Talk:List of founders of world religions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Someone (I can't remember who) was busy adding names of various founders of religions to the Muhammad page, and I decided that it made more sense to just link to one page. I'm not sure that this is a good idea (what's major?) but hey, if it unclutters one page ...

Should I include Scientology or shouldn't I? If we start to get into what might be called recently founded religions (sects, cults), we could end up with a list of hundreds of names, many of whom are the fearless leader of only a handful of people. Zora 14:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scientology, in my opinion, grossly and unethically inflates its numbers by taking down the names of everyone who has ever walked in the door one time and listing them as a Scientologist forever.--Doovinator 04:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
If was me - and adding three names to each of Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Abraham didn't take much time really:) I just thought it was a useful link as readers of Muhammad may have an interest in founders of all major religions rather than just an interest in articles on Islam.
We can define 'major' in terms of how many current adherents there are for a particular religion. That would stop arguments over who to add (it would also mean bye bye Mani (prophet)).
I've taken the opportunity to link this list in to a number of pages (see 'What links here') jguk 18:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
While it should be based on adherent numbers we should also include those that did have massive numbers at one time. Zoroastrians and Manicheanans were very importants groups in their days. How about any group that has or once had more than 500 thousand adherents? How about a million? --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 19:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Do you know where we'd find a list of numbers of adherents to religions? It would allow us to determine a sensisble cut off. Also, are there even figures for the greatest number of living Zoroastrians or Manicheanans at any one time? I'm just trying to see if your proposed cut-off would work in practice. jguk 19:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Adherents.com Has the most referenced list on the internet. Their numbers are a bit high but are equally high across the board. As for the other two religions their numbers were probably quite huge at times. ---The Sunborn

I have no problem accepting 150,000 as the cut off (having looked at the adherents.com website) - but I would like to keep the definition of 'major' specific. Saying the other two religions probably had quite huge followings isn't enough. I shan't remove them for now, but will await your comments.OK, this is the list on adherents.com - which says it takes its figures from what the respective religions claim.

  • Christianity: 2 billion (included in our list)
  • Islam: 1.3 billion (included in the end note)
  • Hinduism: 900 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
  • Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 850 million (nothing to add!)
  • Buddhism: 360 million (included)
  • Chinese traditional religion: 225 million (we have Confucianism, is this enough?)
  • primal-indigenous: 150 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
  • African Traditional & Diasporic: 95 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
  • Sikhism: 23 million (included)
  • Juche: 19 million (I don't really like calling this a religion - it's a political idea!)
  • Spiritism: 14 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
  • Judaism: 14 million (included)
  • Baha'i: 6 million (included)
  • Jainism: 4 million (included)
  • Shinto: 4 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
  • Cao Dai: 3 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
  • Tenrikyo: 2.4 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
  • Neo-Paganism: 1 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
  • Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
  • Rastafarianism: 700 thousand (not included - should we add Haile Selassie? Was he really a 'founder'?)
  • Scientology: 600 thousand (I suppose we should include L Ron Hubbard, unless we think the figure is grossly grossly exaggerated)
  • Zoroastrianism: 150 thousand (included)

jguk 22:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've got an idea -- there is already a List of religions on which many electrons have been spilled. Link that to the list of founders page, with a note to the effect that many religions have no non-mythical founders. Zora 00:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Removed Joseph Smith

Someone from an anonymous IP added Joseph Smith (Mormonism). I removed this as a difficult and unclassifiable case. First of all, Mormon is a nickname -- the official name is Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. If Mormons want to refer to their church in shorthand, they'll say LDS, usually. Second, Mormons would insist that they are Christians and that their religion was founded by Jesus. They give a special status to Joseph Smith, but I'm not sure that they would call him the founder of a major religion. They would probably say that he RESTORED a corrupted Christianity -- in which case he'd have the same status as Luther or Calvin. We aren't putting founders of sects in the list, so I think it would be better to avoid Joseph Smith. Zora 02:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, Jehova's Witnesses is Christianity too, but Charles Taze Russell is still on the list. VolatileChemical 15:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An important philosopher yes, but founder, no

Dear anon, I deleted your addition of Adi Shankara. I agree that he's an extremely important person, but he really can't be called the founder of Hinduism if he started just one school of thought inside an existing tradition. Zora 04:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Babawaba's edit

