Comparative-religion Statistics?

[smkolins]

I was wondering if a summary of the self-declared religious affiliation of the members could be shared? Percentage roughly christian... etc.? For example if there is a Zoroastrian section I wonder if there are Zoroastrians present or does this represent an out reach effort?

[dayaa]

hello
i'll be a statistic
nominally muslim (but searching)

[smkolins]

I looked through the membership list but many people's taglines say something other than what religion they are members of (or philosophical pov they hold.)

[InLove]

Hi, and Peace To All Here--

I think the reason this is true is that many people may not want to be defined by a label that can so easily lead to preconceptions. For example, if I say I am a Christian (which I am), that may paint a certain picture in the mind of someone else--they may think of me as a right-wing fundamentalist, or they may think of me as Catholic--you see, I am neither. (LOL--I attempted to take the test that some have been taking here in CR about determining one's religion, and I found that the questions themselves did not describe me very well, so I gave up. )

Also, I think there may be lots of people here who are truly undecided--and this may be why they are here in the first place.

Anyway, this is my feeble attempt to answer a good question.

InPeace,
InLove

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by InLove

Hi, and Peace To All Here--

I think the reason this is true is that many people may not want to be defined by a label that can so easily lead to preconceptions. For example, if I say I am a Christian (which I am), that may paint a certain picture in the mind of someone else--they may think of me as a right-wing fundamentalist, or they may think of me as Catholic--you see, I am neither. (LOL--I attempted to take the test that some have been taking here in CR about determining one's religion, and I found that the questions themselves did not describe me very well, so I gave up. )

Also, I think there may be lots of people here who are truly undecided--and this may be why they are here in the first place.

Anyway, this is my feeble attempt to answer a good question.

InPeace,
InLove

I understand. But conversation can spring from this - or even with surprises. I would actually prefer a finer division of understanding but that may entail a need to explain - which indeed would be cool. I get easily lost among the Christian denomitions for example past one or two subdivisions.

But to a Christian of one of the denominations I would ask have you ever much thought of the history of Christianity and how for a very long time there were no substantial denominations? There were attempts but they pretty much all failed for about a thousand years for example. Now it seems like I'm hearing about new divisions every year.... If you care to express a pov I'ld be interested.

And for those that search, between or within a religion, it can be enlightenting because people can questions more pointedly about specifics.

[InLove]

Hi, and Peace to All--

Originally Posted by smkolins

I understand. But conversation can spring from this - or even with surprises. I would actually prefer a finer division of understanding but that may entail a need to explain - which indeed would be cool. I get easily lost among the Christian denomitions for example past one or two subdivisions.

I do see what you mean. Diversity is part of what makes for interesting and often enlightening conversation. I too am often confused by the various sects and denominations of different religions, including Christianity.

Originally Posted by smkolins

But to a Christian of one of the denominations I would ask have you ever much thought of the history of Christianity and how for a very long time there were no substantial denominations? There were attempts but they pretty much all failed for about a thousand years for example. Now it seems like I'm hearing about new divisions every year.... If you care to express a pov I'ld be interested.

I have to admit that, while history fascinates me, and I try my best to understand its lessons and meanings, I have only recently begun to grasp it when applied specifically to religion. I feel I am relatively uneducated in this area at present, even though I may be able to contribute in some ways. However, there are some others here in the forum who do seem to know quite a bit in the area of religious history, and perhaps they might be better equipped to address your questions. Is there a particular denomination you would like to start with--that might help get the ball rolling, so to speak.

InPeace,
InLove

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by InLove

Hi, and Peace to All--

I do see what you mean. Diversity is part of what makes for interesting and often enlightening conversation. I too am often confused by the various sects and denominations of different religions, including Christianity..... Is there a particular denomination you would like to start with--that might help get the ball rolling, so to speak.

InPeace,
InLove

Well I'm mildly familiar with Arius and Nestorius - authors of attempts at splits very early but largely failures as I understand it. The next I know if Catholic/Orthodx in 1054. I know Coptic is somewhere early on but has always been a very small group? Then Luther in 1500's? Then Episcopal? No clue on Baptist. Anglican was set by Henry VIII'th? No clue on Lutheran - related to Martin Luther?? Then there is Methodist? Wesleyian...

