Here's something kinda fun, posted over at the pagan forum I haunt: http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/ You answer a series of questions and it tells you which religion your beliefs align with.

I came up (just top 3, it lists a whole bunch) "Neo-pagan 100%, Universal Unitarian 98%, New Age 96%". Pretty accurate, I'd say! What does it say you are? And how accurate do you think it is?

Blessings!

That was a cute little test! Mainline to conservative Protestant...100%...Orthodox Quaker (?)...99%! I'm a Quaker?!?! What a groovy label.

I wanted to note too, that the questions were pretty black and white and simplistic. Most of which could be debated, or have been debated all to hell and back out here. Some of them seemed to come down to a particular choice of vocabulary too. I didn't like that they picked out certain acts, and not intentions, that they want you to deem sinful or no...those being abortion and homosexuality. The sin lies in the intent, and not in the act anyway, which wasn't even addressed, and it's like they picked those two acts specifically, to somehow suggest, as the church people do, that these are somehow "greater" sins, or more devasting sins, or less forgivable sins than any other, which is totally bogus. Ok, I'm done. That was fun! Thanks, Moonpie! Heh, heh, heh!

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Loreye, ;)

Yah, I noticed that too. I think they picked those things in particular because they're pretty controversial, and seem to be such huge public topics mainly due to people's religious beliefs... You did see how you could rank them as high/medium/low importance too, right?

All in all though, pretty accurate, huh? I love these things. Ever taken the quizzes over at www.thespark.com (http://www.thespark.com) ? Turns out I'm a slut AND a bitch according to their tests. Guess I better get one of those "zero to bitch in 2 seconds" buttons, huh? LOL!

It's worse than Lori thought ... I'm a Unitarian.

Scary. I scored 100 for Unitarian, 80 for Quaker, and 79 for Therevada Buddhist and also Pagan.

I think it suffers some of the faults of any multiple-choice survey. But how else to quantify the data? (Lies, damned lies ....?) Anyway, there's a lesson in there about what statistics mean when we hear them.

Anyway ... Lori ... gotta say, the Quakers are pretty groovy; they're about the only Christian sect I've encountered that I can't recall having fought bitterly with. I can't recall ever fighting with Quakers.

But the downside is that Quakers don't dance. (They rhythm.) I dunno ... I think the Charleston's okay. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

MC--

All I can think of is the several Unitarian jokes I've heard on The Simpsons over the years.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Mega problems with that test. I couldn't even answer number one! :eek:

Christian doctrine states that there are three beings who make up the One God. I have no clue which category that falls in??? Anyone got any help?

Number 5 was pretty bad too. There really wasn't a answer I agreed with as the source of most of our sins is not from Satan's temptations but from our own evil desires. I had to pick "none of the above."

James 1:13-14

"When tempted no one should say God is tempting me.l For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed."

This kind of goes back to the other thread with the trinity stuff. That verse says that God cannot be tempted. Jesus Christ was tempted. Thus, how can Christian claim Christ is God? Well in my other post I talked about the incarnation and Jesus lowering himself (aka becomming fully human).

Phil 2:5-11 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 [b]but made himself nothing,[b] taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Jesus made himself nothing. That is very important to remember. He took on the nature of a servant. John 17:5 says "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." When Jesus, took on flesh He lost something, people like me would say He lost his extra-dimensionality. He humbled Himself. He "became a servant". Hence the reason why the father is greater and Jesus is doing the will of the one above in all those verses. He lowered himself and became fully human. John 1:1 tells us Jesus was around in the beginning. Jesus was fully God but lowered Himself to be a man. In John 17:5 up above He asks to be returned to His previous position of glory and He was exalted back to God's right hand side after His resurrection. He resumed His full role as one of the three persons in the trinity that make up the One God and Lord of all creation. Verses like John 14:28 reveal "the subordinate role Jesus accepted as a necessary part of the incarnation." (Niv Text Note)

Peace,
vinnie

Mooncat,

My answer regarding the "sin" questions would have differed depending upon whether they were suggesting a personal decision, or a political agenda. It just hinted of politics, or judgement of some type. I answered though, as if a personal decision.

