Just wondering...

No, they speak for god alone.


I mean yes.

Look at the reformers down through the ages. They feel led by God to fix a fundamental flaw in their religion and start a new one or they splinter off and form a new version.

It is true that many people get carried away with their new-found power and popularity and often lose their way, and of course there are those who see religion as a golden ticket, but I'm not so sure that people who believe are doing it for the wrong purposes.

What do you suppose the original motive is? The one that the other motive would be ulterior.

Yes, that is logical, yet it's not, cause the underlying assumptions of religion is that it exists to save people from whatever they fear most (and of course the fear was usually instilled by religion).

“If you want to make a little money, write a book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a religion.” - L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology

Amy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “If you want to make a little money, write a
> book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a
> religion.” - L. Ron Hubbard, founder of
> Scientology

He might have seen how much better starting a religion was for JS, than trying to sell his book was.

That's not a logical inference based on the data.

And I don't think the Buddha had any ulterior motives. He gave up being a royal prince in favor of a wandering monk's existence, and didn't accumulate any appreciable assets after that.

Taoism, Shintoism, Confucianism...no real evidence that I'm aware of.

True, but many consider those more as philosophies rather than religions.