Believers represent

Hey, if the atheists can have a thread, so can I:)

How many Fruheads do we have out there that are Christian?�

Given the overwhelmingly liberal,�secular humanist�lean of the general Fruhead community, I've always felt rather out of place as a conservative Reformed Christian.� I'm curious how many of you claim Christ as your Savior.

Flame away if you feel the need.� I'm wearing my asbestos underwear :)

-Frumanchu (Phil to those who still remember me)

I'm a practicing Anglican.� Although I don't always agree with traditional Christian dogma and conservative ideology, I still consider myself a Christian.

flame? You want me to flame? Um... ok, I'll try...

Um... you should have qualified "Believers" with "Believers in Christ" or "Believers in Christianity." based on the non-believers forum, I had initially assumed from the title of this forum that you were going to be asking about religious people in general, not just Christians... I was dissapointed to find that you were being exclusionary about it.

Perhaps all non-Christian religious folk out there could start other forums.� I mean, the non-belivers forum got really long and really tangled with a lot of different threads about different subjects.� Perhaps�if the "Believers" forums�were sub-divided a little more, then the different discussions would be a little more organized.� That's not to say that I'm suggesting it be exclusionary in the sense of� "ok, Christians, go in your little pen; Jews over in yours; Pagans!��� you get back in there!" There would, of course be dicussions between Christians, Jews, non-believers, etc. in each forum, but each�one �would concentrate on a much�more specific�topic.

Or we could just modify this forum to be about believers in general.� I get what you mean about�being surprised when this forum turned out to be Christianity-specific.� I'm sure that frumanchu wasn't trying to be offensively exclusionary when he asked about Christians out there.� I'm sure it was just out curiosity concerning a specific religious affiliation.� I certainly hope conversations about all religions abound in any case.

Naw..I didn't mean it to be exclusive to Christians or I would have said so in the forum title.� I was just personally curious if there were any other Christians roaming about.�� Not really looking to turn this into a Christian Apologetics thread either.

I'm a Christian, raised, baptised, catcheismed (is that a word?) in the Lutheran church. However, recently I've been working for (and going to) a UCC church, and I find that their beliefs are MUCH more in line with what I believe as a Christian.

I've had my moments of "Does God exist?" but eventually, the answer bit me.

Quite literally. My friend Liz re-introduced me to Christianity by bringing me to a youth group. I met her about a week earlier when we were both auditioning for a play and she bit me. We had never known each other before. So what did I do? I bit her back!

And now she's a Fr�head too. Don't great minds think alike?

I think I posted on this in the other thread, but I'm a rational, objectivist Christian who is beholden to no particular sect or denomination. I do go to an ELCA Lutheran church from time to time.

I�m a semi-practicing not-very-good Catholic who�s considering experimenting with other churches once she�s back in a country where English is spoken and she�ll know what�s going on.

Stay away from Unitarianism - it's a gateway church that only leads to stronger churches.

It is not!!!! Many people successfully practice Unitarian-Universalism without every becoming involved in more dangerous sects. Most of the research shows that people who got into Unitarian-Universalism only to be pulled into hard-core religions like Pentacostalism, or Roman Catholicism were so pre-disposed that they likely would have found there way into these sects without having even tried Unitarian-Universalism.

I was joking.

So was AJ.

eastern orthodox christian.� since birth, and quite happily so to this day.� eastern orthodoxy and roman catholocism were the two religions that were representing christianity after the major split of the early centuries.� the schism slowly started a major divide that was obvious to everyone but the christians at the time of 1054, but the major clincher was probably the sacking of constantinople during the fourth crusade during the year 1204.� for the most part, it was a simple matter of crusader soldiers getting bored with byzantine politics, but the event was heavily influenced by merchants and religious/political powers at the time.�

to make a long story short, i'm part of the religion that is now what was once eastern christianity.� descendant of the Russian Orthodox church, the orthodox church in america is an autocephalous branch of the same religion.

whew. (:

phil, you are the man, and we miss you muchly. (:

�-= george =-

wait... why are you explaining? do most people not know this stuff?

Well, I know *I* didn't.
:P

You always assume that people, like, learned all of this somehow.

I know that, other than one class on religions in 9th grade (which I found really fascinating, actually) I never learned anything about any religion until... well... until being a part of this community.

oh. wow. um... that explains a lot... about... people.

as a matter fact, you're a rare exception to the vast majority rule, gella.� very few people actually know the specifics, and even less actually care on a regular basis. (:� most of my friends are uncomfortable with the subject of religion, so i almost never talk about it, but when the occasion comes up, i generally have to explain what i am.

�-= george =-

george, thanks for the explanation. that's something i've always been confused about and i appreciate that you took the time to explain it.

to paraphrase jaci, i'm an editor. i don't know anything; i just know how to spell it. :)

Thanks, George.� The Orthodox faith is rich in tradition and fun to study.� I believe my boss is Greek Orthodox.� My Reformed doctrine disagrees quite a bit, but it's still neat to read about the history of the Orthodox Church.

As I told Angie earlier, if the guys every actually regroup and play somewhere at all close, my 26-yr-old-married-father-of-three butt will be all up in that.

I was born, Christened and Baptized Methodist. For the past four years I have been going to a Pentacostal church and consider myself Pentacostal.
We don't dance with snakes or drink poison though. But if anyone is wondering about that, here's how I understand why people do that: they consider it a sign of faith, because they believe so strongly that the Lord will protect them, they won't be harmed by drinking poison or dancing with snakes as an act of faith.

that's.... insane.

sorry, no offense meant... but.... like, seriously... YOU don't believe that, right?

Every now and again one of them dies from this rather American auto-da-f�.

Also no offense meant, but with the whole "the Lord will protect me" bit regarding people who intentionally place themselves in dangers way: the good Lord gave us brains capable of rational thought for a reason; he wanted us to USE them.

I didn't say I believed in that. Like someone else mentioned, I believe in common sense with stuff like that. I don't believe someone should put themselves in a dangerous situation. Not all Pentacostal churches believe in it either. The only ones I have heard of that do are the ones featured on 20/20.

um... i have to say it... just cause I have to...

*THAT'S SILLY!*

ok... i'll, um... go over there now...

I grew up in a Pentecostal church and sometimes it was hard to deal to explain the beliefs of my church�to other people, even other Christians. (I feel your pain!)

