# What religion are you?



## edX (Jan 14, 2002)

ok, it says on the forum description that we can talk about religion here. but i don't see anybody doing it. so i'm just wondering what religions are represented among us. it surely doesn't make a difference and a simple poll like this doesn't need a reply aand insures annonymity. but if anyone would like to discuss religion, i am open to it. i have a b.a. in religious studies so i am reasonably versed on a variety of faiths and canassure you that i, at least, am not judgemental. i think all religions have something to offer their followers and that most people are born into faiths whose messages they need. (ok, i believe in reincarnation)

hopefully we can do this and maintain our sense of respect for each other.


----------



## martinatkinson (Jan 14, 2002)

Hello!

Just wondering what religion you are Ed, didn't see that mentioned in your post.
Also, who else here besides me is Christian?  I see two people besides me voted on the poll under Christian.  Just wondering.

Have a great day!

Albert


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jan 14, 2002)

What am I ?
Greek Orthodox 

Do I practice it ?
Hardly ever  he he

Reason ?
I probably fall in the 60% of greeks who are "religious" in their youth (pre-teen years)  then go through a void, the black hole of life, then when they age they "see the light" and return to the church he he he


----------



## wdw_ (Jan 14, 2002)

I'm a scientologist. It's like an Athiest only with a whole bunch of different philosophies. I don't really follow it. Hell, I could bearly spell scientologist when typing this post, I had to spell check it.


----------



## Jadey (Jan 14, 2002)

I follow the loyal order of Macintosh. Would you also like to know who I voted for in the last election?


----------



## Nummi (Jan 14, 2002)

Yeah... sometimes I think Macintosh is my real religion.  Since I spend so much time with Macintosh... and I am always talking about Macs.  But... I do not have a religion.  I am all religions.  My family is Christian, but not me.  I do not think of God, the way most people do.  I think think God is connected to Nature.  Or, God is Nature.  Or Nature is God.  Romantic / Transcedentalist.


----------



## ScottW (Jan 14, 2002)

I'm a Christian! Thank You Lord for what you did on the cross!!

Admiin


----------



## RacerX (Jan 14, 2002)

I'm an Atheist, have been ever since I asked myself the question of the existence of God or any deity (I think I was 12 at the time). I actually find that people's faith can be one of their most beautiful characteristics (specially if they feel it from the heart and not the ego).

I would go as far as to say that those who's faith shows in their actions are truly gifted. And that being able to ask Someone else for forgiveness must truly be a wonderful thing (I can only ask myself, and I tend not to let myself off the hook to easily).


----------



## tagliatelle (Jan 14, 2002)

There must exist a religion "the universe".(It's a woman or girl)


----------



## RacerX (Jan 14, 2002)

Actually I had often thought that if there was a deity it would be better defined as a female than male. It is interesting to note that in more romantic cultures that are Catholic you find people (men) praying to the Mother Mary rather than God/Jesus. I have often thought that this is very much like how it is easier to go to your mother than your father about things. And as a male it is harder to ask forgiveness of another male than a female.


----------



## edX (Jan 14, 2002)

ok, i've voted now. i'm a pagan. my views are a lot like nummi's - nature and diety are very closely connected for me. i am what is known as an eclectic pagan with a sort of self organized belief system taken from various pagan religions. for those who would like to know more about this and who i am as a spiritual being see my website at http://duard.dreamscrying.net   please sign my guestbook while you are there just to say hi if nothing else. 

i was raised Christian but figured out it wasn't for me at around age 13. i spent the next 17 years going thru various stages of exploration and total disregard for spiriuality. around age 30, i discovered i was pagan, but was still hesitant to embrace that name for it because of all the dark images my Christian upbringing had instilled in me. but as i realized the beauty of this path and how strongly i was called to it, i became open about it. i still consider myself a spiritual esxplorer but i am no longer bound by dogmas and yet i have some form of guiding principles at the same time. taking personal responsibility rather than having a desire to be forgiven is a very strong part of these beliefs as well. i also agree with racerx that people's faith and spirituality can be a really beautiful thing when people truly live it thru actions. being a member of a religion is much different from being a spiritual being.

May God bless and Goddess watch over all of you.


----------



## RacerX (Jan 14, 2002)

So what do you think of Deism? Very popular with our founding fathers (even the ones who didn't actually believe but said they did to help their political careers). I like the idea that the only true connection to a deity is by studying that which was made by one... in other words a study of the natural sciences. Scientist can be some of the most preachy people if you get them started.


----------



## Siq (Jan 14, 2002)

Pagan all the way!! No i do not worship satan!


----------



## Siq (Jan 14, 2002)

is kinda strange, Ed, with all the naked faeries and what not...  
And yet it is not pornography  
to each his own...


----------



## edX (Jan 14, 2002)

well you bring up a good point racerx - of course most of our founding fathers were freemasons - a very mystical group. our currency is still filled with masonic symbolism. they were very much on the fringe of Christianity. 
Judaism teaches that we can only know God thru God's actions. so this 'study' or relationship with nature makes a lot of sense that way. of course we must include humans as part of nature and therefore human relationship is part of having relationship with God. Martin Buber in "I and Thou" gives a very good explanation of this. Many, including myself, see this work as being a mystical piece. It is one of those works that brings new levels of understanding every time you read it.


Blessed Be Sig!!!


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jan 14, 2002)

Lutherine (AKA Christian).


----------



## edX (Jan 15, 2002)

wow 29 responses so far. that's great. i don't think that many people responded to what web browser do you use!!

i'm a little surprised there aren't more budhists. i'm pretty buddha influenced myself. 

the topic of causality is a big one in buddhism.  several years ago scientists working on the linear accelerator found an event for which they could trace no cause. Many of the scientists working on the project became buddhists afterwards. there is a real nice cultural anthropolgy on the phenomenon somewhere. i have it but it would take me forever to find in all my stacks of old papers!!


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jan 15, 2002)

buddism is more of a philosophy rather than a religion, is it not ?


----------



## edX (Jan 15, 2002)

that's a pretty common misconception admiral. one they teach right out of you in introduction to religion 101. the truth is that all good religions have a philosophical side as well as a mystical side and a spiritual side. of course the lines between them are not always drwan so clearly. 
Because Buddha taught that we should not be concerned with Gods or afterlife, but rather with living our lives,  many people want to think of it more as a philosophy. but Buddha's point wasn't that there is no Other, but rather that we will know the Other when we reach the other side. the relationship is not really important for this life. In practice most buddhists do worship dieties as well. one of the great things about buddhism is that it is not a one and only religion. there is no conflict in being buddhist and being christian in the buddhist eyes. There is a movement to form a sort of united nations of religions being started by a christian minister here in the bay area. the buddhists he contacted all joined in at 1st invitation. he has had a much harder time within his own faith. Last i heard no large denomination of churches had joined, only indivdual ones. He was quite frustrated that so many of his fellow christians won't let go of the "our way is the only way" idea. Of course we all know lots of christians who aren't like that, but the officials of the churches are different sometimes. 
but back to buddhism. it is a religion - considered to be one of the big 3. and at various points in history it has suffered the same religious persecution that other religions have. most recently in Tibet.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jan 16, 2002)

Heck christians arent the only ones with the "my way or the highway" thinking -- take a look at muslims 

I think the jewish religion seems to be very exclusive and kinda cool in that way.  They have their faith and they are not interested in proselitizing (from what I have seen )


As for buddists....kinda like carpe diem eh ??? I like that ;-)




Admiral


----------



## themacko (Jan 16, 2002)

Whenever I see the work Pagan, I always think of the Dragnet movie (with Tom Hanks and Dan Akroyd .. one of my favs) where there was the big sign that said:
*P*eople
*A*gainst
*G*oodness
*A*nd
*N*ormalcy

Hehehe, good stuff.


----------



## edX (Jan 16, 2002)

lol
and in just about any other movie i would have found that offensive!! But that movie was far to funny !! I love all that old SNL crew, especially Chevy Chase and Bill Murray.
but to bring this back to topic - how the media portrays pagans is a mixed bag. we have been getting more and more good press lately, at least partly thru community education efforts. i rarely see any tv shows that make me want to scream anymore. I like the ones that show that as a whole we are a good group of people with sincere belefs and practices but that true wierdos tend to gravitate towards paganism a s well. that is a pretty realistic picture of us.


----------



## edX (Jan 18, 2002)

what, no muslims or hindus on the site? i did think we would find some here considering how many there are in silicon valley. perhaps they are all pc users but that doesn't sound right to me. 

i didn't really expect to find anyone from Santeria but i was hoping.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Jan 18, 2002)

Wow! I'm surprised there are no muslims are hindus also!