I reverted to the older version, with all the caveats. Babawaba, these caveats are necessary if the list is to be NPOV. Frex, saying that Muhammad founded Islam is wrong, in the eyes of Muslims. Insisting that the caveat be removed is insensitive. Ditto for a lot of the other caveats. I make this point as a Buddhist; I don't belong to any of the religions that would insist on the caveats. It's not as if the list were extremely long; we have the space to add a few words. Zora 02:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, Zora, the title of this page is "list of founders of major religions". A list means: the founder - the religion, nothing more. We should not add any opinions if we are to keep this NPOV. Its a simple list , no need to complicate it. --Babawaba 03:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islam

I had changed the article by putting that according to Muslims Islam was started by Adam and not Muhammad. What I want to understand is that, what is that you consider as correct. A generally held misconception that Islam was started by Muhammad, or the truth where Islam actually came to an end with Muhammad, because he was the last and final messenger of more than 300,000 sent on earth. Alimustafakhan

He was the first to propose a distinct belief system that was different from all previous religions. This makes him the founder. --The Sunborn
No Muhammad said exactly the same things said by Moses and Abraham, there were a few changes in social laws. According to Oxford dictionary, Religion is, "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods or a particular system of faith and worship." The concept of God in Judaism and Islam is identical, so he did not teach a distinct belief system. If we go back to the definition of Religion, all those systems which either deny existence of God or do not comment on Him are technically not even religions, they are social systems. Alimustafakhan
Um, sorry, I'm a Buddhist, don't believe in God, but I believe I'm religious. Zora 04:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have made a kind of compromise, by removing Islam from the list and adding an expanation in the footnote. As I strongly believe that if something has to be said it has to be truth, otherwise not said at all. Alimustafakhan
Having to change the uniformity of the list for one fundamentalist is ridiculous. The part that says "the best known proponent" must be removed because we have removed "best known proponents of older traditions" from the list repeatedly in the past. However, from a scientific approach mohammed was definately the founder of Islam. The best way to fix this is to put a footnote and say "some groups may not consider Mohammed the founder of Islam". --metta, The Sunborn ☥ 06:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity and Jesus

I think an important correction needs to be made. Christianity was not started by Jesus. Jesus himself was a Jew for his entire life. Chrisitianity was started by Paul.

I agree... Jesus did not start Christianity. This should be corrected. Shane 09:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Paul can not be claimed as the founder. Paul was one of the apostles. While, he was among the first to work with the Gentiles he was not the only. Jesus is whom the religion is based upon. 12.220.94.199 23:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm strongly against putting Jesus as the founder of Christianity. If you found a religion, you believe in that religion. Jesus was born a jew, and he died a jew. Christianity I guess did not have a single true founder... Constantine the great helped in creating and spreading christianity. I believe this topic is too debatable. Perhaps it should just say "various"?

We keep having this argument over and over again. Anon, YOU may believe that Jesus lived and died a Jew, but Christians don't believe that. I'm not a Christian, BTW, I'm a Buddhist, and I would admit that it's possible that the historical Jesus was something other than the personage claimed by Christians. But this is not the place to argue that. If people click on Jesus or Christianity they're going to find the controversy. We don't need to present it here. This list is just a convenience for high-school kids doing reports for their world religions class :) It helps people find important religious figures. It is not the world court of who actually founded a certain religion. Zora 04:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham and Judaism

Another technical correction. Though Judaism is based on the teachings on Abraham, Judaism actually starts with Abraham's grandson Jacob AKA Israel. If we are to say that Judaism starts with Abraham, then we would be saying that both of Abraham's sons are jews and had the chosen blood. This would include Ishmael and his decendents (the Arabs). Therefore, Judaism and the Hebrew people started with Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham.

[edit] This is getting ridiculous

First we have a Muslim insisting that Muhammad did not "found" Islam, now we have someone insisting that Jesus didn't "found" Christianity and Abraham didn't "found" Judaism. This list is falling to pieces because the concept of "founding" seems to be inherently difficult in the context of religion.

I suggest that we change the page title and the header text. How about Biographical articles concerning significant figures in major religions or some such thing, and allow, um, five people per tradition?