Oh, and I don't need a test to tell me I'm a slut and a bitch. LMAO! Those are the two areas that Jesus and me are working on presently. Wish me luck. :)

Tiassa,

Oh, well I guess I can't be a Quaker, cause I sure as hell can dance. That is just soooo flippin' funny!!! Everybody cut footloose!!

Oh yea, and what's a Unitarian?

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited August 16, 2000).]

MoonCat~

That was fun! My top 3 scores were as follows:

New Age (score=100)
Neo-Pagan (score=96)
Unitarian Universalist (score=81)

Jehovah's Witness was at the bottom of the list with a score of 16. Imagine that! :)

Thanks for posting that webpage, MoonCat! :)

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

OH MY GOD, I'M A UNITARIAN! NO! WAIT! OH YOUR GOD, I'M A UNITARIAN! THAT ISN'T RIGHT EITHER! OH NOBODY'S GOD, I'M A UNITARI...OH...OH...OH...AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGH!
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
I'm so confooooooozed! :confused: :p :D

[This message has been edited by Oxygen (edited August 16, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Oxygen (edited August 16, 2000).]

no, you all got it wrong, <h1>I AM YOUR GOD!!!</H1>

------------------
when christianity ruled the world, it was called the dark ages!

Must have been a typo. You put that "G" in upper-case letters. We all make errors from time to time ;)

no, i beileive that I AM YOUR GOD is written with a capitol G, becasue I AM YOUR GOD!!! AND YOU WILL BOW TO ME, BITCH and......... ya, jesus is jsut my stage name... so is emanuel.... but i wil go now, and let there be light!!!! http://www.geocities.com/hackernet_99/_borders/Bill_Gates_S.jpg

------------------
when christianity ruled the world, it was called the dark ages!

Hi friends,
so I guess I'm a unitarian universalist if i must be pigeonholed. I don't mind really because for one uu would mean absolute bollox to anyone I know and secondly it just means that I'm basically free to believe in anything I want and free to change my mind at any time... cool!

At the moment I believe in air conditioning and smints.

Ok,

What is a unitarian?
What is bollox?
And what the hell is a smint? :D

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Unitarianism is the name given to post-Revolutionary, institutionalized Deism. It's also a humorous social reference that I've never understood at its core, but apparently the motto applies, "If there's a bad Unitarian joke, I haven't heard it."

Bollox: "Never mind the Bollocks!" Wasn't that a Sex Pistols theme? An Lp, actually? But I've never used the phrase, so I don't know, specifically, what a bollock is. I've figured it's either a bulkhead, a policeman, a sharp blow to the head, a left buttock, or the "family jewels". Any 1970's punks would have a better idea.

Smints are breath mints. As far as I can tell, their appeal is an "image" thing. They're marketed at X-Phile teenagers and quasi-ravers.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

ps.--I thought it worth mentioning that I heard the sentence of the month from a friend of mine who took the quiz: "It told me I should be a Latter-Day-Saint," she said. "And then Judaism, whatever that is." Ouch. :D

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

The faith of a child, and I don't know of any test that can quantify it?

Simple faith.
Trusting faith.
Loving faith.

Nothing to complex here, a heart not hurt and hardened but broken and contrite.

Allcare

Tony H2o

Any 1970's punks would have a better idea.

Somebody call me? "Bollocks" or "bullocks" refers to the genitalia of a bull. It's an archaic term. It's also the origin of the common usage of the word "balls" to describe any male genitalia. Oi!

Tony!

Hi buddy!! Long time no see! Glad to see you're still hangin' around here! :)

Blessings!
~MC

Ok, thanks! I like the term kahuna's myself. Now, what does institutionalized deism mean? Honestly, I'm not trying to be thick, I'm just not sure about the institutionalized part??

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Test


(Sorry guys)

Lori and all,
In the UK Bollocks is a very acceptable swear(cuss) word. Bollocks is what most men like to scratch every five minutes (theirs). Bollocks is what every politician speaks. Bollocks is what most politicians accomplish during their career.Bollocks are contained in mags like, oh Hello, Ok? Bollocks are empty promises.Bollocks are what American TV sitcom is full of.Bollocks are words that don't make any sense (like Unitarian Universalist)Bollocks swing to and fro. Bollocks are hairy and rude. Bollocks get kicked in. A kick in the Bollocks is worse than a hole in your head. Bollocks is what religion espouses.Bollocks is 'nothing'. The Dog's Bollocks on the other hand, is good. The Dog's Bollocks is proud. The Dog's Bollocks is a winner.The Dog's Bollocks is true. But Bollocks is Bollocks.

