Where would a religious Messiah have to be born today to have the same impact...

[socialsamurai]

..as Jesus?

 

My fiance and I have had several Theological debates over the last few months regarding the Second Coming and/or another religious Messiah. When we talk of Jesus, we take into account the political and social climate of the location and time in which he was born.

 

We are of the opinion that America would be out, as the Messiah would most likely be locked away in a loony bin and never heard from again. Italy/The Vatican would be out, as they would only wish to preserve the status quo of their current religion. The Middle East is too extreme at this point to believe in anything other than their current religion.

 

So...where do YOU think that a new Messiah would have to be born and live in order to have the same impact as Jesus did 2000 years ago?

 

My vote: South America

Her vote: She doesn't know.

[Moontanman]

If someone was born who had real supernatural powers I don't think it would matter where he was born. Locking God up in a loony bin would be neat trick, I don't think even the USA has that kind of power. Of course if he was just another Bull Butter artist he would have to be in a third world country where ignorance is rampant and the people are ready to believe anything, kind of like Palestine 2000 years ago.

[modest]

Joseph Smith was born in Vermont, now there are something like 13 million Mormons. Even worse... L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer who died little more than 2 decades ago. I would guess his religion has at least an equal number of followers as Christianity had 2 decades after the death of Jesus.

 

I want to think people are smarter now, but it may end up they are just looking for something different. A charismatic figure with a new-age kind of message could maybe be born just about anywhere today and end up forming what will one day be Earth's dominant religion.

 

~modest

[CraigD]

So...where do YOU think that a new Messiah would have to be born and live in order to have the same impact as Jesus did 2000 years ago?

My vote: somewhere and somewhen where there are good organizers and promoters, and receptive followers.

 

I don’t think a religious messiah need be born in any particular place to be influential, or an influential religious figure need be a messiah to be influential. Muhammad, for example, although in many regards fitting the expected characteristics of a messiah, such as being a military leader, claimed not to be a messiah, but a prophet, and further claimed that Jesus was likewise a prophet, not a messiah, and his impact has been great, resulting in an organized religion, Islam, claiming about 19% of the world population as adherents, second only the Christianities 32%. To circumvent conflict between the term messiah, Prophet, bodhisattva, etc. and avoid argument about their actual divinity or supernatural power, I’ll call them all “religionheads”. To distinguish them from people who merely claim supernatural power or authority and attract many followers, I’ll add the requirement that a religionhead be believed by their religionists to have once been a living human, and remain revered above all others at least 500 years after their birth.

 

As for a religionhead having the same impact as Jesus, I don’t think anyone or anything can have the same impact in 21st century as anyone or anything had around the 1st century. Human society is different, so the impact of influential people and events will be different.

 

Taking Jesus and Muhammad as examples, the thing most critical to their being religionheads appears to me to be the organizing and promoting skills of those who promote them after their time on Earth. In major branches of Christianity and Islam, some of these people - Christianity, Apostles, in Islam, Imams - are believed to have supernatural powers related to their religionheads.

 

The critical question is, I think, “what makes some religious organizations more effective than others?” Over the centuries, many people have aspired to be religionheads, gathered followers and attempted to install organizations to perpetuate their status, but only a few have been successful. What, for example, did Christ and Muhammad do or have to be successful religionheads, when most messiah and prophets fail at it?

[SidewalkCynic]

I was born in NYC, and thus far, my teachings have had no impact on society.

[sman]

So...where do YOU think that a new Messiah would have to be born and live in order to have the same impact as Jesus did 2000 years ago?

 

Brooklyn....Carl Sagan is my messiah.

 

I think a very strong case can be made that Sagan saved the world (from thermonuclear annihilation), stronger than for any other messianic candidates, Jesus, Muhammed...

 

More than that I try to emulate Sagan alot like Christians do Christ or Bhuddists the Bhudda.

 

If Carl Sagan could see this he would certainly log on and reprimand me, politely but unambiguously. I wish he could.

[CraigD]

Brooklyn....Carl Sagan is my messiah.

Good answer! :phones:

 

Would “Demon Haunted World” be his bible, and, say Richard Dawkins his angry apostle? :phones:

 

Seriously, I don’t think there’s any possibility of Carl Sagan having the impact (or name recognition) of Jesus or Muhammad, in terms of number of followers (though I know and count myself among his many admirers, sman is the first I’ve heard adopt him as a “religionhead”) or enduring name recognition (a mere quarter century after the arguable peak of his popularity, during the run of “Cosmos”, Sagan’s name recognition is, as best I can estimate it, under 1%, while Jesus and Muhammad are in he 90s and 80s. Newton’s in the 90s, too, as are Luke Skywalker, and, topping the non-scientific the ratings at 4degreez.com, Bill Gates).

 

While Sagan’s not, I’m pretty sure, a candidate for religionhead status, he surely was a big influence in my life, and those of thousands of other. Perhaps his follower are a case of quality making up for a lack of quantity?

[sman]

Seriously, I don’t think there’s any possibility of Carl Sagan having the impact (or name recognition) of Jesus or Muhammad

 

"Prophecy is a lost art..."

[buddyzen]

Guys it is not where the messiah is born in this case because it does not matter... the only thing is how or where it is born on paper and believes. for example christianity spawned on paper by some nut named paul or something. They never wrote that he was the messiah before he died only until after he died and they grave robbed him *** COUGH ***** woops i mean after he resurected..... The point i am trying to say is that the messiah itself has no meaning to how it was born only the people that believe in it............

