Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

(POLL) What religion do you consider yourself?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Violator View Post
    Thanks for the replies and participation everyone.

    Info, as much as I'd like to formulate an argument against you out of principle, I do mostly agree with everything you wrote.

    Not quite sure I'm far enough along in my own experience to understand much about the inter-dimensional stuff you where saying at the end there, but I know there is much about this universe we haven't even come close to having a grasp or understanding on.
    Yeah, I wrote that post to you, the OP.

    I was partly kidding about the interdimensional stuff, although, I've seen a few things that make me wonder. Whatever that Void is, so often referred to by all religions (although suppressed by most), and so bloody vexing to "try" for, it's apparently allowed some people to do things I can't explain. I've sat for long periods of time, in several monasteries, sat in front of several famous teachers, and they've actually done a few things I can't explain. Not words, but deeds. So here I am, Mr Science, at a loss, but always interested in peeling back the layers (which certainly goes against me, in the practice of meditation) .

    So it's obvious to me that there are "aspects" of reality, let's say, rather than "dimensions", that aren't obvious to the average postulant, even though they're right here, right now.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Nomad View Post

      Maybe there were Protestants not being able to find the choice that fits them the most.....casting their votes to none of the above....

      Perhaps, I guess I assumed "Christian" was a decent choice for a Protestant, the kind of Christian I was back in the day was probably considered Protestant, but I just called myself a Christian. Didn't want to offend anyone or anything I just didn't realize I needed to separate all the sects of Christianity.

      Info, I've had some strange unexplainable experiences myself, but I sense I'm much younger then you, a lot of things are still up in the air for me, And I still change my opinions and feelings on things frequently. You may be right about psychological drift as an aspect of my character, but I'm growing and trying to improve myself and my understanding.

      Comment


      • #18
        (Deleted)
        Last edited by RAnonUS19B; 11-08-2018, 08:46 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          (Deleted)
          Last edited by RAnonUS19B; 11-08-2018, 08:46 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Naaa, totally not necessary. You surely can't expect an Internet poll to be filled with hundreds of choices. Sorry but it would be impossible to list all the religions, especially all the sects of each one. This was a simple poll for curiositys sake. Not trying to prove a point or start a debate. I picked most of the common ones and including an "other" option for the ones left out. For me personally, I was struggling with my own religion, fighting doubts, and my nervous breakdown over my cut and the association between the cut and religion was the straw that broke the camels back and made me non religious. In a way, that was a positive thing to result from my cut, because I've been much happier and less conflicted without it. Not that you can't be happy being religious, but me personally, that seems to be the case.

            Comment


            • #21
              I personally think this is a good thread, which is why I took part in it. I didn't expect a poll that tried to be scientific, ie specifically listing ALL religions, sects, schisms, and whatever the hell it is that Crazy Larry on the street corner rants about. I expected a general poll, which gave people a chance to choose one of the offered choices if it applied, or go outside the choices and still give us their 2 cents worth. It's a forum. I guess this even includes sixty+'s non-comment. The general rule for this section has been lived up to, by us, and that counts.

              And if I understand the OP's motivation correctly, he went outside his internal issues to see what others think, and that really counts. It's a rarity on restoration forums, most are too angry (or too far gone) to do that, and more importantly it's the first step in gaining a broader view. The broader view, while it can make you uncomfortable (sixty+ comes to mind), can also be informative, therapeutic, and it can give cohesion, not separation.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Violator View Post
                I'm honestly suprised so far, I figured there might be more non-religious people here then religious, but only 2 so far has selected a formal religion.
                I was always on the impression Protestant, Catolic and Christians being different religions....having to know they teach there own unique teachings....

                I dont really see that much correlation with non religiosness to the resent of circumcision, perharps in exeption to Jewish and Islam which no user currently voted on.

                We live in an age where religion is not enough to answer are curiosity and quell our anxieties. Science have take that place. Well religion is where many can find peace. So to each to his own.
                Last edited by Nomad; 08-17-2016, 08:00 PM. Reason: Name typo

                Comment


                • #23
                  You should have the Bahai faith on this poll too.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I would call atheism lack of belief in a god/gods and I don't feel like it should be included personally as a religious category. Saying atheist says nothing about what you actually believe except on a narrow part of one subject and it has no tenants or dogmas. Its the default position when your born... and you get programmed later. Its essentially defining something someone does not believe instead of something someone does believe.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by LovesWarmHugs View Post
                      I would call atheism lack of belief in a god/gods and I don't feel like it should be included personally as a religious category. Saying atheist says nothing about what you actually believe except on a narrow part of one subject and it has no tenants or dogmas. Its the default position when your born... and you get programmed later. Its essentially defining something someone does not believe instead of something someone does believe.
                      Reminds me of a good quote:

                      "Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, 'atheist' is a term that should not ever exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a 'non astrologer' or a 'non-alchemist'. We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle."
                      --Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation"

                      But in practice. the word makes communication easier with many people.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by LovesWarmHugs View Post
                        I would call atheism lack of belief in a god/gods and I don't feel like it should be included personally as a religious category. Saying atheist says nothing about what you actually believe except on a narrow part of one subject and it has no tenants or dogmas. Its the default position when your born... and you get programmed later. Its essentially defining something someone does not believe instead of something someone does believe.
                        And I'll add this quote:
                        A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation.


                        A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government. He thinks the Creator implanted in all things certain immutable laws, called the Laws of Nature, which act per se, as a watch acts without the supervision of its maker. Like the theist, he does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation.

