I don't consider myself Jewish at all except by heritage. My parents are I dunno, Jewish. They observe the sabbath and change over for Passover and all of that.

I go through the motions because even though I'm a Deist, I believe in the ten commandments as a good set of guidelines for the most part and agree with the "Honor thy mother and father" part of it at least.

My results:

1. Liberal Quakers  (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (98%)
3. Neo-Pagan (95%)
4. New Age (93%)
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (87%)
6. Reform Judaism (84%)
7. Secular Humanism (80%)
8. Mahayana Buddhism (74%)
9. Baha'i Faith (72%)
10. New Thought (65%)
11. Taoism (64%)
12. Theravada Buddhism (64%)
13. Sikhism (61%)
14. Scientology (59%)
15. Jainism (57%)
16. Orthodox Quaker (55%)
17. Nontheist (52%)
18. Orthodox Judaism (47%)
19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (45%)
20. Hinduism (45%)
21. Islam (38%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (24%)
23. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (23%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (23%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (20%)
26. Roman Catholic (20%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (7%)

Satanism wasn't in the list, but it should have been somewhere near the top, if not number 1

I think it's meant to be how well you match that particular religion percentage wise

Reminds me of a bumper-sticker I once saw:

God's too big for one religion.

For my own part, I suppose I picked one, which is more spirituality than anything named and categorized. That after decades of exploration. The belief-o-matic suggestion was a bit of a joke.

Ah!  That makes sense.

The part that doesn't make sense is that anyone would be serious about letting a piece of software determine their religion for them.

Read more Nietzsche - a lot more!
Nihilism is dangerous, even if everyone who puts serious thought into these matters and tries to avoid self-delusion goes through a nihilistic stage at some point.

I'm firmly of the belief that the best way to find ultimate truth is to have at least one experience of realising just how pointless everything is and surviving that experience. An existential crisis is thus fundamental to a correct worldview, but can also be in itself dangerous if you're vulnerable to depression.

Not trying to make a joke, but is pastafarian a typo for rastafarian or is it someone who worships pasta?

You've never heard of Pastafarianism? *dies*

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster http://www.venganza.org/

I remember that when I worked in a prison the two books that were always being stolen from our library were the books on Nietzche and the Bible kid you not! The inmates liked Nietzche because they thought he gave them freedom from guilt over things they had done, at least that's what they told me. I thought maybe those guys stole Nietzche because they didn't want to feel quilty and the other guys stole the Bible because they did

Thought i'd elaborate on this one:

You are worth as much to the rest of the universe as a piece of dog poo or a bacterium. So is everyone you love. Moral principles too, have no objective value.

What gives things value is humans, and pretending otherwise only leads to building up your worldview or ethical code on top of shaky foundations that can easily come crashing down someday. Best to knock it down yourself and rebuild it - but only if you're able to fully throw yourself in and come back out the other side alive (read: not vulnerable to suicide).

Which sect; the Marinarans or the Alfredos?

* Gareth does an epic groan

I was a 14% Jehovah's Witness thanks to all the material coming in from Aunt Lilly. Mom and Dad let it pass right through, they had no notion of religious censorship, though Mom did encourage me to get on the church bus simply to give her a break (Assembly of God, mainline Protestant, 43%)

I gave Baptist serious consideration in college for two years (43%) but socially left them for the liberal humanists on campus (82%) because I felt rejected by most of the fellowship.

I became a Baptist for good about a year after college graduation (43%)

Of late I was reading Catholic doctrine to try to understand why the Bible sanctioned it. Some guy Tim Staples was defending Catholicism with Scripture (normally, on the surface Catholicism seems inconsistent with Scripture: do not pray to a physical object, no one forgives sins but Jesus alone, etc.). I bought his CD to listen to and I never really brought it to my new Baptist pastor when the old one retired.

I've come to the personal conclusion that Scripture is so loosely worded you can get Baptist, Catholicism, and a lot of Christian flavors out of it.

I guess that forces me to pray for guidance. Tim, as one of the other ranking Christians here, do you concur?

Chris Marsh ("Shrek", mistaken for big ugly monster???)

I nearly became a buddhist myself, it's one of the few mainstream religions I have an element of respect for.

You don't, I remember you said you didn't.

Religion in itself cannot be true or false, it's just a filter by which people process their morality/decision making/world view etc. Central tenets such as the existence or non-existence of supernatural beings and hellish or heavenly realms, if satisfactorily "proven", will be interpreted through that filter. If "Jesus" were to appear in my lounge room I'd see a bodhisattva, my father in law would see Jesus and my partner would feel compelled to see a psychiatrist!

that bit was kind of a joke, i think most people here know i'm about as un-religious as can be.

luck.

