L. Ron Hubbard was a smart guy who invented the religion of Scientology — not for the benefit of humankind but for his own financial benefit:

In April 1953, Hubbard wrote a letter proposing that Scientology should be transformed into a religion.[78] As membership declined and finances grew tighter, Hubbard had reversed the hostility to religion he voiced in Dianetics.[79] His letter discussed the legal and financial benefits of religious status.[79] Hubbard outlined plans for setting up a chain of "Spiritual Guidance Centers" charging customers $500 for twenty-four hours of auditing ("That is real money ... Charge enough and we'd be swamped."). He wrote:

I await your reaction on the religion angle. In my opinion, we couldn't get worse public opinion than we have had or have less customers with what we've got to sell. A religious charter would be necessary in Pennsylvania or NJ to make it stick. But I sure could make it stick.[80]

• From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

Wise persons wanted to save the humans from degradation in future and they could see the fall of good values in future generations

Yes, all the religions and ideologies were developed by wise persons for betterment of the humanity. However, with passage of time, greedy followers have made religious practices and ideologies as their profession.

Purpose of religion

http://www.wahegurunet.com/the-purpose-of-religion

Dear Dr. Chalise,

I read the linked article supplied by you. It is a very good article describing 'religions'.

But it do not contain detail analysis of other non- religion ideologies (like Marxism). This section is also very important.

Thanks.

L. Ron Hubbard was a smart guy who invented the religion of Scientology — not for the benefit of humankind but for his own financial benefit:

In April 1953, Hubbard wrote a letter proposing that Scientology should be transformed into a religion.[78] As membership declined and finances grew tighter, Hubbard had reversed the hostility to religion he voiced in Dianetics.[79] His letter discussed the legal and financial benefits of religious status.[79] Hubbard outlined plans for setting up a chain of "Spiritual Guidance Centers" charging customers $500 for twenty-four hours of auditing ("That is real money ... Charge enough and we'd be swamped."). He wrote:

I await your reaction on the religion angle. In my opinion, we couldn't get worse public opinion than we have had or have less customers with what we've got to sell. A religious charter would be necessary in Pennsylvania or NJ to make it stick. But I sure could make it stick.[80]

• From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

Whether they are wise men or philosophers, the result is a struggle for power, governance and power to control and command, control of minds and money, not necessarily in the interest of humanity, is the eternal conflict between good and evil

Yes, I believe that strongly. Religion centres are now business ventures, places where buying and selling take place, places where the rich are favoured for what they are capable of contributing. The supposed clergy men no longer preach heaven or teach the poor the way of comfort or the teach the rich the way of generous but focus on politics, investment in church and teach and encourage laziness among the youth.

Yes, you're right, Segun Michael Abegunde, that's not so far from the truth, nowadays:

http://www.ntskeptics.org/cartoons/everlastinglife.gif

Regardless of the aspirations of the wise men, our contemporaries or predesessors using these results for their own purposes. There are many examples (it is enough to compare all variants of Christianity, or the versions of Marxism, for example). There are communities formally emanating from the same principles, which come to completely different consequences. It is just a tool that can be used for both creation and for murder. And the responsibility for the results is not on the sage of the past, but on the doer who uses this words now.

Apart from the insightful posts of the colleagues, unfortunately, in several cases of religious aspects there are both distortion and the implementation of the phrase ''the end justifies the means'' (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/end-justifies-the-means).

Regards

With time practices deviate from origin.

Karl, I had quite a bit to do with Scientology many years ago (I hate to admit it but in pursuit of a love object but also out of curiosity), but was never of course a follower. There is a very large mansion house in East Grinstead UK where I'd spend weekends. They tried to convert me but failed. They were and are extremely hostile to psychology but practise it within their conversion/brainwashing. They became extremely angry with me when I pointed this out as Hubbard expressed his rejection of the science often and forcefully.

It is certainly an interesting example of the early stages of religion so the idea that the prominent religious leaders-Jesus and Mohammed for example- were frauds can and should be considered. It is not just followers who deform an idealistic religion but that originators may not have been very idealistic after all.

Dear Dr. Ismail,

I agree with you.

But the question is - why should it be named as the original one?

Just to serve purposes of some people?

Yes, I think so.

