What religion are you? Poll

"MrClean wrote:

I have had a lot of debates about that. They say Atheist is the opposite of Theist and is a belief. Agnostic is not about belief, but about knowledge. The definition of agnostic is 'without knowledge'. One is either gnostic or agnostic. Some people refer to themselves as an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic atheist. Or the same combined with theist.

Huh? I'm not smart enough to follow that.

"cdz12250 wrote:

Huh? I'm not smart enough to follow that.

It answers two different theological questions.

If you are asked if there is a God and your answer is"I do not know" Then you are Agnostic.

If you are asked if you believe in a god and your answer is "No" then you are an Atheist.

"cdz12250 wrote:

Huh? I'm not smart enough to follow that.

It is about the difference between belief and knowledge. Theist vs atheist is about your belief. Do you believe in God? Yes = Theist, no = atheist. Nothing to do with having proof or knowledge, just your belief or faith.
Agnostic is defined as "without knowledge" basically. Opposite is gnostic, which means "enlightened" or having knowledge.
Atheists are sometimes divided into two groups. Agnostic atheists, and Gnostic Atheists. Gnostic Atheists are convinced beyond any doubt that no supreme being exists. They are probably outnumbered by agnostic atheists who believe the existence or non existence of a supreme being is unknown and not provable either way. I am in that camp. Many agnostics disregard the atheist suffix and just use the word agnostic alone. I do that. The hard core atheists, the Gnostic Atheists, are IMO often just as annoying as Evangelical Christians with their cocksure attitudes of knowing beyond a doubt that their beliefs are definitely facts.
Hard core Gnostic atheists often try to paint me into a corner with their question of "do you believe in God?" There can only be one of two answers to them, yes or no. I hate that attitude. I answer the question with either "I don't know if there is a god and neither do you", or there is not enough evidence to accurately answer that question either way. They are usually as persistent and annoying as the Born Again types in trying to get a committed yes or no response.
I say religion is like a penis. It is fine to have one. If it fine to be proud of it. But, don't take it out in public and start waving it around, and don't try to shove it down anyone else's throat.

"Den54 wrote:

"If you label me, you negate me"...Kierkegaard

Even though I cannot relate to Christian existentialism, I can definitely relate to that quote.

"Pagan wrote:

"Other."

No respect. :pity:

it's shorter than writing "slaughters sheep, wears a bull's head, and draws on floors". :p

No "all of the above" button?

Atomist.

"MrClean wrote:

It is about the difference between belief and knowledge. Theist vs atheist is about your belief. Do you believe in God? Yes = Theist, no = atheist. Nothing to do with having proof or knowledge, just your belief or faith.
Agnostic is defined as "without knowledge" basically. Opposite is gnostic, which means "enlightened" or having knowledge.
Atheists are sometimes divided into two groups. Agnostic atheists, and Gnostic Atheists. Gnostic Atheists are convinced beyond any doubt that no supreme being exists. They are probably outnumbered by agnostic atheists who believe the existence or non existence of a supreme being is unknown and not provable either way. I am in that camp. Many agnostics disregard the atheist suffix and just use the word agnostic alone. I do that. The hard core atheists, the Gnostic Atheists, are IMO often just as annoying as Evangelical Christians with their cocksure attitudes of knowing beyond a doubt that their beliefs are definitely facts.
Hard core Gnostic atheists often try to paint me into a corner with their question of "do you believe in God?" There can only be one of two answers to them, yes or no. I hate that attitude. I answer the question with either "I don't know if there is a god and neither do you", or there is not enough evidence to accurately answer that question either way. They are usually as persistent and annoying as the Born Again types in trying to get a committed yes or no response.
I say religion is like a penis. It is fine to have one. If it fine to be proud of it. But, don't take it out in public and start waving it around, and don't try to shove it down anyone else's throat.

You would probably fit very well in the Church of All Worlds, from what I have read in this post. Can you grok it?

