I think that we are on the same page and then you say ...
Or to put it in more folksy terms, one should not go looking for zebras until one is out of horses.... and I have no idea what you're talking about.
Sorry, it's one of those weird adages I picked up somewhere. I think I last heard it in the context of medical diagnoses. The scenario being something to the effect that the patient had symptoms consistent with both an ordinary malady typical to the area, and some strange exotic tropical bug that's rare even on its home turf. Which do you treat?
Obviously you go for the more common malady unless you've got a good reason to suspect that it's the more exotic one, like symptoms unique to it.
I just see that there is room for both religion and science. "Suns are formed from a whole lot of gasses and particles coming together (I have no idea) -- it's a natural process..." "Birds evolved from dinosaurs through a natural process..." What do "laws of nature" mean? Where'd these "laws" come from? Could it not be that a divine being put them in place so we would have the potential to better understand the world/universe around us?
Could? Maybe. Possibility is easy. We can invent any number of scenarios that aren't logically impossible, or wouldn't be impossible for am omnipotent, omniscient entity even if they were logically impossible. But if we confine ourselves to talking only about possibilities we're really in the soup. We could probably construct a possible scenario for anything. The bar is just about infinitely too low. My Netflix aliens are a possible scenario. :)
The real question is do we have a scientific reason to posit that a divine being was involved. I say scientific because when it comes to explaining the universe, we are in the domain of science.
Either way, it's not really "provable". They are exclusive concepts in that neither one needs the other to be "wrong" or "right". In fact, I don't see how you could use one to prove or disprove the other. No matter how much people try.
I'm not sure quite what you mean. I can think of entities which, if they existed, would be permanently inscrutable to science. But they don't resemble any supernatural entity ever conceived and any knowledge about them would be completely impossible to us. They'd have to interact with and act upon reality in ways we can detect for that, which puts them in the matter and energy club and right back under the eyes of science.
Absent that kind of interaction, which we'd at least in principle be able to see, we would have no way of ever knowing anything about them. But they also then by definition couldn't make any difference to us.
Move your frame of reference away from Earth (or just change your scale to the subatomic), and the whole X-Y-Z coordinate system you're using can also be seen as an artificial construct, jerry-rigged by humans to help us make sense of things, but not an integral part of the universe.
Essentially, what's more accurate to say is that we know that all coordinate systems have to work equally well (reparameterization invariance). That however does not mean that spacetime is not fundamental. It merely means that we can assign any numerical value to "there" and "then" and all the equations must work out.
Treating time as being fundamentally important because of your perception of it, and then artificially declaring restraints on the universe because of that perception, is edging towards the type of hubris that, when applied to religion instead of science, says things like "God has to do X because I think He should."
You're running up against an axiom of physics. We need to define 3 distinct quantities in order to have a universal set of definitions. Typically we pick distance, time, and mass. We could just as easily pick energy, force, and velocity (note: there are sets that do not provide universal definitions such as energy, momentum, and velocity (you can't uniquely define distance or time using that set)), but we choose to work with x, t, and m simply for convenience. It's like when you try to derive calculus from first principles. Most people choose to take "All bounded monotonic sequences converge" as their axiom for the leap from discrete to continuous mathematics because it's easier to work with then something like the mean value theorem.
In one sense you're right that time is not fundamental in that we are not required to treat it as fundamental, but in another sense it is fundamental in that it needs to be defined in order to have a consistent physics.
I guess that I also feel that humans operate outside of "natural laws". We force or impose our will on the "natural world" around us. I mean, is a bush that talks to one person more of an "influence on human events" than say a nuclear power plant?
Beavers build dams according to the same natural laws as we do. Imposition of will on the world is not a distinguishing characteristic of non-natural. The whole idea of a "law" of nature is that things work predictably, once they're understood. Even beyond dams, if I build a power plant here today, and another one in Japan tomorrow using the same specs and materials, they work the same way. Same with everything humans do. The results are always subject to prediction and repeatability, once the operating factors are known. THAT'S what natural laws imply. Nothing I know of that humans have ever done is outside of natural laws, when they're defined correctly.