I would have figured that out of at least 27, 28 something people there would be at least one. Heck I know about 5 muslims and 1 hindu at my school.  Do you think that there is anything about the mac demographic that would create this? I'm roman catholic by the way.

Oh yeah, the same question goes for santeria.


----------



## edX (Jan 22, 2002)

Phil, I have also been wondering if there is something about the MacIntosh demographic that would create this.  I wonder if Apple sells computers in India and Mideastern Muslim countries? I know there have been some export restrictions into some of those areas.  But still there are large numbers of Hindus and Muslims in the United States and parts of Europe that should be exposed to Apple products.  

I wonder if it has anything to do with fitting into the dominant culture? When one is trying to assimilate to a larger foreign culture, one is likely to adapt as many outward symbols of that culture as possible.  Already being in possession of many things they might feel defensive about, they may be reluctant to advertise that they ' think different'.  Plus with a national climate in the United States of distrust for Muslems, many of them might be afraid to make a traceable public declaration of their faith.  Putting myself in their shoes, I could understand this.


----------



## Mindy (Jan 22, 2002)

Christian here!  My relationship with God is the most important thing in my life.


----------



## edX (Mar 8, 2002)

yet another poll i would like to get any new peoples results for. the latest discussion about birth control reminded me of this thread.

so far the members of this site have been able to discuss their differences in belief without threatening or offending each other. diversity is a strength  and not a weakness.


----------



## Izzy (Mar 8, 2002)

Christian here...Seventh-Day Adventist specifically

I've always felt God working in my life and leading me to where I need to be...so many doors need to be opened just for a person to even get into med school.  There is no doubt in my mind that He has brought me to where I am right now...

www.adventist.org is the web addy to the home page of my church...check it out if you are curious, there is a whole section on the left of the page that has our fundamental beliefs, etc.


----------



## edX (Mar 9, 2002)

so Izzy, on the website it talks about those who have died as "sleeping" while waiting for the 2nd coming. i have never heard that description used before. Could you explain it a little more? How would it differ from the other concepts of purgatory?


----------



## themacko (Mar 9, 2002)

Isn't Purgatory where you go to wait to get into hell .. or something like that?  I dunno.

Hey *Izzy*, in your sig you have a quote by Third Day, is that the Christian music group?  One of my friends' father is a pastor and we ended up going to a concer by them last week, then I saw them on ABC last night.  They actually weren't too bad...  (pointless post, I know, but I'm a bit bored)


----------



## edX (Mar 9, 2002)

scott, i guess you could look at it like that but it seems sorta fatalistic 

ordinarily puragatory is thought to be the place where your soul goes after one dies while waiting for judgement day. how you are judged would determine whether you go to heaven or hell. at least from a Christian perspective.

i am not sure that rooting for the sundevils will get you sent to hell, but who really knows?


----------



## Klink (Mar 9, 2002)

I voted none but would have liked to vote for the Me.

I'm coming to an understanding I do things in life, in the ultimate, for selfish reasons. 
I could love my mate. I would do this not only for her but ultimately for me. I could grow a friendship, fulfilling his or her needs for companionship, sharing in laughter and sorrow. Ultimately for me. I could adore and care for an animal, again for me. I could fight for the rights of the forests, once again, ultimately for me. I can procreate a child, love and cherish it, give it the guidance to live and be able to procreate for his or herself, ultimately for me.

I don't think I would be able to do any of these things without some ultimate rewards for me. Is being selfish truly a negative to live ones life as such? I'm inclined to think not.


----------



## simX (Mar 9, 2002)

Selfishness isn't bad at all.  It's selfishness that's taken to the extreme that is.  Personally, I think that any "selfless" act still makes the perpetrator be happy, so it's kind of a selfish act in the end -- although this is hardly what the term "selfish" means.

Personally, I voted "atheist", because I can't say that I believe in the existence of God.  But I do respect my parents beliefs (although they hardly practice their religion either) and my grandparents (I pray to God with them when we're having a meal over at their house).

Maybe a better term than "atheist" would be "scientist".  Although it sounds silly, I put a lot of faith in science and I like it a lot, so I guess you could call that a "religion".


----------



## edX (Mar 9, 2002)

i pretty much agree with SimX on the selfishness concept. Klink, I have been arguing that it is impossible to escape the kind of 'selfishness' that you describe since i was 13 yo.  I would argue this is part of human nature and not a religion of its own. However if you see yourself as a part of diety or containing diety, then you are getting into pantheism and pagan beliefs. or even jewish mysticism. self motivation and reward are simply part of our survival instincts i thinkl

SimX, there are some inherent problems in calling science a religion. one, not all scientists are without other spiritual beliefs. My old advisor said to me that he thought "religion takes over where science leaves off." but since religion came before science as far as i know, my counter to that has always been that science attempts to explain religion. Much of our scientific study began during the ages of alchemy and gnoticism. Much of out modern medications are derived from ancient 'magical' herbs and plants. the two are linked very tightly. but because many scientists see themselves as the 'demystifiers' of religion and magic, then they tend to lean towards atheism. Yet many scientists i have met are very spiritual and very devout in their religious practices. 

and beside people tend to get scientists mixed up with scientology when you start talking about it as a religious point of view. 

all that being said, i believe it is possible to have the knid of unquestioning belief in science that others hold towards diety. not to say that one doesn't question the scientific process, but that one doesn't question that everything can either be proved or disproved thru proper scientific methods.


----------



## Klink (Mar 9, 2002)

I don't see myself as a diety nor containing diety that I'm aware. My definition of selfish should be taken in the broad sense as in the love of self. If I construe the love of self as a practice or a way of life without diety, why can I not term it as a religion? I would argue religion itself is part of human nature and a survival instinct or a manifestation of it.


----------



## edX (Mar 9, 2002)

klink - i can respect that argument and can understand the point of view that supports it. but how is that different from atheism?  I am not sure, but  i think many atheists would believe in that perspective.


----------



## Klink (Mar 9, 2002)

I suppose it's not. Was I arguing that it was?


----------



## tagliatelle (Mar 9, 2002)

the same


----------



## edX (Mar 9, 2002)

klink - that is the way i interpretted your original statement of wishing there is a choice for 'me'. You sounded to so reluctant to say you had 'none'.  Gods and Goddesses know i wouldn't want you to feel like you were spiritually deprived because you don't belong to an 'official religion'.

maybe you should check out the Church of Bob 

herve - almost got #2. but are you saying klink's beliefs are the same as atheism or are you saying your beliefs are the same as klinks? or both?


----------



## Jadey (Mar 9, 2002)

Klink, you should read the _Virtue of Selfishness_ by Ayn Rand.


----------



## Klink (Mar 9, 2002)

Thanks Jadey for the reference. I'd look into that if it became a nagging unanswered question. At the moment I feel content but am still open to new perspectives which can take effect on my belief.

Ed, I think it was one of my twirling moments. 
It was an edit after I had written the body of the post. Notice how I mangled the sentence tense. I was sloppy and a little tired as well.
The word 'Me' seemed to sum nicely what I was about to explain and was rhetorical for the negative definition of selfish. But you've hit a particularly astute observation of how I tend to not associate myself wholly with any particular group. A recurring theme in my life from childhood to present.


----------



## Izzy (Mar 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by themacko _
> *Hey Izzy, in your sig you have a quote by Third Day, is that the Christian music group?  One of my friends' father is a pastor and we ended up going to a concer by them last week, then I saw them on ABC last night.  They actually weren't too bad...  (pointless post, I know, but I'm a bit bored) *



Yep...that's the group Scott...they are my fav.  I'm a member of their message boards and am pretty much what you'd call a "superfan"...LOL.  

I'm going to a concert of theirs on the 11th of April and I can't wait because I managed to snag a backstage pass and pre-show backstage tour!  

ED - This view holds that when you die you go to sleep...similar to what Jesus said about lazarus: "Our fiend lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up."  We don't believe there is any sort of purgatory...once dead you simply rest in the ground until the second coming.  I can get more into detail if you are interested in knowing the whole belief and it's basis.  PM me if you are interested and I can give you a longer answer.


----------



## edX (Mar 10, 2002)

so Izzy, would one 'dream' in this state? of is one simply not conscious of anything?

i would prefer not to pm you, but i would like to know more. another question that seems to arise is what happens when a body has long since deteriorated? i mean, it isn't just lying in the ground anymore. or cremated? or blown up in an accident?

i know, i'm asking a lot of questions about a very complex thing. but give as much detail as you feel comfortable with. this is not a challenge to your beliefs or anything like that. just my personal fasciantion with religions and the core beliefs they are made of.