As regard ideologies, ethics and some man-made (conceptualised) religions, it is true they were started by some well meaning persons for welfare and order in society so that some do not become gods of small beings and small being remain slaves forever. Buddhism is an example of emancipation from Brahamincal order of the society. Of course, over time, even God revealed religions through manipulation or being not in written form changed due to oral transfer from generation to generation either lost their true meanings, misinterpreted or given other meanings for the lust of wealth. Now, they are not in their original form and transformed into easy tradition and symbolism. Aryans entered into India with monotheism, but adopted local gods and goddesses with their war heroes (Indra, Varuna, etc.) in their places of worships for more offerings. This happened allover the world. Jews started applying stringent laws on the poor and let the rich go scot-free for their crimes and sins, paying bribe. So came Jesus (Eisa) [PBUH] to preach love compassion for down trodden. His followers latter declared Jesus, born as a miracle so that people know that he is a prophet, as son of God. In the tradition of Abraham, there is no concept of Anthropomorphism. in terms of body or gender. So came Mohammad [PBUH] with message of original monotheism and justice for all and peace for all living beings. Despite sectarian, jurisprudence and other division, original message as revealed to him [PBUH] is intact. Communism remain alive for few years till Lenin and degenerated into autocracy for the remaining years in China. China is also gradually turning into a capitalist country and does not talk of welfare of people of developing countries. As to Americans, America is first, so to Chinese dissension, their business is first. All good ideologies and religions start with good intentions but degenerate to the worst form of hypocrisy..

I think depending on the philosophy it could be either. Certain ancient religions with their associated philosophies were started with good intentions to benefit humankind. What could be questionable are two things: (1) did the originator of those philosophies write them down or were they written by some disciples using their own interpretations of their intended meanings, and (2) secondly some principles or philosophies over time have been twisted and misused/abused by certain followers for their own benefits or to suit their own agenda. this latter case is not necessarily beneficial to humanity.

Originally religion may have been the outcome of the teachings of wise men but in the present times it seems that the religion is twisted and turned to suit the personal needs of some wise crooks. these people take the gullible for a ride and in the name / grab of religion run more or less commercial establishments.

In Europe in the Middle Ages religion was used by kings and feudals to strengthen their power, to convince their subjects that the kings wield authority in the name of God and God's will. People were treated like slaves, and kings and feudal lords had unlimited power. Of course, most of these magnates lived immorally and did not believe in God, and religion was just a tool for enforcing obedience.

Dear Dr. Betkowski,

You are right.

But do you think it was practiced only in Europe or only during the middle ages?

If your answer is negative, then why such disguise of some criminals should be tolerated at the present time without raising any question?

Piotr Betkowski,

In Feudal Europe the elite did believe in the religion but what they believed in was not Christianity. The Bible in Europe was available in Latin , not the national languages, which in mainly illiterate societies was known only to clerics. Even kings were often illiterate or not well informed. Violent, martial events from the Old Testament were often referenced when say crusades were being publicised. The anti/establishment message of parts of the New Testament and focus on ordinary people was unknown, and the message taught was the right of privilege and the necessity of violence.

By the 14th century translating into English for example began and a growing middle class were accessing education. An Oxford professor, Wycliffe's, translations of biblical text appeared in the 14th century, and the Lollards, a middle class social movement based on Wycliffe's translations, appeared spreading ideas of equality. Ordinary people slowly began to have some idea what the Bible, especially the New Testament, said. Eyes were thereby opened and clerical teaching began to more closely reflect the New Testament, which is largely pacifist or along those lines.

Yes I agree

The example of Feudal Europe is just one of thousands of possible examples showing how a great idea can be used contrary to the intention of the creators. Of course, every historical example of a long and culturally diverse period of time can be interpreted in many different ways, because, for example, the Middle Ages in Europe are the history of many countries, many kings and there are many different stories.

There are also many examples, in each period of time, where religion and philosophy help in making positive decisions, motivate and inspire people.

Piotr, at present I'm attempting to position Jesus in his own time. He tends to be taken out and held up as remarkable when often he was simply reiterating Hillel. We should not get carried away by the enthusiasm of generations of followers as usually these people are one of many. Both Jesus and Mohammed repeated the words and ideas of others but the others became obscured in history, usually written out.