Hope that answers your linguistic query!

Thanks Tab, that was very thorough!

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Thanks Mooncat,

I don't get much time here but will still drop in when I can.

Hey Lori, guess what sister. I is a Quaker to.

Read the description on them and would have to say it hits fairly close to home.

Allcare

Tony

Yup ... Unitarian Universalist 100% (my son was baptised by an Unitarian minister), and then Mahayana Buddhist 98% (my dad`s religion), but I really want to learn more about Liberal Quakers 98% !!!

Take care

I'm feeling kind of odd. It told me I didn't register as anything. I thought the questions odd, myself. It was scary. Sorry I didn't post when this was more applicable.

Atheist/Agnostic 100
Humanist 100
Unitarian Universalist 91
Theravada Buddhist 82
Neo-Pagan 47
Liberal Quaker 44
Mainline to Liberal Protestant 11
New Age 7
Everything Else 0

Wow, that was a surprise!
I scored 100% in Eastern Orthodox, Orthodox Quaker and Roman Catholic, yet apart from the basic fundamentals I don't agree with them much at all. If anyone can find a more comprehensive test I'd like to try some more.

The first time I tried it I got no response like you showed so I did it again today...
Eastern Orthodox 100%
Roman Catholic 100%
Seventh Day Advent 100%
Mainline Protestant 96%
Orthodox Jew 85%

I suppose I claim Mainline Protestant. Didn't realize I was so close to Eastern Ort. or Roman Cat.

I am suprised to see so many apparent atheists at exosci.

I am suprised to see so many apparent atheists at exosci.

Don't be suprised Cable Man, its their religion. ;)

Allcare

Tony H2o

Is it me, or was I the only one in this thread who scored 100 for atheist/agnostic? It appears to me as if most of the people who are supposed to be atheists or agnostics are deists or pantheists (and a few pagans) instead. Of course, the majority in this thread appear to be Christian. So I don't know what you mean when you say "I am suprised to see so many apparent atheists at exosci." Cable Man, unless of course you're being sarcastic.

Is that a challenge Tony?

Wow, kinda surprised this thread is still alive & kicking!


Hey Someone, "It appears to me as if most of the people who are supposed to be atheists or agnostics are deists or pantheists (and a few pagans) instead."

I'm curious to see what you mean, the only 2 people that I can think of that have claimed to be atheist are Oxygen & Synaesthesia. Oxygen (I take it) didn't come up atheist, but I don't see Synaesthesia posting anywhere under here... How do you come up with "most", I see just one!?

The only people I see that have come up pagan are myself, Emerald/Searcher and Tiassa got a dollop of it too - entirely accurate as far as I know. None of the three of us are atheist, as far as I am aware. Myself I can definitely state I am not atheist, I'm proud to call myself Witch. :)

Nice easy test.

I'm Atheist 100% or Humanist 100%. And that fits perfectly with how I think.

And Vinnie - I find many of your posts quite confusing and illogical and now it seems you're confused as to what you are. Sorry, just teasing, the test is a little bit too simplistic, but I'd love to hear how you would define your stance in more detail.

Have fun whatever.

I seem to have lots of options... <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">


Hindu ...click to learn more (score=100)
Mahayana Buddhist ...click to learn more (score=100)
Neo-Pagan ...click to learn more (score=100)
Unitarian Universalist ...click to learn more (score=90)
Liberal Quaker ...click to learn more (score=89)
New Age ...click to learn more (score=86)
Theravada Bu



------------------
It's all very large.

Well I finaly took the time to take the test. Here are my results

#1: Atheist/Agnostic (100)
#2: Humanist (100)
#3: Unitarian Universalist (94)
#4: Theravada Buddhist (80)
#5: Neo-Pagan (80)
#6: Liberal Quaker (64)
#7: Reform Judaism (60)
#8: Sikhism (60) Sounds like a mental problem :)
#9: Mainline to Liberal Protestant (54)
#10: Christian Science (48)
#11: Latter Day Saints (48)
#12: New Thought (48)
#13: Scientology (48)
#14: Mainline to Conservative Protestant (43)
#15: New Age (41)
#16: Baháí (36)
#17: Eastern Orthodox (36)
#18: Islam (36)
#19: Orthodox Judaism (36)
#20: Orthodox Quaker (36)
#21: Roman Catholic (36)
#22: Mahayana Buddhist (28)
#23: Hindu (24)
#24: Seventh Day Adventist (24)
#25: Jainism (12)
#26: Jehovahs Witness (12)

Hi S7,

I'm a little confused????

