As for numbers, I was 100 % Mahayana Buddhist followed by Quaker Friends, Hindu and UU nearly tied in the 90's. mainline Liberal Protestant was on the lowerhalf of the list.

There were a few questions where you could only give one answer but I would have preferred to pick two.

I have been reading about the religions reflected by my results and I can see the relationships better now. Makes sense. And my husband scored similarily. He was 100% UU, Mahayana Buddhist next almost tied with Quaker Friends. I'm relieved we're similar but I suppose not surprised. Although I thought catholic might have showed up on his list and didn't-Maybe because of the environment he grew up in and around more than personal belief. I thought it would be reflected but wasn't- but it was somewhere near the bottom of mine. He scored higher in Liberal Mainline Protestant Christianity than me but he doesn't like going to church much. Go figure.

Does anyone here know the Oriental Icon for Dragon or the devilish Tao-ism of  mystical words?

In a flood of over 600,000 words ... how many fit in your vocabulary? Now there's a monster to confront ... a beast oif the darkness?

Hoo dah thun'que ID ... noch'd -ite? I know some biblical pounders of words they don'e really understand in the full specter of their genre as given by the infinite power ... a grossly misunderstood power ... or power o darkness ... like Laban in the old testiment.

Some people can murder another personality with a few weird words ... look at what I can do to CLEAN. He say he doesn't understand me at all and it's my fault he doesn't know ... I Toe-ist, or otherwise face the Don ... an abstraction of common thought which tends towards absolutes in an erroneous direction ...

What is absolute is much larger than mortal confinement can conceive ... even if they swear to god they can  a bete God in a Piscine contest. The mortal just doesn't know the extent of gammos ... that whigh goes sight unseen of  sometimes called insight/incitation as wee dark things that upset the mythical psyche ...

It is as much extremist as pathological versus psychopathic struggles ... the 2 ends (nuns) against the mean, or tha intervening fabris ... veil? In Nordic tradition it is Vale Hallè ... but how ID's pelt can be hairy ... like the stuggle between those Hebrew Breath-Erin ... sometime hot an Arian ... not properly secular ... isolated?

This is the conjugation of spirit and soul, pute'n a pyre in the pits? Some call Ur Precious ... some Golem ... the travelling heart sometimes here sometimes not according to how the Piscine contest goest ... often just mythical or metaphorical if you can grasp such intangeables ... close to ineffable but not infaaable by a long shot in the dark with Pi's pot of fecundity ...

The night was dark the sci was blu ... and throu the Eire ... it goes on (the story)---CS Lewis!

It's part pf the yin yang. The yang. The light half with the black spot which is the 'male' half?

I scored orthodox Quaker. Listening to all the answers, is it okay to be all over the place in our different Faiths, incorporating what makes "sense" to us? It just seems we are a very versatile group and tend to think there is no problem accepting other faiths, such as a belief in reincarnation embedded into a Christian faith. Or that Jesus was a great prophet (Islam) but not the son of God. Is it okay to build our own religions, or does it mean that when one is too hard to follow we just add a piece from somewhere else to make it easier? Could it also mean that many religions actually feel so wrong in places that it actually is wrong?

Something the other genres get all turned inside out and upsidedown about ... as a thing to Dan's a swill about ...

Emotions are like that ... depends upon the balance of the mother and father and several other generations of pop up features ... JAX?

Well, Kimmio, you can be UCC, no matter what. Even if you scored 100% atheist. But, if you score 100% atheist, they may not elect you as Chair of the Board. Mind you, I once was the Vice Chair, even though I am a self-proclaimed "spiritual atheist."

"It just seems we are a very versatile group and tend to think there is no problem accepting other faiths, such as a belief in reincarnation embedded into a Christian faith."

Doesn't it bug yah to be told your going to eL and they're not as  some kind of Arian belief that some people have as mortals when mortal know so little of what's all-out-there ... God in tact ... so tactful the blind faith can't see ID ... leads to insight in a rare bunch ... that pay littel attentian to the gods of man that say common folks don't need to know ... wasier to screw up that way ... and look what we've done collectively and nun is free of the responsibility no matter how they rave about free wiles ... them are points to beware of ... like the Klein Bottle ...