Or perhaps we should just delete the #@$%#$@% page. If you limit the people to five, you have endless flamewars about who's the most important five. If you don't have any limit, you end up with an endlessly long page with entries like "Rev. X, who founded the Assemblies of God church in Y". Zora 02:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) (who is feeling kinda discouraged right now)

Listen, we have two choices, delete the page, which probably won't get by the vfd by the way, or ignore the hardheads and just put the proper things up. We could always screw with the people. After all, paul of tarsis wasn't his real name. He was Saul of tarsis. --metta, The Sunborn ☥ 03:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I put L. Ron Hubbard on the list, like jguk said they have 600k followers and his suggestion that they should be on the list has not been contracticted since November 2004. That aside, I can't see why anyone in their right mind would dispute that Jesus Christ founded Christianity - very well, so St. Paul maybe established the first organized church around it, but it was surely Jesus Christ who founded the religion as such through his teachings. 62.253.128.13 22:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Was Jesus Christ the 'founder' of Christianity?

The title of the page is "List of founders of major religions" not "major churches" or "congregations" or something else to that effect.

As 62.* points out, Jesus did indeed found Christianity while St. Paul merely founded the first organized church around it. There are a number of separate congregations that follow the teachings of Christ and as such can be said to be Christians. Most of them, but not all, trace their roots back to the church founded by St. Paul (the Catholic church and all the other churches that broke off from that at some point in history).

So yes - this entry should read Jesus Christ.

Besides, the order of the entries seems to be alphabetized by the name of the founder for the first half of the list or so and then by the name of the religion for the second. This should probably be fixed. Thomas Horsten 23:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, NO. Christianity was founded according to the teachings of Jesus, but he was never a Christian. He was Jewish, and spent his entire life as a Jew. It was his followers that actually founded Christianity. Maybe this article should not be called "List of Founders of Major World Religions" and instead "List of Important Figures of Major World Religions". --Negative3 18:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Negative3. It is simplistic, and ignorant of history, to insist that Jesus founded Christianity. I think the idea that Paul founded Christianity is uncomfortable for many Christians from more evangelical traditions, so we are treading on very controversial territory here. We need more discussion about our terms before we can settle this one. Peeper 08:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
It would be uncomfortable and wrong feeling to most Christians. Orthodoxers, non-Cafeteria Catholics, conservative Anglicans, and others. You might as well just say "Christianity is a crock anyway and we all know it." The Gospels we have several statements of Jesus indicating he was doing something new or a fulfillment. To list Christianity as being started by Paul would also get into the minepit of religions whose founders actual lives are not clearly recorded. For example Confucian thought as we know it was largely formulated by those after Confucius especially Mencius. There's nothing concrete to indicate Lao Tse existed at all or in least that he really wrote the Tao Te Ching. To pick Christianity alone to redact would be clear bias, so I'm glad it was never actually done.--T. Anthony 15:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I firmly believe that christianity is simply Mithraism-light as interpreted by Jesus. The "miracles" of Jesus clearly didn't happen so they should be seen as inventions of the gospel writers. The birth stories of Luke and Matthew don't even agree with each other and should be assumed to be apocryphal. Then there was Saul of Tarsus, who was more important to Christianity than Jesus. Without Saul the Christian sect would have died out as another failed Jewish messianic cult. No, without Saul the gentiles would not have been hooked. And to do that he had to remove the cumbersome Jewish cleanliness protocols. So I don't think there could be any one founder of Christianity. I doubt any religion has any one founder. I pick on Christianity because I know it best, being an apostate. --metta, The Sunborn 16:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

As long as your feelings as an apostate don't effect any article you're welcome to them. If it's just venting at the talk section then okay. I think you're wrong of course, but whatever.--T. Anthony 00:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Jesus didn't found Christianity. It appears that the majority here are in agreement on that fact. Should we change the article to: a) Paul b) Christianity is an interpretation of Mithraism

Shane 08:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Umm, so now we are going to get psedeuo-historical? Most don't agree that Christianity was based upon Mirthraism. And I've already covered Paul above. Most religions don't have "a" single figure. So I would suggest changing the article to "List of Central Figures of Major religions" 12.220.94.199 23:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are Mormons Christians?