Actually, if you dig deep enough in to the lexicon of theology, the Gnostics in church history are associated with a group of 'christian sects' that did not believe in the Christ depicted in the Scripture - or the God either, for that matter, but they did have some form of a faith which included a 'Jesus' who was at best a form of flesh animated by a spirit. What he was depended on the particular branch of Gnosticism.

An agnostic today is more like a "I don't know" as in "I have questions about everything" form of belief/existence.

I am a conservative/evangelical/sacramental disciple of Jesus Christ who is firmly in the "I don't think we really know much of anything about God/Trinity" camp, but who has experienced the gift of faith in a way I can only describe as by being 'touched by the Holy Spirit.'

By the way, the term "evangelical" really applies to all Christians... but some of the more rabidly zealous amongst the brethren have absconded with that word and given it a meaning more like "I'm agonna beat you over the head with the Bible (usually the KJV) until I scare the Hell out of you and you get saved" category. The trouble is that virtually all Christians, it seems, get painted with that insufferably arrogant label. In fact, as an ordained minister I have been accosted by some of that flavor of "Christians" and told I am going to hell because I don't belong to their church, preach their beliefs, and was not baptized by submersion - I prefer that term since I am ex-Navy. They are not as bad as The Westboro Baptist Church, but some don't fall very far from that tree.

At the other end of the Conservative Christian Protestant continuum are the Anglicans, and maybe some Presbyterians and Lutherans. I am only familiar with the Anglican branch - from which the Methodist's arose. The Anglicans are conservative in their worship, polity, and praxis (How they structure themselves and how they work!)

The Roman Catholic Church is one of the two which arose from the original split in 1054 AD. The other is the Orthodox branches (Greek, leading to Eastern, Russian, etc., I believe... Both of them are highly conservative in virtually everything - save that Pope Francis may have some lasting impact on the RCC. Both of them are highly conservative, and usually attract attention when their leader speaks ex cathedra! Or, when somebody gets through the system and does something horribly wrong, and usually perverts the entire system of faith.

All that is to say that I believe firmly in God, but don't have any idea that I can tell you what God thinks about what we do save that which comes from Scripture - and I don't think anyone else can either, which I why I laugh (inwardly) at those who think that they can hear God talking to them telling them to do things that Scripture says is wrong. People were doing those things back in the days Scripture was recorded/written, and are still doing them today... So!!!! What's New?

I also laugh at those who limit God to what is in the book - and say that God is not more than any book! But, I don't think God changes minds with the shift in human/mortal trains of thought or philosophy. That sounds more like wishful thinking meeting fear of being wrong.

As far as God and Science - Science is trying to penetrate the mechanisms by which "How" everything happens. That is find, good, and I love reading and hearing and looking into things like the Higgs Boson, Quarks and String theory, even the idea of multiverses is interesting, but there is a whole lot of physics which has to be explained and accepted before they can be considered more then hypotheses. And that is not the Theological question. The theological question is 'Why!"

That is the final question - is it "'How?' or 'Why?' I am here!?" If you push far and deep enough into each discipline, you wind up with one or the other being the preferred answer - and the score is still tied 0-0 at the end of the 13 Billionth or so inning. One answer is leads to an accident. The other leads to a purpose. I don't think I am an accident - but don't ask my wife or my remaining sister. They might not agree. And I don't know. I simply have faith!

We in the Lutheran tradition generally prefer the word "orthodox" (as in adhering to an historic understanding, not the Eastern Christian wing {btw Rick, you meant 1054 AD not BC for the date of the Great Schism}) to conservative. Evangelical was a phrase from the German (which got it from the Greek) meaning Gospel-centered. Originally used by anti-reformationists as a slur such as Bible-thumper might be used today, it was assumed as a badge of honor by the early followers of Luther. Out denomination is still known as the "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America" (ELCA).