Enough to cause mortals to conceive ... forbidden thoughts? Contemplation; the demistification of emotions ... a foggy, greis area ... not yet put to volume ...

I have to go for a while now and wonder alienly ... back in a few deis ... asa rift in time?

The yin is female, the yang is male. On the yin/yang symbol, it doesn't matter which half you consider male and which female, because they complement each other, and one can be substituted for the other. In fact, if you look at the symbol long enough, and then close your eyes, it appears on your inner eye in reverse. I, personally, consider the black half with the white spot female.

I've seen God. She's black!

Yes. I believe we have to accept people of different faiths from ours. I believe that tolerance and acceptance, if taught better, would heal many of the problems in this world. When religions become too exclusive and dogmatic people tend to think of themselves as their lives having more intrinsic value than someone who is different from them. From a Christian point of view that's not what I believe Jesus was saying- so whenever Christianity starts sounding like an exclusive club I get turned off- and the language can be a barrier. When I say "Kingdom" is my concept the same as some other peoples'? To me, it's a title for an ideal place of acceptance where people are just and caring and humble. Nothing to do with a specific belief in xyz. People can be in my vision of Kingdom even if they don't use that word. That's one of the reasons I've been away from WC for awhile. I needed a step back for some perspective. This place was becoming like a broken record to me and I was tired of having almost the same conversation everyday. Also, I answered the quiz as honestly as I could given the answers provided. I did't know what the result would be so I wasn't trying to build my own religion. The results made sense to me after I looked them up. I didn't answer the questions with any assumptions about what labels would be churned out after, except I did think some form of Christianity would be on the list. Quaker friends was strongest Christian point of view on my list. I consider myself a Christian. Whether or not Mr. Jones from any particular denomination considers me one or not is his issue. But I do agree that when something about a particular belief feels really wrong- like people who commit violence in the name of God-as has happened throughout history- it's because it is wrong. And that wrong only grows when fed by narrow minded exclusivity. The narrow path and the narrow mind aren't the same thing.

People can do whatever they want with religion, but they will often only be fooling themselves in the end. This phenomenon of approaching the marketplace of ideas in the world like it is a great buffet table, and picking and choosing what we like, and leaving aside what we dislike, is called religious pluralism. It makes the subject the "god' of their own universe, creating their own reality, which of course, is different from everyone else's. And that is okay. Right?

I don't mean to sound rude, but does that mean that what you believe is the only way and you're not foolong yourself- and your way is not any sort of religion and didn't come from any combination of ideas already existing in the world created from another set of ideas that were in the marketplace at some past point in time?

What many people don't seem to realize is the error in this type of thinking:

1) It is illogical. A thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Nor can all religions be entirely true in their conceptions of reality. The ensuing visceral reaction that many people will feel as they read this horrendously politically incorrect statement, is merely the result of conditioning. When we hear axioms stated and restated over time, eventually they acheive the status of common sense, and shouldn't be challenged. If you hear something enough times (ie. "all religions are equally valid paths to God") you begin to believe it.

2) It disrespects devout followers of their religions. Clearly, the early church and Jesus himself believed that he was the Son of God and is the only way to salvation, whereas Jews and Muslims do not hold that Jesus was the Son of God, and indeed, that such a belief is blasphemous and could warrant hell. They can't both be right on this issue - if one side has it wrong, the other fails to love God as God really is. However, religious pluralists disrespect exclusive claims to truth, claiming that such doctrines do not matter, when these are of the most crucial doctrines for the devoted followers of these religions.

3) It contains a masked arrogance and is also exclusivistic. Many people like to see themselves as taking the high road, being 'tolerant' and 'accepting' of all beliefs. However, the only way that they could claim that doctrinal differences do not matter and that we are all on the same path anyway, is if they claim to see above everyone else, seeing the 'whole' picture more clearly than devout religious followers. Ironically, *gasp*, they are making a relativistic claim from the pinnacle of an absolute!
 