Yes i think that

Stanley Wilkin,

Though your response seems derogatory of tow great prophets. But, your comment is largely true. As revelations of Gods are almost similar with changes according to level of civilization had achieved at that time. Since, almost all major religions have come from God, therefore, similarities among them are not astonishing. Of course, from the early times of mankind, those do not believe prophets of their times, they might have not been unaware their teachings and mixed them with their ethics and social laws and customs as well as with the remnant legacy of their own prophets of the past. Therefore, similarity of basic tenants of all religions is not curious or discredit those who in their times gave the messages of God be them Moses, Jesus or the last prophet, Muhammad.

Mohammad, I was not trying to be insulting just honest. No, all religions do not come from the same source that is just something you have been taught. The Abrahamic ones have, because Christianity was an extension of Judaism (Jesus repeats Hillel), Mohammad repeated certain parts of Judaism and emulated Jesus-but seems not to have really been aware of his teaching. There are many religions around the world that are not similar at all to the Abrahamic ones.

What if Jesus'' magic healings were made up or simply magic tricks? What if Muhammad was merely a politician using religion to organise and employ his armies? I wonder one thing, Mohammad, most of my Moslem friends admit they know nothing of the early history of Islam-do you?

If you insist that prophets brought ethics etc then certainly you have not actually read any of the Pentateuch. Child sacrifice, genocide, rape. Not many morals there. Moses is not likely to have actually existed, so I'm afraid a bad choice there.

Stanley Wilkin

As far as early history of Muslims (no Islam as Islam means submission to the Deity is religion or way of life right from Adam [PBUH]) is considered, your claim that Muslims do no know about it does not hold. Of course, there is no detail knowledge about the childhood of the Prophet [PBUH] except his family, clan and tribe and death of his parents and upbringing and support by his grandfather and uncle. You state " Muhammad was merely a politician using religion to organise and employ his armies." It might be made clear that first three battles which were very important from the view of survival of Islam were fought near Medina wherein the Prophet and most of Muslims had taken refuge. Arab pagans attacked them to destroy them and Muslims fought them under the command of the Prophet. Latter, all battles were retaliatory. Europeans and their offshoots are biased because Roman Eastern Empire fell in the hands of Muslims and latter shameful defeats of crusaders. This grudge and anti-Muslim attitude is promulgated from generation to generation (as is evident by what respects Napoleon paid to the Grave of Saladin on entering in Egypt.). As far as, fall of Eastern Roman Empire is concerned it occurred due to killing of a messenger of the Prophet [PBH]. As per tradition of the time, it was necessary to avenge the blood of a messenger. So battle started in the life time of the Prophet [PBUH] and continued during four rightly guided Caliphs with a turn into war of liberation and emancipation of the non-Muslim subjects of kings and chieftains as these very oppressed subjects helped and fought with Muslims. After four rightly guided caliphs, caliphate gradually degenerated into kingship and it is very clear what kings want and gradually Muslim Kingdom became expansionist not liberator.

Muhammed,

no Islam as Islam means submission to the Deity is religion or way of life right from Adam [PBUH]) I do not quite understand this except that you appear to be saying that Adam-taken by the Hebrews from Mesopotamian literature, and without actual existence- determined Islamic lifestyle. This is a scientific site you know.

Nevertheless, you have here reiterated the tale told of Muhammad's early career, but can I point out you only have the early Moslem's word for all this. Perhaps the Mecca pagans (as you call them), educated and cultivated people, had a different story to tell. As Muhammad and his forces (who incidentally took to waylaying travellers in order to fund themselves) won you have here the version of the victors.

The Meccan people-the alternative version-found themselves with highly-aggressive people with the conviction of always being right in their city causing unlimited trouble. They were ousted but later returned with armies. Now, which one do you think in this version was the victim, and which one in the right?

You may be antagonist, it is acceptable, but ignorance of religions, especially of Islam is cannot be ignored, while pretending scholarship. I do not know what Christianity teaches you, but to us Adam is father of mankind and first prophet [PBUH]. If you refer to Mesopotamian literature, I refer to clay tablet of Sumerians in which written that God is only and only one like nothing that is unique. So monotheism is traced to Sumerians and is source of Jewish and Islamic and early Christian concept of monotheism. I would not decline it assuming God must have sent prophets to them. However, bias come out people like you pretending to take an objective scholarly position when discuss different forms a baby takes in the womb of mother right from conception as described in Qur'an to discredit authenticity of Qur'an as book from Allah (God) refer to literature of Mesopotamian cultures as source of this description which is neither found in Torah nor in Gospels, but do not accept existence of a formless unique God and Adam.