----------



## Izzy (Mar 10, 2002)

That's cool Ed, I'm the same way...i've always been interested in finding out what others believe and why they believe it.  Gimmie some time to give you a well thought out answer...I have finals coming up so I'm gonna be studying, so don't hold your breath.  I'll get an explanation up here as soon as I can


----------



## unlearnthetruth (Mar 10, 2002)

I consider myself a "free thinking humanist." but only when I have to. I don't like labelling my beliefs cuz all that does is limit them. ;-)


----------



## edX (Mar 11, 2002)

Izzy - good luck on the finals. i haven't held my breath for a dangerously long time since second grade when i managed to pass out and hit my head on the bench while showing off in the lunch line 
i'll be here when you get back.

UTT - I understand your reluctance to put labels on your beliefs. Labels are only helpful as a common language to help others understand more complex beliefs with less words. only you can ever actually limit your beliefs. Labels just limit other people's initial understanding of them. They also tend to include or exclude a person from certain other groups. but I think that is more of a manmade defense than anything else. here in this poll, they are just used to identify what belief system, if any, that a person considers part of their own identity. Humanist sounds ok as an identity but i would have think it fails to id what you see as your relationship with the unknown. unless you are like klink and this is just another form of atheism.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Mar 11, 2002)

sometimes labels mean nothing 
Take a look at me -- greek orthodox, probably one of the more traditional branches of christianity out there yet I dont practice.  I am orthodox though.

even language, or people/nationalities as a label dont mean a thing at times.  Some of my best friendships out there aren't with greeks, they are with my vietnamese co-workers.

One thing I do believe though is that a label, if you choose to attach one to yourself, it does not limit your thinking or options.  A label is just a label, nothing more.  Think about it this way.  You go to the supermarket and you swap the labels of 2 cans, a Green Giant pea can and a Green Giant pineapple can.  When you swap the labels does tha mean that the content changes ? nope  -- same thing with thought 


Admiral


----------



## googolplex (Mar 11, 2002)

Wow another deeply personal thread. I just finished replying to the abortion one. I call myself christian, but I do beleive everything in the religion. I think that religion is more figurative rather then literal. Everyone is of one religion when it comes down to it.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 11, 2002)

Our understanding of the universe is one of the more important concepts that we as intelligent beings need to come to grips with. This is important because _not_ knowing (or having a belief) about why we are here and what our place is can lead to some extreme anxiety. Given that, the fact that we accept each other given our different beliefs is both encouraging and remarkable. Religious belief spark wars because people naturally don't like when others challenge their beliefs (even if it is just practicing their own). Human nature would have us want everyone to believe as we do to add validity to our beliefs.

My personal beliefs are most likely different from most of yours (mainly because I reached my independently of outside influences), and in turn are a little more difficult to explain. My belief takes into account that we are 4-dimensional creatures  that exist within a Minkowski 4-space. Who and what we are is the collection of events that make us up from our earliest beginnings to the moment of our deaths. The collection of events is the time line of our lives from moment to moment. Each moment of us has some realization of the moments that came before, but none of the moments that follow. It can go even further when you consider that everything that you experience is actually past events by the time your mind has actually realized them.

Consequently, each of us can be represented as a string of events in Minkowski 4-space, and the length of each string is the length of our lives. This length is not really all that different from someone's height or weight, and people living in different periods are separated by a distance that can be thought of as not all that different from that of a geographical separation. For example Oppenheimer lived before my time, but he also lived in places I have not been. The fact that he and I had never connected may not have changed if we had lived at the same time. Another example would be my Grandfather, who died a few years ago. He and I were quite close, but now he is gone, but that doesn't mean that we are any less close. Our lives are still (and are always going to be) touching at the events that we shared. Other than the fact that I can not contact him, the separation is really not that different from the separation geographically that I currently have with my Grandmother.

An important factor of this is that we can only effect future and only realize past. On the small scale this causal existence makes us feel more aware of ourselves and our place in our environment than we really are. Taken to a larger scale, we lose the ability to communicate to a significant group of people who existence has effected us so much, that group being those of the past. Given this, I have taken to morning the communications gulf rather than the passing of people.

One of the interesting aspects of this is the ethical consequences of being aware of how we exist. Once you realize that you _are_ the collection of events that make up your life (more to the point, you are the choices you make while dealing with those events), everything you do becomes very important in defining who you are. If you hurt someone, you can't remove that action from yourself. If you steal, that again becomes part of who you are. With no deity to ask forgiveness, and no way to remove the unwanted choices (though you must have wanted them if you did them) from your life, ethics plays a central role. Given that, I have adopted Kant's philosophy of duty and reason (but that is yet a longer subject).


----------



## unlearnthetruth (Mar 12, 2002)

> _Originally Posted by One Mr. Ed Spruiell_
> UTT - I understand your reluctance to put labels on your beliefs. Labels are only helpful as a common language to help others understand more complex beliefs with less words. only you can ever actually limit your beliefs. Labels just limit other people's initial understanding of them. They also tend to include or exclude a person from certain other groups. but I think that is more of a manmade defense than anything else. here in this poll, they are just used to identify what belief system, if any, that a person considers part of their own identity. Humanist sounds ok as an identity but i would have think it fails to id what you see as your relationship with the unknown. unless you are like klink and this is just another form of atheism.



You're absolutely right, that's how I meant it when I said labels limit. Probably could have been more clear 
As far as the unknown goes, I don't believe in the idea of a God who lives in the sky and watches our actions and judges what we do. I do believe in some sort of "higher power," because, as scientific as I may be, some stuff still goes unexplained. However I believe this higher power to be a nature kind of thing, as opposed to a spiritual one.


----------



## CloudNine (Mar 12, 2002)

Existentialist...

Which is actually a broad philosophy that I find encompasses many of those that label themselves free thinkers and atheists as the all-purpose "I don't believe in God" category.




> _Originally posted by Jadey _
> *I follow the loyal order of Macintosh. Would you also like to know who I voted for in the last election? *



http://www.bbspot.com/News/2002/01/oooh.html


----------



## edX (Mar 13, 2002)

Cloudnine - no wonder i find so much of value in many of your posts. i too would classify myself as an existentialist. however existentialists come in all flavors and religions. This seems at time to be a basic rift among existentialists - is diety allowed? As a pagan and an existentialist, i tend to say yes. my own feelings that existentialism neither supports nor defends the existence of something 'higher' than ourselves, but simply seeks to provide means that we might seek answers that give meaning to our lives. Which also fits nicely with the Buddha's take on diety as well.

Greg - let me se if we can't clarrify part of what you said even more because i find the seperation of nature and spirituality to be confusing. this is because nature plays such a big part in my spirituality.But if i understand what you mean, you are saying that there are laws to the natural order of things. and that these laws operate regardless of whether we are aware of them and their source. but because they work in some orderly fashion, like the binding and structure of molecules, we could know and measure them if we only had the correct instruments for doing so.Does that sound about right? and hence they are not part of some 'being' but of a metaphysical formula that holds the universe together.


----------



## edX (Mar 13, 2002)

RacerX - i think Cloudnine and I both would agree with your precept about needing to find meaning in our existence and the potential anxiety involved in not knowing. or at least in not coming to terms with not knowing. 

I would argue that while we do tend to want others to agree with us, that is not the major cause of religous wars. Wars are almost always over limited resources. Ideas are just ways of seperating who deserves those resources. Once a war is started, the religious unity can be used to bolster moral and bring a sense of 'being right' to ending the lives of others.

I know nothing of Minkowski 4 space, but this idea that we are nothing but a string of events is a very old Buddhist one. It has been discussed at great length under the larger heading of causality and the idea that at some point there was an event that had no cause. One of the great evidences of modern science is that we know that our cells die and replace themselves on a regular basis. We are literally not the same person we were 10 years ago. Tied into this is the idea that the collection of past actions will determine the future, so that the past, present and future are inevitably intertwined. In some sense making up one dimension. It is said that we can know the past and future when we are in the right place in the present. Which brings me to a question since you suppose there is no way to know the future. Yet we have considerable evidnce that psychic abilities do exist and that some elements of the future become known to some individuals. So if it were proved that psychic phenomenon exists, would this change your point of view any?