We are all exclusivistic in our own ways...whether we believe there is only one true religion, or whether there is only one way to view religious truth, namely that all are true.

Also, there is a difference between 'tolerance' and 'pluralism'. Tolerance 'tolerates' other views, but does not necessarily accept all views to be equally valid.

Maybe the doctrines don't matter if they lead nowhere but to seperation from each other and God, and that- as a doctrine- is the only one that matters and it's taken us 2000 plus years to begin to figure that out so we can put the pieces together. Maybe when Jesus said he was the only way he was speaking about what he stood for- justice, mercy and humility-what his Spirit and substance was all about- not propping himself up as an idol.

This may come as a surprise to you, but of course I believe my beliefs to be true. Otherwise I wouldn't 'believe' in them. I could be wrong in my beliefs, but for now, I don't see any better alternative.

Don't you also believe that your way of viewing truth is the only way? The way you have phrased your question gives away the fact that you think your way of viewing truth is superior to mine, and that if I believed more like you, everything would be fine. But then, that would be inconsistent with your view that no views are superior to others, right?

PS - Don't worry about offending me :) It's hard.

How can the Son of God be an idol? He is God Himself, not a cheap substitute for God.

I believe that if I don't accept you as my neighbour and treat you with respect I am not being true to my faith. If you tell me I'm going to hell (for example) because I don't believe the same dogma you believe, I would respectfully disagree and offer you half my sandwich. Maybe find some things we can agree on. Not much else I can do. I don't believe you are less important than me. And it's possible we're both wrong.

He was humble. A humble Son of God, I don't believe expected to be idolized.

But just because I tolerate another's views and can peacefully co-exist with them, does not mean accept their views to be equally valid. And neither do you. You don't seem to realize that you are touting tolerance on the one hand, but condemning exclusivism on the other at the same time. To be consistent, you must accept all people's beliefs, even the exclusivists', as equally valid, or you are guilty of doing the same thing you charge in them.

So while you claim to believe in religious relativism, you seem to be upholding that there are objective moral values, in order to claim something to be "really wrong." If there are objective moral values, then why are there not also objective religious truths?
And again, if you think I should think like you, otherwise I'm narrow-minded, isn't that also being narrow-minded?
Of course, nothing personal to you Kimmio, I am discussing your ideas, since so many of us share them ("us" not including myself and many others as well).

You want half my sandwich? ;) it's going to be a long conversation.

Living in the shadow of the creator does not seem to be the same as being made like the creator.

Idolatry, according to Nelson's Compact Bible Dictionary, is, "The worship of something created as opposed to the worship of the Creator Himself."

Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is the Creator Himself.

What kind of sandwich is it, and does it come with a side of coleslaw.

Did I claim to belive in religious relativism? Is that what I claimed? I'll have to google that ism. :) I don't know the whole mind of God but I'm pretty sure it's not narrow- mine is far more narrow, yes.

How can God exist in the monotheist's conception, not exist, exist in the form of 330 million gods, exist in all things, and exist in the form of the trinity all at the same time? The belief that many people in today's "enlightened" society have been conditioned to believe have brought us to a point where we are to accept such an absurdity. But nobody wants to think critically about it because it is too uncomfortable or unpopular to think that people could be wrong in their beliefs. It hasn't always been this way in history. Nor have we always been right about reality. Most people once believed in a geocentric universe once upon a time until it was discovered that, *gasp*, we were wrong.

He's the Creator's begotton Son. A part of the Creator not the Creator Himself- is my belief.

Like mobile electronic technology, finance, and golf?

We're nevercompletely right about our reality because we're always learning new things. How can light be a wave and a particle at the same time?

Kimmio - You didn't officially state you believed in "religious relativism", but if you believe that all views are equally valid, then by default that is what you believe.