                        The atheist disbelieves even the existence of a God. He thinks matter is eternal, and what we call “creation” is the result of natural laws.

                        The agnostic believes only what is knowable. He rejects revelation and the doctrine of the Trinity as “past human understanding.” He is neither theist, deist, nor atheist, as all these are past understanding.

                        So..........word definitions change over time, and pick up added meaning depending on the context of culture, and are constantly argued and redifined. This is always the problem with definitions, they're hardly ironclad, with definitions of religion particularly problematic, but as greg says, communication (as murky as it gets in the first few seconds) is the issue. You gotta start somewhere. So someone who stands apart (the meaning of "a") from theism ("atheist") is actually as defined a position in religion as any of the schisms which don't. This is true by virtue of language, which... just... doesn't ... allow... you... to let go of the symbolic and iconic, rather than deal with the reality LOL.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Info View Post

                          And I'll add this quote:
                          A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation.


                          A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government. He thinks the Creator implanted in all things certain immutable laws, called the Laws of Nature, which act per se, as a watch acts without the supervision of its maker. Like the theist, he does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation.

                          The atheist disbelieves even the existence of a God. He thinks matter is eternal, and what we call “creation” is the result of natural laws.

                          The agnostic believes only what is knowable. He rejects revelation and the doctrine of the Trinity as “past human understanding.” He is neither theist, deist, nor atheist, as all these are past understanding.

                          So..........word definitions change over time, and pick up added meaning depending on the context of culture, and are constantly argued and redifined. This is always the problem with definitions, they're hardly ironclad, with definitions of religion particularly problematic, but as greg says, communication (as murky as it gets in the first few seconds) is the issue. You gotta start somewhere. So someone who stands apart (the meaning of "a") from theism ("atheist") is actually as defined a position in religion as any of the schisms which don't. This is true by virtue of language, which... just... doesn't ... allow... you... to let go of the symbolic and iconic, rather than deal with the reality LOL.
                          Well, I disagree with the way these definitions are worded. But it is difficult since religion and the idea that everyone "has to believe in something" is so prevalent in our society. For Atheist, I like the following definitions best, they are what I relate to.

                          https://www.atheists.org/activism/re...hat-is-atheism

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

                          http://atheism.about.com/od/definiti...definition.htm

                          Thus, I find it is often quite valuable to ask what a person means when they use these terms, before going further in a dialogue.

                          Cheers!


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by greg_b View Post

                            Well, I disagree with the way these definitions are worded. But it is difficult since religion and the idea that everyone "has to believe in something" is so prevalent in our society. For Atheist, I like the following definitions best, they are what I relate to.

                            https://www.atheists.org/activism/re...hat-is-atheism

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

                            http://atheism.about.com/od/definiti...definition.htm

                            Thus, I find it is often quite valuable to ask what a person means when they use these terms, before going further in a dialogue.

                            Cheers!

                            I'm sure a lot of people would also disagree with the quote I provided, not just you. That was my point. So apparently I wasn't as clear as I could've been.

                            Definitions, and particularly definitions having to do with religion, are always open to manipulation by groups and their agendas; manipulation from the outside, and from the inside; they are never universally agreed on. Need I mention the clinical vs lay vs the intactivist definition of "circumcision" as an example?

                            The problem with first determining what a particular person means by his chosen label, is ... that's where the debate easily begins and ends, without moving on in the discussion. The two or more parties either argue about a preamble, or they have to agree to disagree from that point on, before any common understanding is reached. Guess what usually happens. Not exactly the end of the world, but certainly it can be the end of discussion. Discussion about specific labels is always potential understanding in the larger sense (this takes place on this forum from time to time), and it can become potentially common ground even when the formal positions differ.

                            And I feel the need to also point out:

                            The underlying, REAL, issue in all this, in 'religions', 'religious positions', 'labels', 'definitions', et al, is that the seeds for separation and division are in all of us before we start. That's where it all begins. The easiest way to spot an agenda is when someone insists on an all inclusive label, ie, "them/they", "us/we", "parents", "doctors", "victims", etc. You can see this in a current thread, and in many past threads, here and the old forum.

                            By its very nature language is divisive, which was my other point. By all means, try for a working definition in order to establish common ground in a discussion. I remember that D always promoted that people first define terms before a conversation began. But my contribution would be to recognize that we have to first describe your label as coming from your own personal view. That's the freakin' nature of choosing. Recognize that it would be only a working definition, for the sake of discussion, and never to be used for anything in the larger sense. However much you'd like your own personal view to be the larger definition, it won't be.
                            Last edited by ; 08-23-2016, 06:10 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Ah, well thanks for clarifying. Yep, missed that, sorry.

                              I agree that many people are not capable of engaging in dialogue on this topic, whether you do a good job of defining terms or not. While I am not sure language is divisive by its very nature, I am quite confident religion is.

                              Regards

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I agree with what your saying regarding definitions. Its the reason why when you look up a word in a dictionary is actually not defining the word but giving you the way the word "can be used." Thats why you have 1. 2. 3. etc. Listed as usages when you look something up. I feel like most religious agendas do tend to leak heavily through when we talk about the usage of the word athiesm and try and argue definitions instead of actual issues.

                                Debates I have had with statements like well your not really a atheist but an agnostic... ok well atheism goes to what you believe and agnostic goes to what you know. You can be a agnostic atheist... I don't state that no god or gods exist but in absence of not knowing I believe no god or gods exist and live my life accordingly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X