Now I'm in the Christian & Missionary Alliance, which sounds kind of scary, but�isn't.

If I had a penny for every odd look or comment relating to me being Pentacostal I would be rich. I've found it easier to say, "I'm Pentacostal but I don't dance with snakes or drink poison" rather than, "I'm Pentacostal." It gets some puzzled looks but saves explanation.

These shows like 20/20 that do these shows about the snakes and stuff really give the church a bad rep. My pastor has even preached on the value of common sense. Some preachers do believe that if you don't put yourself in a dangerous situation like that, you're not really a believer. I think there are so many safer ways to show your faith.

I don't understand how the "snakes and stuff" really applies to Christian devotion. To me it directly contradicts Christ's stance, when the devil challenged him to fling himself from the tower and he said " Again it is written, you shall not put the Lord your God to the test."

I've been to services at Pentecostal churches that don't do that sort of thing, and I think you're right -- the bulk of Pentecostals don't hold with it. The snakes and poison is a curiosity show to most people. But I'd like to know what the theological basis for it is, for those who do believe it's a sign of "true faith".

I assume this belief is based on Mark 16:15-18:

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. ¹⁶ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. ¹⁷ And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; ¹⁸ They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Doesn't mean I agree with it, but it does have some basis in the Bible.

Okay ... *smacks self on head*�� I guess that's pretty obvious, if you take it literally.� And of course�Biblical fundamentalists�would.� So then the issue becomes one of whether just because it's possible, is the act of "proving" one's faith in this way, for no particular reason,�what Christ�calls for here -- or is he just saying that if�anyone *should* be in a situation where such acts�are�required, absolute faith will protect them from harm.� (And, of course, what sort of harm is meant -- spiritual or physical?)�

THANK YOU! I was trying to find out where that was in the Bible and was about to e-mail my pastor. There have been people who have been able to handle snakes and drink poison and live. I do believe it can happen, just don't believe that we should all go out and do that just to prove our faith. There are lots of other ways.

If I had to pick a favorite branch of Christianity, it's the Anabaptists. They only baptize adults - children aren't considered mature enough to make that decision. They also believe in the separation of church and state - don't want to mix the divine and the secular!

The Amish also only baptize adults. Teenagers get to basically cut loose for a couple years before deciding, and over 90% go back. Probably the eighth grade education and the shunning if they leave play a little part... For a pretty interesting film on the subject, see the movie "Devil's Playground."

Yeah, that is really nice. That's my biggest complaint about most religions - and the reason I believe they're so widespread. Children grow up being told that [insert religion here] is The True Way. They'll believe whatever you tell them at that age, even if it's that a fat guy in a red suit manages to climb down billions of chimneys in a night to bring them presents, or that some big dude in the sky snapped his fingers and created this arbitrary little playground called Earth. They never have a chance to explore their faith, they go with what they've been taught.

It's gotta be a hard thing as a parent who is a strong believer. If you truly believe in your heart that your faith is the right thing and possibly even that if your children don't believe then their souls are lost...you'll want to raise them in your faith. It's easy to say from an outside perspective that they should have more choice and less indoctrination but from an emotional standpoint if you deeply believe that to not accept the faith is to not get into heaven or be "saved", then how do you look at your children that you love more than anything and not do all you can to secure whatever good you can for them.

I don't know if I put that right and it actually is no reflection of MY beliefs. I have none. But I'm trying to empathize with the motivation that makes people teach kids that their way is The True Way. Because they themselves believe it's The True Way and given the choice between giving their children autonomy of faith and risking their eternal soul or teaching them to live by the faith and and hopefully save their souls....you know? There's probably so much more tied in, because of emotions and family ties, when it comes to making children believe...folks will go to lengths that they NEVER would go to when it comes to strangers.

I hope all that didn't offend anybody. I'm just trying to put myself in the place of a parent who has no doubt of their faith and feels that they owe it to their children to guide them spiritually the right way.

Yeah, I certainly don't hold it against the parents for wanting to teach their children what they believe. It's just my theory of why religion is so widespread - early indoctrination, plus the peer pressure factor that most people in their area is typically of the same religion.

Going back to the subject of baptizing adults:� I really like what we do in the Anglican church.� Infants are usually baptized to indicate that their parents want to start them in life in the Church and for the first years of life, the parents and God-parents are responsible for their education concerning religious/spiritual life.� When we get older (usually mid-teens) we have the choice of� weather or not we personally want to be confirmed into the Church,� and from then on, we take the control over our own religious decisions.� I like this system because you get the best of both worlds.� Parents can continue their traditions by passing them to their children, but at the same time, we're not handed a "Memeber for Life." card while we're still in diapers.�

The problem is that there are people who believe that they know THE true way, as opposed to A true way. I'm going to piss a lot of people off here, and I'm sorry, I don't really want to step on anyone's toes. I think it is wonderful if people find salvation (or what have you) in whatever form they find it, BUT, it is the attitude that "I know the one true way" that is responsible for the majority of the suffering that people have endured through history, and I cannot abide that. There is NO One True Way, that apllies to everyone. For someone to believe THAT disrespects me, and millions of other good people, and that is an evil that I will not abide. Everyone has a way that works for them. If you know A truth, and it works for you then it IS salvation (for you) and completely valid. But never assume that it is also going to work for me. Thems fightin words.

Im a Catholic by baptism but wiulkd now describe myself as anon-affiliated Christian.... a Catholic joke I know is this though

Two people enter heaven and meet Peter at the gates as they walk in they passa walled area wgere they are equested to keep silent. After passing one of them asks Peter what was there "Oh, thast is where the Catholics stay, they think they are the only ones up here"

I use this not to insult Catholics but to highlight what could potentially be the central problem with faith which is whether you think the only route to salvation is through your particular branch,sect,or whatever.�� I think that this can be dangerous as shown by Queen Mary of England who burned protestants in an attempt to save their souls and also maybe in more recent religious fanaticism of every variety.� I accaept everyones freedom to worship and believe that it would be nic to work together in harmony as is finally being moved toward wthin the Christian Church which has been deeply torn for many years.

You didn't piss me off. I just have to shrug my shoulders and realize we will never agree.