Absolutely!

I'm inclined to think that there probably is no religious scripture, written by human beings, that can ever be entirely true as it always coloured by the perceptions and interpretations of the writers and subsequent rewriters, translators and so on. Then of course we have so many major concepts that lack clear definitions. One doesn't necessarily have to choose between which is true or false but rather how one interprets the differences. Depending on ones' understanding of "God", it is possible to believe "Jesus" was a mortal prophet and the "son of God" at the same time. Most scriptures contain enough contradiction for plenty of leeway.

Aaarrggghh I think my head is going to explode

Sources?

No better.  My point was more along the lines of "why even try?"

Martin Luther suggested that we have no souls and as children should be taken to the nearest river and drowned.

What... where did you hear that?.

Did some research and apparently Luther was MISQUOTED and his statements used to defend terrible acts towards disabled people
http://www.independentliving.org/docs7/miles2005b.html

"Eight years ago [in the year 1532] at Dessau, I, Dr. Martin Luther, saw and touched a changeling. It was twelve years old, and from its eyes and the fact that it had all of its senses, one could have thought that it was a real child. It did nothing but eat; in fact, it ate enough for any four peasants or threshers. It ate, ***, and pissed, and whenever someone touched it, it cried. When bad things happened in the house, it laughed and was happy; but when things went well, it cried. It had these two virtues. I said to the Princes of Anhalt: "If I were the prince or the ruler here, I would throw this child into the water--into the Molda that flows by Dessau. I would dare commit homicidium on him!" But the Elector of Saxony, who was with me at Dessau, and the Princes of Anhalt did not want to follow my advice. Therefore, I said: "Then you should have all Christians repeat the Lord's Prayer in church that God may exorcise the devil." They did this daily at Dessau, and the changeling child died in the following year.... Such a changeling child is only a piece of flesh, a massa carnis, because it has no soul."


    Source: Martin Luther, Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe: Tischreden (Weimar: Böhlau, 1912-1921), v. 5, p. 9.

Did he "misquote" himself?

How does any thing said there make the child autistic "It ate, ***, and pissed" we all do that.

"and whenever someone touched it, it cried. When bad things happened in the house, it laughed and was happy; but when things went well, it cried."
Personally I have no idea where you got the idea of martin luther wanting to drown us how does any of that make the kid in that story autistic.

That is why I used the word "suggested" rather than "stated."

However, whether the child was autistic or not one is left with the options that child was either not neurotypical or a soulless "changeling". Yes we all do those things, but he is saying that child did nothing other than what was described here. Obviously the child would have to have stood out quite significantly from other children to attract such hostility from Martin Luther.

I don't get involved with philosophy either.

Certainly not!

Sorry if I sounded angry there.

Sorry if I sounded angry there.

No worries

My church is also Methodist and we have a class for Developmentally Delayed adults. My brother goes to a Baptist Church that has a ministry for children with special needs like my nephew, who is autistic(and free parents night out, too, for the parents to have some time with each other). I think a lot of churches are receptive to the idea of helping people, but each seems to have their own "thing" that they do, whether it is a soup kitchen, a Habitat for Humanity team, or whatever. If you choose a church, you might look to see what people in the church are volunteering to do.

I sing, but not the choir. I just sing along. I am not into singing in a group. I am not musically talented. My gifts are in technology.

That's nice.


Anyways, I didn't want this topic to turn into an outright war. >_<; Man... I leave the site for weeks and this topic turns into a war in my opinion. I wasn't asking which one is the ultimate best and that you should convert to it! Man... if this keeps up, I give permission for this topic to be closed!

This was a guide for those that was religiously wondering or curious. :S That hadn't found their own place in religion or faith yet. >_<;

Also, I didn't want a quiz in this topic at all, that wasn't the idea of my topic. Anyways I can't be too mad.

Assuming you do believe the history, i.e. the story of Moses etc, you would know that when the Manna fell, it was determined at that point which day was Sabbath because the Manna did not fall on that day.

Since then there have always been observant Jewish people who were able to keep count sufficiently well to know which day the Sabbath would fall.

When the Romans or however it was gave names to the days based on their deities, the fact they used a week of 7 days meant that our Sabbath would always fall on the same one of their names every time. And that happened to be the one called Saturday (named after Saturn).

Because they are Jews, the early Christians kept the Sabbath and celebrating the Resurrection of Christ on Sundays. As the Gentiles were converting to Christianity, the apostles who know the Law and Jewish traditions they knew to be forbidden to the Gentiles keep the Sabbath. Thus, the guard and Sabbath observance was not imposed on Gentiles and Sunday started to be observed by Christians.

It doesn't look like you are getting any bites on that one Bruce.