PS - What kind of sandwich is it? Is it one with corned beef and alfalfa sprouts and mustard? I would love even a half of this sandwich. I am stuck eating salad in attempt to shed a few pounds for the weight restriction for my job! :)

I didn't say I believe all beliefs are equally valid. I believe I need to to treat people with respect even if I disagree and I believe I could be just as easily proven wrong in the end as they could. Maybe we're all way off. I also believe I have no right to dismiss their beliefs without listening to them. I also believe that there may be more in common under the layers of those beliefs- if we listen- than might be readily apparent on the surface and that Christianity is just as prone to overlooking that as other religions might be. I don't know it all. Not even close.

The sandwich is symbolic of sharing. I was just making a point. So sure...cornedbeef and sprouts it is!

Hi Waterfall,

It may or may not be okay.

Some people express their faith through a theology which is systematic.  Premise A leads to conclusion A leads to conclusion B leads to and so on and so on.  There may or may not be a certain sense to a faith so constructed it can be followed rationally even if it is ultimately disagreed with.

Some people express their faith through a theology which appears to be more grab bag.  Premise A leads to conclusion A with a side of conclusion F.

I'm not sure of the overall reliability of this particular test and its actual ability to place with a great deal of faith accuracy.  I'm not a Quaker, orthodox or otherwise.  I am sympathetic to some Quaker views, most of those views are not unique to the Religious Society of Friends, they are actually pretty core Christian doctrine.

Well, yes and no. 

I think, that for the most part users at WonderCafe.ca demonstrate an appropriate level of maturity.  Where maturity lacks immaturity fills the gap.  Some will draw lines in the sand and say, overhere is Christianity and overthere is not.  They might even be able to convince some others that they have nailed the bounds of Christianity closed.  And yet, if we look closely we will see that others have also drawn lines which they believe are the proper bounds of Christianity and sometimes there is overlap.

In all of that there will be some who have accomplished only to create a smaller version (a sub-set) of Chistianity and there will be some who have gone well beyond the bounds of what has classicly and conventionally identified as Christianity.

Reincarnation, for example is one idea which does not belong traditionally to the Christian faith.  How we discuss the suitability of that particular import will likely hinge on the maturity we have in our faith.

When we build our own religions we invariably build a worldview which makes the individual sovereign.  What is true is what we feel is true, there is no objectivity.  When we belong to a society our worldview places sovereignty in things other than the self.

I do think that there is some truth to individuals bailing on the tougher things attached to their particular belief set in order to make it easier for them to believe.

I think that is a particularly astute observation.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Because "God" is not literally any of those conceptions. Those are all human conceptions of something that is, ultimately bigger than us and our languages. No religion is more true than any other because none of them has a complete grasp on just how vast and wonderful The Divine is. I do not believe we are capable of truly, completely knowing and understanding The Divine so much of what "believe" about The Divine is subjective, not objective, truth. You can believe in the Trinity and I can believe in God as One (Unitarianism) and neither of us is necessarily wrong or right because both are human concepts in human language trying to understand something bigger than us. I am no more right than you, you are no more right than me. Rather than arguing about who is right, we should be looking at each other's conceptions and images and trying to learn from them.

Mendalla

Hi n4p:

I don't quite know what you mean by "Living in the shadow of the creator."

My beliefsystem and theology are simple, and can be summarized in a few sentences: I believe in God as the self-creative totality of being, with everyone and everything as an inseparable part of the totality. Thus, everyone and everything is part of God, but only we humans, as far as we know, have evolved to a level of consciousness that enables us to become consciously aware of our innate godliness. This awareness, which some of us call "Grace," and which Jesus expressed as "I and the Father are one," is Jesus' "kingdom." And to encourage us to strive for and attain the "kingdom" was Jesus' mission.

By saying this, I don't mean to challenge your theology. Your belief in a separate supernatural Creator God is fine with me.

Mendalla - Thank you for now providing an example of the above which I was describing about the invalidity and self-defeating nature of religious relativism :)

You really do not seem to realize what you are saying Mendalla. For instance:

The only way you could know this is if you claim to have a better view of God than everyone else, including all of the devoted followers of their respective religions. You think you also have a clearer view of God than I do for realizing this, right?