But, again, as far as I know, I cannot suddenly make a depraved murderer into a pillar of the community by crucifying someone else as a proxy offering -- but only sometimes, mind you. To the best of my knowledge, resurrection after 2 days hasn't ever been shown to work. Natural laws imply stable cause-and-effect relationships. Apparently random happenings that are not repeatable -- in direct violation of the known laws that normally apply -- that's what "supernatural" means to me, and those are things that we don't ever see.
In one sense you're right that time is not fundamental in that we are not required to treat it as fundamental.
Exactly my point.
Could it not be that a divine being put them in place so we would have the potential to better understand the world/universe around us?
Then you must lend equal weight to Allah, the Hindu gods, Zoroaster, Zeus, ect.
I do, all are equally right and wrong.Could it not be that a divine being put them in place so we would have the potential to better understand the world/universe around us?Then you must lend equal weight to Allah, the Hindu gods, Zoroaster, Zeus, ect.
That's a beautifully ambiguous statement. I didn't quite notice at first but coming back to it later I apprehended the layers. Well played. :)
I held off writing this for almost a week exactly, mulling over the matter a bit and debating if it was worth a post. But here I am so I guess I've decided it does. Or I just want to write another post. I've been trying to adjust my level of writing upwards a bit to accommodate my homebrew project a bit better and maybe start a blog I've been noodling about for three or four years now.
Anyway my mother dragooned me into going to a funeral for the husband of her sister. I did not want to go because I hate most of my relatives and don't care much about the rest. That probably means I'm a really cold bastard, but it's not a flight of whimsy that I think my genome should never, ever be propagated. My relations make me look normal. A few days back I suggested she and I think of all our relatives who were mentally healthy and we both immediately agreed there were none. After you pick up a few of the pieces and clean up the messes from one carnival of violent mental illness, you really do not want to do it again. What do you say to a girl who shows up at your door crying, having fled her home because her sister didn't take her medication and started chasing her around the house with razor blades? My answer was: "Get in here and I'll hide your bike in the garage. Are you ok?" or something to that effect.
But my mother didn't want to go face her family alone. She still wanted to go, because she's my mother and she's been the responsible caregiver since she was six. This is despite the fact that the woman has treated her like shit for all their lives. My mother is like that. Because she's like that, I wouldn't make her go alone.
So we get there and as is usual practice I stay glued to her side. It reduces the chances for incidents considerably when I'm not sitting alone and people think I might want to talk. The minister married into the family so I would feel sorry for him, but every time I've seen him he's been an ass.
Nine years ago my mother's father died. We went to the funeral and he was the minister then too. This seems to be the default, so I hope he's at least giving a family discount. If it was free, I'm sure it was worth all that was paid.
I am not especially fond of funerals. I kind of like wakes where people sit around informally and share stories. My mother's twin brother, a Catholic convert, had one of those and it was really decent. My grandfather's funeral was a Catholic affair. He was a regular churchgoer all his life. The service was about the usual dog and pony show with a censor swinging around on a string and constantly nearing the priest's robes. I thought my grandfather would have enjoyed it immensely if the priest accidentally set his vestments on fire. Later I shared the thought with my father and we had a good laugh. It's exactly the kind of thing my grandfather would have gotten a giant kick out of.
But anyway, the service included the usual stand up, sit down, kneel, take off all your clothes and sing showtunes, etc. I'm not sure about the kneeling, though. It's been a few years. One of the assistant priests picked his nose up by the altar for most of it. Normal ceremony.
The sermon was full of the usual religious language, but except for the recitation of some creeds everything referred back to my grandfather. This guy did his homework and it went more or less Jesus, Grandfather, Jesus, Grandfather, etc.
Not this guy. Despite being a relative, despite having married him, despite obvious consultations with family members to harvest up remembrances to share, the funeral sermon was 10% the deceased, 20% hymns the minister had nothing to do with, and 70% about how you absolutely had to accept Jesus or you would burn forever. There was no way to avoid burning forever unless you showed up at the pearly gates wearing the Jesus t-shirt. He went so far as to tell us a story about a Buddhist monk who died and went to hell. The minister was very clear that this was the regular tortured by demons, fire and brimstone hell. He told us how the monk saw all kinds of other monks there and, he added, Buddha himself was there. But they let the monk out of hell so he could come back and tell everybody what he'd seen and devote his life to Jesus.
