New thread so we can remain guilt-free for getting so far off topic.

Tom: "The Shia/Sunni division in Islam is no more cut-and-dried than the Protestant/Catholic division in Christianity."

We can whittle every religion down to its varying sects. But if we break them down to their basic belief systems, the Sunni have fundamental ideas in common. And these fundamental ideas are very different than those of the Shi'ites.

I would say the same for Catholicism and non-Catholic Christian denominations: Many of the fundamental beliefs are different. Way different, even. Christians (the generic, non-Catholic variety) worship Christ. Catholics worship Christ. And Mary. And everyone listed here. (OK, so Mary and the others are only "venerated.")

Perhaps I simply misunderstood your original post about Christianity "spreading itself better than any other religion." I don't understand what "this subset of somewhat-related beliefs is more prevalent than these other subsets of somewhat-related beliefs" says about the relative strength of Christianity.

By numbers linked in the old thread, I think your argument can be made for Catholicism. It is very effective at spreading its Truth. Other denominations of Christianity, however, are less so, but they bulk Catholicism's numbers up considerably. And that's partially why I have a problem with lumping them all together. It makes Christianity seem like this overpowering behemoth, when in reality "Christianity" describes several religions which worship everything from Christ to Joe Smith, and don't get along very well.

-Ron

My best friend is thinking of converting to Catholicism, and he keeps telling me that Catholicism and Christianity aren't as different as everyone thinks they are -- and believe me, he's done his homework. (This is coming from an Assembly of God background, for what it's worth.) Sure, there are the saints, and the sacraments, and sure, they're pretty major -- but, Christianity, by definition, encompasses any denomination founded on the belief that Christ died for all and was resurrected three days later. Catholicism falls under that belief. No matter how you boil it down, that's the foundation for Christianity, and so those numbers are valid.

I'm not sure that other denominations are less good about spreading their truths, but I'll leave that alone, because there's no good way to measure that.

"Christianity, by definition, encompasses any denomination founded on the belief that Christ died for all and was resurrected three days later."

Not really. The LDS (Mormons) believe in the resurrection, and refer to themselves as Christians. I don't know what the Catholics say, but conservative Lutherans don't believe they are. It's mostly because mainstream Christianity holds that God-inspired scripture ends with St. John's book of Revelation in the Bible. The Mormons believe that God spoke directly to Smith and revealed a whole new gospel message. This is especially problematic for conservative Lutherans because the Book of Mormon contains ideas that are contrary to the Bible. Conservative Lutherans hold as truth that all scripture is the inspired word of God and does not contradict itself.

Mormonism is VERY different from Christianity, once you get to an in depth level of understanding (although the LDS has a tremendously effective PR department with the goal of positioning Mormonism as "another Christian religion.") Very fundamental differences include the belief that works are the path to salvation, the whole Joseph Smith story, Jesus being the son of a physical sexual union between God and Mary, God being Adam, the belief that if you are good enough you and your family become gods and get your own world to rule (hey, just like a computer game!) and much more.

>foundation for Christianity, and so those numbers are valid

Out of curiousity - and certainly without judgement of the relative merits of any belief system - how are the numbers which were quoted in the other thread determined? They seem completely out of whack with what I'd expect.

I presume they are not determined by asking individuals as to their beliefs (let alone attendance at a place of worship), but are calculated based upon some aggregators - ethnicity or nationality, perhaps. Although if that was the case, why aren't there more than a billion Buddhists, for instance, given the populations of China, Japan, Indonesia and other SE Asian countries? Why aren't the Hindu numbers larger, given the population of India?

Even if there are more people who, when asked, state that they are "christian" as opposed to any other belief system, I suspect the relevance of that belief system is pretty minimal for many, if not most, respondents. The influence of principles espoused in Islamic belief, for instance, would seem to have a considerably more prounounced impact upon the lifestyles and general behaviour of its believers, for instance, especially since many Islamic cultures don't recognize the political separation of church and state which is so fundamental to most (almost all?) predominately christian countries. In fact, I think it's difficult to effectively argue that Islam isn't the most influential belief system in today's world.