My religion says that it is THE way. I can't get around that, no matter how warm and fuzzy it would be to be inclusive to all the "other ways" out there.� I admit that a lot of crappy things have been done in the name of God, and there is no way to explain that away. But I can't use that as an excuse to throw away the bits of the Bible that dare to hint that Jesus is the only way to salvation. I don't believe it is disrespectful to have a strong belief. And if that makes some people think I'm perpetrating an great evil on the world, so be it.

It depends on whether the parents actually tell the kids it's the One True Way or not. Lots of people don't.

I think, properly taught, a body of religious belief can develop a child' critical thinking skills as well as his/her spirituality and sense of human responsibility. Um ... witness Gella. :) Not that she's a child, but she knows her Judaism inside out and backwards, and she knows more about many other religions than most of their adherents do -- and I think a lot of that has a base in her upbringing.

Closer to home, we "raised" Andrew within Catholicism -- a cute trick for a nonpracticing Lutheran and an ever-searching eclectic Christo-pagan of Catholic heritage -- but also with the knowledge that other people he knows subscribe to other belief systems, as well as agnosticism and science-based atheism, and they're not necessarily "wrong" nor is Catholicism necessarily the "one true faith". He attended CCD; he has been baptized, communed, reconciled and confirmed. He knows the often-ugly history of the humans who have maintained the Church, but he also knows the foundation of the Church -- which I think is far more important than the sometimes-ossified dogma spouted by the Vatican. He knows there is lively disagreement and rebellion within the Catholic Church on everything from women priests to the war in Iraq to abortion to economic justice. He can analyze it for himself, find its strengths and weaknesses ... and ultimately decide for himself. And that's what I wanted to give him: the tools and education to make that decision -- not just about his childhood faith, but about any religious belief system he may encounter.

Some people have suggested to me that raising a child in Catholicism is an exercise in non-intellectualism, but I think the discipline of mastering -- and being able to critique -- a body of thought is an important tool in learning how to think. I'd rather he be grounded in one faith and work outward from it than leave him to sort through a muddled stew of options without the critical thinking skills, with only the sense that "I don't know much about religion". And I'd far rather he move away from the faith he knows best if he finds something that works better for him, than for him not to have any exposure to the richness of religious mythology.

If I may just insert something here...

I'd like to talk a bit about Judaism. We do not have any sort of baptism at birth. Judaism is not considered merely a religion... if your parents (mother according to some, either according to others) are Jewish, the you are Jewish no matter what, no matter if you convert to another religion, even. It's not about faith, it's about family.

So, if your family is practicing, you are raised with the practices and rituals of the particular sect of your family. You are exposed to it throughout your childhood, and you participate not because you are taught that this is the way to get to heaven, but rather just because *this is what Jews do* and depending on your denomination or the personal philosophy of your parents, you might be taught that this is what God commands us. This leads to discussions about what God is and why and how and all sorts of things... and since the God of Judaism is so wildly abstract, this can lead to some very interesting conversations with a young child.

Children of practicing Jewish families are often sent to Hebrew school for Jewish education where they, hopefully, depending on the school, learn something about the history of the Jewish people and address some of the more complex questions of theology and history etc. At age 13, most Jewish children have a ceremony marking their bar or bat mitzvah. This is not like a confirmation... you *become* a bar or bat mitzvah at the age of 13 (some say 12 for girls) whether you have a ceremony or not. What bar or bat mitzvah means is Son or Daughter of the Commandment. It means that you are now old enough to make your own decisions regarding the commandments and the religion, and your parents are no longer responsible for what is between you and the community, and between you and God. After this, many Jewish children are never heard from by their rabbis again. Many feel that once you've had your bar mitzvah, the time for Jewish study has ended and you can just go on with life now. Some come to synagogue only for the High Holy Days, and some never come back at all.

These people, the ones who don't come back... they are still Jews. We do not believe that they go to hell... we do not believe in hell. Jewish notions of The World To Come are very vague and is sometimes referred to as an afterlife and sometimes referred to as the messianic age. Sometimes the two are described as the same thing.... point is, it's not the heaven and hell dichotomy that Christians believe in, and in our tradition it is not only Jews who have a place in The World To Come.

overall, my point is that according to Judaism, Jews are Jews no matter what, whether it is acknowledged or not, and that there is nothing preventing modern practicing Jews from exploring what else is out there. The only thing that really ties Jews down is the sense of community and family. These can be very strong deterrents in some communities from exploring, but there is no promise of fire and brimstone, no fear instilled keeping Jews in.

This brings up an interesting point. The God of the old testament is an angry, wrathful god. Moses has to talk God out of a lot of smiting, what with the Israelites wandering around in the desert complaining. In fact, Moses isn't allowed to enter Canaan because God holds lifelong grudges.
What Christianity introduced, and it's main selling point, if you can pardon the phrase, is the idea of a compassionate God: the idea that you can be redeemed no matter what you've done is a powerful hook.

Not to say that God is all about punishment, but the "old school" mindset of God punishing people for their mis-steps is a prominent feature of most conservative "religions of the book," including Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

Gella missed mentioning an important point about Judaism. Much of Jewish thought comes not from Torah and the rest of the bible (minus that Christian appendix at the back), but from Talmud - commentary and discussion by rabbis over many centuries.

Well you're partially right, Jonathan... the God of the Torah is about lots of wrath and smiting... but not exclusively. I think a more accurate way of describing the God of the Torah would be to say that it is a very emotional God. This God is also capable of love, regret, sorrow, joy... I also think that the point you raised about God being talked out of a lot of smiting is important to note... the God of the Torah negotiates with man and *can* be talked out of things. God doesn't smite God's children for questioning or arguing, and the whole thing about Moses not entering Israel can be interpreted many different ways.

And you are correct, I didn't mention that Jewish practice is not governed by the Torah which was written before and during the days of the Priestly & Temple periods, but rather by rabbinic law which is derived from the Torah, but is the result of the rabbis arguing and tempering and negotiating and tweaking.