And this is almost exactly the same sermon he gave when my mother's father died. I wasn't close to that stiff either, but I recall being rather put out then too. It's not a matter of the fairy tales. To me this behavior is just grotesque. Here you have people mourning, people who want some closure. People who are upset and going to have to try to move on with their lives. And you spend most of an hour giving them the hard sell for your business?
What the hell? I know the man's a fundamentalist, but this is just sick. I don't by any means expect a religious service to be totally devoid of sales pitches. The Catholic funeral had one or two, but even then they were mostly in creedal formulas or in the context that my grandfather was very committed to his church. Most of the funerals I've been to that I have any memory of have been Catholic. Is this typical for conservative protestants?
My understanding is that the event is supposed to be about giving the bereaved a sense of closure, consoling them a bit, and all that stuff. The deceased may be the least important person in the room (and really, the dead are past caring) but using most of the time and most of your energy to talk up how unbelievers are going to hell is just disgusting. I'd suggest he save it for Sunday, but I don't know that anybody in the room regularly darkened a church door. In a way that just makes it all the more slimy. He's trying to guilt and frighten people at a funeral.
This seems to be a re-occurring theme. People will say 'fire insurance' is not a reason to believe, then turn around and use that very reason anyway.
Why would god need to scare people into believing? It really calls credibility into question.
It really calls credibility into question.Just thought I'd make a quick comment. This thread (and the other one) really seem to be moving (once again) away from "civil" and more to accusatory. So until things change, I'm done.
How is that uncivil?
How is that uncivil?
I did call a minister an ass, and I'll stick by it. I know the guy, after all.
As for the other thread I think Moff's referring to, wasting my time (which I knew I was doing when I first posted) tends to frustrate me quickly and there's no thread title insistence on particular styles of discourse. I expect it'll go like the last time Steven darkened the door here and spent all his time whitewashing slavery and ignoring what his own Bible said about it in favor of random irrelevancies he uses in place of argument.
I mean, this is what one gets from fundamentalists.
|
I did call a minister an ass, and I'll stick by it. I know the guy, after all.
How is that uncivil?
I went to two funerals last year. David Hames who died in Haiti and my roommate for many years. David's memorial service was nice. It celebrated his life as well as people being sad in his passing. It was a little awkward in that his family are strict Jews and he was a Christian and they didn't approve of that. But outside of that, the service went rather well. My roommate's, on the other hand, made me want to take a shower afterward for pretty much the same reasons you stated.
So, in the end, I empathize with you.
But -- no. It's the implied jabs that are shrouded in "civility". "Fire insurance" was created by people, not God. But did CF bring that up? Not really. He blamed God for that. But then he threw out the extra little bit that "calls credability into the question". That isn't a question -- it's a statement. He's already made his conclusion and puts me and anyone else on the defensive. He makes it look like it's conclusive without even saying what exactly it is that's conclusive especially when very little is truly conclusive. I grow incredibly weary of asking a question and getting a jab back as an answer. When CF lists off a bunch of gods and asks if I've given them the same weight, he's not actually looking for an answer. He already knows the answer. So why ask? He's not really looking for a breakdown. He's making a jab and shrouding it in "civility". There are a few other things that have been said that have been in poor form -- yet not quite "uncivil" -- that make me no longer want to have a "discussion".
"Fire insurance" was created by people, not God. But did CF bring that up? Not really. He blamed God for that.
I do not remember blaming god. Since I do not believe in god, I would think it is pretty obvious who I do blame.
But then he threw out the extra little bit that "calls credability into the question". That isn't a question -- it's a statement.
I do think it calls credibility into question. It looks like human manipulation to me, not something divine. To me, this just seems more evidence that human hand has been behind this from the beginning.
He's already made his conclusion and puts me and anyone else on the defensive.
You have already made your conclusion. I bet most of the people that frequent this thread have already made their conclusion. Should we all be on the defensive because conclusions have been made?