Mormonism is listed separately and as such is considered a separate religion from Christianity. I don't know if this should be the case. They, Mormons, have a doctrine that is much off the wall from 'mainstream' Christianity but I doubt that they are any less Christian. As such whould probably be removed from a separate entry. --The Sunborn

Mainstream Christians and other non-Mormons do not generally view LDS/Mormons as Christians. This is because it is based on a different scripture (book of Mormon). LDS-followers themselves argue that they are indeed a Christian sect, in fact the only true Christian church, but this view is not widely supported outside their own religion. I can see an argument for both sides, but on a list like this IMHO it's better to be too broad than too narrow so I'd vote for letting him stay. TH 10:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Another argument for keeping him: If we remove Joseph Smith, the next thing that could happen is that we start discussing whether Christianity is even a religion, since it is basically Judaism as redefined by Jesus Christ. If we go down get will be a half-empty and rather useless list. Now, on the other hand we might say "So shouldn't we include Martin Luther for starting the Reformation" but there I'll say no, because both Catholic and the various Protestant churches are based on the same foundation (scriptures etc.) and just represents differences in interpretation. So I vote to keep the list as is. TH 10:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jguk's crusade

Jguk arrived and changed everything to his prefered BC. I changed back. He reverted.

I've changed everything to BC/BCE. It's not showing up correctly, but at least it's an even-handed solution. Someone can fix the Wikipedia dating system so that BC = BCE = BC/BCE. Zora 18:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This is both ridiculous and offensive. First I am on no "crusade", which Zora knows full well is a loaded term. Please retract this ludicrous accusation.
Well, no. I think your actions (thousands of stealth edits changing BCE to BC) speak for themselves. Zora 01:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Second, all I was doing, as my edit summary makes clear, and as the diff of my change makes clear [1], is changing an article with inconsistent terminology to consistent terminology, as recommended in the Manual of Style and as endorsed by ArbCom.
Third, I ask Zora to refrain from his campaign to promote his preferred brand of US political correctness. This is an international encyclopaedia that should be capable of being read by all - not a resource for US academia, jguk 18:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
My vote is BC. BCE is turgid and pretentious--Doovinator 04:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article Name Change?

There seems to be a lot of discussion as to who should be included in this list mostly because of the title being "List of Founders of Major World Religions". I would suggest the title be changed to "List of Important Figures of Major World Religions" or something similar. For example, Christianity was founded on the teachings of Jesus but he is also an important prophet in Islam, which this list doesn't reflect (although he is on the list of prophets of Islam). I think a name change would end a lot of the debate. --Negative3 18:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this would expand the list infinitely and render it largely useless (that is, if it is inherently useful!) With such an exhaustive list, it would be more rational to create separate pages for each religion. At least in the cases of Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity (the only ones I have much knowledge of), these lists would be very long. --Slow Graffiti 19:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fox/Quakers and the Denomination Question

I've removed the recently added reference to Fox ( founder of the Quakers ), as he founded a denomination within Christianity, and not a new religion. This is consistent with the main article on Quakers treating Fox and his heirs as part of the broad Christian tradition. I'm very sympathetic to the idea that we should provide a way of understanding the different denominations within each broad religious tradition, but this article doesn't seem to be the place to do it ( pages on the individual religions generally describe the main denominations ). In deleting Fox ( and, earlier, restoring Joseph Smith per earlier discussion on this page ) I've tried to have in mind what a user with no prior knowledge of religion would find useful when viewing this page. That Fox and Smith were both important people is not in doubt, but the fruits of their actions were in some sense different, and my aim is to reflect this. I'm adding a sentence at the bottom of the article to try to clarify this. WMMartin 17:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

WMMartin appears to have little appreciation of how Quakers see themselves, including the fact that within Quakerism itself, the Quaker faith is understood as a new and vital tradition that is more a break with and something distinct from traditional Christianity than Latter-day Saints view themselves as. Be that as it may, I'll be perfectly content to not try to add Fox to this page, even though from a theological and sociological perspective, his inclusion is more proper than that of Joseph Smith. People unaware of this would do well to read the Wikipedia articles about Quakers. Interested readers are also referred to, well, just about any boko written by Quakers in the last 40 years. It does a disservice to George Fox and to Quakers generally to classify him as simply in the same category as Martin Luther or John Wesley, or even Joseph Smith, none of whom claimed to be anything but part of an already-founded religion. Because WMMartin need not fear that I'll try to add Fox, there is no reason to clutter up this page with a sentence that clearly belongs on the discussion page, and not on the article page: "Also note that in most religions there are several different traditions or denominations, which may have evolved or been founded at different times, by different people and in different places. These are described in the main articles for each religion." This sentence may well belong with a page providing a definition of what a "denomination" is, but it only clutters up a once-clean, and appealing-looking page whose purpose is to list religion founders.