[InLove]

Hi, Peace to All--

I may be able to help with Baptist history--I have done some in-depth studies in the past--it can get rather confusing, and I will need to find those books and papers in order to add anything of worth. I'll do that as soon as possible--got a project I have to wrap up first. I might also be able to add something in the area of Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian history.

I'll try--even though I know there are others with more knowledge in these areas. Maybe you will get some input from them in the meantime.

InPeace,
InLove

[Artur]

Originally Posted by smkolins

Well I'm mildly familiar with Arius and Nestorius - authors of attempts at splits very early but largely failures as I understand it. The next I know if Catholic/Orthodx in 1054. I know Coptic is somewhere early on but has always been a very small group? Then Luther in 1500's? Then Episcopal? No clue on Baptist. Anglican was set by Henry VIII'th? No clue on Lutheran - related to Martin Luther?? Then there is Methodist? Wesleyian...

Whew, that's really a broad topic. Church history is such a large and involved study, you'll probably need to supplement whatever you are told in here by your own research. So much of it is dependent on the point of view of the person who is recounting the events.

Formal divisions in denomination are very common today (with people splitting over smaller and smaller issues), but there have always been divisions and differences within the church well before things like the East/West division of 1054; there simply was not the legal/political break that occurs now. The views of Arius for example (Arianism) was not an attempt at a split; it was a very real division within the church for many, many years. It remained so for long after it was formally condemned, and Arian teachings are alive and well today. The division between the Eastern and Western church began centuries before the formal break in 1054; it began as early as Constantine moving the Imperial capitol from Rome to Constantinople. Add to that the fact that who and what caused it depends on whether you are talking to a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

Most of the denominations you listed in your post have fairly definable beginnings, but you will get some argument about that as well. Some Baptists, for example, will claim that Baptists (at least theologically) have been around since the birth of the church, even though people known formally as "Baptists" were not around until centuries later.

It's an interesting study, but it can be confusing and exasperating as well. I've been studying church history for about 20 years now, and even the simplest questions take quite a bit of narrative to answer (as you can probably see from this post).

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by InLove

Hi, Peace to All--

I may be able to help with Baptist history--I have done some in-depth studies in the past--it can get rather confusing, and I will need to find those books and papers in order to add anything of worth. I'll do that as soon as possible--got a project I have to wrap up first. I might also be able to add something in the area of Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian history.

I'll try--even though I know there are others with more knowledge in these areas. Maybe you will get some input from them in the meantime.

InPeace,
InLove

hey InLove

we did all these religions in sunday school. the teacher put the denominations & leading religions into a hat & the kids kept drawing them until all the religions were taken. we each ended up with 3 or 4 religions to study.
it was all in sunday school class & we came back with books & wrote up our own reports on how they all got started & the basics. then after about 3 months of research, each child gave a mini sermon to the congregation on the religions we had studied.
it was about the age of 14 & of course i stayed with Jesus & the Bible.


i think you would have enjoyed that particular sunday school year.

[smkolins]

As outlined at adherents.com most every religion has branches, and some are categorized as clumps of branches - for example, Buddhism, has Mahayana, Theravada and Lamaism (Vajrayana/Tibetan/Tantric) but I believe there are others besides (Pure Land Buddhism, Zen Buddhism....) and so on.

But was schism ever the point of the Founders of the religions? I think not.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Originally Posted by smkolins

But was schism ever the point of the Founders of the religions? I think not.

Im not so sure. Buddha Shakyamuni personally taught three distinctly different schools of buddhism.

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

Im not so sure. Buddha Shakyamuni personally taught three distinctly different schools of buddhism.

I'm not aware of that - I've heard of different paths, but different dharmas?? Would not dharma be the total of all paths? Could dharma contradict itself??

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

The word Dharma, Loosly translated just means Understanding.

When Shakyamuni first began teaching, he taught what is now Theravadan Buddhism, later he taught Mahayana Buddhism and near the end of his physical life he taught Vajrayana Buddhism.

Shakyamuni's teachings are sometimes contradictory because he gave them to different people. A doctor cannot prescribe a universal cure for all ailments, he must treat different patients differently because they are ill for different reasons. Similarly the different peoples Shakyamuni taught had different delusions, they all had different impediments between them and great enlightenment, so he taught differently.

One common example is that he taught one group not to eat meat, because the animals you eat could have been your mother in a previous life. He taught another group of people to engage in ceremonial feasting including the eating of meat.

This is one reason why it is so difficuly for Buddhists today to practice, we have no specific teachings of our own.