How many worshipers does it take to make a religion?

Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not as you might know it.

This is not a question requiring legal definitions but those are still very welcome.

I was wondering how many worshipers (ie how big a demographic) it takes for people on this forum to feel that that spiritual social group now deserves an official religious status. Why do you feel that it requires this number of worshipers to called a viable religion?

reply to post by OmegaLogos


This question reminds me of the "pile problem" in philosophy. You take one grain of salt and ask, "is this a pile?" You add a second grain and ask, "is this a pile?" At what point does the cumulative grains of salt become a pile? It's pretty arbitrary, don't you think?

reply to post by Toromos


Thanks for your reply Toromos, I agree with you on the Pile problem perception but I offer a way to solve it. take a frozen amount of water and increase its temperature slowly by 1 degree celsius again and again, until increment by increment the water melts and then much later on boils. This shows that at some point small increments suddenly create a quantifiable quality phase shift in the dynamics of the system or state! This is what I am seeking of the posters to this thread..."Whats their individual boiling point for numbers of worshipers required to make a religion". plus in this game their liquids can boil at any temperature they like!

As to being pretty arbitary, Yes it is as I dont want ambiguous answers like "oh its somewhere between 1 and infinity! ".

To me it would only take one person to create a religion. I would take that one person to tell some one else and they believe it for the numbers to grow. So in the end it would only take one person, the person that believes and/or started the religion.

We may now call this blessed union between two parties, a marriage -- until death do they part!

reply to post by LadyRaven


Disclaimer: I'm a theist.

Thank you LadyRaven for your input. I personally like your definition even though it doesn't match mine ( 2 people because $$$/power/resource exchange, dominance and slavery can take place which is the basis of all religion [IMHO] and I apologize to all as I should of disclosed it earlier!) but I opened this thread to discuss what number each individual felt appropriate, not to debate which number is better or why that number is better so again I thank you for your concise to the point information.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
2 people because $$$/power/resource exchange, dominance and slavery can take place which is the basis of all religion [IMHO]

I would say this is the basis of some religion but not all.

you say you are a theist, so I presume you believe in god(s) or goddess(es). Assuming you don't belong to any religion then you technically belong to the religion of (that is probably unnamed) your own beliefs.

Now tbh I would say it would take someone else for what you believe to become a religion but then would you define your religion as you did above?

reply to post by Edn


Thanks for your input Edn, you mention that I haven't disclosed my religious beliefs and you are right as I haven't disclosed them here but i did here.

You also ask, and I quote "Now tbh I would say it would take someone else for what you believe to become a religion but then would you define your religion as you did above?". To answer you directly, " as long as someone in the relationship is dominant and the other subservient and as long as resources tend to flow one way from the lesser to the greater then I would say yes otherwise its not a religion its just a spiritual collective!".

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Edn

 

Thanks for your input Edn, you mention that I haven't disclosed my religious beliefs and you are right as I haven't disclosed them here but i did here.

You also ask, and I quote "Now tbh I would say it would take someone else for what you believe to become a religion but then would you define your religion as you did above?". To answer you directly, " as long as someone in the relationship is dominant and the other subservient and as long as resources tend to flow one way from the lesser to the greater then I would say yes otherwise its not a religion its just a spiritual collective!".

It would depend on your definition of religion but I like your idea of a spiritual collective.

reply to post by Edn

Disclaimer: I'm a theist.

You are very correct in saying definitions are very important, in this case how I define religion which I believe I do in previous posts ie it involves $$$ usually and or conversion in belief, where as I see a spiritual collective members never trying to convert but really sharing ideas and the $$$ for service or product exchange between members of the spiritual collective is kept separate from the spiritual side and is called business and is conducted legally and transparently as per governmental regulations.

Personal Disclosure: Basically $$$ and converting converts is what separates the 2 from my POV! I hope this clarifies things a bit for you and everybody else

Explanation: Bumped to help generate ad revenue!

Personal Disclosure: Enjoy!

I don't think it's a matter of number, but of the group becoming more important than the message it started with. That can happen with 1, or 1K.

Originally posted by LadyRaven
To me it would only take one person to create a religion. I would take that one person to tell some one else and they believe it for the numbers to grow. So in the end it would only take one person, the person that believes and/or started the religion.

Actually it take three, legally. A leader, preacher, priest, ect, and two board members who must meet once a month. Then Congress must recognize the religion as "official," and that gets them the tax free status so craved by organized religion.

Religion and the law

There are laws and statutes that make reference to religion. This has led scholar Winnifred Sullivan to claims that religious freedom is impossible.

Wiki Source

When and how did Christianity become legal?

It is hard to say that Christianity was ever illegal, in order to become legal. What was illegal in the Roman Empire was atheism, and Christians were sometimes accused of being atheists, because they refused to worship the Roman gods.

When the pagan Roman Emperor Severus Alexander (222-235 CE), placed the statues of Abraham and of Christ in his domestic chapel as a mark of respect for two minority religions, he may have been declaring that Christianity should be considered legal if this was not already the case..

Source

It seems that organized religion operates on the fringe of the law in at least some cases. I myself have seen blackmail, extortion, embezzlement, and money laundering, not to mention illegal gambling in Churches.

reply to post by autowrench


I've seen poor building skills, seriously poor financial choices, manipulation of congregations to oust the innocent.

But at the same time, I've seen members give up their Sunday worship to go rebuild homes in flooded areas. I've seen congregations rush to aid in preventing other congregations and elderly from flooding.

Same groups, sometimes.