He makes it look like it's conclusive without even saying what exactly it is that's conclusive especially when very little is truly conclusive.
I think you flatter me, Moff. Is that not exactly what a good debater is suppose to do?
I agree, it seems there is very little that is truly conclusive...otherwise, there would not be much need for this thread, would there?
I grow incredibly weary of asking a question and getting a jab back as an answer.
I am sorry you feel attacked, Moff. I do respect you and it is not my intent to attack you. I do question your beliefs and my 'jabs' are attempts to reconcile what I perceive as inconsistencies.
When CF lists off a bunch of gods and asks if I've given them the same weight, he's not actually looking for an answer. He already knows the answer. So why ask? He's not really looking for a breakdown. He's making a jab and shrouding it in "civility".
What I am trying to understand is why you accept the rationalizations of Christianity while at the same time rejecting the rationalizations of other religions. To me, they are obviously the same. Obviously, to you, they are very different. That puzzles me greatly.
This goes back to our debate about Mormonism. Joeseph Smith seems a questionable figure with an agenda to you. The god of the Book of Mormon does not seem like the god you know. The stories in the Book of Mormon do not seem to fit with the world as we know it. And therefore, you reject it. To me, the Bible is exaclty the same. It seems entirely created by man, the god it speaks of seems terribly contradicted and its stories are filled with fantasy.
How can you not see the parallels? The other possibility is that I am missing something. So what is it?
|
|
I have little desire to go through things line by line, but I'll take this one...
How can you not see the parallels? The other possibility is that I am missing something. So what is it?
I guess that I'm really looking at the differences (and to some degree, the point).
Most other religions (all?) feel that you need to be "good enough" to reach the "prize" at the end. Without a clear understanding what "good enough" truly is. Christianity is different.
Most other "parallel" stories from other religions, while having some potential moral attached, are there largely to glorify the characters in the story. While there is at least some of that (David was a great and mighty king, etc.), the stories seem to be far more focused on how great God is (and how fallible people are).
Many other religions have god(s) that are fallible. Christianity doesn't.
While you may see a lot of condemnation in the Bible, the Bible is also incredibly full of forgiveness. This is also something that is lacking in many other religions.
"How can I not see the parallels"? I do see them. But I also see the differences -- and that's what makes Christianity more desirable to me.
Most other religions (all?) feel that you need to be "good enough" to reach the "prize" at the end. Without a clear understanding what "good enough" truly is. Christianity is different.
Most other "parallel" stories from other religions, while having some potential moral attached, are there largely to glorify the characters in the story. While there is at least some of that (David was a great and mighty king, etc.), the stories seem to be far more focused on how great God is (and how fallible people are). Many other religions have god(s) that are fallible. Christianity doesn't.
You've just described Islam perfectly -- even more so than Christianity. Yet you are not a Muslim.
|
Most other religions (all?) feel that you need to be "good enough" to reach the "prize" at the end. Without a clear understanding what "good enough" truly is. Christianity is different.Most other "parallel" stories from other religions, while having some potential moral attached, are there largely to glorify the characters in the story. While there is at least some of that (David was a great and mighty king, etc.), the stories seem to be far more focused on how great God is (and how fallible people are).
Many other religions have god(s) that are fallible. Christianity doesn't.
I prefer the idea of you have to be as good as you can to a religion that allows you to be a monster as long as you say sorry between rampages. I also prefer the idea that the good are rewarded to the notion that we are all worthless unless we pledge ourselves to one power
Christianity CLAIMS its god is infallible. I say having two testaments might be proof enough that it is NOT
|
|
I prefer the idea of you have to be as good as you can to a religion that allows you to be a monster as long as you say sorry between rampages. I also prefer the idea that the good are rewarded to the notion that we are all worthless unless we pledge ourselves to one power
I don't know what you're talking about. Give me a Biblical reference please.
|
|
You've just described Islam perfectly -- even more so than Christianity. Yet you are not a Muslim.Most other religions (all?) feel that you need to be "good enough" to reach the "prize" at the end. Without a clear understanding what "good enough" truly is. Christianity is different.
