What religion or non are you?

Post Reply New Topic

Christian, though I work with people of many faiths, looking at ASC and spirituality

Mainline Christian [Anglican Church of Canada]

my life, no explinations

Catholic Christian

None; I find it very difficult to believe in God.

Atheist.

I put Christian, but I kinda mix it up between Christianity, Tao, and Wicca. I don't really feel comfortable in a church, mainly because it's A, a social group, and B, if you don't believe everything they believe exactly the way they believe it, then you are going to hell. I can't say I believe in God because I take it to a level beyond belief...to me, God does exist whether you want to believe it or not. When I say God, I mean the reality of God as opposed to how people mis-define Him and misunderstand Him. God may be a Christian term, but I believe all religions pray/worship/follow the same God and just express it differently. I also believe there is a natural world and a spiritual world, and the two often live in a paradox.

I majored in Religion & Biblical Literature, so I have a lot to say.

But I'm not going to say it. I'm going to say I'm a devout Christian, specifically Episcopalian.

And my usual disclaimer, that I don't believe there is "one true way." Whatever path you're walking, may it bring you happiness.

Technically I'm an Agnostic Athiest. I don't affiliate myself with a religion but believe there could be a God. Not be to confused with an Agnostic thiest, one whom is part of a religion but admits they have no proof to their existence. Also a Gnostic Athiest knows there's no God and Gnostic Thiest knows their faith is true.

"In my Father's house are many mansions..."

For those who claim to have "proved" their belief, or lack thereof, logically, please remember that since the job description for God requires that He be a supernatural being, existing outside the Universe, His existence is thus a nonfalsifiable statement - there is no test that can conceivably be applied that would disprove God's existence, since He could have arranged things that way for His own inscrutable purposes. Ergo, nothing can be logically proved, one way or the other.

The title of the thread reminds me of a (possibly apocryphal, ironically enough) tale of famed atheist Madelyn Murray O'Hair visiting Ireland to deliver a lecture. During the Q&A period, one of the audience members demanded to know if she was a Catholic or a Protestant.

"Neither," she replied. "As an atheist, I don't believe in God."

"Aye," her questioner replied, "but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants ye don't believe in?"

I'm a Stoic. It's more philosophy than religion though, but the closest thing to a religion I can claim.

Pastafarian.

Didn't apochryphal writings come around in first two centuries CE at the latest? How come it mentions catholics and protestants then? This split only come around in 15-th century.

Wow you just missed an apportunity to impress everyone ...

Think of all the famous philosophers. They would have never gone there if they said it is "their life".

So no its not your life ... you just came up with a very original theory worth publishing. If you didn't want to post so we wouldn't steal it from you, THEN I understand. Otherwise it just seems very self defeating. I really hope you publish your theory somewhere and become famous for it.

Roman, the word "apocryphal" refers to something that cannot be verified, and may be untrue. Writings regarded by various Christian sects as "apocryphal" certainly predate the Common Era - an early Church council declared a number of books apocryphal, and in fact published them as the Apocrypha (sort of a non-canonical addon to their Bible, and omitted by most Protestants). Amusingly enough, one set of books designated as apocryphal were the Books of the Maccabees - detailing the Maccabean Revolt against the Persians, and introducing the term "zealot" (the Zealots were a fundamentalist sect of Jews, who only assisted the Maccabees in their rebellion until Jerusalem was freed, after which they lost interest). It amuses me because the political situations described in the book could actually be historically verified - there had indeed been such a revolt, which drove the Persians out of Jerusalem and the Temple of Solomon, then sputtered out when the Zealots left them and their two best leaders were killed in battle. But the council kept as "fact" books like Job and Jonah...

In this instance, however, I refer to a tale regarding Madelyn Murray O'Hair, who hasn't been dead nearly long enough to become a religious figure - I call the tale "possibly apocryphal" because I can't find any substantiating data, but I find it funny nonetheless.

It puts me off when someone says I have to do something when I actuially don't.