And I think another main selling point of Christianity, Jonathan, was that you didn't have to get circumcised or keep kosher.

depends on the branch of christianity in question, actually.� there are no laws about maintaining kosherness and such and we certainly do not have much do do with circumcision.� however, one of the old christian traditions (predating the split) was fasting from meat (not including fish) on every friday of the year, plus every day of lent.� what that has evolved into for most people i know who practice that from a catholic standpoint is removal of meat from their diets on fridays during lent and ... well .. a lot of sobbing about it. (:� i still adhere to the same rules as much as i possibly can (no meat period during lent is difficult during certain social settings and activities, but usually i can find a way around it without having to break the traditional fast) and get funny looks from friends who forget that i do so ever year. (:

�-= george =-

I know somebody who's 7th Day Adventist (a denomination of Christianity) and she told me that they keep kosher too.� Or, at least, they obstain from pig-products and shell fish, but I'm not sure how closely they stick to the rabbinic (sp?) law concerning dairy and meat together.

Actually not mixing meat and milk comes straight from Exodus, and again in Deuteronomy:

You shall not boil a kid in it's mother's milk.

Why I can't have a turkey and swiss because of this, I'll never know.

when Moses went up to the sinai to receive the oral explanation of god's laws, he was quite confused with the commandment "Do not boil a calf in it's mother's milk".

Moses (Perplexed): I don't quite understand this line about boiling a calf in it's mothers milk. What does it mean?

God: It means, don't boil a calf in it's mother's milk.

Moses thinks for a while and replies: Oh I get it, it means that we shouldn't eat meat products and dairy products on the same plate.

God: no, it means don't boil a calf in it's mother's milk.

Moses: Oh, I get it. We should have a separate set of dishes for dairy and meat products.

God: no, it means don't boil a calf in it's mother's milk.

Moses: Oh, I see. It means we should wait an appropriate amount of time after eating flesh before we can intake of milk or any dairy product. But fish is o.k. since it doesn't give milk.

God: no, it means don't boil a calf in it's mother's milk.

Moses: What about chicken? it doesn't give milk but it sort of tastes like the flesh of a milk producing beast?

God: MOSES! IT MEANS DON'T BOIL A CALF IN IT'S MOTHER'S MILK!

Moses: OK I think I got it all now. We should have a separate set of cooking and eating utensils for meat and dairy products. After partaking of meat we should wait an appropriate amount of time before we partake of any dairy products. Fish should not be considered as meat since it doesn't give milk. Chicken, on the other hand should be considered as meat even though it doesn't produce milk since it tastes a lot like it does.

God: Have it your way.

lol!
:D

Ok.� I thought somebody in a previous post refered to that interdiction as rabbinic law and my Jewish best friend always calls it that too.� I knew it originated in the Torah.� *Ignorant Anglican bows her head*

Not eating meat on Friday has nothing to do with Kashrut.

Interestingly, the Japanese word "Tempura" for battered vegetables or seafood comes from the word "temperance" and refers to the practice Francisan friars in pre-Tokugawa Japan of eating battered fish & vegetables on Fridays.

And on another interesting note, in south america the Capybara, a largely water dwelling rodent has been classified as a fish by the church so it's okay to eat during Lent.

Sure Gella, go straight for the penis...

Islam has many similar practices - they circumcise (at 13, ouch!) and Halal eating practices (releated to the Hebrew word Challah in the consecrated sense) closely resemble Kashrut.

yup

The hebrew root that Halal is related to is HLL which is to praise... the root of the word Halleluya, for example. Also the root of the name of the great sage Hillel.

One of the draws of Islam over Judaism was that it's dietary laws are somewhat less stringent than the laws of Kashrut.

The Amish *are* Anabaptists, as are the Mennonites and Brethren in Christ.

I guess I wasn't too clear about that above - I was singling out the Amish as a discussion point, not to say that they weren't Anabaptists. The Amish movement is an Anabaptist movement that started in the late 17th century, while the Mennonite church came out of the Anabaptist movement in Holland in the 16th century.

Roman Catholic-baptized, confirmed, etc.� In the last couple years I have been attending other denominations (mainly because my girlfriend has had two different church choir jobs) and feel no different in those churches than I do in my own church.���I enjoy the fact that I have a great relationship with my "Christian God," no matter where I am, God is a companion to me.�

The reason I�am not an atheist or agnostic is because I believe I have seen God's work.� When I say this, I mean�God's love.� God=Love�in my�mind.�� Tangible or not,��as long as there is Love I have Faith in God.� Faith and Love.� In a world of so much hatred and anger, especially right now....I still believe that the good�ways out the bad.� That�keeps me going, Hope.� Faith, Hope, Love.��Clich�?� maybe, but it's what I believe.

Matthew Scott Slawinski

Warning: this is long... you might just want to skip it ;)

I try not to get involved in religious discussions... being brought up that religion is one of those "forbidden topics" in social settings and that my ideas and thoughts are as changing as the skies...

I believe in a Higher Power.� My beliefs are not structured, so I do not lay faith and dedication to a structured path or doctrine.� Dogma and Stigmata are two of my favorite movies because they say so eloquently what my own words fail to convey.

Stigmata - The Kingdom of God is inside you and all around you, not in mansions of wood and stone. Split a piece of wood and I am there -- lift a stone and you will find me. These are the hidden sayings that the living Jesus spoke. Whoever discovers the meaning of these sayings shall not taste death

Dogma -
(Serendipity)I have issues with anyone who treats faith as a burden instead of a blessing. You people don't celebrate your faith; you mourn it.
(Loki)�Do you know what makes a human being decent? Fear. And therein lies the problem. None of you has anything left to fear anymore. You rest comfortably in seats of inscrutable power, hiding behind your false idol, far from judgment, lives shrouded in secrecy even from one another.
(Bethany)You're saying that having beliefs is a bad thing? (Rufus)I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier.

Of course, i could pretty much quote the entire movie because lets face it... Dogma rocks.� But I digress... The most moving thought to me is that "you can change an idea," that your idea or perception of life, creation, morality, and faith should be fluid and malleable, as you grow�and learn and live... so should your perceptions... and your take on life and existence... and that spirituality (not religion) is a personal thing that grows and changes with you.

I do not believe in organized religion, I do not follow preset doctrine.��I don't feel the need to have someone define how I should express my faith and dedication to the Higher Power, or by what name or gender I should make reference to that Higher Power.� To me, organized religion = political and social control, not a path to Light and Love and Salvation.� And that works for me.� I don't begrudge anyone the way they want to express their faith; what I do have a problem with are the extremists and fundamentalists and even simply those that cannot accept that there are other paths... and insult, persecute, damn and belittle those that choose a path different from their own.�

For the record... I call myself an undeclared pagan because I believe in magick, I believe in the forces of nature and invoking the power of the Higher Beings, I believe in souls that have connected in previous generations, previous times, previous lives, i believe in the power of spirit, and I believe in the subtle universal connection between all of us... regardless of what path one travels.