I'd give you a reply if my answer wouldn't go so far off topic. Why don't you try starting a new thread on the nature and validity of beliefs and belief systems? I think a few would buy into that - I know I would.

("Believe" it was true CAN be different than "think" it was true)

I think believe means using ones human ability to have faith.  (giving the benefit if the doubt without scientific or tangible proof) and holding the belief - even if certain parts of the belief don't make sense.

I believe because I "feel" I get good things from believing. I can find many good ideas in the holy book associated with my beliefs.

Just because I believe for example in Jesus as a good man, a role model for what love is... does not mean that I can't understand that jewish people are still waiting for the Messiah.  Or the Koran and their Mohammed - I can still practice Buddhism (not a religion but a philosophy) at the same time... all because I believe I can.

Nifty thing being human, gives many options...beleive what we want and we don't need any reasons (or reason at all).

I choose to believe, this neither makes me rational or irrational - it is a leap of faith.

Which shows how little advantage there is to being rational.

Are you going to use this reply for every question until no one wants to post any more? I wonder how long it will take you to realise it's redundant.

Rationality is what keeps you alive. It is irrational to sit at the base of a tree in hopes that it will feed you and look after you, because you have 'faith' that it will. You cannot believe in a god without evidence and at the same time argue against doing stupid things like believing a tree will nurture you without evidence.

Are dust mites rational? Are bacteria? Rationality is an illusion, imo.

OK you have bought up the question and I will ask you to simply show how many times I have mentioned my Agnostic beliefs in any thread.
Go on. I have posted over a hundred posts and if you can't find anything close to an indicator that I quote this in "every post" then I expect you fully to explain why you chose to make this remark.

I never said that is what you expected god to do, I was merely using a clearly unrational situation as an example of why rationality is good.

No? Not surprised you can not back yourself up here. Lots of puff and no blow.

You are standing at the edge of a cliff and some one asks you to jump off.do you:
A:jump thinking yes I will survive jumping off this cliff even though no one who has jumped has survived.

or

B:not jump


in case you are a complete idiot you will see the option b was the rational choice [sarcasm] so clearly there is no advantage to being rational. [/sarcasm]

The choices in life are not so simple and linear way. Rationality helps a lot, but is not, and should not be the only way to know things. Idiot, it seems to me to be who you think we should just think like robots ...

Did I though I wonder?
Let's spell it out here for you. In my honest answer I constructively addressed the question.
How?
I gave my belief structure.
I said that belief is what suits (fits you) individually. Unless all of the gods and belief structures can be proven or dis-proven in quantitative ways, then we can only logically presume that religion is a faith and as such is based on what a person is likely to accept as in line with their personal values, wants and desires.
What then is the basis of "better"? I contest that "better" is that belief structure which a person finds most appealing and in line with their own self.
In Ancient times God were contained within the tribe. Different tribe - different God. The Gods and their laws helped keep the society in line. It also took away fears and explained the frightening things for them. If they were going to war on another tribe they had the more powerful God so they would fight harder. If they broke a taboo they would be punished here or in the afterlife. If life was hard they understood that they would reap the karma balance in the afterlife, if they did something worthy they would get their Gods attention and praise. It controlled and comforted.

The God of the old testament was a smiter and vengeful God made for hard people who needed to be warriors and it was successful because of this. When the believers were subjugated to Roman rule that God was no longer what they needed. They did not need to be warriors to survive anymore they needed to be peaceful and compliant to survive and the God's way was rewritten in the form of various players of which Jesus was the most popular and accepted as son of God. Love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek won favour with the Romans in dealing with the Christian subjects. They were allowed to worship this pagan god. It made them meek and controllable and non-threatening , which incidentally was what the Christians needed to survive. They could not be smiters or hard line warriors or they would have not lasted.

The Vikings? They adopted Christianity when their influence as mighty sea raiders waned and their want to be farmers and a peaceful people.

Similar parallels can likely be drawn with other gods.

I see much value in many belief structures: Muslim, Satantic, Wiccan, Buddhist, Christian and as always the interpretations of the doctrines that govern belief vary between the practitioners and believers of such religions. None suit me personally as a whole though.

So DTX is my answer redundant? No and the reason you see it as so is because you are looking for an excuse to fire a cheap shot rather than looking at what I am saying.

So try again, because your retort is looking very irrational and silly. Don't be that guy or you will become redundant.

Yes bet we also should not react completely based on random emotions.

lol duckfetishgirl. Would it creepy if I said I worship you?

Awww No I think it is sweet.

mels8780 Wrote:

lol duckfetishgirl. Would it creepy if I said I worship you?

Awww No I think it is sweet.

I have a shrine to you in my bedroom and am currently rooting trough your trash.