As for the last part about having no deity to ask forgiveness of, this is also a very pagan belief. When your Gods and Goddesses demand personal responsibility, then one must take that responsability. There is no one who will fix your karma for you. Along with this one must learn to live with one's failures and not be crushed by them. all people fail. One must be able to forgive oneself in order to move forward from those failures. for me this means learning the lesson from them, rather than simply going back and starting the same mistake again as if one had a clean slate.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 13, 2002)

> _by my friend Ed_
> *Which brings me to a question since you suppose there is no way to know the future. Yet we have considerable evidnce that psychic abilities do exist and that some elements of the future become known to some individuals. So if it were proved that psychic phenomenon exists, would this change your point of view any? *



With evidence, that would make for an interesting study. It would be interesting if this is a true and natural phenomenon, if it were like the water flowing towards a water fall. If you watch a small stream of water moving smoothly along, it seem to have no sense of what is coming further down stream. But if you watch the water 1 to 2 meters from the water fall you start to see it get agitated (like it knows what is coming). The effect is explained by dynamics systems using chaos theory. If such a thing happened in space-time and people could _read_ it, that would be something.

But then again there is the problem of time travel (even for information). The universe is a very different place than it was a when you started reading this post. The over all volume has change, your position relative to the rotation of the Earth has changed, the Earth's position orbiting the Sun has changed, and the Sun's position orbiting within the Milky Way has changed and so on. Given though factors, information moving backwards in time would have a hard time finding us at all.


----------



## edX (Mar 13, 2002)

racerX - my own understanding of how psychic phenomenon works is that it makes one aware of the potential results of a string of events that have been set in motion in the past and are uninfluenced in the present so that they lead to a certain future if conscious choices to change them are not taken. much like your water coming to a water fall, only by knowing which is the steep drop off and which the gentle cascade, the water which chooses one path will create a different series of events than the other water. There still is not one future, but many possible futures. knowledge of the possiblities helps one prepare for the choices.

and to kind of tie in with what i said to UTT, this may be a natural ability that we all have hardwired, some with more ability to use it than others. and we may simply not know how to locate and measure the internal devices used to control it. not something that is caused by some communication with a deity, but rather something along the lines of what you described - information or energy travelling both directions at once.

 i guess i believe in psychic phenomenon having experienced it myself. that doesn't mean i know everything that is going to happen. the incredible amount of choices that we make everyday would be imposible to have advance awareness of. one could never be in the present with that much future to deal with. so this 'device' must have some sort of filter to only encode certain kinds of info. 

I am not sure that the existence of such phenomenon needs to change anyones beliefs, but it does put  a wrinkle into causality and connectivity/communication theories.


----------



## CloudNine (Mar 13, 2002)

Another sun burnt out hours ago,
though wide awake you stay.
Last call for accomplishment,
you may yet seize this day. 

Or perhaps cowering from tomorrow,
it could only bring more pain.
Finally a break from school or work,
so you know it's going to rain. 

Smile, child, for tomorrow brings,
chance to begin anew.
See and listen a bit differently,
indulge a different view. 

Smile, child, for life goes on,
overcoming frustration and strife.
Survival meaning so much more,
than just to stay alive. 

When you look at those around you,
only hate and anger show.
Boisterous pride and selfishness,
try to make you feel so small. 

Those people and their troubles,
seeking such far greater cause.
No moments aside for compromise,
you're irritated by the loss. 

Tolerate those different, child,
for their problems all the same.
Juxtaposit will not teach,
understanding is the aim. 

Tolerate the scornful, child,
a good soul has fallen ill.
Do only what you hold to be right,
know your strength of will. 

Missing days long since past,
innocent carefree cheer,
Wishing return once small more,
draws a guilty tear. 

Dwelling on events that brought,
so much anguish then.
The hasty reckless banter,
costing you a friend. 

Look not to yesterday, child,
the here and now are all.
Bear down with your own two feet,
stand humble while also tall. 

Look to your winnings, child,
learn from defeat and falsity.
Mistakes that led you to regret,
are bound to help you see. 

Sadness begins to find you here,
this room away from home.
Feeling and unfeeling emotions,
uncertain and alone. 

Doubts and inhibitions cloud,
the world beyond your door.
Life without purpose makes you,
wonder what it's for. 

Hear me, child, for often overlooked,
is that we're even here at all.
Our existence is religion,
one both true and meaningful. 

Hear me, child, for rarely felt,
is the power of being free.
To live, to love, to die,
creating dreams or destinies.


----------



## earector (Mar 13, 2002)

Ah, sweet diesm! What a wonder. Who would have thought that French enlightenment values would be most successful in the new world. I'm afraid that, even though I love Voltaire, I'm going to have to side with Diderot...



> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *So what do you think of Deism? Very popular with our founding fathers (even the ones who didn't actually believe but said they did to help their political careers). I like the idea that the only true connection to a deity is by studying that which was made by one... in other words a study of the natural sciences. Scientist can be some of the most preachy people if you get them started. *


----------



## earector (Mar 13, 2002)

You've been reading Ayn Rand again, haven't you Klink? If not, I think you'd really like her; *The Fountainhead* and *Atlas Shrugged*. You're basically espousing Objectivism...



> _Originally posted by Klink _
> *I voted none but would have liked to vote for the Me.
> 
> I'm coming to an understanding I do things in life, in the ultimate, for selfish reasons.
> ...


----------



## edX (Mar 13, 2002)

Cloud - did you write that? or is it from someone else? it is wonderful!! Thanks for sharing it with us


----------



## edX (Mar 14, 2002)

well, I will share one that i wrote and would like for Matt Larson to read. others might find something in it as well.

Jesus was a rambling, drifting rebel
with a smile and words of peace.
He found some friends with whom to talk
about his strange ideas and deeds.
Well, I don't know if he was God
but I know that he was real,
and all the things he talked about
are things i also feel.


an aside - a friend of mine who was Christian when I met him and is Pagan now once said "more of my Pagan friends act like Christians than my Christian friends do".  I have always taken his statement to mean that how well we live up to some of the higher ideals found in many religions and which he had been raised on thru Christianity, has nothing to do with our labeled belief and our assoiciation with a certain group. It has more to do with how we put those beliefs into practice. Do we live them, or just talk them? No one is perfect, but some people do have a higher batting average than others.


----------



## unlearnthetruth (Mar 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *Greg - let me se if we can't clarrify part of what you said even more because i find the seperation of nature and spirituality to be confusing. this is because nature plays such a big part in my spirituality.But if i understand what you mean, you are saying that there are laws to the natural order of things. and that these laws operate regardless of whether we are aware of them and their source. but because they work in some orderly fashion, like the binding and structure of molecules, we could know and measure them if we only had the correct instruments for doing so.Does that sound about right? and hence they are not part of some 'being' but of a metaphysical formula that holds the universe together. *



Ed - thanks for saying it better than I could! That's basically what I was getting at. You're right, "spiritual" was probably the wrong word - but i'm glad you got the idea. I think it's my bed time. I already had 2 much to drink and then sent an email to my father that i'm going to regret sending  ah well. Goodnight all!


----------



## Klink (Mar 14, 2002)

I would hate to disappoint you Eric, but I have a general boredom for fictional works. Particularly when they are enshroud in philosophy. I will shamefully claim ignorance with my left hand and proudly bare it with my right.

And now for your claims. What they be our new librarian friend? In your words, please. I'm sure you have more than just commentary.


----------



## earector (Mar 14, 2002)

I'm not disappointed at all, Klink. You like what you like. I just remember Ayn Rand's books being intellectually amusing in the area of selfishness (and Technocracy, if I'm not mistaken).

As for me, I'm afraid I just don't have it in me to believe in God. I converted to athiesm when I was 17 or 18. For those of you who have had extremely powerful conversions to a belief set, think of mine as the exact opposite; an extremely powerful conversion to no belief set.


----------



## CloudNine (Mar 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *Cloud - did you write that? or is it from someone else? it is wonderful!! Thanks for sharing it with us *



Yeh, wrote it later on last year...


----------



## Giaguara (Mar 28, 2003)

Another revival ... interesting.


----------



## edX (Mar 29, 2003)

well yes, this is the thread where we pretty much showed we could discuss religion in a mature and reasonable fashion. i'd certainly welcome any newcomers additions to it. the last reply was over a year ago after all. 

dlloyd - you and scott can politely challenge each other's views on christianity here if you'd like


----------



## larry98765 (Mar 29, 2003)

On the subject of religion:

http://larrystone.com/comics/subway.cfm


----------



## hulkaros (Mar 29, 2003)

...Christians Orthodox...

And while I would like to believe things are so easy about my religion and my beliefs, always something occurs that makes me feel otherwise...

The thread had a very simple question and the answer to that question is also easy(!?)... But when one starts to grow on that answer, things always become less clear!

Who are we? What are we doing here? Why we are doing the things we are doing? Why this and why that? Too many questions with too many not so clear too many answers...

In the end the only sure thing remains: No one can give a 100% right and clear answers... No religion... No human being... Only the truth that we will find, if ever, in our end of time... Until then we all should care and love about all beings around us, including ourselves.