Stefan

"I'm not sure that other denominations are less good about spreading their truths, but I'll leave that alone, because there's no good way to measure that."

My statement wasn't meant as a value judgment, but as a reference to the numbers listed here, linked in the previous thread. According to these numbers, Catholics make up over half of the Christian population, with all other denominations making up the rest of these numbers. Catholicism is more popular, hence it's better at spreading its truths according to the statement that spurred us off on this whole tangent.

What's fascinating to me is the sources for these numbers. These are cited as being from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, most likely a secondary source. These (very similar numbers) were "prepared by" the World Christian Encyclopedia, which would seem to cast some doubt on their accuracy.

Stefan: "why aren't there more than a billion Buddhists?"

I'm also curious as to why their aren't more Buddhists in the tallies linked above. Is it because Buddhism wasn't recognized in Communist China?

-Ron

When I was in China a while ago, what I observed was that most of the Chinese didn't seem to profess any real religious affiliation. There was a lot of what I would call "ancestor worship" - worship is probably the wrong word, I suppose "extreme reverence" may be more precise. Lots of offering gifts to statues representing ancestors, belief that passed on ancestors would somehow look out for you, etc. Not at all Buddhist in nature.

Of course, what I saw was a VERY small snaphot of China.

Just a one off on Catholicism - I think with the influences South America is having on mainline Catholicism, it's going to start disagreeing more and more with "Christianity."

Modern Catholics, especially in South America, seem to spend a lot more time worrying and thinking about Mary than they do Jesus or any other of the heavy hitters. I'm betting longterm that Mary's going to become more important than the son of god in the system for socialogical reasons - she's the *mother* of the son of god, which kind of makes her god's wife, and we all know the stereotypes and wife/mothers and hispanic culture.

Not that I'm an expert, but I have seen how much Catholics scare Southern Baptists. He he.

>>I'm betting longterm that Mary's going to become more important than the son of god in the system for socialogical reasons...

Maybe in South America things will move a little more in that direction, but I doubt it'll have much impact on Catholicism worldwide. If there's one thing the Catholic Church has been very good at is keeping things consistent and not letting one specific geographical area overly influence the Church's positions. Catholics from the US, for example, have tried to influence the official Church position on a number of issues without much success.

However, there can be regional differences in how Mass, etc. is handled. I used to live in Nebraska and Mass there is quite different from Mass here in Berkeley. Mass here is much more laid back (at least at the church my wife and I attend) with a lot more interaction between the congregation and the priest.

--Billy

"Maybe in South America things will move a little more in that direction, but I doubt it'll have much impact on Catholicism worldwide."

There is a movement within the Catholic Church to declare Mary sort of 'co-redemptress' with Jesus, and a request has been made of the Pope to declare her thus (making it part of irrefutable theology). I don't know how large this movement is, but it would not be good for the Catholic church in the U.S. Enough of their members disagree with Catholic doctrine already. Will it eventually happen? Probably not, because it flies in the face of the three Creeds (Nicene, Apostolic, and Athenasian). However, who knows?

It would be interesting to see the figures on "practising" Christians as opposed to those who are Christians by "default", ie. their parents religion.

I know here in Australia attendance by traditional church-goers is falling. But numbers of attendance by non-denominational Christians - so called born again Christians - is increasing.

If I find some facts and figures I will post them here.

Lifelong practicing Mormon here...

Jeff: "Mormonism is VERY different from Christianity"

It depends on your definition of Christianity, but I'll agree that this is generally true. We say we're Christians because we worship Christ, but there are many areas where we diverge with traditional Christianity, as you've mentioned.

"Very fundamental differences include...Jesus being the son of a physical sexual union between God and Mary"

I've never heard this before. Do you have a source?

"God being Adam"

Brigham Young made this assertion in several mid-1800s speeches he gave, but it has never been adopted as church doctrine. The official church position is that Adam and God are separate beings (see http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-10,00.html for details).

""Very fundamental differences include...Jesus being the son of a physical sexual union between God and Mary"

I've never heard this before. Do you have a source?