How do you feel challenged by what I said in jest?

Or is it that you feel you would like to engage me in debate in an effort to confound me with your intellect and knowledge? ;)

Being honest with you S7 I'm 100% sure that you are smarter than me, no doubt about that in my mind. You are intelligent and sharp and have a good broad spectrum of knowledge, but please do take a passive pill ;) (note the winky face, its a mood indicator, mood=jovial) I was not challenging you to an intellectual marathon, basically because I don't have the time for a long protracted debate and frankly I'm not interested in intellect. Its with the heart that a person believes what I believe, and its that heart that I attempt to speak to. I come here to try to inspire people to consider things about God in a deeper way and at the same time learn by and from others what their perceptions of Him are based on. And yes I know it already, you don't believe in God, which I find amusing, someone who doesn't believe wanting to engage in discussions and debates about beliefs? Mmmm............ there's a word for that ya know ;)

Either way I hold to what I said, atheism is a system of belief in the non-existence of a supreme being, namely God. You place your faith in your system of belief, and as such I welcome your comments and points made regardless of accuracy. Your beliefs as you have stated are based on the results of verifiable, objective and repeatable observations and tests. That's fine and dandy by me, only problem I have is that we tend to think that our tests show all the results from a micro interaction through to a macro outcome and with modern technology development we are ever getting closer to tracking and identifying the very structure of what holds our universe together. Isn't it interesting though just how much effort, money and technology it takes to discover this one thing, this smallest and most elusive building block. But dear someone do tell me this, do you know and understand each and every action and interaction that occurs at this level? You see the deeper we dig the more we find that the less we know. We have physics, math, chemistry etc, and many other disciplines of science researching and attempting to understand and unravel the complexities of their disciplines. The resulting knowledge is overwhelming to any one individual, and even with that knowledge, even if one person could somehow retain it and understand it all there is so much more that they would not know or understand. So much more to discover and explore that could very easily change their stance or beliefs as what they once considered logical becomes illogical.

It would to me be the height of arrogance to claim a set system of belief or disbelief based on science at its present stage of development. Sure go ahead and claim insight into complex issues and theories, sure bring them to the discussion to substantiate your stance. But understand this, science is an evolving system of knowledge that beliefs are based on, knowledge that is continually revised and changed as new data becomes available. Presently all the data from all the disciplines is not in to make that final judgement call, let alone an individual having the capacity or the time to absorb it all from a micro level through to a macro level. And personally speaking I find that although we as a race of peoples who live upon this blue bubble in space, although we have amassed an enormous amount of knowledge and understanding we are still finite and will remain finite this side of eternity. To me that's something I find immensely humbling. We profess such great insight, such deep knowledge, such technological brilliance to the point of profession that there is no God. Yet amongst it all we are so immature, we are so juvenile and so foolish to do so.

It reminds me of a question that God asked Job, a rhetorical question to show the man his place in the awesomeness of Gods creation.

Job 38:
31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? {Pleiades: or, the seven stars: Heb. Cimah} {Orion: Heb. Cesil?}
32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? {Mazzaroth: or, the twelve signs} {guide: Heb. guide them}
33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

Things haven't changed much have they? We still think that we with our little snippets of knowledge can rise above the immeasurable knowledge and wisdom of God.

In my humble opinion it is arrogance to its extreme for any individual to discount the possibility of the existence and wonder of God based on the finite and limited knowledge they posses. It is the height of insolent pride and as contemptible as I find this I to suffer from it. Its what I call the Adam and Eve factor, we choose what we believe because we now have the insight into right and wrong. The only problem is that the information we base our decisions on is tainted and our ability to understand and absorb it limited. The rate of change and refinement in the knowledge available to us is enormous. Sure the basic principles of physics, chemistry and math apply but so many new advances are being made that even a specialist in a specific field has trouble keeping up with it all.