Not just ourselves or the others or nature but all of the so-called creation... If in order to do so, we have to believe first in any religion out there, go ahead and do so ASAP!

Grrrr, Hulk smash puny humans


----------



## Arden (Mar 29, 2003)

I'm Jewish, and I wish you'd capitalize the J in Judaism in the original poll, Ed.


----------



## toast (Mar 29, 2003)

I was baptised at birth and did the first ... how do you call it ... communion thing, aged 7. I decided to stop there.

I do not believe in any form of religion.
I am firmly opposed to its representatives as well as its concepts.


----------



## Darkshadow (Mar 29, 2003)

I am a pagan as well.  Interestingly, I believe I have been since at least 5 or so.  I remember thinking this (at church, heh) "All gods are one god"...and not really understanding the whole idea of one god.  Or, at least, one god that's _higher_ than any other god, the bible does say that there are other gods, but that God is above them all.  I did stop trying to talk about that, as everyone else in my family, and the friends I knew back then, were all Christian, and wouldn't hear a word of it.  My grandmother was particularly adamant about it. Heh

I never lost my own beliefs, though.  They're not _quite_ the same as Ed's are, but not everyone who calls themselves pagan has the same beliefs anyway.  Some core beliefs, yes, but not every one. Something I enjoy about it, too.  Some religions are pretty restrictive, I believe.

Ed, I went to your site.  I like your name   This one (Darkshadow) is mine.  It was given to me in a dream...if anyone would like to read about it, I posted it on my website, here: http://www.geocities.com/darkshadow2.geo/darkshadow.htm

Hmm,  I also believe in the ability to know the future.  Though, I'd like to say, while there are countless possible futures, there are crossroads of a sort, points where all possiblities meet then continue on...some things will always happen.

I wish I had seen this thread before, I would have posted something to it earlier.  Another one that I missed in my more-than-a-year absence.  I hope I never go through that again!


----------



## Dusky (Mar 29, 2003)

For me, it was a choice between Agnostic, Pagan, and Atheist.  After checking the definition of each, I made my choice: atheist.

I was a practicing catholic as a kid.  In fact, 14 years later, I can still recite part of the catechism.  Heck, once in while I find myself saying "thank you, Lord, for what just took place."  Then I go, "wait a minute..."

Whether the beliefs of God's followers are justified or not, holding those beliefs makes their life more pleasant, I say.  If they are struggling through a situation, they have God to seek help from.  When things are going well, they thank God...  and thanking God after a good thing has happened is a pleasure in itself.

Just curious....  as children, did anyone of you look at the moon/sun while travelling and think, "it's there because God wants to keep an eye on me"?  It was a good feeling to actually believe that.


----------



## nickn (Mar 29, 2003)

I am christian, but more precisely, southern baptist..

Thought i'd post that,


----------



## chevy (Mar 29, 2003)

One should differentiate religion (active), from value system and from culture. All 3 are important, but some of us don't have the same religion as culture or value system.


----------



## edX (Mar 29, 2003)

Larry - funny comic. you do that? 

arden - looks like somebody already did it. i can assure you it wasn't intentional or meant to imply anything. you can see i tend not to use many capital letters.

Darkshadow - Blessed Be my friend.  nice story behind your name. it certainly 'shed new light' upon my understanding of it.

Dusky - no, i never had that experience with the sun as a kid. sounds neat though. as an adult pagan, the sun is symbol of many aspects of Diety for me.

Chevy - i would contend that the things you want to seperate out can't be and that any attempts to do so are artificial at best. but even if i accepted your view, i think your statement should be 'could' and not 'should'. in essence it is my belief that our core values are our religion, whether it be an organized or personal one.


----------



## chevy (Mar 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *
> ...
> 
> Chevy - i would contend that the things you want to seperate out can't be and that any attempts to do so are artificial at best. but even if i accepted your view, i think your statement should be 'could' and not 'should'. in essence it is my belief that our core values are our religion, whether it be an organized or personal one. *



Sorry, my expression was not exactly what I meant.

Most people posting here have a strong christian cultural background. But they have several different religions. And they probably have different value systems.

Examples of different value system: order from most important to least important:
live/death
live/freedom
new born/elder person
person to be born (or potential ?)/woman's life (or quality of file ?)
lies/reason of state
freedom/truth
god (God ?)/human's life
nature/human's life
society/individual (freedom)
society/individual (crime)
family/nation
religion/nation
religion/family
....


----------



## Giaguara (Mar 29, 2003)

Well, a different view to this topic. I saw this site ages ago:

:::  http://selectsmart.com/RELIGION/  ::::

You are asked a lot of questions about beliefs, beginning of everything, death, abortion and homosexuality etc etc, and you give the questions a value (how important they are to you). In the end, you get a list of main religions and the % the religions believe like you do.

I find this religion test interesting - you can discover what religion believes like *YOU* do and how much...

Do you get the result that you are supposed to = what you was taught to be the 'truth' or what you believe in??? 

Here me results:

# 1. Mahayana Buddhism (100%)  
# 2. Theravada Buddhism (86%) 
# 3. Neo-Pagan (80%) 
# 4. New Age (78%)
# 5. Unitarian Universalism (75%) 
# 6. Taoism (73%) 
# 7. Hinduism (73%)
# 8. Liberal Quakers (66%)
# 9. New Thought (66%)
# 10. Jainism (64%)
# 11. Scientology (62%)
# 12. Sikhism (57%)
# 13. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (54%)
# 14. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (49%) 
# 15. Orthodox Quaker (49%)
# 16. Secular Humanism (46%) 
# 17. Reform Judaism (40%) 
# 18. Bahá'í Faith (35%)
# 19. Non-theist (27%)
# 20. Orthodox Judaism (25%) 
# 21. Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (19%)
# 22. Seventh Day Adventist (18%)
# 23. Islam (15%) 
# 24. Jehovah's Witness (14%)
# 25. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (12%) 
# 26. Eastern Orthodox (3%) 
# 27. Roman Catholic (3%) 

Maybe this is funny ... I am / was statistically Catholic


----------



## chevy (Mar 29, 2003)

Even within one of the church definition, they are lots of current. And they are probably more difference inside a single religion than between all religions.


----------



## chevy (Mar 29, 2003)

Here are mine:

1. Secular Humanism (100%)   
2._Unitarian Universalism (93%)   
3._Non-theist (83%)   
4._Liberal Quakers (69%)   
5._Theravada Buddhism (66%)   
6._Neo-Pagan (58%)   
7._Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (53%)   
8._Taoism (51%)   
9._New Age (39%)   
10._Orthodox Quaker (33%)   
11._Reform Judaism (33%)   
12._Mahayana Buddhism (29%)   
13._Bahá'í Faith (26%)   
14._Sikhism (26%)   
15._Scientology (22%)   
16._Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (20%)   
17._New Thought (20%)   
18._Jainism (17%)   
19._Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (16%)   
20._Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (15%)   
21._Seventh Day Adventist (13%)   
22._Eastern Orthodox (10%)   
23._Islam (10%)   
24._Orthodox Judaism (10%)   
25._Roman Catholic (10%)   
26._Hinduism (6%)   
27._Jehovah's Witness (0%)   


I don't know what current they used as references for Roman Catholocism and Islamism, but they are some that are not so far from my thinking.


----------



## Jason (Mar 29, 2003)

Your Results:

# 1.  Unitarian Universalism (100%)
# 2.  Secular Humanism (93%)
# 3.  Neo-Pagan (90%)
# 4.  Liberal Quakers (88%)
# 5.  Mahayana Buddhism (80%)
# 6.  Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (80%)
# 7.  New Age (80%)
# 8.  Theravada Buddhism (78%
# 9.  Reform Judaism (69%)
# 10.  Orthodox Quaker (66%)
# 11.  Sikhism (59%)
# 12.  Taoism (59%)
# 13.  Non-theist (52%)
# 14.  Bahá'í Faith (51%)
# 15.  Scientology (50%)
# 16.  Jainism (50%)
# 17.  New Thought (48%)
# 18.  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (44%)
# 19.  Hinduism (44%)
# 20.  Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (40%)
# 21.  Seventh Day Adventist (38%)
# 22.  Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (37%)
# 23.  Eastern Orthodox (34%)
# 24.  Roman Catholic (34%)
# 25.  Jehovah's Witness (29%)
# 26.  Orthodox Judaism (29%)
# 27.  Islam (26%)

I am very very agnostic


----------



## chevy (Mar 29, 2003)

How can one be VERY agnostic ?

You're just of that opinion: 
Humanism: is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity.

No need to create a God. We are humans, only humans. Let's act as humans.