Most other "parallel" stories from other religions, while having some potential moral attached, are there largely to glorify the characters in the story. While there is at least some of that (David was a great and mighty king, etc.), the stories seem to be far more focused on how great God is (and how fallible people are). Many other religions have god(s) that are fallible. Christianity doesn't.
Islam also has a vague idea of "good enough". There is an exception with "Holy Wars", which is really a different discussion. (And also something that is different with Christianity.)
Islam also has a vague idea of "good enough".
Then evidently either your translation of the Q'uran is wrong, or else mine is.
|
|
Islam also has a vague idea of "good enough".Then evidently either your translation of the Q'uran is wrong, or else mine is.
The Q'uran is pretty clear on what will prevent you from getting to heaven. But it's not all that clear on what will get you to heaven. There are some prerequisites (namely: be a Muslim), but it's still not clear outside of that. There seems to be indication that Muhammad didn't even know if he would make it.
There seems to be indication that Muhammad didn't even know if he would make it.
Yes, because everything in Islam is according to the will of Allah, and His grace. Mortals like Mohammed don't count compared to God -- not even prophets can know with certainty His mind. So in Islam you give all glory to God, and give up your own will to His entirely, because He's in charge -- not you. So it's up to Him who gets into heaven, not up to us. Even the Qu'ran, the Word of Allah, was given to Muhammed by an Angel (not by God Himself) and is read by mere humans, so there's no way it can make you as omniscient as Allah in even one topic. And it's very clear on that -- want to go to heaven? Serve Allah's will entirely, and hope that it's part of His plan.
Disclaimer: I don't personally subscribe to any of that so-called "reasoning," but then again, I'm not a Muslim.
<pops into thread in a *poof* of fairy dust>
<shoots Moff Rimmer with a repeating hand-crossbow tipped with sleepy poison>
<poofs out of thread again, chuckling things to self>
|
|
There seems to be indication that Muhammad didn't even know if he would make it.Yes, because everything in Islam is according to the will of Allah, and His grace. Mortals like Mohammed don't count compared to God -- not even prophets can know with certainty His mind. So in Islam you give all glory to God, and give up your own will to His entirely, because He's in charge -- not you. So it's up to Him who gets into heaven, not up to us. Even the Qu'ran, the Word of Allah, was given to Muhammed by an Angel (not by God Himself) and is read by mere humans, so there's no way it can make you as omniscient as Allah in even one topic. And it's very clear on that -- want to go to heaven? Serve Allah's will entirely, and hope that it's part of His plan.
Disclaimer: I don't personally subscribe to any of that so-called "reasoning," but then again, I'm not a Muslim.
There is that -- the ultimate in a fickle God -- but in theory, that's still based largely on "good works". Here is a pretty good quick comparison. The bit I'm referring to is...
"Once they reach puberty, his/her account of deeds is opened in Paradise. To attain paradise, at death, their good deeds (helping others, testifying to the truth of God, leading a virtuous life)... must outweigh their evil deeds."
What does that mean? Every deed we do has a "value" assigned to it? So if we are 51% good we get to go to paradise -- assuming Allah's having a good day? And this isn't vague to you at all?
What does that mean? Every deed we do has a "value" assigned to it? So if we are 51% good we get to go to paradise -- assuming Allah's having a good day? And this isn't vague to you at all?
Re-read my post. It seems vague to you because you lack Allah's insight. You're a mere mortal. Not only do you not see the whole plan, but your puny mortal brain cannot begin to comprehend it. That's how awesome God is. He's not fickle at all -- you're just not seeing the big picture.
|
|
What does that mean? Every deed we do has a "value" assigned to it? So if we are 51% good we get to go to paradise -- assuming Allah's having a good day? And this isn't vague to you at all?Re-read my post. It seems vague to you because you lack Allah's insight. You're a mere mortal. Not only do you not see the whole plan, but your puny mortal brain cannot begin to comprehend it. That's how awesome God is. He's not fickle at all -- you're just not seeing the big picture.
Nice.
Nice.
