Size of a Religion - or Cult

[boatsnguitars]

I have to say, this was the most remarkable, and unintentionally hillarious posts I have read in a long time.

Many religions and denominations take pride, even boast of how large their followers are in numbers and the rate at which they are growing. But the thread of truth that runs throughout the whole of the scriptures is that God has always worked through the minority and never through the majority. This teaches us that when people look at their large numbers and equate that with their reasoning of God working through them, well the Bible teaches quite the opposite.

There are numerous accounts in the Bible which teach this truth, but my favorite is regarding the 400 prophets of Israel who were called to inquire of God whether king Ahab should go into battle and obtain victory or not. And since these 400 prophets were prophets of Israel, and Israel was recognized as the people of God, then surely these 400 prophets were true prophets of God, right? Especially since they all came to the same conclusion and spoke with one voice unto the king saying that God would surely give this king victory. Yet one one man is called to see what God had to say and he told the king that the king would die in battle and that these 400 prophets were false prophets.

But what's more, is that these 400 prophets truly believed that they were true children of God and that the one lone prophet wasn't. This is a tremendous warning to those who find comfort and assurance in the size of their religious group who claim the name of God. Anyone can read this account in 1 Kings 22.

What do you think about God always working through the minority? What do you think about those groups who firmly believe they are the people of God but are in fact not?

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I actually agree with what you’ve written.

Imho, many denominations are in for a rude awakening.

Obviously, this is what you'd say if you believe in a small sect or cult! What a way to justify your belief - that only rare beliefs are true! It's downright, abjectly hillarious! This is "Motivated reasoning" at it's finest.

It's why I think religion damages the brain. Some people actually think this is a justification of why their beliefs may be true! It's patently absurd!

These people vote, possibly raise and teach our children, etc.

No doubt this was preceded by someone from a mega church, or the RCC saying that their sect was more popular - so, instead of simply agreeing, they've decided to use it as an Apologetic.

Isn't this a perfect example of Apologetics? The motivation, the bad logic, etc? To me it is.

[TRANSPONDER]

Something the the answer to Pascal's wager is the 'religious David'. As one has to bet on the religion where one has most to lose if one doesn't chose it and it's right (Islam, really) one has to select the religion that most punches above its' weight.

[Purple Knight]

Something the the answer to Pascal's wager is the 'religious David'. As one has to bet on the religion where one has most to lose if one doesn't chose it and it's right (Islam, really) one has to select the religion that most punches above its' weight.

That's why the Purple Wager is better. It only takes Pascal's Wager and adds the assumption that God is fair, because you can't win with an unfair God anyway. It reduces to something close to deism, where you try your best to be a good person, but a God who didn't prove himself to you personally, doesn't come into it, because the only way for him to expect you to choose him over Borzelgorkadork without personal knowledge, is for him to be unfair.

I present the Purple Wager, which is a pure upgrade to Pascal's Wager, but the conclusion is different. The conclusion is to just be a good person.
If there is a fair god, then he knows he hasn't given proof of his existence, and he won't judge you for picking the wrong religion or not picking any religion, but he might judge you for not being a good person.
If there is no god, then just be a good person. It's the right thing to do anyway.
If there is an unfair god that will punish you for choosing wrong, it is so overwhelmingly likely that you do choose wrong, that there is no point in fretting. If there's an unfair or cryptic god he'll punish you if he pleases, and there's not a thing you can do about it. Ignore him, and just be a good person anyway.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #12]

Which for me led onto the atheist afterlife which supposes that no one religion has the keys to heaven (never mind Matthew) and whatever we get after we die, we all get it, and any good deeds we do here only count here. Good deeds are on the Cosmic scale, truly altruistic in a way that a religion with promises of a better afterlife can never be.

[Clownboat]

I think there is a good point and warning. In Finland we have this saying, often used by atheists when they argue that popularity of Christianity is no good argument for it, "a million flies can't be wrong, *poo is good", which means obviously that it really doesn't matter how many voices say something, they can be all wrong. It would be good to found beliefs on something else than to majority opinion. Or what do you think, should you be a Christian just because a lot of people are?

For flies, the poo is good. Just as for a religious person, the religion they belong to is good.
However...
Not all insects are flies and inclined to poo and not all humans are religious and inclined to religion.

What's crazy to me is we have flies telling the moth that they need poo. Or more precisely, we have the religious telling the non-religious that they need to belong to their specific religion.