There are a number of things wrong with this statement Mendalla. Sure, it has an appearance of humility, but if we look behind that we see again that you claim to see above all religions, in order to be able to know that. But yours is also a religious belief, so on its own terms, this particular view is no more true than any other either, so it is a self-defeating statement. And finally, the fact that you mention a "Divine" assumes a particular doctrine - namely that a Divine exists - which not all religions agree upon, let alone the non-religious. So while saying everyone else's doctrines are unimportant, yours are not.

Again, this statement is self-defeating. All you have to do is ask, is this statement objectively true? If so, then there is at least one objective truth, rendering the statement false. But if we ask, is this statement only relatively true? Then we find it to be a pointless statement, and not binding to anyone.

Except of course, that this statment must be right, correct? It is a statement which appears humble, but actually you claim to see above me in order to know this. Also, if I disagree with it, then by its own reasoning my disagreeing statement must also be true, rendering it false. This is elementary stuff that needs to be, as chansen puts it, "nuked from orbit."

Is that right? Is that what we ought to be doing? Or is my opinion that your opinion is wrong not also equally valid, according to everything you just said?

I genuinely hope you and everyone else takes the time to think critically about this stuff, because it is one of the most absurd and logically indefensible lines of reasoning that exists today in our society. This is not meant to be a personal attack on you personally Mendalla, because you are only being brave enough to speak out what a lot of people are (unthinkingly) thinking.

How about a little slice of humble pie Geo for you and Mc jae? I miss those times when (GR) golden rule was around he use to dish out healthy servings.

Hey dreamerman, I miss GR too :) But if you don't like what someone has to say, why not join the conversation?

I just did unfortunately for you, you don't dictate how that conversation transpiers. I see from your response to other posters questions you haven't lost your step with shucking and jiving. As witch would say you dance divinely. Other posters were honest with you with what they believed or thought but that didn't seem to meet your standards So to be brutally honest with you I have no interest in measuring up to your standards thank you very much!

Haha that's a new one - nobody has ever accused me of "shucking and jiving!" That's funny.
However, I never personally attacked anyone. If you disagree with or dislike what I have to say, challenge me as well! There are several other posters here who do. :)
And I guess my only 'standard' is that people are thoughtful and honest with their answers, but I understand that not everyone is here for that.

You know what, Geo? I tried to respond to you point-by-point but I can't. Your logic is excellent but I think we are coming at it from a different set of premises. I'm an agnostic. My baseline is that religious truth is subjective and always will be. Mine as much as anyone elses. I may be wrong. There may be a God and that God may be in accordance with one or another of the major traditions. But I don't KNOW that so I don't base my spiritual life on it nor do I judge other traditions based on which one's view of "God" is right or wrong. I base it on my experience and my experience is not of a personal deity but of connection with an awesome, wonderful, beautiful universe so that is the basis for my spiritual beliefs. I do not by and large denigrate or seek to change other's religious beliefs, though I will resist having them imposed on me (e.g. I do not support any kind of faith-based legislation), but seek to live with them and learn from them. This is not an objective truth, but simply the way my religious experience has developed. And my experience will keep developing and changing as I go through life. That process of exploring and learning from existence ends when I do.

Mendalla

All good Mendalla :) I appreciate the honest response and that you didn't take my response to you as an attack!

Kyle

Thanks Chansen.

"You can't go against nature, because if you do, going against nature is part of nature too."

it's in a Bauhaus song. I was just reminded of that.

That's interesting Faeren! I've never heard of that, but it sounds nice. A society of friends : )

Lol! I could see your face on a box of Oats! With a nice black hat right?!

I was thinking UU might suit U ; )  I'll have to look up Liberal Quakerism...

Kimmio, I think it's neat you and Neo got the same top result. I think of the black half as male. Like the groom at a wedding. It's probaly a pagan thing, woman life force, male death force, from our hunter gatherer origins.

Definately ok. It's what we should do. Healthy discernment. It's not a cop out or cheeting. Religion is very personal, your own personal take on the world. We must always judge whether a thing is right or wrong for ourselves. Yes, I think many religions are just wrong.

Here's another bit of my philosophy: " We are here to question and ponder".

I do believe that you are the queen (or king) of your own experience.