Religions of APS Members

[WhiteTiger]

Didn't vote due to the limitations of the list. Raised christian, but a long strange path has put me in a neo-shamanic position, which isn't even vaguely approximated on the poll.



Tiger

[41magsnub]

Agnostic leaning towards Atheist here.  It is possible there is a higher being, but I very strongly doubt it.  In any case I believe organized religion is a sham whether there is a god or not.  I'm not knocking churches as organizations that do some good with charity work or helping people, just praying and building monuments to faith.

I believe in the human race and the social contract, that it is in the best interest of me and mine to do right by others, not that if I do wrong I will burn in hell.

I'm also one of the people who does not care what others believe as long as they do not try to push their religion on me.

[lee n. field]

If you don't mind, how would you identify yourself? 

Easiest to point you first to my Freerepublic profile, then say "Presbyterian in the wilderness".

"Protestant" is mistakenly applied to any Christian sect that is neither Roman Catholic nor Orthodox.  This might have made sense in the sixteenth century, but not anymore.  My faith, and that of growing numbers of Christians world-wide,  is not a protest of the RC church.  I have never been a member of it, been under its authority, nor does it have anything to do with my beliefs or the scriptures or creeds to which I hold.  Nor am I member of an actual Protestant denomination, such as the Lutherans.  I protest the false teachings of the Lutherans or the Roman Catholics, just as much as the Baptists or Word of Faith churches. 

Which I would say is ahistorical.

Is it just a "gut feeling", like I have about the existence of a creator, or some higher power when I look at the fundamental laws of the universe and find them too finely balanced for coincidence?

No

[Tallpine]

I believe in the human race and the social contract, that it is in the best interest of me and mine to do right by others, not that if I do wrong I will burn in hell.

I'm also one of the people who does not care what others believe as long as they do not try to push their religion on me.

That's exactly where I am at

[Perd Hapley]

"Protestant" is mistakenly applied to any Christian sect that is neither Roman Catholic nor Orthodox.  This might have made sense in the sixteenth century, but not anymore.  My faith, and that of growing numbers of Christians world-wide,  is not a protest of the RC church.  I have never been a member of it, been under its authority, nor does it have anything to do with my beliefs or the scriptures or creeds to which I hold.  Nor am I member of an actual Protestant denomination, such as the Lutherans.  I protest the false teachings of the Lutherans or the Roman Catholics, just as much as the Baptists or Word of Faith churches. 

Which I would say is ahistorical. 

Please explain. 

[Felonious Monk]

Some fusion of the statements of belief by BrokenPaw, Grampster, lennyjoe, and lee n. field.
Perhaps best represented by Emerson's address to the graduating class of Harvard Divinity School. http://www.emersoncentral.com/divaddr.htm

You can't argue (or defend) faith with logic or reason.  It comes down to the experiential, IMO.

[grampster]

I respect that viewpoint. And I certainly believe that any true faith has to come from within, rather than looking to an external institution.

I guess the broader issue is that the most fundamental story of revelations or salvation in the Judeo Christian tradition is an account put down by people too. Then re-re-re-re-translated by yet more people. What exactly says the notion of Catholic Papal Infallibility many Christians find offensive is any worse than ascribing it to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, or the Council of Nicea? 

My faith is that there is a God.  He wanted a story written about him. If He has the attributes that are ascribed to Him, He would be perfectly capable of inspiring certain people at certain times to write certain things down as well as inspiring certain other folks to compile/translate those writings.  In other words if the bible is just a book filled with rambling mythological folklore, then the whole point of Christianity hopeless.  The apostle Paul said something along those lines when he said if Christ had not risen then what he, Paul, taught was futile.  The Christian bible itself says that one doesn't need someone else interpreting it for one to understand it, for if the Holy Spirit is alive in a person, and Christ said He would be, those words will have meaning as it is necessary for them to have meaning for one.  Having faith means for some reason your intellect has been satisfied about a thing.  I don't think you question that anymore, you move on and begin to live like you believe what you do.  Not easy, by the way.