[1213]

I think there is a good point and warning. In Finland we have this saying, often used by atheists when they argue that popularity of Christianity is no good argument for it, "a million flies can't be wrong, *poo is good", which means obviously that it really doesn't matter how many voices say something, they can be all wrong. It would be good to found beliefs on something else than to majority opinion. Or what do you think, should you be a Christian just because a lot of people are?

For flies, the poo is good. Just as for a religious person, the religion they belong to is good.
However...
Not all insects are flies and inclined to poo and not all humans are religious and inclined to religion.

What's crazy to me is we have flies telling the moth that they need poo. Or more precisely, we have the religious telling the non-religious that they need to belong to their specific religion.

I agree that it is not the most intelligent saying. But, the point was just to say, popularity doesn't necessary mean that something is good. And also, I don't think you have to belong to any religion.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think there is a good point and warning. In Finland we have this saying, often used by atheists when they argue that popularity of Christianity is no good argument for it, "a million flies can't be wrong, *poo is good", which means obviously that it really doesn't matter how many voices say something, they can be all wrong. It would be good to found beliefs on something else than to majority opinion. Or what do you think, should you be a Christian just because a lot of people are?

For flies, the poo is good. Just as for a religious person, the religion they belong to is good.
However...
Not all insects are flies and inclined to poo and not all humans are religious and inclined to religion.

What's crazy to me is we have flies telling the moth that they need poo. Or more precisely, we have the religious telling the non-religious that they need to belong to their specific religion.

I agree that it is not the most intelligent saying. But, the point was just to say, popularity doesn't necessary mean that something is good. And also, I don't think you have to belong to any religion.

I don't think one has to belong to any religion, either. Which is why the atheist afterlife is better than any religion (apart from cozy self -delusion in this life) because no Just god could impose entry to heaven (never mind hell) on the basis of Right Belief when nobody seems to be able to know which is the right one, anyway.

[Tcg]

I don't think one has to belong to any religion, either. Which is why the atheist afterlife is better than any religion (apart from cozy self -delusion in this life) because no Just god could impose entry to heaven (never mind hell) on the basis of Right Belief when nobody seems to be able to know which is the right one, anyway.

Yes. None of the religions stand out as clearly being the "right one." As we've seen, it certainly can't be decided based on size even if one tries to claim a smaller size points to correctness. I could devise a religion no one would be a member of including myself. You can't get smaller than 0. Clearly size is irrelevant whether one pushes smallness or largeness as an indicator.

One should also not make the mistake of thinking that a branch of Christianity is a separate religion. JWism for instance, is simply a branch of Christianity and thus belongs to the largest religion in the world, at least at the present time. Same with Rastafari even though I used them as a joke of sorts. They too are simply a branch a Christianity.

My religion is the smallest and thus would qualify as the best if smallness were the measure. It's so small I'm not even a member.


Tcg

[1213]

...Which is why the atheist afterlife...

What is atheist afterlife?

is better than any religion (apart from cozy self -delusion in this life) because no Just god could impose entry to heaven (never mind hell) on the basis of Right Belief when nobody seems to be able to know which is the right one, anyway.

Bible promises eternal life only for those who are righteous. I think it is a different matter than just a right belief.

[TRANSPONDER]

In my experience, atheists do not bother about Christian sects and denominations, other than to notice that Christians themselves often seem to consider that being in the wrong sect damns one as being in the wrong religion.

The question of whether any religion is the right one leaves me convinced they are all man -made. Grovelling to gods and handing out gifts to the priests is delusionary. If it makes the individual feel good, that's up to them, but they won't sell this scam to me on the grounds 'I don't know what I'm missing'. They don't know what they are missing with the mental freedom of atheism.

They can try to peddle Christianity as more historically based than the others. It's a fair point. But Islam can say the same. And have the same dismissal - the historical basis might be true, but the religious claim isn't.

Which is where the 'historical evidence' apologetic comes in, and we know how that works. The Faithclaim is taken as the default theory and any evidence that conflicts is simply dismissed on any excuse, or simply Faith. e. g.'That is your opinion'. We have heard that so often.

[Clownboat]

What is atheist afterlife?

Remember what it was like before you were born? I'm going to guess that the atheistic afterlife is much like that, it just applies to after you have died. Same experience though. Sadly, it doesn't leave room for seeing your loved ones when you die or living forever, so I get why placing faith in a religion is preferred by those that are religiously inclined.