What would have been alternative narrative, I do not indulge in it. The message of Allah is intact and all is known about character of the last prophet [PBUH]. Please, spare some time and go through both Qur'an and biographies of the prophet, written by unbiased people. May be you are guided to the truth.

Muhammad, you are talking absolute rubbish and to come out with such nonscense and reference my scholarship negatively is frightening and shocking. The Torah, Gospels and Qur'an are not history, simply literature of usually doubtful provenance. Adam indeed! Fairies, angels, monsters, little creatures with pointed ears/time to grow up and acquire an education! Put down children's books and learn to walk like a man.

Be a crusader of atheism. Be happy. You may waste your time and energy, ai can't afford. There is a verse in Holy Qur'an your creed is for yourself and outs is for ourselves. So you have right to your opinion and I to mine. It is nothing chldich or wiseness. We all have our own ways of rationality and understanding.

I think that all religions which haven been introduced to humanity are ruined and applied for political, personal, traditional, and social advantages.

I agree with Marwan Khaleel Yousif

Mohammad, just one last point. I do not consider myself an advocate for atheism as all positions are, I believe, worth exploring. I do however consider myself an advocate of scholarship and the hard work that entails. It takes little effort to believe what you are told but immense effort to check it out. Only a child believes what it is told or those with little education.

The three Abrahamic religions are highly competitive. Judaism competed with the much older, more sophisticated Mesopotamian religions and absorbed and assumed many of its ideas and literature. Adam, the Flood story, and a multitude of others. During the Hellenistic period when Palestine was ruled by Greeks many Jewish intellectuals wrote plays, etc, claiming that all inventions and ideas began in Judaism-exactly as many- Moslems claim now. The Genesis story positions Judaism at the very beginning of time even though the story itself is a combination of Mesopotamian and Egyptian stories.

Christianity does the same, but overrides Judaism and makes the religion''s supposed founder god. So thereby it precedes and vanquishes Judaism. Islam has done exactly the same positioning itself at the beginning of time through Adam.

We are the first each proclaims. We are the authentic religion, each proclaims! YHWH becomes the god of Jesus, then the god of Islam-Allah. Stories are constructed, tales that meet the different ideologies of each religion. Islam goes one step further and declares that not only are we the first but we are also the last-thereby clearly the most authentic. My daddy in other words is bigger than your daddy! They are only stories, I am afraid, just stories, that have grown out of playground politics.

Stanley Wilkin,

Sorry, for the belated response. I don't find any logic in your responses including the recent one. I have also gone through A History of God. In the book, Karen Armstrong’s positioning is similar to yours. Her idea of the evolution of the concept of God is metamorphosed in your notion of the evolution of religion through old stories of the extinct civilizations. Your thought is guided by what you call “Ancient Fictionality” (I really believe in ancient and medieval times divinity has been fiction in the games of the throne as Egyptian, Pharaoh gods or Romans who considered themselves sons of gods) put together by “writing and literature from Mesopotamian urban civilizations.”

You consider it evolution; while my contention is it is continuity as in Qur’an God says like this that he sent prophets in every community and in all times. So that they tell people the Truth and way in which people have to pass their life as requirements of times of those prophets (peace be upon all of them). Some of them were given new laws for the people, while some came as reformers when people deviated from the true path to persuade or preach people to follow the laws of earlier prophets. Except for some laws which with the progress of civilization became redundant, the message was the same.

You consider revelations/scriptures as literature, only intact scripture available is Qur’an an in it Allah challenges all human beings that if they consider it ordinary words of a man, they should compose only a chapter like one in the book. It is also for you.

Of course, Qur’an, Prophet, and Islam are attacked and maligned by many for many times in every age. Since only Allah can guide people, therefore, anti-Islam people are guided to the right path, for example:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/former-far-right-dutch-mp-van-klaveren-tells-of-reactions-to-his-conversion-to-islam-141223

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/joram-van-klaveren-islam-muslim-converts-religion-netherlands-geert-wilders-a8765476.html