----------



## Darkshadow (Mar 29, 2003)

Hmm, that's an interesting survey, Gia.  I got the answer that fits my beliefs, as you were wondering about that.

1.	Neo-Pagan (100%) 
2.	New Age (87%) 
3.	Hinduism (85%) 
4.	Unitarian Universalism (82%) 
5.	Mahayana Buddhism (81%) 
6.	New Thought (75%) 
7.	Scientology (68%) 
8.	Liberal Quakers (67%) 
9.	Reform Judaism (58%) 
10.	Sikhism (56%) 
11.	Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (55%) 
12.	Theravada Buddhism (55%) 
13.	Jainism (52%) 
14.	Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (48%) 
15.	Bahá'í Faith (46%) 
16.	Secular Humanism (42%) 
17.	Taoism (38%) 
18.	Orthodox Judaism (35%) 
19.	Orthodox Quaker (34%) 
20.	Islam (31%) 
21.	Jehovah's Witness (19%) 
22.	Non-theist (19%) 
23.	Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (15%) 
24.	Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (14%) 
25.	Eastern Orthodox (12%) 
26.	Roman Catholic (12%) 
27.	Seventh Day Adventist (9%)


----------



## edX (Mar 29, 2003)

1._Neo-Pagan (100%)   
2._Unitarian Universalism (99%)   
3._Liberal Quakers (88%)   
4._Mahayana Buddhism (87%)   
5._New Age (84%)   
6._Reform Judaism (73%)   
7._Jainism (72%)   
8._Theravada Buddhism (71%)   
9._Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (70%)   
10._Secular Humanism (68%)   
11._Hinduism (67%)   
12._New Thought (67%)   
13._Sikhism (63%)   
14._Taoism (63%)   
15._Bahá'í Faith (62%)   
16._Scientology (60%)   
17._Orthodox Quaker (49%)   
18._Orthodox Judaism (48%)   
19._Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (46%)   
20._Non-theist (40%)   
21._Islam (39%)  
22._Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (24%)   
23._Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (23%)   
24._Seventh Day Adventist (19%)   
25._Eastern Orthodox (15%)   
26._Roman Catholic (15%)   
27._Jehovah's Witness (11%)   

no big surprises except for the liberal quakers being so high. i need to meet some of these people i guess.


----------



## toast (Mar 29, 2003)

1._Non-theist (100%)   
2._Secular Humanism (100%)  
3._Unitarian Universalism (90%) 
4._Theravada Buddhism (88%) 
5._Liberal Quakers (73%)  
6._Liberal Christian Protestants (64%)
7._Neo-Pagan (63%)  
8._Taoism (58%)   
9._New Age (54%)  
10._Mahayana Buddhism (49%)   
11._Orthodox Quaker (49%)  
12._Reform Judaism (46%)   
13._New Thought (44%)
14._Conservative Christian Protestant (40%)   
15._Scientology (39%)   
16._Sikhism (38%) 
17._Bahá'í Faith (36%)   
18._Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (34%)
19._Seventh Day Adventist (28%)  
20._Islam (26%)
21._Jainism (26%)   
22._Orthodox Judaism (26%)   
23._Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (25%)
24._Eastern Orthodox (16%)
25._Hinduism (16%)  
26._Roman Catholic (16%) 
27._Jehovah's Witness (9%)   

LOL ! What a *joke*_! I don't even consider half of this list as *religions* !
My favorite one: I'm 39% scientologist ! Wow ! I've been part of a group who fought, here in France, against this *sect*, but I'm 39% akin to their doctrin 

Complete crap. Thanks Gia, that was a funny link . Really


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 29, 2003)

I guess my parents succeeded. (Hint: I'm much older than most of you.)

_
1. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)
2._Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (79%)
3._Reform Judaism (78%)
4._Liberal Quakers (76%)
5._Orthodox Quaker (74%)
6._Unitarian Universalism (74%)
7._Orthodox Judaism (70%)
8._Bahá'í Faith (63%)
9._Islam (61%)
10._Sikhism (58%)
11._Eastern Orthodox (57%)
12._Roman Catholic (57%)
13._Seventh Day Adventist (55%)
14._Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (49%)
15._New Age (46%)
16._Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (46%)
17._Jainism (45%)
18._Neo-Pagan (43%)
19._New Thought (43%)
20._Mahayana Buddhism (42%)
21._Scientology (36%)
22._Jehovah's Witness (34%)
23._Secular Humanism (32%)
24._Hinduism (32%)
25._Taoism (31%)
26._Theravada Buddhism (30%)   
27._Non-theist (18%)


----------



## larry98765 (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *Larry - funny comic. you do that? *



Yeah. That's me. So much for anonimity. ;-)
Anyhow, thanks for the compliment.


----------



## nickn (Mar 30, 2003)

I got 100% Mainline Conservative, which is what I am (Southern Baptist) 

Oddly enough Mormon and Jevoah's witness was quite high too, not so sure about those


----------



## edX (Mar 30, 2003)

i guess that means you are qualified to go door to door with the word of God nick.


----------



## toast (Mar 30, 2003)

LOL @ Ed !
Every person who got a fair amount of Jehovah's Witness religious identity, go out and try to sell socks in your neighbourhood, you'll discover a great talent for door-to-door sells !


----------



## Cat (Mar 30, 2003)

These were my results:

1. Secular Humanism (100%)   
2._Neo-Pagan (87%)   
3._Liberal Quakers (75%)   
4._Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (75%)   
5._New Age (75%)   
6. New Thought (75%)   
7._ Reform Judaism (75%)   
8._Scientology (75%)   
9. Taoism (75%)   
10. Unitarian Universalism (75%) 

I disagree with the questions of the poll though. I mostly answered "none of the above", because I didn't think that "... or not sure, or not important" applied. I mostly was very sure of my opnion and deemed it important too! So much for pride ...  BTW. I was brought up as Catholic, but like Toast I didn't get beyond well, "first communion" or how it's called.


----------



## toast (Mar 30, 2003)

Like Cat, I feel this poll is completely stupid. I just had to say it twice, there I am. 

My 2¢.


----------



## michaelsanford (Mar 30, 2003)

In case my signature didn't give it away, I'm a Theravadin Buddhist.
http://amras.no-ip.com/aboutme.html

_We are what we think,
All that we are arises is from our thoughts,
With out thoughts we make the world;
--Opening verse of the H. Dhammapada (Book of Pairs)_


----------



## chevy (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Like Cat, I feel this poll is completely stupid. I just had to say it twice, there I am.
> 
> My 2¢. *



Here, I don't agree... it gives us an image of the distribution of the macosx.com members that agreed to answer the pool... like any other post here.

For my part I was not expecting so many that declare themselves non christian. Interesting. Not important but still interesting.


----------



## edX (Mar 30, 2003)

chevy, toast and cat - i think we're getting semantically confused here. the 'poll' is attached' to this thread. i can't imagine why anyone would think it is stupid for me to want to find out more about one of my favorite subjects - people's spiritual perspectives. 

the 'questionaire' is what is responsible for these lists. and it isn't stupid either once you understand what it is reflecting. it is simply stating how your spiritual/religious views align with certain spiritual/religious schools of thought. it doesn't mean you are what it reflects although it would make sense if you are and most people seem to be getting that verification in their results.

toast, i think your religious affiliation is Oppositionalism.


----------



## chevy (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *
> ...
> 
> toast, i think your religious affiliation is Oppositionalism.  *



If I may try (Toast, take it from a Swiss that loves France...) Toast is just French...


----------



## chevy (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *chevy, toast and cat - i think we're getting semantically confused here. the 'poll' is attached' to this thread. i can't imagine why anyone would think it is stupid for me to want to find out more about one of my favorite subjects - people's spiritual perspectives.
> 
> ... *



In a discussion, mostly when one speaks about believes - religions - spirituality, semantics is quite important. Therefore it is quite normal on my opinion that we also debate about the thread itself.


----------



## toast (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *toast, i think your religious affiliation is Oppositionalism.  *



Ed, I think you're right .

Back to the topic, okay. Let's forget about this poll.


----------



## edX (Mar 30, 2003)

chevy - what i was trying to say, is that i don't think toast was really criticizing the poll in this thread, but is referring to the religion identifier questionaire as stupid. it isn't really a poll, but i guess we are 'polling' our results so i can see why he refers to it as such. i wish he would stop referring to it as a poll but then he would probably be violating some basic precept of Oppositionalism, so i'll respect his right to call it what he wants.


----------



## Darkshadow (Mar 30, 2003)

Gah, Ed, pick something easier to pronounce.  I'm glad I'm not _speaking_ this stuff. Heh.  I'd be tripping over Oppositionalism every time I tried to say it.