I think Rick hit the mainline Christian view fairly well. I am a disciple of Jesus. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit in my life, I try to surrender my will to what I understand God is asking of me in life. I do this not out of obligation but in gratitude for what God has already done for me in Christ. Since this relationship with God gives me great joy, I honestly and (I hope) lovingly desire others to share that joy. That is at the core of the way I do proclamation and evangelism. I share Rick's loathing of "in your face" fear tactics because (1) they fail to portray the joy, I understand, God offers and (2) they turn so many people away who I believe would benefit from "authentic Christianity".

"RevRick wrote:

That is the final question - is it "'How?' or 'Why?' I am here!?" If you push far and deep enough into each discipline, you wind up with one or the other being the preferred answer - and the score is still tied 0-0 at the end of the 13 Billionth or so inning. One answer is leads to an accident. The other leads to a purpose. I don't think I am an accident - but don't ask my wife or my remaining sister. They might not agree. And I don't know. I simply have faith!

So let me get this straight, because you have not taken the time to understand or "accept" physics the score is 0-0? Obviously you have looked enough into it enough to say things like "string theory" "Higgs-Boson" but what does that have to do with religion? Science and religion could both be speaking the same language, so to speak, when it comes to those things. Especially when you start examining Sacred-Geometry/Molecular Geometry/Chemical Bonding/Quantum Physics and their relation to each other. At some point we may break down matter far enough to "prove" or "disprove" a god, but that has nothing to do with the "God Particle" or so they call it. We are just simply trying to get a better understanding of gravity and matter at a subatomic level.

The only way any religious teachings make any sense whatsoever is if you take them at an "interpretive" value. Such as Moses living hundreds of years, and based on modern knowledge of half-lives of molecules, that is just simply impossible. Not to mention snakes once walking/talking. The tower of Babel. REALLY!?? WHAT WERE THEY GOING TO DO?! BUILD IT UNTIL THEY DIED FROM OXYGEN DEPRIVATION?! Not to mention dating of items that existed far beyond the "cradle of life" section of the earth referred to in the history of the bible.

Im sorry, you would have a hard time taking score and ending up 0-0.

I've never been religious. I stopped believing in god before I quit believing in Santa Claus. For a long time, I referred to myself as an Atheist. I was pretty strong headed about it. My parents gave me the option of getting confirmed as a Catholic or quitting church when I was 13, and I gladly took the chance to never go back. They weren't very happy, but they lived.

In my early 20's, I had a bit of a realization that if people who were so sure that their relief was the right one, and were forceful about it made me so angry, then who was I to be so absolute in my beliefs either. I started calling myself an agnostic, and while I didn't believe in any god, I couldn't prove that there wasn't either, so it seemed to go with my general scheme of things. The problem became that there are people who see "agnostic" and think that means you are undecided, and its their chance to convert you to their side. After a while, that go really annoying, and I started just saying that I was non religious.

More recently, I've started saying the truest thing of all. I don't care. I really don't. If someone could somehow prove without question that one religion was true, or that there truely was no god, it wouldn't how I live my life one little bit, other than how it effected others and I then had to deal with that.

Suprising to see how many are non-religious though. Living in "The South", surrounded by people who truely hate that anyone could not be a Prodestant Christian, I don't meet many people who are openly non-religious. Even my LGBT friends are all Christian.

I voted Buddhist because ita the closest thing to whatI believe. I basically am Buddhist with belief in a Buddha or other entities.

"Alex44 wrote:

I voted Buddhist because ita the closest thing to whatI believe. I basically am Buddhist with belief in a Buddha or other entities.

Buddha was an actual person. There is no supreme being in Buddhism. Technically you could be atheist and Buddhist both, Buddha was a teacher, an enlightened one. Not a god. I like many of the tenants of Buddhism too, and if I followed any man made religion it would be the one. Some try to argue that Buddhism isn't actually a religion due to the lack of a sky daddy.