To assume a higher intellectual ground or position in order to make an opposition appear foolish, to use supposed facts based on limited understanding, to claim to be a final authority based on said information? I don't know, maybe I look at things in a weird way but that doesn't strike me as a totally logical way to make very important and even eternal decisions. Heck even Spock would admit to the fact that his logical decisions were based on ?????? data.

I guess what I'm trying to get across S7 is that it would be a total waste of time to enter into a heated debate based on X facts. Given time I'm sure that I could undermine some of the logic that you profess, given time I'm sure you could do the same to me.

In the end what would be the result of it all? Would what I say make any difference to what's important? Your heart is what you believe with, you are someone who has trained to listen to their head. A few simple words from me will not change that, only you can have it changed if you let God change it.

Allcare

Tony H2o

Tony you wrote,
------
We still think that we with our little snippets of knowledge can rise above the immeasurable knowledge and wisdom of God.
------
What wisdom??? the wisdom contained in the bible??? the text which has been passed down by word of mouth, translated back and forth, manipulated to serve a persons ambitions and distorted to the point where any real meaning is all but gone???
------


------
In my humble opinion it is arrogance to its extreme for any individual to discount the possibility of the existence and wonder of God based on the finite and limited knowledge they posses.
------
IMHO its arrogant to claim the existance of a being based ENTIRELY on one book which can't even be verified as historicaly accurate let alone the actual validity of the teachings.

You know Tony there's a word for people who hear voices in their heads too.

"You know Tony there's a word for people who hear voices in their heads too."

Don't throw that around lightly. I've worked with those people in the past, Rambler. The word is schizophrenic; and from what I've been told and from what I have seen, those voices are less than loving in nature.

------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser,
I suppose thats one word for it, I had a different word in mind. Not all people who claim to hear voices are schizophrenic. Take someone who claims to comunicate with the dead for example.

Rambler,

"Take someone who claims to comunicate with the dead for example."

What would you call that?

------------------
It's all very large.

Delusional

Oh, I thought you were hinting at crazy Oh, well...when we assume...<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

REV1:

17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

To call upon the dead is refered to as necromancing.

To call upon the one who is living is called faith.


Yeeeehaaa,

I'm feeling a little chirpy today and had a good laugh at your response Ram Man, not in a nasty way but in a good way and mainly at myself and myself and myself. ;)

It struck me as funny because I saw how the things that I don't like seeing from others such as slandering and sledging could very easily be read into my post. How ironic is that :D

Well I guess that's what happens when you throw something together in haste.

What wisdom? Well Ram I don't exactly know where to go with that one??? Yes the Bible gives us a reflection of God and the standards He sets and the character and the nature and the attributes and the knowledge and the wisdom. But God is immessureable and mere words on a page regardless of how wonderful or scary they may appear to us do not in any way fully convey all that He is.

And that is exactly what I was trying to get across, with all our technology, with all our science, with all our knowledge, no matter how smart or how intelligent we think we are its infantile in comparrison to the one that I believe created it all. I think it was you who echoed some thoughts similar to this in another post, about the size of us and the planet we live on in this immense universe that we travel through. Same deal man, well similar anyway. What I was saying is that we think we are so smart, the brains who got it all figured out, yet in reality we have only scratched the surface, our knowledge of this vast expanse as impressive and bewildering as it is presently is punny. We don't know squat!

And based on that "immense knowledge" of ours we make bold statements that there is no God??

Hey I know we may never see it the same way, I wish we could but my perspective is different than yours because my experiences are different than yours. My faith is based on what I have learned and studied from the bible along with the sum total of my experiences with the God of it, they are mine and mine alone, between Him and me. All my good points, all my faults, warts and all. I'm not wacking them up here as proof or evidence that He is real because they are my times with Him, they are real to me, as subjective, as strange, as way out as some people may see them they are real to me. They can not be used as proof and I have learned that they should not be.

So to me God is real and what I share I share in an effort to encourage other to consider this, and in considering this to understand that it is impossible for any individual to claim that based on science with its also subjective proofs that He is not.

