTL was called 'Pass the Loot' for a good reason, it seems that there are many people who are willing to fleece the faithful.

Since there are congregations that do meet the ideal of the second, rather than the
fact of the first, I would say there should be a category between, where their is the ideal, but the faith of the believers have been taken advantage of by opportunists.
I think that Christianity and the way it has been set up is very vulnerable to that.

PWSOLDIER and GOAT,

You both said similar things concerning Christianity being in the first catagory. While this is off topic, I expected it to be brought up. So allow me to ask you a question so you can prove that Christianity is in fact in the first catagory.


What did Paul, or any of the apostles gain from preaching Christianity, other than abuse, social isolation and possibly even death?

If you can show that the originators of Christianity did in fact gain financial or social power, then yes, Christianity does belong in the other catagory. If not, then your comments are incorrect.

I see your point, and you're right about Christianity being an underdog religion with nothing to gain when it was founded. However, these days it's difficult to look at Christianity in a singular sense with so many seperate denominations with every-increasing differences. For instance, Southern fundamentalists believe in Rapture doctrine, while some Catholics and Orthodox Christians I've talked to believe such teachings to be heresy. The way I see it, Christianity is no longer an all-encompassing term. I firmly believe many of today's Christian denominations have secular agendas in their origins. Catholicism was hijacked by the Romans, at the time the most powerful civilization in the world. The Roman Catholic church was made the official religion of the empire. If the church hadn't received an imperial endorsement, it's quite likely that it would have eventually been wiped out. The Reformationists had various reasons for breaking away from the Catholic church, ranging from power stuggles to doctrinal issues to the failed marriage of Henry VIII that led to the creation of the Anglican church. Some modern Protestant denominations seem to spend more time and energy criticizing other religions, to include other Christian denominations, than they do on constructive worship.

Basically what I'm trying to say here is that while the early Christian church may have faced persecution with virtually nothing gained, it's hard to find any elements of that church in modern Christianity. The way I see it, the church that was formed by Christ, led by Peter, and spread by Paul is extinct. It is for this reason that I believe that Christianity belongs in the category of profiteers and power-seekers.

And I grant fully that you are correct about modern Christianity. Actually your evaluation would be correct all the way back to within 300 years of its founding. However, the OP is regarding the founding of religions. This is a critical variable when reading the point I was making.

Now that we are on the same page, are there any other catagories for religions?

[pwsoldier]

I was thinking . . . .dangerous I know. There seems to me to be at least two types of religions. Those that profit the creator either financially or powerfully, and those that do not profit, and in some cases harm, the originator.

In the first category would be religions like Scientology, Mormonism, and possibly Islam.

In the second would be Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity.


Now if someone has financial gain from starting their religion, then the validity of the religion is in question well before they ever start to defend it because the motivation for beginning the religion could simply be a desire to dupe those around them and gain great wealth.

So my first question, are there other categories to be considered for the creation of other religions? What would the impact be on their validity due to these other categories?

Basically, what reasons are there for starting a religion?

I don't count "Christianity" as in the second category per say. If you look at the televangelists, the Vatican, the lavish life styles of SOME Southern Baptist ministers, PTL was called 'Pass the Loot' for a good reason, it seems that there are many people who are willing to fleece the faithful.

Since there are congregations that do meet the ideal of the second, rather than the
fact of the first, I would say there should be a category between, where their is the ideal, but the faith of the believers have been taken advantage of by opportunists.
I think that Christianity and the way it has been set up is very vulnerable to that.

PWSOLDIER and GOAT,

You both said similar things concerning Christianity being in the first catagory. While this is off topic, I expected it to be brought up. So allow me to ask you a question so you can prove that Christianity is in fact in the first catagory.


What did Paul, or any of the apostles gain from preaching Christianity, other than abuse, social isolation and possibly even death?

If you can show that the originators of Christianity did in fact gain financial or social power, then yes, Christianity does belong in the other catagory. If not, then your comments are incorrect.

