In the case of Buddhism it seems Buddha made a new observation and so as he shared this idea with people they found it was useful and a movement formed. But, what about Mormonism or Islam what have they advanced over that of just Xianity? In other words, why would people choose to join something if it's already propagating an ideology that presently exists?
Siddhartha took the current Brahman philosophy, based on the Vedas, and pointed out where he thought it was lacking.
Jesus took the current Jewish philosophy, based on the Tanakh, and pointed out where he thought it was lacking.
Joseph Smith took the current Christian philosophy, based on the Bible, and pointed out where he thought it was lacking.
Mohammed took the current Judeo-Christian philosophy, based on the Bible, and pointed out where he thought it was lacking.
I was thinking, the draw card for Mormon's would be "America". Even though it wasn't new ideology, it was something that happened in America and so naturally Americans could feel drawn to it on the sense of Nationality. Likewise, Arabs had been waiting for an Arab prophet for a long time, so, even if Islam served up essentially the same message - it could be propagated as a national movement.
But it is more than that, both these men were believed to be prophets with a direct link to God - a sort of cult of personality.
There were also a lot of differences in what they taught.
Joseph Smith not only taught that Jesus came to America, but that families are reunited in the afterlife and man is capable of essentially creating his own world and achieving a God-like status in the afterlife - among other things.
This can be very appealing and is drastically different from mainstream Christian beliefs.
What Mohammed taught also veered pretty far from mainstream Judeo-Christian thought.
The Jews had no clear vision of Heaven.
Jesus' vision of heaven was not entirely clear, but was one of spitirtual bliss and peace.
Mohammed's vision of heaven was one of sensual, worldy pleasures.
Joseph Smith's vision of heaven was one of family and creation.
While they may come from the same roots and share many of the same messages, where they
do differ, they differ vastly.
In the case of Scientology. It might make more sense. This idea that Alien's exit is not all that far fetched. Actually, many scientists seem to agree that odds are there is life out there, somewhere. However, they also have a bunch of superstition wrapped in there as well.
I know very little about Scientology, other than Hubbard was a novel writer and made a drunken bet one night that he could create a religion that people will follow and it will make him rich.
Couldn't we have a green movement irrespective of religion? I mean, I'm not religous but I support a healthier planet.
Of course, and we do have many of them.
I, for one, am grateful for the Green God movements.
Genesis states that the world was created for man and he holds dominion over it and should subdue it.
I have known many American Christiians who take that as meaning the world is our sandbox and we can do anythng we wish with it.
It is refreshing to see religious leaders take some responsibility to try anfd change that attitude and man's role to more of a custodian over God's gift.