Yeah. Once you break into the mind-set, it all makes perfect sense. Not that I believe a word of it, but it gives Muslims a "free pass" to explain any seeming contradictions. You Christians do it, too, when you talk about reading verses in context, and how God works in mysterious ways, and all that -- but in Islam, those explanations are hard-wired into the basic scripture.
|
|
You Christians do it, too, when you talk about reading verses in context, and how God works in mysterious ways, and all that --
No one likes to admit that they don't know. Just look at the political threads for other examples. I think that Christians are starting to understand that "I don't know" is ok for some things.
As far as "reading in context", I think that's true for just about anything. Why should a religious document be any different?
As far as "reading in context", I think that's true for just about anything. Why should a religious document be any different?
Oh, I agree. I'm just saying that Islam fulfills your description of what makes Christianity work for you far better than Christianity itself does. I'd therefore guess that there are other things about Christianity that you're maybe not listing, that should bear thinking about in answer to "why not some other faith?"
I think that Christians are starting to understand that "I don't know" is ok for some things.
And that's to their credit.
|
|
I prefer the idea of you have to be as good as you can to a religion that allows you to be a monster as long as you say sorry between rampages. I also prefer the idea that the good are rewarded to the notion that we are all worthless unless we pledge ourselves to one powerI don't know what you're talking about. Give me a Biblical reference please.
Thats the big problem, half of what the churches teach is NOT in the bible, the whole infinate ask for forgiveness/confession game is just part of it. Look at all of the prison convets, im sorry but saying sorry is NOT enough and i would hate any god to let peole off that easy.
|
|
As far as "reading in context", I think that's true for just about anything. Why should a religious document be any different?Oh, I agree. I'm just saying that Islam fulfills your description of what makes Christianity work for you far better than Christianity itself does. I'd therefore guess that there are other things about Christianity that you're maybe not listing, that should bear thinking about in answer to "why not some other faith?"
Google belief o matic, take the religion test and you might be surprised on what your beliefs are closest to.....
|
|
Google belief o matic, take the religion test and you might be surprised on what your beliefs are closest to.....As far as "reading in context", I think that's true for just about anything. Why should a religious document be any different?Oh, I agree. I'm just saying that Islam fulfills your description of what makes Christianity work for you far better than Christianity itself does. I'd therefore guess that there are other things about Christianity that you're maybe not listing, that should bear thinking about in answer to "why not some other faith?"
You do not know me. Don't pretend or assume you do.
|
My results are as follows:
1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (89%)
3. Liberal Quakers (75%)
4. Nontheist (73%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (64%)
6. Neo-Pagan (64%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (61%)
8. New Age (47%)
9. Taoism (45%)
10. Reform Judaism (44%)
11. Orthodox Quaker (42%)
12. Mahayana Buddhism (40%)
13. Sikhism (34%)
14. Scientology (30%)
15. Jainism (29%)
16. Baha'i Faith (29%)
17. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (29%)
18. New Thought (27%)
19. Seventh Day Adventist (25%)
20. Hinduism (23%)
21. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (22%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (22%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (20%)
24. Islam (20%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (20%)
26. Roman Catholic (20%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (15%)
Honestly, some of the stuff on the list does kind of surprise me.
The Belief-O-Matic could be better designed, but here's mine.
1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (93%)
3. Nontheist (77%)
4. Liberal Quakers (77%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (71%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (64%)
7. Neo-Pagan (61%)
8. New Age (52%)
9. Reform Judaism (49%)
10. Taoism (48%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (41%)
12. Orthodox Quaker (40%)
13. Scientology (36%)
14. New Thought (34%)
15. Sikhism (30%)
16. Baha'i Faith (29%)
17. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (28%)
18. Jainism (26%)
19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (22%)
20. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (22%)
21. Islam (21%)
22. Orthodox Judaism (21%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (18%)
24. Hinduism (15%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (13%)
26. Roman Catholic (13%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (8%)
I've taken it before and I'm always a bit disappointed to see the Jehovah's Witnesses get more than zero. Unitarian-Universalism comes fairly close to meeting my criteria for an unobjectionable religious organization.