Yes, several writings of Brigham Young and some later official church writings. If you're interested, I'll pull out some of the specific references. Also, I have a video interview with the official church spokesman from about 5 years ago - don't recall his name - and he states this belief, so I assume it has remained an official church belief.

>[Ron] ...numbers were "prepared by" the World Christian Encyclopedia, which would seem to cast some doubt on their accuracy

I agree -- I viewed them skeptically, and so I did some digging of my own, and these stats appear more reliable: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Similar trends to the other numbers, but some notable differences, such as Hinduism getting a higher ranking. The page provides some interesting reading on this topic in general, as well as a ton of good links to related articles and sites, if anyone is interested.

Stefan

'Scientology: 750 thousand'

This seems *really* high. Am I supposed to believe one person in 400 in the U.S. (the only real power base of the "religion") is a Hubbardite?

'Scientology: 750 thousand'

Wow - every estimate I've ever seen has that number as much, much smaller. It has never been marketed to the masses, rather it is primarily a "rich man's" 'religion'.

There are a lot of documents that demonstrate how Scientology inflates their membership numbers (and not just the "anti-Scientology" web pages.) For example, they will count everyone who has ever been convinced to take a Scientology class as a member, even though almost all of these folks pay their money, get the course, then never come back. Top Scientology officials claim membership of about 6.5 million; but they include everyone who has ever attended a Dianetics lecture and they never drop the number for the drop-outs (estimated to be a very high percentage.) I've seen numbers where people try to guesstimate the numbers from financial records, with a guess of about 50,000 active members. I've read a few articles from ex-members who (and this is a rarity) don't seem to have a huge axe to grind who and who were involved in media relations who say that everyone who attends a lecture, etc. is counted and that number is in the millions, but they suspect the number of REAL members, active members, is in the range of 10,000 to 50,000.

FWIW

On the subject of Scientology, there's a poorly-written but interesting book by a former member with a very large chip on his shoulder.

A Piece of Blue Sky

Also, here's a great site with a similar agenda:

Operation Clambake

-Ron

'Top Scientology officials claim membership of about 6.5 million'

Ahahahahahaha.

I could see there being 6 or 7 million scientologists. People frequently follow the lead of celebrities, and it seems like there are quite a lot of famous scientologissts.

>I could see there being 6 or 7 million scientologists. People frequently follow the lead of celebrities, and it seems like there are quite a lot of famous scientologissts.

Absolutely. The number didn't seem at all out of whack to me when you consider the millions of Tom Cruise fans and the 117 John Travolta fans.

Stefan

There's so many celebrity Scientologists because they blow all their 'donations' on special centers in LA.

As far as the relative numbers go: have you *ever* met a Scientologist? Has anyone you know ever done so? I can't answer yes to either.

"I could see there being 6 or 7 million scientologists. People frequently follow the lead of celebrities, and it seems like there are quite a lot of famous scientologissts."

No way. Have you ever seen there belief system? It's whacko. It's like bad sci-fi movie on MST3K. I can't believe 6.5 million people are that.. weird.

"have you *ever* met a Scientologist?"

I grew up in LA (which seems to be the epicenter of Scientological activity), so I knew quite a few. I knew even more children of Scientologists.

"Have you ever seen there belief system? It's whacko."

Well, any belief system can be seen as strange, especially if you don't have it ingrained as a valid philosophy at an early age. Scientology's mythology is very different than your typical religion (it's similar to gnosticism, but with a more sci-fi angle). And so it seems crazy. It isn't rooted in the traditional idea of the enlightened teacher who roamed the Earth thousands of years ago. Instead, it's based on an enlightened teacher who also wrote Battlefield Earth.

Part of what makes faith interesting to me is that people will accept things that are, at their core, hard to believe. That's not a criticism. This fact makes Scientology even more interesting to me because its adherents are willing to believe something that is very new and involves tyrannical aliens and UFOs.

You could just as easily criticize Christianity or Islam (esp. the Nation of... variety) for outlandish beliefs. But I don't think it's valid. People have faith in these things, it gives them happiness, and they may very well be right. I'm not going to judge them just because I don't believe.

However, I will judge Scientology for being a bunch of scary, sue-happy, totalitarian freaks.