So, does that classify me as a believer... or a non-believer?

Actually, talking about religion there's a fun (and informative) quiz on the beliefnet.com site:
http://beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html

They ask you a bunch of questions and you get a detailed analysis how closely your beliefs match those of about 40(?) faiths. And there's a wealth of information covering all of these faiths.

Ugh... I hate that quiz. The assume a dichotomy between Reform and Orthodox Judaism which *really* bugs me.

I think that there are some fundamental (no pun intended) differences between Reform and Orthodox Judaism. I think that orthodox religions in general are about prescription and defining themselves by practice, and Reform movements say that much of the ritual and rule is irrelevant and not defining, or that the orthodox church has gotten caught up in ritual and heirarchy, and has lost focus on what's important.

That said, the quiz thinks I'm a:

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Secular Humanism (98%)
3. Liberal Quakers (87%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (83%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (77%)
6. Neo-Pagan (71%)
7. Nontheist (70%)
8. New Age (61%)
9. Bah�'� Faith (57%)
10. Taoism (54%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (53%)
12. Reform Judaism (50%)
13. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (50%)

Hmm... I'm going to be really busy on my weekends I guess.

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (92%)
3. Liberal Quakers (90%)
4. Secular Humanism (89%)
5. Neo-Pagan (69%)
6. Nontheist (66%)
7. Theravada Buddhism (63%)
8. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (61%)
9. New Age (61%)
10. Bah�'� Faith (55%)
11. Taoism (55%)
12. New Thought (49%)
13. Mahayana Buddhism (48%)
14. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (47%)
15. Scientology (42%)
16. Reform Judaism (42%)
17. Orthodox Quaker (37%)
18. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (33%)
19. Jehovah's Witness (30%)
20. Sikhism (27%)
21. Jainism (20%)
22. Hinduism (19%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (14%)
24. Eastern Orthodox (10%)
25. Islam (10%)
26. Orthodox Judaism (10%)
27. Roman Catholic (10%)

I read #21 as JIANISM!� hahahah

I always suspected you were 55% Taoist.

You're not the only one.
I hear that a lot.

Oh my.

I couldn't be much less Catholic if I were a Pagan Baby. I mean, both forms of Catholicism considered come in dead last, man. Dead. Last.

Which is just kind of funny, since the only Roman sacraments I haven't celebrated are Ordination and Extreme Unction.

Villanova University is either very ashamed of me, or very proud that its philosophy department did a damned good job. :)

Although ... it's kind of scary to be far more Jehovah's Witness or Mormon or Scientologist than Catholic. Because I consider all of the first three to be cults. Oy.

1. Mahayana Buddhism (100%)
2. New Age (100%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (99%)
4. Neo-Pagan (95%)
5. Liberal Quakers (95%)
6. Theravada Buddhism (91%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (86%)
8. New Thought (74%)
9. Taoism (73%)
10. Hinduism (73%)
11. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (71%)
12. Jainism (70%)
13. Orthodox Quaker (68%)
14. Scientology (68%)
15. Sikhism (66%)
16. Bah�'� Faith (65%)
17. Reform Judaism (60%)
18. Secular Humanism (52%)
19. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (42%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (39%)
21. Orthodox Judaism (38%)
22. Jehovah's Witness (35%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (34%)
24. Nontheist (30%)
25. Islam (29%)
26. Eastern Orthodox (14%)
27. Roman Catholic (14%)

hey, lori, i've got you beat:

1. Liberal Quakers (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (98%)
3. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (94%)
4. Secular Humanism (92%)
5. Neo-Pagan (81%)
6. Theravada Buddhism (76%)
7. New Age (75%)
8. Taoism (68%)
9. Mahayana Buddhism (66%)
10. Bah�'� Faith (64%)
11. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (64%)
12. Nontheist (60%)
13. Orthodox Quaker (60%)
14. Reform Judaism (59%)
15. New Thought (57%)
16. Scientology (56%)
17. Jainism (49%)
18. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (44%)
19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (38%)
20. Sikhism (37%)
21. Hinduism (35%)
22. Jehovah's Witness (32%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (30%)
24. Islam (25%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (25%)
26. Eastern Orthodox (13%)
27. Roman Catholic (13%)

So ... if you go to a Catholic institution of higher learning, you become a terrible Catholic?

That *can't* be what the teaching orders intend. Can it?

my mom likes to call it liberal brainwashing. but i went to a jesuit university, which is not exactly the same thing as a catholic one ;)

(and roman catholicism was my bottom result, too. at 10%. 17 years of a catholic education liektotally paid off, man)

cooool... does that mean you can perform exorcisms? cause like... there's this guy...

angie
who can't be serious about much o anything anymore ;)

seriousness is highly overrated

no, i didn't quite make it that far. but my brother's even doing grad school at a catholic university, so i could check with him :P

of course, he's a republican. and going to be a lawyer. so perhaps we need to find someone to do the exorcism on him . . .

--jaci, who never was serious about much of anything

Exorcism's usually a more conservative, "charismatic"-type Catholic thing anyway, despite the Jesuit involvement in "The Exorcist". Of course, some Jesuits are arch-conservatives too ... they're just arch-conservatives with an inquiring mindset.

So maybe your brother's an ideal candidate to actually learn the exorcising rituals. (There are some lay people who perform it around here, as well as a few clergy. The Church hierarchy officially tries to avoid the subject, because it's ... weird.)

Yeah, I think that's the general rule.� People who go to Catholic schools either become hardcore Catholics or atheists.

but ... correct me if I'm wrong, Carey and Jaci, but afaik none of us are atheists. We clearly don't fall into the "hardcore Catholic" category ... but Catholic perspectives continue to play a role in our lives. And speaking only for myself now, that role is not negative.

and i can only speak for myself as well, but i'm still questing. and questioning :)

but the catholic perspective absolutely still plays a role in my life. i refer to myself as a recovering catholic. and as we saw in the nonbeliever's thread, i'm pretty sensitive on catholic issues.