You're quite right: I was underinformed, and just looked at the heading at the top of the article on Quakers, which refers to the Christian tradition. Having actually read the article and done some other background reading, I see your point. Indeed, at several points in Wikipedia's article the idea that Quakerism is a separate religion is explicitly used. It would be useful to hear other people's comments on this issue... WMMartin 17:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank WMMartin for trying to find the right solution to this question, and for posting a request for help on the Quaker talk page asking for help finding clarity on this discussion. You've touched on a rather sizable debate within Quakerism itself so others may disagree, but I'll provide my 2 cents. I don't believe George Fox had any intention of forming a religion, other than a refounding of the early Christian church. Any movement toward creating a non-Christian religion or movement happened later, and despite the intentions of Fox. Personally I don't feel it makes sense for Fox to be listed on this page, nor do I believe he would want to be seen as in equivalent to the other religious leaders listed here (particularly those from the Judeo-Christian tradition. --Ahc 00:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, all I can say from my own experience with the Society of Friends (not the Religious Society of Friends, as discussed in the talk page) is that there are those who feel quite strongly that Quaker thought is not a religion at all, but a belief. Belief is personal, religion is not. While many Quakers may feel they are Christians as well, in this view it's not necessary, or even particularly desirable, to belong to any religious group as a Quaker--Doovinator 04:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I am a non-Quaker speaking from a historical perspective. As Fox claimed to have recieved a direct revelation from Jesus Christ, I would say he belongs in the Christian tradition. As time has gone on, some have broadened the Quaker faith to something else. Historically speaking, it is impossible to deny that for the first two hundred years, Quakerism was solidly Christian (though not accepted as such by most other Christians). Fox was certainly not a founder of a major religion, and would not have seen himself that way, as Ahc said. Logophile 10:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cao Dai and Ahmadiyya

Both of these have more members than Scientology according to reliable sources. Ahmadiyya is a kind of Islam, but separate enough to count if Mormonism is going to count. Also the Jehovah Witnesses, according to most estimates, are also larger than Scientology. Should I add their founders too?--T. Anthony 04:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm adding Tenrikiyo

Going by the above information they are apparently fairly large.--T. Anthony 05:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I put JW back

There are estimated to be 6 million of them. However I'm not sure if them or the Mormons should be listed. Aren't they both Christian denominations? Unusual ones perhaps, but still.--T. Anthony 14:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I would remove both Mormonism and 'JW' because they are denominations, sects - whatever term you would like to use - within Christianity. It doesn't mean that other Christians recognize them as fellow Christians. The important factor is self belief - they believe themselves to be Christians, and would claim Abraham, Moses, and Jesus as the founders of their religion. I'm sure there are similar separations amongst Hindus and perhaps other religions that differ just as much - Vaishnavism and Shaktism differ even on who they acknowledge as Supreme Brahman (as I understand it). Joseph Smith and Charles Russell did not 'found' their religions - they started their own reformations. These reformations may have separated them from contemporary Christians, but not from their common founders. As someone stated above, Luther and Calvin would be on the same plane. Thoughts? --Slow Graffiti 21:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I missed the 'Are Mormons Christians?' exchange above prior to writing these comments. It puts their inclusion more into perspective, but I'd still like more feedback about the issue. --Slow Graffiti 21:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be for that removal. I'm mostly willing to be broad in my interpretation of what religions are Christian. I'd accept Mormons, JWs, Christian Science, and even early Unitarians as Christians. (UUA, some Hicksites, and a few others I would not class as Christians as they seem to not class themselves that way)--T. Anthony 04:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's POV to class some Christian denominations as "non-Christian" for purposes of this list. Zora 05:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confucianism is not a religion.

In China, Confucianism was a part of politic in the history and it is some kind of culture remains today. Today you almost can't find some Chinese "believe" Confucianism, because Confucianism is not a religion. Besides, in fact there was hardly relation between Confucian or Confucianism according history record. It's just like most people believe Frankstein was the monster today.

[edit] Confucianism is not a religion.