|
|
Here're mine
1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (98%)
3. Liberal Quakers (90%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (78%)
5. Neo-Pagan (76%)
6. Theravada Buddhism (75%)
7. New Age (71%)
8. Taoism (68%)
9. Nontheist (68%)
10. Mahayana Buddhism (67%)
11. Reform Judaism (61%)
12. Scientology (52%)
13. New Thought (51%)
14. Orthodox Quaker (50%)
15. Jainism (46%)
16. Baha'i Faith (45%)
17. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (44%)
18. Sikhism (43%)
19. Hinduism (32%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (26%)
21. Islam (25%)
22. Orthodox Judaism (25%)
23. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (22%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (19%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (14%)
26. Roman Catholic (14%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (9%)
I'm raised and officially still (as far as my rather religious family is concerned) Roman Catholic, so I find it doubly interesting to see this matrix place me more firmly in the Islamic camp than the Catholic...
Some of the questions are too general and some too specific. I have a feeling I ranked high on the New Age/Neo Pagan/Taoism et al beliefs thanks to two questions: the significance of violence and Nature. Like most rational military men, I'm decidedly against violence whenever any other reasonable measure is available. As an outdoorsman and Einsteinian, I revere the beauty and structure of Nature and the natural universe.
|
|
Out of interest I did mine:
1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (91%)
3. Nontheist (86%)
4. Liberal Quakers (69%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (65%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (60%)
7. Neo-Pagan (59%)
8. Reform Judaism (50%)
9. Taoism (44%)
10. New Age (42%)
11. Scientology (38%)
12. New Thought (37%)
13. Sikhism (33%)
14. Mahayana Buddhism (29%)
15. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (29%)
16. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (25%)
17. Orthodox Quaker (25%)
18. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (20%)
19. Baha'i Faith (19%)
20. Eastern Orthodox (15%)
21. Islam (15%)
22. Orthodox Judaism (15%)
23. Roman Catholic (15%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (13%)
25. Hinduism (11%)
26. Jainism (7%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (5%)
Heh, I was raised Roman Catholic ... obviously my beliefs have changed a fair bit since then.
I really think some of the questions (or possible answers) are very limited or badly worded though.
|
|
You do not know me. Don't pretend or assume you do.Google belief o matic, take the religion test and you might be surprised on what your beliefs are closest to.....As far as "reading in context", I think that's true for just about anything. Why should a religious document be any different?Oh, I agree. I'm just saying that Islam fulfills your description of what makes Christianity work for you far better than Christianity itself does. I'd therefore guess that there are other things about Christianity that you're maybe not listing, that should bear thinking about in answer to "why not some other faith?"
Duder, i just suggested a test that might expand your thoughts on faith, never claimed to know you are anything
|
|
Duder, i just suggested a test that might expand your thoughts on faith, never claimed to know you are anything
You implied that I don't know what my beliefs are and that I should take a test to figure it out.
You also said...
Thats the big problem, half of what the churches teach is NOT in the bible, the whole infinate ask for forgiveness/confession game is just part of it. Look at all of the prison convets, im sorry but saying sorry is NOT enough and i would hate any god to let peole off that easy.
Do you know what my church teaches? Do you even know what church I attend? You assume a great deal about me -- especially since this is the second time you have brought up this particular beef. I am not Catholic. Never have been. At the same time, most Catholics I know don't feel that confession is a game. While I'm sure that there are those that go through the motions, I really don't think that what you describe is what they teach.
If you have a question, then ask a question. But do not think that you know what I believe or what my church teaches. And do not make blanket statements without anything to back it up. Saying something like "...half of what the churches teach is not in the Bible..." is neither accurate nor helpful.
My belief-o-matic results:
1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Secular Humanism (96%)
3. Theravada Buddhism (84%)
4. Liberal Quakers (83%)
5. Nontheist (69%)
6. Neo-Pagan (67%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (65%)
8. Taoism (64%)
9. Mahayana Buddhism (61%)
10. Sikhism (53%)
11. New Age (50%)
12. Jainism (49%)
13. Orthodox Quaker (43%)
14. Reform Judaism (43%)
15. Hinduism (40%)
16. Baha'i Faith (33%)
17. Scientology (29%)
18. New Thought (28%)
19. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (25%)
20. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (22%)
21. Seventh Day Adventist (20%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (19%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (18%)
24. Islam (18%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (18%)
26. Roman Catholic (18%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (12%)
P.S. What the hell is "Unitarian Universalism"?