I see your point, and you're right about Christianity being an underdog religion with nothing to gain when it was founded. However, these days it's difficult to look at Christianity in a singular sense with so many seperate denominations with every-increasing differences. For instance, Southern fundamentalists believe in Rapture doctrine, while some Catholics and Orthodox Christians I've talked to believe such teachings to be heresy. The way I see it, Christianity is no longer an all-encompassing term. I firmly believe many of today's Christian denominations have secular agendas in their origins. Catholicism was hijacked by the Romans, at the time the most powerful civilization in the world. The Roman Catholic church was made the official religion of the empire. If the church hadn't received an imperial endorsement, it's quite likely that it would have eventually been wiped out. The Reformationists had various reasons for breaking away from the Catholic church, ranging from power struggles to doctrinal issues to the failed marriage of Henry VIII that led to the creation of the Anglican church. Some modern Protestant denominations seem to spend more time and energy criticizing other religions, to include other Christian denominations, than they do on constructive worship.

Basically what I'm trying to say here is that while the early Christian church may have faced persecution with virtually nothing gained, it's hard to find any elements of that church in modern Christianity. The way I see it, the church that was formed by Christ, led by Peter, and spread by Paul is extinct. It is for this reason that I believe that Christianity belongs in the category of profiteers and power-seekers.

And I grant fully that you are correct about modern Christianity. Actually your evaluation would be correct all the way back to within 300 years of its founding. However, the OP is regarding the founding of religions. This is a critical variable when reading the point I was making.

Now that we are on the same page, are there any other catagories for religions?

Understood. I would then suggest a third category for religions that started off with good intentions, then got derailed by the corruption and greed of the ruling elite. This would account for the origins of Christianity in addition to its later development. Islam and Judaism could arguably be included in this category as well, Islam for its Jihad faction, and Judaism for its militant nationalism. I propose this as an additional category because I think its important to look at the entire history of religions, not just their origins. After all, if a well-meaning religion is able to be hijacked by those who worship money and power, then what does that tell us about that religion?

[carolineislands]

I think it's important to point out that your criteria for discussion was that the religion profited the "creator," which I'll assume you mean the founder. In which case Islam would be in the first catagory but Chrisitianity would not. However, if you're talking about if the propagation of the religion is profiting the practitioners, well Christianity would DEFINITELY be in that group! The Vatican and the gold trimmed chairs on TBN being good examples of that. The spread of Islam gained Mohammad a LOT of power and wealth. Whereas Jesus was intentionally simple and lived a humble life. Different motive, perhaps.

The present day practitioners? Maybe they fight so much because they're cut from the same cloth.

Except the Buddists, Sikhs, Amish, Quakers, etc... Who are after neither power OR wealth, nor were their founders.

[achilles12604]

I think it's important to point out that your criteria for discussion was that the religion profited the "creator," which I'll assume you mean the founder. In which case Islam would be in the first catagory but Chrisitianity would not. However, if you're talking about if the propagation of the religion is profiting the practitioners, well Christianity would DEFINITELY be in that group! The Vatican and the gold trimmed chairs on TBN being good examples of that. The spread of Islam gained Mohammad a LOT of power and wealth. Whereas Jesus was intentionally simple and lived a humble life. Different motive, perhaps.

The present day practitioners? Maybe they fight so much because they're cut from the same cloth.

Except the Buddists, Sikhs, Amish, Quakers, etc... Who are after neither power OR wealth, nor were their founders.

No I want to focus on the founders for the very specific reason that if the founder didn't gain, then that particular motivation for creating the religion is gone, which narrows down the plausibility of them being truthful just a little bit. This is the purpose of the excercise.

Hubbard was probably not very truthful for example, because he created a religion which was designed to gain him tremendous wealth. So greed and lust for money, would be included in the possible reasons for its founding. Siddhartha on the other hand can not be placed under similar suspicion since to found his religion, he had to abandon royal status.

[Antagonist]

I was thinking . . . .dangerous I know. There seems to me to be at least two types of religions. Those that profit the creator either financially or powerfully, and those that do not profit, and in some cases harm, the originator.

In the first category would be religions like Scientology, Mormonism, and possibly Islam.

In the second would be Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity.


Now if someone has financial gain from starting their religion, then the validity of the religion is in question well before they ever start to defend it because the motivation for beginning the religion could simply be a desire to dupe those around them and gain great wealth.

So my first question, are there other categories to be considered for the creation of other religions? What would the impact be on their validity due to these other categories?

Basically, what reasons are there for starting a religion?

technically Christianity belongs to type 1 since the catholics have been getting a lot of money out of their religion (the curches). Also think about Jehovas witness ('would you like to give a donatio...' 'NO!! GTFO!' *closes door* *Jehove puts his foot so you cant close the door* * reaches for axe*)
uhm anyway...

Jesus himself didnt profit but the churches really did.