In China, Confucianism was a part of politic in the history and it is some kind of culture remains today. Today you almost can't find some Chinese "believe" Confucianism, because Confucianism is not a religion. Besides, in fact there was hardly relation between Confucius and Confucianism according history record. It's just like most people believe Frankstein was the monster today. --Gleader 19:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Confucianism is more of a philosophy, especially originally. However in time, and in places like Korea or Taiwan, Confucianism did develop many elements of a religion. Confucius and Mencius themselves emphasized the value of rites or ritual. Today there are various Confucian temples in parts of East Asia. Still Confucianism is more like a codification/reform of ancient Chinese religion that includes reverence for Confucius rather than a religion itself. Still I think it can fit, but there should be an explanatory note.--T. Anthony 05:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BC?

It seems somewhat POV to use Christian dating (before Christ) for all the earlier figures. Wouldn't BCE be better? as at least showing that we're trying? Zora 04:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I like BCE better. Not sure what WP policy on dates is though. Шизомби 09:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It appears it's OK as long as you apply it throughout the article WP:MOSDATE#Eras. Шизомби 10:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

I find the list to look a bit cluttered. I wonder if it should be broken up in some way, or converted to a table? Шизомби 09:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

"The following figures are believed to have founded major religions or to have been the first codifiers or best known proponents of older traditions. In some cases, little or nothing is known of the figures; the dates are conjectures and some historians doubt that the founder, as described, ever existed."

Above it was disputed that Joseph Smith founded the LdS church, and past edits have been over whether Abraham founded Christianity and Islam. According to the definition above, Smith qualifies, but Abraham is sketchy. While C&I have adopted Abraham as a prophet, I don't think either of them hold him to be their founder, do they? Шизомби 09:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Islam holds Abraham to be a founder. He is said to have built the Kaaba and established its rituals. And I thought I put that Abraham was an inspirational figure for Christians? When I was being raised as a Christian (which I'm not now) I certainly heard a lot of talk about Abraham in Sunday school. Christians don't completely reject the Old Testament! Zora 09:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
How can Abraham be held to be the founder of Islam, when they hold Adam to be the first prophet? I think I need to see a cite for your claim. Abraham is an important figure in Christianity, but I don't believe they hold him to be the founder of Christianity - that would be Jesus or Paul. As for "inspirational figures", that's not what the list is for unless you rewrite the definition. Шизомби 10:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna

Krishna cannot be considered a founder of Hinduism, although is indeed a major part of the religion. Calling Krishna a prophet is incorrect, seeing as in Hinduism he is viewed as a God, usually as an avatar of Vishnu (or Vishnu as an avatar of Krishna, it varies)

I am removing it for the moment, please comment. Sfacets 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You did exactly the right thing, IMHO. Zora 15:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Hinduism is a complex religion, with no real "central" figure. 12.220.94.199 23:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology

I have removed Scientology from the list. It cannot be considered major, 500,000 adherants (adherants.com) is far too few to make this a major religion. Sfacets 01:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Its a major religion - they claim 8 million adherents.--CltFn 02:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Claim being the keyword. Is there an official source that backs these claims? Also please fill in the edit summary if you revert an article. (which was why I reverted your revert)

Rather than get into a revert war, please find a reliable source to back your claims. Sfacets 02:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Here you go [2]. In general I would say that most membership numbers of most religions are quite bogus , as they are often nothing else but triumphalistic hot hair based on the wishful estimates or guesses of their own members. No one ever has counted memberships yet the numbers are thrown around as though they were facts. With that being said, Scientology is a household name , good or bad and has a presence around the world . Its a major religion--CltFn 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "adherents" is a good way to do this article. Perahps, define a major religion by influence. Scientology has very little influence in the world. I wouldn't oppose the inclusion of Scientology however. 12.220.94.199 23:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to remove Scientology, given the fact that its scriptures are copyrighted. The belief system of Scientology is explicitly not meant to circulate as widely as possible, as it is revealed only to those willing to purchase goods and services from the spiritual authority. Therefore, it only qualifies as a system of beliefs, and not as a religion that was given to mankind. 80.135.134.70 19:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, as far as world-view ideologies go, it's distinct from all the other major religions. Whether or not you have to pay for the knowledge has nothing to do with it. By the way, I'm not a scientologist. Cuñado - Talk 18:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientology can't be considered a church or religion for they have no God(s) that they worship because if I'm not mistaken but dont religions and churchs worship God(s). Anker99 20:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I'm a Zen Buddhist and I don't worship any gods. Zora 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with anon 12.220.94.199 - Scientology has a limited 'influence' because of its novelty. Also because of it's secretive nature, doubts arise on the truth of the claimed number of adherants. Unless a valid source can be provided backing up the claimed millions, Scientology must go. Sfacets 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moses

How can Moses be the founder, if Judaism already existed when he was around? At least 400 years before in fact...