I can relate to what you said, my biggets problems are Catholic guilt and having read the Screwtape Letters,� Because I am studying philosophy and have fath inScience (though not religios faith in sciences) I am obviously going to hell.� This kinda upsets me because I have repented, makes me gald I'mnot Calvinist as then I would not fell like repentance matters as soem are deemed worthy of Salvation and others not and I am obviously not by thoserule sna d might as well be doing what Faustus did...but I believe in repentance and forgiveness just not sure I believe in them enough...,maybe even saying that ensures I am going to hell....the minion is sure doing a good job on me!

Yay for the Screwtape Letters. I love CS Lewis.

There was once a meeting between CS Lewis and Tolkien with Arthur C. Clarke and the president of the British Interplanetary Society. The debated religion over lunch. At the end Lewis said something to the effect of, "You two are sinners but the world would be a much more boring place without you."

I love that story. I has three heroes of mine in it and liking each other even though they held diametrically opposing viewpoints.

um... no kidding, Jonathan. My point is not that Orthodox and Reform Judaism are not different, but that they are not a dichotomy. For example, I am not a Reform or Orthodox Jew... I am Condervative, which is significantly different from both Reform and Orthodox. Melissa is also not reform or Orthodox... my understanding is that she is Reconstructionist, also very different.

Is the Reconstructionalist movement considered a branch of the Conservatives? I know they taught me that in Hebrew school but that doesn't make it true.

There is no such thing as the Reconstructionalist movement. The Reconstructionist movement, however, branched off the Conservative movement much in the same way that the Conservative movement branched off the Reform movement. It is its own independent movement with its own seminaries.

I know nobody asked, but here I am:

1.� Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2.� Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (93%)
3.� Liberal Quakers (89%)
4.� Secular Humanism (88%)
5.� Nontheist (74%)
6.� Theravada Buddhism (68%)
7.� Neo-Pagan (60%)
8.� New Age (58%)
9.� Bah�'� Faith (55%)
10.� Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (54%)
11.� Taoism (50%)

also, they classify scientology as a religion. which is just wrong.

A tidbit: I was born in what is now the main Scientology building in Los Angleles. It used to be the old Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, which became Cedars Sinai and moved to Beverly Hills.

1. Neo-Pagan (100%)
2. New Age (100%)
3. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (95%)
4. Liberal Quakers (91%)
5. Mahayana Buddhism (90%)
6. New Thought (85%)
7. Unitarian Universalism (85%)
8. Taoism (85%)
9. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (83%)
10. Scientology (80%)
11. Theravada Buddhism (71%)
12. Bah�'� Faith (69%)
13. Hinduism (63%)
14. Jainism (59%)
15. Sikhism (57%)
16. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (55%)
17. Orthodox Quaker (54%)
18. Secular Humanism (48%)
19. Jehovah's Witness (46%)
20. Reform Judaism (46%)
21. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (40%)
22. Orthodox Judaism (24%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (22%)
24. Nontheist (20%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (13%)
26. Islam (13%)
27. Roman Catholic (13%)

But then a perusal of the Scientology website repeats itself over and over again: "Scientology is a religion."� There is nothing to back that.� There are many statements of what one can do because of Scientology...but not what Scientology IS or what its principal purpose/statement is.

Nothing on the site indicates that it follows the definition of "religion."� (Which, according to dictionary.com, is defined as follows: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe;�a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship; the life or condition of a person in a religious order;�a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader;�a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.)

it's a cult. a very scary one, at that.

and it worries me that impressionable people looking for a religion/sense of purpose/blah blah blah might take that quiz, find scientology high on their result list, and decide to join.

don't let them hear you say that! Their spies are everywhere!

the scary thing is, that's true.

*eyes everyone suspiciously*

I think that they qualify under the "activity pursued with zeal " area. You should read about what they do to people who try to leave, including Hubbard's son....

What do they do?

Well, if you believe some reports, they kill people.

So Hubbard's son was killed (or rather met a suspicious end?)?

I honestly don't know much more about Scientology other than a bunch of hollyweird nitwits believe in it, and it was founded by the same guy who wrote Dianetics (who's lame ass commericals from the 80s I can STILL remember).

Quentin was found dead in a car in Las Vegas under suspicious circumstances, looking like a staged suicide. He was apparently trying to break away from Scientology - he was supposedly gay, something his father "the Commodore" detested.

There have been a number of cases of people trying to leave scientology, only to be snatched up by church members and "reprogrammed.' Some of these people have died, apparently of dehydration and malnutrition, suggesting that they've been kept locked up somewhere.

L. himself died and was creamated, all under care of scientology doctors. Nobody outside of the church ever saw a body.

There are also documented plans to infiltrate law enforcement, government, media, etc. - any position of power or influence. People have gone to jail over some break-ins a la watergate.

Here's a link - I can't vouch for the veracity of the claims, but stories I've heard from people who got involved at a low level, and then left, lead me to believe that the claims are true.

Holy crap! Well, there's nothing "holy" about that at all, but yikes indeed.

Operation Clambake is one of the better Scientology-information and -debunking sites I've found out there. Some scary stuff there.

I dunno. If I believe that smoking cannabis and dancing in a circle from 3 to 4 every afternoon connects me to God, who are you to say I'm wrong?

And, I agree, Scientology is a cult... But I don't know that "cult" and "religion" are mutually exclusive.

I agree. I'll take L Ron Hubbard at his word.

When he was a science fiction writer he said, "If a science fiction writer wants to get rich he should found a religion. A few years later he came up with Dianetics which morphed into Scientology. I think this gives him being the distintion of being the only conman to ever announce to his potential marks that he was going to con them.

If you want to read a good book that hits on Scientology as well as other pseudosciences read Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.

Personally if I want to follow a crackpot theory I'd take one of Charles Fort's.

Speaking of Fort, there wasn't a rain of frogs but there was a rain of Frog eggs in Berlin CT. A house was hit by a mass of frogs eggs from the sky. It was a result of Hurricane Isabel. They believe the eggs came from South Carolina.

Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (94%)
3. Liberal Quakers (92%)
4. Neo-Pagan (87%)
5. Secular Humanism (87%)
6. New Age (82%)
7. New Thought (69%)
8. Theravada Buddhism (68%)
9. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (66%)
10. Mahayana Buddhism (63%)
11. Bah�'� Faith (62%)
12. Nontheist (61%)
13. Reform Judaism (60%)
14. Scientology (60%)
15. Taoism (60%)
16. Orthodox Quaker (46%)
17. Sikhism (45%)
18. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (44%)
19. Jainism (41%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (38%)
21. Orthodox Judaism (32%)
22. Hinduism (28%)
23. Jehovah's Witness (27%)
24. Islam (24%)
25. Seventh Day Adventist (16%)
26. Eastern Orthodox (15%)
27. Roman Catholic (15%)

--

Hmm. A few years ago when I took this test, I was mostly Buddist and Pagan.

Woot! I'm less Jehovah's Witness than Catholic! :-)

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Liberal Quakers (88%)
3. Neo-Pagan (84%)
4. Mahayana Buddhism (83%)
5. New Age (77%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (77%)
7. New Thought (74%)
8. Theravada Buddhism (71%)
9. Reform Judaism (70%)
10. Secular Humanism (67%)
11. Hinduism (66%)
12. Scientology (61%)
13. Taoism (61%)
14. Jainism (56%)
15. Sikhism (55%)
16. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (51%)
17. Bah�'� Faith (45%)
18. Nontheist (44%)
19. Orthodox Quaker (43%)
20. Orthodox Judaism (39%)
21. Islam (29%)
22. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (24%)
23. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (23%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (21%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (14%)
26. Roman Catholic (14%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (13%)

1.� Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (100%)
2.� Jehovah's Witness (95%)
3.� Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (91%)
4.� Eastern Orthodox (75%)
5.� Roman Catholic (75%)
6.� Seventh Day Adventist (69%)
7.� Orthodox Quaker (65%)
8.� Orthodox Judaism (61%)
9.� Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (54%)
10.� Islam (53%)

I was born into a family where I went to catholic masses every sunday morning and advent christian surmons on sunday afternoon. I was baptized in BOTH churches. I went to advent christian school... and catholic summer camp... I went to confession... and took comunion... I was beaten by nuns and put in the closet for questioning faith... I was going to be a missionary. when I was days from going to mexico I decided to quit it all. now... I am a believer. in nothing.

1.� Eastern Orthodox (100%) 2.� Roman Catholic (100%) 3.� Orthodox Quaker (97%) 4.� Seventh Day Adventist (90%) 5.� Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (89%) 6.� Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (81%) 7.� Liberal Quakers (71%) 8.� Orthodox Judaism (62%) 9.� Unitarian Universalism (61%) 10.� Hinduism (57%) 11.� Reform Judaism (55%) 12.� Bah�'� Faith (53%) 13.� Islam (51%) 14.� Sikhism (51%) 15.� Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (47%) 16.� Jehovah's Witness (47%) 17.� Neo-Pagan (47%) 18.� Secular Humanism (43%) 19.� Mahayana Buddhism (38%) 20.� Jainism (37%) 21.� New Age (37%) 22.� Theravada Buddhism (37%) 23.� Taoism (30%) 24.� Scientology (27%) 25.� Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (24%) 26.� Nontheist (24%) 27.� New Thought (18%)

i should have known. (:� i'd make a bad quaker tho.

�-= george =-

I'm telling your DAAAAAAAAD!

you may have come up as 100% Eastern Orthodox, but you came up 100% Roman Catholic too!!!

tsk tsk. my friend. tsk tsk

;)

you be in troooouble.

how is it that i can actually HEAR you saying that all the way from over there?� that shouldn't be allowed!

if you tell my dad i'll ... er ... mm ... umm ... be really mean to you! d:

�-= george =-

heehee. I typed it out REALY loud.

that and you know me too well. or I've teased you too much in person ;)

oh and by the way. I know that you couldn't be mean to me even if you really wanted to. yer a SOFTIE!


and we'll ignore the fact that I couldn't bear to stir up that pot even if I wanted to... keep walkin' nuthin' to see here!

You might be a better Quaker than you think. ;)

I took this a long time ago... finally tracked it down here. :) At the time I wondered how this Quaker got to be a Unitarian.

1.� Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2.� Secular Humanism (96%) 3.� Liberal Quakers (93%) 4.� Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (90%) 5.� Theravada Buddhism (71%) 6.� Neo-Pagan (70%) 7.� Nontheist (69%) 8.� Bah�'� Faith (61%) 9.� New Age (58%) 10.� Taoism (56%) 11.� Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (56%) 12.� Mahayana Buddhism (53%) 13.� Reform Judaism (52%) 14.� Orthodox Quaker (50%) 15.� Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (46%) 16.� New Thought (46%) 17.� Scientology (41%) 18.� Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (40%) 19.� Jainism (40%) 20.� Jehovah's Witness (36%) 21.� Sikhism (36%) 22.� Islam (24%) 23.� Orthodox Judaism (24%) 24.� Hinduism (21%) 25.� Seventh Day Adventist (20%) 26.� Eastern Orthodox (14%) 27.� Roman Catholic (14%)

��� Since I'm agnostic, I guess Unitarian Universalist works for me. I went to a few of their services and couldn't see the point-� no one seemed to want to be absolute about anything!� Maybe I'm missing something, but what is the point of a faith without a definite doctrine? If you're just going to decide for yourself what to believe and what to reject, why join a church?� Not to say that I wanted didactism,� but some sort of focus or more clearly defined belief system would have been helpful.

I thought that was the beauty of it: everyone rejoicing in the knowledge that everyone in the room believed...their own way.� The fact that everyone could believe God was whatever they personally believed God to be�WAS the focus.

I went to one service and never returned.� Church just wasn't doing it for me anymore.

�I think that was the theory, but the church I went to said you didn't even have to believe in god in any form-- you could be a unitarian universalist atheist.� I liked the idea of being able to believe in your own way,� I was just at a loss regarding the purpose of a church that doesn't expect you to believe in anything.

I'm not sure if that applies to all Unitarian Universalists. Maybe I just went to a particularly wacky church.

I don't think you went to a wacky church at all. I just think UUs define "religion" in a way that you (and I, and most others who have been exposed to mainline churches) find hard to comprehend at first -- an individual's relationship with divinity, and the coming together of other individuals to celebrate and renew each other's commitment and expression of that relationship, not a body of dogma. Also, I think you don't understand Atheism if you think it's about not believing in "anything". Atheists can and do believe in lots of things -- the inherent beauty and goodness of nature, the promise of human potential. The one thing they don't believe -- the one thing that makes them Atheists -- is the existence of a divine being or beings.