Unitarian Universalism
"Inherent dignity of every person." I like that. I wish more people would try to live up to that sometimes, myself included.
|
|
Unitarian Universalism"Inherent dignity of every person." I like that. I wish more people would try to live up to that sometimes, myself included.
It is a very noble goal.
I got Unitarian Universalism.
1- Unitarian Universalism
2- Neo Pagan(!!)
3- Liberal Quakers
4- Reform Judaism(!!!!)
5- Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants(fifth down on the list? I hope my pastor isn't watching...)
6- New Age
7- Sikhism
8- Mahayana Buddhism(thought this would be further up...maybe I'm too attached to the world)
9- Hinduism
10- Orthodox Judaism
....
And the bottom 3:
25- Christian Science
26- Nontheist
27- Jehovah's Witness
|
|
Do you know what my church teaches? Do you even know what church I attend? You assume a great deal about me -- especially since this is the second time you have brought up this particular beef. I am not Catholic. Never have been. At the same time, most Catholics I know don't feel that confession is a game. While I'm sure that there are those that go through the motions, I really don't think that what you describe is what they teach.If you have a question, then ask a question. But do not think that you know what I believe or what my church teaches. And do not make blanket statements without anything to back it up. Saying something like "...half of what the churches teach is not in the Bible..." is neither accurate nor helpful.
I know what mainstream christian churches teach, so no i don't need to know the specifics of yours for my comment to stand. Never claimed you were catholic but the idea of confession or asking jesus for forgiveness of sin is part of every branch of christianity i have heard of. Much of what some churches practice goes agianst what jesus said directly, call no man father, have no rabbi among you for you are all brothers, his condemnation of preistly vestments.
|
|
I feel like I'm the only one that sees a trend with this thread. Someone comes on and accuses Christians of believing X, then Christians come on and defend what they actually believe -- all apparently in the name of "civility".
I've heard a lot of people here claim that they are tired of being told what to do or what to believe -- only to see them do it themselves. Pretty much typical bully tactics really. Pretty sad.
I know what mainstream christian churches teach, so no i don't need to know the specifics of yours for my comment to stand. Never claimed you were catholic but the idea of confession or asking jesus for forgiveness of sin is part of every branch of christianity i have heard of. Much of what some churches practice goes agianst what jesus said directly, call no man father, have no rabbi among you for you are all brothers, his condemnation of preistly vestments.
The better word for "confession" should be "repentance". While there are places where the word "confession" is used, the idea behind it is really a whole lot stronger than simply making a list. More often than not, the only people who really feel that "confession" allows you to be a monster later on are people outside of the institution. But, hey. What do I know? I'm apparently one of the "monsters" you were referring to earlier.
The other thing you are talking about (it took me a little while to find it) is found in Matthew 23. It's kind of an interesting series of passages. It starts out telling people that they must do what the "Teachers" and "Pharisees" tell them to do, but also not to do what they themselves do because they do not practice what they preach. The whole thing is a warning against hypocrisy and to be careful who you listen to. I think that there is a stronger translation thing that we are also missing -- to us, a "teacher" is simply "one who teaches". But I really suspect that "teacher" to them was much more a title or a position of status. If you continue reading, (verse 34) Jesus tells the Pharisees that he is sending them teachers that they should listen to but they won't. If Jesus doesn't want us to call anyone "teacher", but will be sending us "teachers" that he wants us to listen to, how does that make sense.
Now, of course, I expect people to get all up in arms saying that "See, there's a contradiction. Therefore it's all wrong." It's not a contradiction. In the first case, Jesus is warning us to watch out for hypocrisy and to not elevate people higher than they should be. In the second case, he's saying that those people in these elevated positions won't listen any more no matter who talks to them.
But in the end, I'd really appreciate it if people would stop telling me what problems they have with my beliefs -- as if this is somehow "civil" -- before they even know what my beliefs are.