[Glenn Lyvers]

I don't think a religious messiah can be born into this world. If we accept that God created the world, and God is perfect, then we have to believe that the world is perfect. Obviously a perfect creator would create perfect creations. Perfection cannot be improved upon. It is the nature of perfection that it cannot change. So, if God created the world, then it would be perfect and he cannot alter or change it without making it imperfect, which would be impossible for God. Why? Simple. A supreme being is a being of which no greater being can be conceived. So, if God created the world, and then mucked around with it, thus making it imperfect - or to correct it, thus implying it was imperfect to begin with, then a greater being could be conceived of - that of a God who got it right to begin with and left it in a state of perfection. Therefore, God cannot interact with our world, and thus, he cannot be "born" into it as a messiah to begin with.

 

:evil:

[Buffy]

...Therefore, God cannot interact with our world, and thus, he cannot be "born" into it as a messiah to begin with.

So you're arguing that Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith and the person the Jews are still waiting for are all by definition false prophets?

 

Your only obligation in any lifetime is to be true to yourself. Being true to anyone else or anything else is not only impossible, but that mark of a fake messiah, :phones:

Buffy

[Glenn Lyvers]

That's my argument yes. However, the idea that it is impossible for God to interact with our world is not new. Theologians do have an answer. If God willed for all time, that the interaction with our world would be part of his creation, then it reconciles the interaction with the idea that he created a perfect world.

 

So, let me explain that a little further. Consider time itself, - all the past and the future already exist, and did from the moment the world came into existence. Therefore Jesus and all the others who you might believe were manifestations of God in our world were "eternally willed" and thus, the world was created perfectly, and the inclusion of Gods interaction was simply part of that creation. So, yes, if you want to believe that it is possible, you are not alone because this theory exists which you can grasp onto.

 

However, I personally think it is intuitively wrong to believe that God created our world and needs to muck around with it. In metaphysics, it is not easy to establish a firm belief when opposing arguments exist. However, generally, the simplest answer is generally the right answer. By this logic, it is simpler to believe that God created the world perfectly, and then left it alone. This also seems to answer the question of proof from empirical knowledge. Since God left it alone, we do not have empirical evidence (except everywhere you look - but you know what I mean).

 

The bigger question is how to reconcile the idea that God created the world. If God is a perfect being, then he needs nothing. He is perfect unto himself. Therefore, he has no desires or unfulfilled wishes. Perfection cannot change either, because it is simply the greatest state, and any change would seem to diminish it. So, how could God have desires? He could not. To say he had a desire, would be to say that he existed in a state of wantonness, or incompleteness. So if he has no desires, then how could it be said that he created the world? It's a hard concept to fully comprehend on one read, and once you get it, it is hard to reconcile. I don't have the answer. I believe he exists from reason and logic, but why anything exists, especially contingent things is a mystery. What is not a mystery is that it would seem impossible that he interact in our world. This seems very clear, and of course, history is full of people who profess to have been sent by God. Some become popular, the rest are ignored. Just because people believe them does not make them more or less credible.

 

Thanks for your reply.

[Buffy]

The bigger question is how to reconcile the idea that God created the world. If God is a perfect being, then he needs nothing. He is perfect unto himself. Therefore, he has no desires or unfulfilled wishes. Perfection cannot change either, because it is simply the greatest state, and any change would seem to diminish it. So, how could God have desires? He could not. To say he had a desire, would be to say that he existed in a state of wantonness, or incompleteness. So if he has no desires, then how could it be said that he created the world?

Then it would appear that existence is illogical, and therefore imperfect. If he accidentally created the Universe, then he is capable of error, and therefore imperfect.

 

It's a hard concept to fully comprehend on one read, and once you get it, it is hard to reconcile. I don't have the answer.

 

Your honesty is refreshing! It would be even better if you didn't immediately ruin it by insisting:

I believe he exists from reason and logic....

That's nice. But it's also what we call "proselytizing" and it is against the rules here. If you go much beyond this you'll find yourself quite unwelcome here, so I'd recommend you heed your own advice:

Just because people believe them does not make them more or less credible.

Many of us enjoy Theological theory (scientific inquiry into religious beliefs) around here, but matters of faith are--and I think you're making the point quite well--personal and unscientific.

 

It would seem that Nomad is now seeking out perfect life-forms, perfection being measured by its own relentless logic. If what you say is true, then we've taken aboard our vessel a device which sooner or later must destroy us, :phones:

Buffy

[Glenn Lyvers]

I did not intend to proselytize. I should have phrased it thus: my belief in God is not based on religious texts but on logic based on science and metaphysical reason. There are good reasons from logic that support the existence of God, but also good logical reasons to believe that God cannot interact with our world.

 

Also, I did not imply that God accidentally created the world. Only that it is difficult to reconcile a creator God with a perfect being.

 

I hope that helps.

[clapstyx]

Any self respecting messiah would want to have an improved impact since this would be, I should consider, part of the objective challenge to maintain ones integrity thank you very much.

 

Where is an interesting one. If it were me I'd pick the place of greatest natural harmony and put myself one step removed from it so I could tune up and refresh the desire to move towards a higher state of harmony followed by an expanded state of consciousness as to its potentiality as a pre-conditional strategy and to which no doubt it would be my job to advance if I was the Messiah..and then put up with all the grizzles from people trying to find something wrong with that for most of my life because they didnt want to have to agree with me being perfectly right. So I suppose actually with the benefit of hindsight if I was the Messiah I'd probably live in a rainforest somewhere in peace then release an absolutely mindblowing scale of concept that caused consciousness to exponentially expand perpetually into eternity so I didnt have to live my personal life as a profession under the constant harshness of criticality. I suppose people would want some soul defining truth thrown into the bargain ... which is something I find amusing since if thats what the want why dont they just go to bed saying to themselves "I wish to experience a soul defining truth of universal magnitude" and I'm sure their own mind will deliver it to the equivalency of their desire to frame the request of the soul.

[buddyzen]

Sir may you please define this soul thing you are talking about i am sorry but i just don't know what it is.