I wish a practicing UU was here and posted to this thread with a more knowledgeable explanation, but here's what I found:

From http://www.uua.org: "We believe that personal experience, conscience, and reason should be the final authorities in religion. In the end religious authority lies not in a book, person, or institution, but in ourselves. We put religious insights to the test of our hearts and minds.

We uphold the free search for truth. We will not be bound by a statement of belief. We do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed. We say ours is a noncreedal religion. Ours is a free faith.

We believe that religious wisdom is ever changing. Human understanding of life and death, the world and its mysteries, is never final. Revelation is continuous. We celebrate unfolding truths known to teachers, prophets, and sages throughout the ages.

We affirm the worth of all women and men. We believe people should be encouraged to think for themselves. We know people differ in their opinions and lifestyles, and we believe these differences generally should be honored.

We seek to act as a moral force in the world, believing that ethical living is the supreme witness of religion. The here and now and the effects our actions will have on future generations deeply concern us. We know that our relationships with one another, with diverse peoples, races, and nations, should be governed by justice, equity, and compassion.

We Celebrate

Each Unitarian Universalist congregation is involved in many kinds of programs. Worship is held regularly, the insights of the past and present are shared with those who will create the future, service to the community is undertaken, and friendships are made.
A visitor to a Unitarian Universalist congregation will very likely find events and activities such as church school, daycare centers, lectures and forums, support groups, family events, adult education classes, and study groups...all depending on the needs and interests of the local members.

Each Unitarian Universalist congregation is the fulfillment of a long heritage that goes back hundreds of years to courageous people who struggled for freedom in thought and faith. On this continent we include the Massachusetts settlers and the founders of the republic. Outstanding Unitarians and Universalists include John Adams, Clara Barton, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louisa May Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Susan B. Anthony, Adlai Stevenson, Eliot Richardson, and Whitney Young."

Seems to me that what the UU Church is about is the strength of community, and that's the point of going to the church -- not to meet a Sunday or holy-day obligation and keep your soul out of mortal danger, but to find a community in which you can toss around your ideas for truly living your own idea of divinity, in the wider world and not just in church. It doesn't work for anyone with a fundamentalist attitude toward a "one true way", of course, but for those who DON'T subscribe to the "one true path" religions it's a meeting of "like" minds with individual ideas. It's also a gathering of people who want to do something to improve the world, and who aren't going to get bogged down in dogma or the differences between their and other group member's beliefs while trying to do it. (Imagine Catholic Social Services or Salvation Army soup kitchens without the dogma! Now that would be social activism!) The nonjudgmental social outreach of UU congregations is one of the most appealing parts of the religion, to me.

I have to object to the insinuation that Unitarian Universalism is not a "Mainline Church". UU is certainly one of the major religions in America, and it goes back hundreds of years, as you quoted. It is, in my opinion just as mainline as any other protestant sect (UU isn't really protesant any more, but they have their roots there) and far more mainline than say the christian scientists or the mormons.

Sorry AJ, I didn't mean to offend. Substitute the phrase "doctrinal or dogmatic based on scripture" for the word "mainline"; that's what I really meant.

Oh, you didn't offend. :)

No, I think that is pretty mainline UU tenet. Lisa and I were married in a Unitarian church, and one of the things the minister said to us while we were designing our ceremony (yes, you write it yourself) is that he would not say the word "god", because he found that it meant so many different things to different people that it had become useless as a tool of communication.

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Secular Humanism (97%)
3. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (87%)
4. Liberal Quakers (86%)
5. Nontheist (70%)
6. Theravada Buddhism (62%)
7. Neo-Pagan (60%)
8. Bah�'� Faith (57%)
9. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (54%)
10. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (52%)
11. New Age (45%)
12. Reform Judaism (43%)
13. Taoism (43%)
14. New Thought (41%)
15. Jehovah's Witness (35%)
16. Orthodox Quaker (35%)
17. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (34%)
18. Scientology (34%)
19. Mahayana Buddhism (31%)
20. Sikhism (29%)
21. Jainism (15%)
22. Seventh Day Adventist (10%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (10%)
24. Islam (10%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (10%)
26. Roman Catholic (10%)
27. Hinduism (5%)

I ought to sue the authors of this quiz for libel.

you no likey your results? ;-)

Me no likey "Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (34%)." All in all, the result should have been a dummy spit, telling me: "You got no trace of any religion. Fuck off, infidel." The closest I can get to a god type entity is my belief in the indefinite potential of humankind, but even that does not preclude the possibility that we will destroy our own existence as a species long before our local star becomes a supernova and fries this little planet.

1.�	Orthodox Quaker (100%)
2.�	Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (95%)
3.�	Seventh Day Adventist (94%)
4.�	Eastern Orthodox (82%)
5.�	Roman Catholic (82%)
6.�	Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (76%)
7.�	Islam (72%)
8.�	Orthodox Judaism (72%)
9.�	Bah�'� Faith (63%)
10.�	Liberal Quakers (58%)
11.�	Hinduism (57%)
12.�	Sikhism (54%)
13.�	Jainism (52%)
14.�	Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (47%)
15.�	Unitarian Universalism (44%)
16.�	Reform Judaism (42%)
17.�	Theravada Buddhism (42%)
18.�	Mahayana Buddhism (41%)
19.�	Jehovah's Witness (35%)
20.�	Taoism (28%)
21.�	Nontheist (25%)
22.�	Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (23%)
23.�	Neo-Pagan (20%)
24.�	New Age (19%)
25.�	Scientology (18%)
26.�	Secular Humanism (15%)
27.�	New Thought (13%)

I didn't save my results, but I remember that the top two were Unitarian and Theravadin Buddhism. The Unitarian makes sense, because their whole belief system is that you believe whatever you want to, so everyone's compatible with that. And Theravadin Buddhism is closest to my real-world beliefs. So kudos to the religion-o-matic. :)

the religion-o-matic is my new savior, it gave me an identity and a path. the number of religion-o-matics is one and one shall be the number of religion-o-matics. all hail the religion-o-matic in all its glory. dude.

;-)

That sounds more like Mojo-Jojoism to me.

i was torn between that and monty python.

until we got to the "dude". then we were right back at the big lebowski :D