Ulitmate Question!

Postmaster · 01-04-2005, 05:14 PM

Ok I want everyone to answer this question for me, I want the whole community here to take part. What I want to know is which of you practice a religion? Which of you are spiritualists? And which of you are atheists? I hope Brian will also answer this question. Basically where do you fall in terms of views?

Personally I'm a practicing Christian Greek Orthodox and respect all religions.

KnightoftheRose · 01-04-2005, 05:37 PM

Protestant. Heh, pretty generic answer...

Vajradhara · 01-04-2005, 05:48 PM

Namaste Postmaster,

many of us have explained our views in the Lounge section of the forum, which you may want to stop by and check out.

to address the query...

my tradition is called a Dharma, particularly, Buddhadharma as opposed to Sanatana Dharma, which you may know as Hinduism.

Faithfulservant · 01-04-2005, 05:50 PM

Hi

I'm a non-denominational Christian

mirrorinthefog · 01-04-2005, 06:07 PM

I don't practice any religion right now.

Sacredstar · 01-04-2005, 06:14 PM

Dear Postmaster

The religion of experience.

Multi-faith and inter-faith

Practice is life

Life is a prayerful meditation.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

ISFP · 01-04-2005, 06:32 PM

i'm currently Quaker, though my back ground is Catholic and Lutheran.

dauer · 01-04-2005, 06:54 PM

I'm a Jew. I think someday I might be a neo-hasid, but not today. Today I still consider myself a non-denominational Jew who sees beauty in all of the movements and flirts with somebody's heresy. Baruch Hashem for the heretics. Everybody is somebody else's. I'm far from Orthodox, far from Reform, far from Recon, far from Conservative, but I am also very close to all of them.

I've been accused of being Deist. I'm not. I lean that way, and so does traditional Judaism, just much less.

I've been accused by a non-Jew of applying my personal belief system to a Jewish framework. So what? Judaism is a very varied and personal religion that's defined more by guidelines to what one can believe than specific required beliefs. There is nothing ridiculously heretical about my position and enough people are close to it, further to the left or right, that I can say it's not so odd. "hides altar to Baal and blood stains on clothes."

Now I have to go do cartwheels through Boston.

Dauer

Fenrus Grim · 01-04-2005, 07:30 PM

I'm pretty much an atheist....... although I am trying to keep an open mind.

Fenrus Grim

lunamoth · 01-04-2005, 07:55 PM

B and R Episcopalian, several years agnostic, Baha'i for about 5 years, recently returned to Epsicopalian. Radical ecumenical. Don't fit in perfectly anywhere but figuring God won't hold it against me.

Postmaster · 01-04-2005, 09:23 PM

All this talk about being non-denominational, does it make me a bad Christian if I'm an interdenominational? I just believe there is a universal truth in religion. However, it does seem to break the boundaries of my teachings there for, does that make me a full practicing Christian? Or does it make me more spiritual that I can accept other religions but less religious myself. The reason I find myself being interdenominational is because I can't bare the fact that millions of people on this earth are practicing a false religion. So I took myself out being supiror that comes with being "human" and seen a universal truth to the spiritual people that created the teachings. Even if it comes at a price of contradiction and hypocrisy. The reason I’m a practicing Christian Greek Orthodox, is because it was something I was born into and it is something I inherited. I would break more hearts converting then I would not and also that I'm happy with the religion because it allows my spiritual growth, which is fair to say many religions in the world would all allow spiritual positive growth.

dauer · 01-04-2005, 09:36 PM

Pm,

for me experience is universal, and there are no adequate words for some experience. In fact, our mythological language can in some ways shape that experience, or at least our understanding of it. It goes beyond words, and so all words are inadequate, and for our sake. It is here that religions differ. But all religions are faced with a sense of obligation to some sort of action based on the experience. All understand it in different ways. I think by saying experience I am being ambiguous. Some will have awe at existence, or the source of existence, however you'd like to put it. And this will be enough. Some will seek to transcend our dualistic understanding of existence. There are a number of ways to understand that lead to the same changes in action, only some experiences may be more extreme.

That's my take.

Dauer

Postmaster · 01-04-2005, 09:42 PM

dauer

Quote:

for me experience is universal, and there are no adequate words for some experience. In fact, our mythological language can in some ways shape that experience, or at least our understanding of it. It goes beyond words, and so all words are inadequate, and for our sake.

Each person’s reality is different, and some people would not agree with what you say in the sense that words are adequate to express our thoughts and actions. However, I would have to agree with you on that, due to probably our realities being closer. That is why one person might read the bible and not see what the other does, same goes for all religious teachings. Most seem to note the positive (God) and the negative (Devil) and most seem to worship the positive. Negative being more potent, Positive being more powerful. Positive = love, Negative = hate. Many things in life tell us that we need a balance of both. So maybe the more positive we are, the more the negative is pulling us down to balance us out just as everything craves a balance. This could be the feeling of the test we all feel, whilst still giving love and peace.

dauer · 01-04-2005, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Postmaster

dauer

Each person’s reality is different, and some people would not agree with what you say in the sense that words are adequate to express our thoughts and actions.

I did not say that. I said words are inadequate to express certain experiences, and that is why we differ in the way we convey those experiences, or come to understand them in the "larger picture" of things. Certainly some people will disagree me. That is why I say it is "my take."

Quote:

However, I would have to agree with you on that, due to probably our realities being closer. That is why one person might read the bible and not see what the other does, same goes for all religious teachings.

I think that is largely about what one has been brought up with, wants to find, is looking for, is open to, desires. But my position is that a text is only sacred because we make it so. However, if there is a divine plan then all texts are meant to be sacred for different people at different times.

Dauer

Postmaster · 01-04-2005, 10:04 PM

I totally agree with you, I was just pointing out off topic that some people might not agree. I'm basically trying to categories, there are people with faith yet there are people with no faith, people with no faith in say an after life (the most fundamental practice of faith) would probably accept that actions and thoughts can be described by words because of there materialist views and was just pointing out that I agree with you because our reality is closer because of our views or our views are closer because of our relality.