Toast, you don't have any religious beliefs at all?  Just wondering, it wasn't quite clear to me from your posts.


----------



## Androo (Mar 30, 2003)

i am Jewish. How come only some of the 7 posted?
Later,
Androo.


----------



## edX (Mar 30, 2003)

androo - for some people their religion is a very private matter. they really don't want everyone to know and possibly judge them by it. the poll offers people the opportunity to be 'counted' or represented without having to give up that privacy.


----------



## The MokXnster (Mar 30, 2003)

I don't have any religion... I'm my own god!


----------



## Darkshadow (Mar 30, 2003)

I thought you worshipped alcohol and prayed at the porcelain temple


----------



## The MokXnster (Mar 30, 2003)

Hahahahaha!


----------



## Giaguara (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by The MokXnster _
> *I don't have any religion... I'm my own god!  *





My cousin is a god too. She decided that when she was like 17. ..


----------



## toast (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Darkshadow _
> *Toast, you don't have any religious beliefs at all?  Just wondering, it wasn't quite clear to me from your posts. *



Sorry if I've been unclear. No I don't have any religious beliefs at all. I cannot stand the concept of religion itself


----------



## edX (Mar 31, 2003)

toast - just curious - are these things you cannot stand?

the idea of an afterlife
the idea of something greater than oneself
the idea that conscious energies exist without form
the idea that truths may be found within one's self
the idea that all things are connected
the idea that you were created for some purpose and that your consiousness is connected to that purpose
the idea that there may be planes of existence beyond ours?


----------



## The MokXnster (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Giaguara _
> *
> My cousin is a god too. She decided that when she was like 17. ..  *


 What god level is she at? Lmfao!


----------



## toast (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *toast - just curious - are these things you cannot stand?*



Standable.

1.the idea of an afterlife
2.the idea that there may be planes of existence beyond ours? 
3.the idea that conscious energies exist without form
4.the idea that all things are connected

Idea #2 sounds like Aldous Huxley, _Doors of Perception_.
Idea #4 sounds like Darren Aronofsky, _Pi_.

---

Unbearable.

1. the idea of something greater than oneself
2. the idea that truths may be found within one's self
3. the idea that you were created for some purpose and that your consiousness is connected to that purpose

Ideas #1 and #3 were used by totalitarian regimes.
Idea #2 is extremely dangerous, in terms of psycho-sociology.

There obviously is a debate to have around those arguments. But I have to go, I'll be talking to my class about new socio-political cleavages in an hour or so .


----------



## Darkshadow (Mar 31, 2003)

That's interesting.  You can bear the thought of a conscious energy without form - what one may term a god - but not the idea that said form could be greater than oneself.

A little sidenote on myself: if anyone sees me use 'spirit' in a post, I'm most likely meaning 'energy' - I personally don't use the term energy but spirit, and almost used it above, which I'm sure would've confused things.  That's why I changed it.  But if I forget to proofread my post before I post it, that's most likely what I mean.


----------



## bunge (Mar 31, 2003)

Your Results:

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 
2. Theravada Buddhism (97%) 
3. Secular Humanism (88%) 
4. Liberal Quakers (83%) 
5. Taoism (82%) 
6. Mahayana Buddhism (74%) 
7. Neo-Pagan (69%) 
8. Non-theist (69%) 
9. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (68%) 
10. Jainism (59%) 
11. New Age (58%) 
12. Scientology (54%) 
13. Hinduism (53%) 
14. New Thought (53%) 
15. Reform Judaism (52%) 
16. Orthodox Quaker (51%) 
17. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (45%) 
18. Sikhism (43%) 
19. Bahá'í Faith (40%) 
20. Seventh Day Adventist (24%) 
21. Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (23%) 
22. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (15%) 
23. Islam (15%) 
24. Orthodox Judaism (15%) 
25. Eastern Orthodox (6%) 
26. Roman Catholic (6%) 
27. Jehovah's Witness (0%)


----------



## Cat (Mar 31, 2003)

> I don't have any religion... I'm my own god!


 Now _that_ is a religion to my liking (with the appropriate indexicals switched of course...)! 

1) _the idea of an afterlife_
From within this life I thin kit is impossible to form an idea whatsoever of any kind of afterlife or even whether there is such a thing or not. Any kind of speculation, will necessarily remain just that: speculation. Interesting but not informative. I see no way in which a rational being can base actions in this life upon speculations over a hypothetical afterlife.

 2) _ the idea of something greater than oneself_
I cannot logically and psycologically conceive of any idea greater than myself, since necessarily I am the one thinking it and thus, as originator and bearer,  greater than the idea itself. Notice that this claim says nothing about the objective existence of an external thing without myself. No objective knowledge about such things is possible.

3) _ the idea that conscious energies exist without form_
Shaky ground here due to the formulation of the question. "Without form" baffles me. No material constraints? Well, energy is a state of matter (or at leats interchangeable) so energy always has a form (=structure, organization). Consciousness is an emergent property of certain complex systems, and thus dependent upon their structure and organization.

4) _ the idea that truths may be found within one's self _
"one's self": I do not have a self, I am a self. I'll reformulate accordingly: truth within oneself. Well, yeah, sure. What has this to do with religion though? "Nole foras ire, rede in te ipsum" St. Augustine. Don't go looking for the truth in fora, but return into yourself.
(P.S. Did you mean this in a Freudian way?)

 5) _the idea that all things are connected_
"What is up there is like what is down here", quite an old bit of knowledge, eh? The emerald tables ... or "Omne Omne est" like the later alchemists put it. Well, yes, of course everything is connected, in a very ordinary way. Causal influences ripple through the fabric of reality. nothing strange or mystic though, simple billard balls on a table. Gravity and light connect distant stars to our bodies, microcosmos and macrocosmos are one. You can give a very romantic, Sturm und Drang formulation to it or simply speak scientifically about universal constants and global causal effects. The language changes the facts do not. Giving it a religious tinge only clouds the understanding.

 6) _the idea that you were created for some purpose and that your consiousness is connected to that purpose_
Purpose presupposes a purporter. By introducing purpose at this level, you necessarily need someone/thing that gives the purpose. But like in biology we all learned that purpose, teleology, is just a usefull way of thinking about bodily finctions, even so purpose is just a complex metaphor, for evenly complex physical, physiological, psycological and sociological interactions and relations. We use a simplified, sketchy vocabulary of purposes, will, intentions etc because we do not understand or have no time to explain what the inner machinery is really doing.
BTW. I wasn't created, I grew.

7) _the idea that there may be planes of existence beyond ours?_
"Planes of existence" is in dire need of an accurate definition. Like Wittgenstein thought, this is probably a problem due to obscurity in language which will dissolve, instead of getting solved, when we define the words we use: What is a "plane"? Specifically: what is a "plane of existence"? What would qualify as "beyond"?

Like always philosophy leaves us with more questions than answers...


----------



## The MokXnster (Apr 3, 2003)

1._	Jainism (100%) 
2._	Mahayana Buddhism (100%) 
3._	New Age (100%) 
4._	New Thought (100%) 
5._	Non-theist (100%) 
6._	Secular Humanism (100%) 
7._	Theravada Buddhism (100%) 

That sh*t sucks... Really... Lies, all lies!


----------



## toast (Apr 4, 2003)

You don't like being a secular new-new-new-age buddhist, don't you ?!


----------



## porcuperson (Apr 11, 2003)

I think Woody Allen once described himself as a Devout Pervert. 
I rather like that.


----------



## wiz (Apr 11, 2003)

well then cat ur a hindu..

they have similar beliefs. o well!!!


----------



## wiz (Apr 11, 2003)

But I! 

Well those false gods and godesses I worship not.

There is only one true God! And He is God.

While others search for the truth, the Jew were revealed the truth. Christ came and made it whole.


I'm practising Roman Catholic!  Alas there are only a few who truly practise their religion. I pity them! Specially those Jews & Christians.


----------



## fryke (Apr 12, 2003)

Atheism (could you please change that in the poll? it's got 'theos' in it, which stands for 'god') seems to be pretty 'popular'. I guess it would get more points if only those Christians would choose 'Christian' that are also practising it.

Btw., I'm an atheist who practises Paganism. I'm also a Christian Catholic since I was born, so I've still got a lot to forget about when trying to think straight about it all. ;-)

If you'd like to know a bit more about quite a famous atheist that has also written a lot about Macintosh in his latest book (which was released after his death, so if he was right with atheism, he doesn't even _know_ how right he was...), read his book 'The Salmon of Doubt'. Douglas Adams, of course.


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 12, 2003)

Ups .. any more typos?  Anyone wants some more choises?