I don't know about you Ram Man but I'm yet to bump into someone who knows all about all, I've met a few who claim to be experts on this that and the other but when you start to get down to the tin tacs their little world starts to crumble. I'm not saying they are not right about anything its just that they place their faith in the teachings of others, we all do it, but how deep do we dig? Did we do the actual test work? Did we callibrate every instrument? Did we carry out all the calcs? Were we there to witness the results? Did we look into the results that were deducted and graphed from a myriad of figures and the computer algorithims use to carry this out? Can we scientifically disprove God? No we can not, no more than we can scientifically prove Him.

Just some thoughts :) enjoy.

Allcare

Tony H2o

PS Please excuse the spelling, in a rush.

Originally posted by Tony H2o:
What I was saying is that we think we are so smart, the brains who got it all figured out, yet in reality we have only scratched the surface, our knowledge of this vast expanse as impressive and bewildering as it is presently is puny. We don't know squat!


Tony, I agree with you on this, but with a slightly different bias. Many say that we are at the top of the evolutionary ladder on this planet, with, perhaps, the exception of the dolphins; I think they have much more fun. But if we are at the top of this particular ladder then we are ignoring the million or so higher ladders still to go. In other words I think we are really only at the beginning of our understanding of the universe, we have barely scratched the surface. However, now that we are about to take control of our own evolutionary progress via genetics and technology, then I think that future developments and changes will be measured in 100s of years instead of the past millions of years.

It may not be long before we evolve into godlike being(s) and will eventually meet your god on equal terms; perhaps in the end what he really wants is a companion. But to be such a companion we must experience everything that is possible; evil, torture, suffering, sadness, remorse, happiness, love, conflict, wars, atrocities, natural disasters, etc. This would explain why he never intervenes with such events and never answers prayers or answers our questions. We must remain on our own and learn the hard way. If we knew for certain that he existed then we would not strive so hard to survive and to learn.

On the other hand he might not exist but when we eventually evolve into being(s) with godlike powers and see that time is only an illusion then we could go to the beginning of time and create the universe that caused our creation. In which case God is really us but we don’t know it yet.

Either way our safest approach is to assume that he doesn’t exist which forces us to strive harder to survive and evolve faster.

Have fun whatever
Cris

PS. I corrected your rushed puny spelling.

Tony

Basically I'm glad that you have found a system of beliefs which you are happy with. To me it looks like the easy way out (sorry)....don't have an answer for something I'll just chalk it up as gods work. Which would be fine IF there was even one little peice of evidence for a being like your god. Believe me I've looked for it. In people, at church, in nature etc etc etc.. and I don't see it. I've been told by christains that I didn't look for him with the right motivations, that my heart wasn't in it etc etc etc....I've since come to the conclusion that what they meant was that I wasn't able to let go of rational thought. So my original point stands, if you claim to have discussions with a being that nobody has ever seen or heard out loud then there's more going on then just religion. Sorry Tony but just saying it is so and then backing it up by saying it comes from your heart (don't get me wrong I have no doubt that you are geniune when you say you bleive it comes from your heart and soul) isn't enough for me to take a leap of faith....I guess in my own heart I couldn't forgive myself for placing that much importance in something that in view only causes people to suffer. Be it obvious (as in the actions of the church) or sublte, by making people deny their own humanity and calling their natures sinful and flawed. Christainity reaks of human nature, that very sinful nature which you try and deny yourself....think about it if early christains didn't break all their own holy commandments and deadly sins to FORCE the world to fear their beliefs then I dare say you wouldn't be christain today and the myth of a saviour would be just that a myth, unverified in history or present.

Ramble rant ramble....LOL I guess I could have just simply said: The fact remains you claim to have conversations with a being that all eveidence suggests doen't exist...i.e. not one person can say they've seen him or heard him out loud and have it verified by a witness. Which makes those beliefs delusions....sorry but calling it god doens't make it anymore real.

[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited October 01, 2000).]

Rambler,

....think about it if early christains didn't break all their own holy commandments and deadly sins to FORCE the world to fear their beliefs then I dare say you wouldn't be christain today and the myth of a saviour would be just that a myth, unverified in history or present.

EXACTLY! When you think about it, Christianity would never have attained its present status in the world without all the brutality and fear tactics that were used in forcing it on the world over the last couple thousand years or so. People are far too willing to overlook this fact when making their religious choices today. In my opinion, it should never be forgotten.

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.