  • Abraham is claimed as the founder by Jews. I'm not sure about the 400 years date. 12.220.94.199 00:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We have weasel words at the top about "founder or first codifier". Moses could be considered the first codifier. Zora 09:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sects vs religions

I'm going to remove Mary Baker Eddy and Wallace Fard. They did not create/found a new religion, they were in the category of sects or movements within religions. All the other people on the list actually founded a new religion, and claimed some sort of superhuman status, however you want to call it. Cuñado - Talk 20:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Likewise I removed religions that are non-notable and geographically isolated. I fail to see how they can be considered "major religions" when they have 2 million people, and 75% of them are in a single country. I also removed the Bab and the Babi Faith, because it is bound up with the Baha'i Faith, and today there are no Babis left as a distinct separate religion. Cuñado - Talk 20:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renamed page to List of founders of world religions

Because it is less ambigious and we will be arguing until the cows come home as to what constitutes a "Major" religion.--CltFn 03:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's usual to consult with other editors before making such changes. Zora 03:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Like you consult other editors when you blank out sections from articles?--CltFn 03:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
That's editing, CltFn, and it's not the same thing as changing the name of an article. Is this some sort of vendetta? Zora 07:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Why does the article list Prophets who are not regarded as founders, i.e Abraham and skip Noah, the article needs to redefine its focus there is no real consistency here at all, what is the scope and purpose. It could probably be deleted or expanded into series of lists of Important figures associated with certain religious traditions. i.e. expand upon the List of religions otherwise it's a bit pointless really. New name proposed as seen from the contents, List of central figures of World Religions, and then we can do away with Adam, Abraham for greater consistency. Not all religions need have central figures, and then again we can choose wether we want to get into sub-categories of religious traditions or not as well --Tigeroo 10:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Christian Science

I have added Christian Science and it's founder to the list since it is quite clear that this is a religion separate from Christianity. It is only fair since the Unification Church and Mormonism's founders are also on the list. The Fading Light 03:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself very familiar with all three of those examples. The Unification Church is wildly different from the others. The Mormon church could be arguably a sect of Christianity, except that they have their own holy text and a line of recent prophets who they believe in. Mary Baker Eddy made no claim to prophethood and her writings are not put on equal status with the Bible. She is one of many Christian reformers of her time. A church was formed around her personality, but she only incorporated ideas of healing and medicine she gleaned from the Bible. It's one of thousands of sects. And besides that, it is not a world religion. There are very few followers outside of the United States. Cuñado - Talk 05:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Confucianism

IshmaelBlues is continuing to remove the entry for Confucious, without justifying this, and, it seems to me, without reading the list of caveats at the bottom, one of which is that some people say that Confucianism is NOT a religion. It's arguable -- after all, Confucianism believes in a "Heaven" that requires the proper performance of religious rituals for the land to prosper. However, that is argued in the article to which we link. I think that in a borderline case such as this, it's better to include the tradition (which is, after all, followed by millions) and make it clear that it's disputed. Zora 08:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna

Wasn't Krishna the founder of the Hindu Religion? Anker99 20:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Hinduism has no founder. Krishna/Vishnu followers (Vaishnavites) don't own Hinduism -- followers of Shiva, Durga, etc. would disagree. Krishna is a mythological figure (but then some of the other people in the list certainly are, IMHO). Zora 22:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The Baghavad Gita describes Krishna as a supernatural figure acting out a story on a battlefield. I think it's more accurate to say that there is no historical evidence of the life of a man named Krishna. He is believed by many people to be the "Prophet" or founder of the Hindu religion. You could say that all the Old Testament figures are mythological figures, because there is no evidence of their existence outside of Jewish scriptures. They likewise have fanciful stories of supernatural abilities, but they're listed as real people. Cuñado - Talk 00:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_founders_of_world_religions_4237.html"