-Ron

'I grew up in LA (which seems to be the epicenter of Scientological activity), so I knew quite a few. I knew even more children of Scientologists.'

Wow, that's amazing. Not as amazing as Hubbard's source material, but still.

Anyone remember that Oliver Stone produced mini-series Wild Palms? The graphic novel? An interesting near-future take on a Scientology-like religion...

I've met one scientologist in my 26 years. He was one of my Chem. Engr. profs back in college, always spouting off some health nonsense. He also had a habit of giving a copy of "Dyanetics" to some of the students.

"I could see there being 6 or 7 million scientologists. People frequently follow the lead of celebrities, and it seems like there are quite a lot of famous scientologissts."

Here's the problem: you're a Travolta fan, you hear him talking about how "Scientology works." You live in Canton, Ohio. It's not like you just bop down to the Scientology church next Sunday morning. You end up, perhaps, reading Dianetics. OK, cool, sounds kinda like a lot of the old Wayne Dyer psychobabble (people like psychobabble.) Doesn't sound at all like a religion, of course. You find a lecture being given somewhere and attend it (and you have to sign in - I went to one just as part of studying this stuff.) Now you have been counted on the rolls as a Scientologist. You listen to the lecture, and it's a lot of talking about mental health and stuff, and enlightenment. Next stage is a class, that costs some bucks. Eventually they want you to go in a room and be interviewed (the first step of a gazillion to being "cleared", the ultimate goal, each step costing more than the one before) while attached to what look like tin cans connected to a galvanometer. They want you to answer extremely intimate and potentially embarrasing questions. They also let you know that they must record and keep all of your answers.

According to the data I've seen, by this stage they lose about 99% of folks. Welll before the upper stages where you are introduced to the storage stations on other planets where Thetans live and are shot down to inhabit bodies, the intergalactic councils that are the basis of all of this, etc. (not making any of this up, it's all in Hubbard's books.)

This may be apocryphal but I had heard that the origin of Dianetics and, later, Scientology, grew out of a bet that Hubbard made with his Sci-Fi writing buddies (including AE van Vogt)concerning whether he could create his own religion. Sounds like something Hubbard would have done...

Russell Miller's Bare-Faced Messiah is a fascinating (and unauthorized) look at this troubled man.

Miller quotes an ex-Scientologist who said of Hubbard: "He was a mixture of Adolf Hitler, Charlie Chaplin and Baron Munchhausen. In short, he was a con man."

A got this link from Pournelle's page:

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/scientology/start.a.religion.html

Not as funny as the bar bet story, but he still said it.

"the first step of a gazillion to being "cleared", the ultimate goal"

Didn't clear stop being the ultimate goal once a bunch of people made it? The OT levels (in which you learn to move cups with your brain, and, I think, fly) are for those who get clear. And they are expensive. Supposedly, OT9 will be released this year.

More: According to a memo which may or may not be real, you learn that Hubbard was the antichrist at OT8.

-Ron

Is it just me, or is Scientology pretty much 1-to-1 what'd you expect turning AD&D into a religion would result in?

'Dude! I have a +5 saving throw vs. clams due to my status as an OT7!'

"No way. Have you ever seen there belief system? It's whacko. It's like bad sci-fi movie on MST3K. I can't believe 6.5 million people are that.. weird. "

I saw Springer a couple of times. After finding out how popular that show is, I can easily belive how wierd people can be.

I have no idea how many scientologists there are, BTW. I'm just saying that after we've seen Hitler, McCarthy, Jones and how ever many else just in the last century, I'm not one to bet against the whackos (or Wacos, if you prefer).

There's actually a church of Scientology here in Tulsa. Right smack-dab in the middle of the Bible-belt. I assume that they have members, but can't confirm for certain.

It's kinda funny -- there's always "The First Church of Christ" and the "First Church of..." for every other denomination around here, but...

We have "The Seventh Church of the Scientologists." Are they actually counting?

"We have "The Seventh Church of the
Scientologists." Are they actually counting?"

Just the money... just the money...

"Just the money... just the money... "

*laugh*