"MrClean wrote:

Buddha was an actual person. There is no supreme being in Buddhism. Technically you could be atheist and Buddhist both, Buddha was a teacher, an enlightened one. Not a god. I like many of the tenants of Buddhism too, and if I followed any man made religion it would be the one. Some try to argue that Buddhism isn't actually a religion due to the lack of a sky daddy.

That is partly true, but they also believe that he basically transcended in a sense. I don't believe that.

A lot of people don't realize but there are actually a lot of dieties, evil deities, and heavens/hells in Buddhism. I don't deny the Buddha as a historic person, I deny him as what he is portrayed as.

I was born a snake charmer and I'll die a snake charmer!

I am a Legoist. The Lego movie is basis of my religious beliefs. Everything is awesome...

I'm a heretic. Really. No joke.

7 Reasons Why Religion is a Form of Mental Illness

1
Hallucinations – the person has invisible friends who (s)he insists are real, and to whom (s)he speaks daily, even though nobody can actually see or hear these friends.

2
Delusions – the patient believes that the invisible friends have magical powers to make them rich, cure cancer, bring about world peace, and will do so eventually if asked.

3
Denial/Inability to learn – though the requests for world peace remain unanswered, even after hundreds of years, the patients persist with the praying behavior, each time expecting different results.

4
Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality – the beliefs are contingent upon ancient mythology being accepted as historical fact.

5
Paranoia – the belief that anyone who does not share their supernatural concept of reality is "evil", "the devil", "an agent of Satan".

6
Emotional abuse – religious concepts such as sin, hell, cause feelings of guilt, shame, fear, and other types of emotional "baggage" which can scar the psyche for life.

7
Violence – many patients insist that others should share in their delusions, even to the extent of using violence.

The TOS of this site demands respectful communication and I have seen you demand that for your opinions. That is right, you should! Yet, somehow you see it as perfectly admissible to suggest those of us who are people of faith to be victims of mental illness! I may be crazy but I do not find that respectful and wonder if you truly do as well?

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

The TOS of this site demands respectful communication and I have seen you demand that for your opinions. That is right, you should! Yet, somehow you see it as perfectly admissible to suggest those of us who are people of faith to be victims of mental illness! I may be crazy but I do not find that respectful and wonder if you truly do as well?

I'm am in full agreement with you Ohio.
I am a Christian
I force no one to belief as I do
And I don't care to be called "mentally ill" because I believe in God
And I believe in the Bible
I respect every ones own beliefs and I expect them to do the same with me.
And I do not need to apologize for my beliefs!

My parents are Buddhist but I believe in all religions but don't practice any.

-Sent from my TMO Samsung Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk

The concept of having faith in the existence of something without having any evidence is something that eludes me. I would not go as far as comparing similarities between mental illness and religion because it does come across as unnecessarily inflamatory. With that being said I do think religious people are nuts! :tongue2: (Joking)

"shula_guy wrote:

The concept of having faith in the existence of something without having any evidence is something that eludes me. I would not go as far as comparing similarities between mental illness and religion because it does come across as unnecessarily inflamatory. With that being said I do think religious people are nuts! :tongue2: (Joking)

I have no problem with humor. As a pastor, I often jest that the Church would be a wonderful place if there weren't any people in it! But thank you for recognizing that your inability to understand our motivation is not the same thing as mental illness. I find that kind of disagreement as respectful and furthering of a conversation.

"shula_guy wrote:

The concept of having faith in the existence of something without having any evidence is something that eludes me. I would not go as far as comparing similarities between mental illness and religion because it does come across as unnecessarily inflamatory. With that being said I do think religious people are nuts! :tongue2: (Joking)

If there was evidence, then it wouldn't be faith.

Faith cannot be based on facts and facts cannot be based on faith. If a god did exist and showed himself to the world, no one would believe he exists because everyone would know for a fact he exists. You can only believe in things you don't know and know things or believe things, it cannot be both.

The second someone of faith tries to state their faith as truth, they are actually displaying weak faith. The second someone without faith tries to disprove a faith, they are actually displaying a weak understanding of faith and fact.