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 17, 2003)

100% Mainline Conservative Christian

And it's good to read the boards again. Hope I get more time to come back and join the fun. Thanks for starting this thread Ed.


----------



## applewhore (Apr 17, 2003)

how can anyone believe in ANY religion, knowing that, with no proof at all, it is the single biggest cause of war???

as a friend of mine once said, it is simply a matter of "my imaginary friend is bigger than your imaginary friend"...

you live...

you die...

get on with it!

to my mind, there is no argument...  but to each, their own...


----------



## toast (Apr 18, 2003)

That's a way to conceive it, applewhore. But you should work out some nuances in your speech.

It is true religion has been a very good reason to go and kill the one who did not think like you. But do not forget most of the time religion has been a pretext to invade and to loot countries (crusades), or to get rid of potential political opposition (anti-Reformism).

You live... you die... Some people feel reassured in believing that you don't (resurrection, eternal life and so on). That's not my case, but I can understand people who believe such things, even if it still sounds complete gulliblery to me .


----------



## edX (Apr 18, 2003)

i agree with toast in that religion has never been the cause of war. it has been a banner under which sides gather to fight for resources, but religion is not a cause of war. very few religions actually promote violence or war. people promote violence and wars and then claim that their God was on their side cause they won.  this is not the same as having a spiritual connection and belief system.


----------



## Darkshadow (Apr 18, 2003)

I dunno, Ed.  The Crusades were declared as "War against the infidel" and "Win back the Holy Land" before anyone even took a step toward that goal.  Priests actually led men to it.  And they weren't largely successful, so they didn't just tag it that God was on their side after the fact.  They _believed_ it the whole time.

The Crusades were a dark time, showing off humanity's worst traits, IMO.  Priests actually told anyone going that they were on a pilgrimage, sanctioned by God, and that any sins done on that pilgrimage were absolved.  That led to many terrible things, even on the route to the holy land, not just there, from people that really should have known better.


----------



## applewhore (Apr 18, 2003)

I'm sorry...  I obviously haven't expressed myself clearly...

I agree that no religion has ever expressed the belief that war is good...

however, the fact that religion has, and always will be (IMHO) the opiate for the masses (until everyone becomes as cynical as me  ) does not change the fact that nearly every conflict is based on religion...

even the war in iraq has now instigated a "jihad" as the fact that the US and the UK have invaded without proving the whole WMD thing...  muslims across the region believe that they must rise up and face the oppressing conquerors because they are told to in the "name of religion:...  US&UK v Iraq now = anti muslim in their minds...

as the PM in Egypt said, this will create 100 new Bin Ladens...

as long as power is based on religion (afer all, what could be less blameful?!) unhappy people will be happy to fight in the name of it - which makes the situation for the "bad men" who sometimes lead them much easier...

i'm sorry, but i truly believe that religion is the "easy way out" - whether it be the "afterlife", "resurrection" or "reincarnation" deal that you're looking for...

why not just get on with what we've got?     i.e "life"  it seems as though it's enough to deal with anyway (and much too much for a lot of people...) but maybe that's why they turn to religion - after all, there has to be something better, hasn't there?


----------



## toast (Apr 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Darkshadow _
> *The Crusades were declared as "War against the infidel" and "Win back the Holy Land" [...] Priests actually told anyone going that they were on a pilgrimage, sanctioned by God, and that any sins done on that pilgrimage were absolved.*



You are right, but Crusaders were more concerned with looting and raping than with God. Many crusaders stayed in the countries they had invaded and prospered. Crusades were a means to get rich for many, at least for more than those who thought it was a means to absolve. Thinking of the crusades as purely ideologic wars is an illusion of the mind. Vast majority of religion wars are motivated by economical and (geo)political interests.


----------



## edX (Apr 18, 2003)

yea, what toast said. 
don't confuse the pretext - the rhetoric and propaganda of war, with the reasons for war. war is always over resources and who controls their limited supply.  also remember that the people who start wars and the people who get conned into fighting them are normally not the same. just because men tend to corrupt religious ideals doesn't make religion a bad thing. there are people who corrupt atheism as well and use it as an excuse for lawlwessness since then the only consequences are in this life. any philosophy can be twisted if one wants to.


----------



## applewhore (Apr 18, 2003)

"there are people who corrupt atheism as well and use it as an excuse for lawlwessness since then the only consequences are in this life. any philosophy can be twisted if one wants to"

but, ed, surely this is the whole "non belief, belief" thing for atheists?!  that is to say, the only consequences for one's actions are to be paid in this life - that's not twisting it, it's just how it is!

certainly it is the leaders who twist the ideolgies of religion to make it suit their purposes - it still does not get over the fact that, as I said previously, the people who go to war, having been riled up by whomsoever, do so "in the name of religion"...

just prove one thing from one religion - i'll be happy to reconsider my position!


----------



## toast (Apr 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by applewhore _
> *as I [applewhore] said previously, the people who go to war, having been riled up by whomsoever, do so "in the name of religion"...
> 
> just prove one thing from one religion - i'll be happy to reconsider my position! *



Let's expand your point of view. People kill, invade, rape, slaughter, in the name of *religion* (belief in God), but also in the name of:
- *nationalism* (belief in country)
- *racism* (belief in race superiority)
- *imperialism* (belief in civilization superiority)
- and this list is non exhaustive.


----------



## anerki (Apr 19, 2003)

Religion is a wrong term I think. Not that I can think of any better but maybe belief or sth like that. People are religious for 1 important reason. Because they believe in sth and that sth is what they like, what they would want themselves ... No? They want to reflect what's important for them in a religion. Of course no religion can captate everything one believes in, that's why I opted for Other ... I think free-masonry is a religion, in its most simple form ...


----------



## toast (Apr 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by anerki _
> *I think free-masonry is a religion, in its most simple form ... *



Some prefer to say it's a sect.


----------



## Xunil (Apr 19, 2003)

Im what DC Talk describes as a Jesus Freak...Praise the Lord, for what he did on the cross for all of us...


----------



## anerki (Apr 20, 2003)

Toast, Free-Masonry isn't well thought of in southern Europe because of the catholicism here but for example in Netherlands or in England Free-Masonry isn't just a group of people hiding. In London you can go visit a Free-Masonry 'temple' if you want. I think it was London ...


----------



## edX (Apr 20, 2003)

masons have temples throughout the US. more of a social organization here from what i have heard. but yea, i would consider free masonry as a christian religion. very much the mystical side of christianity.


----------



## toast (Apr 20, 2003)

Freemason important figures sometimes give interviews in France. If you really want to meet them, you always succeed. As I'm studying politics, I know how to get to them pretty fast (phone).

Freemasonry is a problem by definition. It is a solidarity network hidden in what should be another solidarity network, ie. society.

To make it less conceptual, freemason judiciary is a big problem: here in France, we had some trials that were cancelled because the (freemason) judges were favouring (freemason) lawyers, or privileging (freemason) indicted people.

Freemasonry has been used to embezzle, to bribe, to corrupt public services. Even though that's not what freemasonry is aiming at. As said, their aim is more a kind of social mysticism. But he organization has been flawed a lot of times.

A big example for English people: 

The English police has known two major scandals: 1897, and 1977.

1977, police scandal, Officer Moody, does that ring a bell ?

Well, freemasonry was behind it.

As a 'fervent atheist', I consider this type of organization like a soft version of what a sect can be. But certainly not as a religion.


----------



## anerki (Apr 20, 2003)

Which is always the problem ... But why do you judge the entire system. Of course there have been abuses. I mean, catholisism razed entire arabian cities during the crusades, millions of Muslims were killed. But still it's called a good religion. If you never see what's the spirit behind it, you'll never appreciate it. As soon as sth starts to get popular the corruption starts. Same with Free Masonry


----------



## toast (Apr 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by anerki _
> *Which is always the problem ... But why do you judge the entire system. Of course there have been abuses. I mean, catholisism razed entire arabian cities during the crusades, millions of Muslims were killed. But still it's called a good religion. If you never see what's the spirit behind it, you'll never appreciate it. As soon as sth starts to get popular the corruption starts. Same with Free Masonry *



I do not mean to judge the entire system, or rather the totality of its members.

Your comparison with catholicism may be called wrong, for catholicism has been reformed since the crusades. (cf. Vatican II).

I think I "see the spirit behind it". But I put reality before it, _praxis__first. Many sects have 'good' spirits, but 'evil' means, is a simple way to express it. Cf. Waco: they all wished to go to Heaven, you know the following.

Plus, but this point's pretty personal, I feel organizing a second solidarity under society (principle of guilds, what freemasonry inspires itself from) is treacherous. But that's extremely long and intricate to explain.


----------