It seems to me that to argue people are fallible makes perfect sense, but then goes back to say at some point: "Yes, but those other people had divine inspiration were infallible." at least in regards to what they wrote. 

Well, nothing has been added to the Bible in a very very long time, so I'm not too concerned about who is infallible any more.  Frankly, I believe no one is anymore.  What has been done is enough.

What if Jesus was just a self-taught hippie Rabbi with great teachings, and got the Orthodox Jewish powers peeved enough that they goaded the Romans into killing him? And then the rest of it is embellishment as Christianity worked it's way counter-clockwise around the Mediterranean, perhaps designed to make inroads (Paul/Saul especially) with pagan populations that had heavy worship of Apollo (Risen Sun/Risen Son) Zeus (God, father of Apollo/Sun/Son), and Aphrodite (Mary) etc.? 

I'll take the last first.  What if God allowed those other religions to exist in the fashion that they did so that those folks would have some sort of ability to understand the Good News?  Remember, Paul preached to some Greeks, I believe it was, about the "unknown god" they had in their pantheon of gods.  As for Jesus being a self taught hippy Rabbi, well...in many ways he was.  But I'll stick with what C.S. Lewis had to say about Jesus.  He either was insane, or an evil huckster preying on the superstitions of the people at that time, or He was who He said he was, the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, who's death and resurrection redeems and justifies men who believe and who opens the way to the Father.  Lewis maintained that you can't say he was just a good man or a just a prophet or teacher; there were only those 3 choices in the matter.  Being a Christian is simple.  You come up against Jesus at some point and He will either be a stumbling block that one chooses to allow one to turn in another direction or He will be embraced.  He Himself said exactly that in so many words.  The rest of it is trying to live up to the gift of grace

What if you were born in rural China instead of America, and had never received any exposure to the Bible and Christianity? Would you have found the Truth "smack dab in in front of you" as well? 

Maybe.  With God all things are possible.  He does what He does His own way.    I don't have an answer for your question. I don't think anyone does.
The gospel is being disseminated and probably will continue to be.  I'll hang my hat on a couple of things in that regard:  It is written that Christ died once for all.  It's also written that it is God's will that all be saved. My view is that all may mean those who believe and those who didn't have a chance to know.  Eternal damnation may only be for those who chose not to believe in the face of evidence that demands a verdict.  Again, just my view.   Perhaps it's more scary to visualize those of us who have the wherewithall to find the Truth and refuse, might be worse off than those who don't have it.  "To whom much is given, much is expected", I think the words are.

I'm NOT trying to poke holes in your faith or Christianity, I despise militant atheists, and those who set up Christianity as a straw man enemy it is not. I am asking just for the sake of discussion, and I'm curious as to why you believe the "foundational things" are truly foundational.

Don't worry, no one can poke holes in my faith.  I'm not sure I answered your question above, but I guess the answer to that is I've chosen to believe what I believe.  That is what my faith is all about.

Is it just a "gut feeling", like I have about the existence of a creator, or some higher power when I look at the fundamental laws of the universe and find them too finely balanced for coincidence?

No one can answer that question for you.  You are all alone in that.  That's why I said in my other post to not stop looking for those answers.  If one wants to learn about a thing, one has to seek in order to find.

[Werewolf]

Based on the choices the only thing that comes close is "mere theist".

Is there a - for lack of a better term to describe it - a GOD? Probably.

14 Billion years ago it farted - big bang if you must - and the universe was created.

It, GOD, universe, universal force - whatever has paid about as much attention to its creation as anyone of you does to one of your farts.

In other words - something made the universe - probably - its just never paid much attention since. Pretty arrogant of mankind to believe otherwise IMO.

[gunsmith]

raised Roman Catholic & that's what I selected but really I'm Christian only
I have not yet found a Church that has made me feel welcome.
The only practice I really attend to are my AA meetings

[Perd Hapley]

In other words - something made the universe - probably - its just never paid much attention since. Pretty arrogant of mankind to believe otherwise IMO.

Please explain how that fits the definition of "arrogance."  I believe the lowliest janitor and the smallest bug are well-known to God.  That's arrogant, somehow?  To think that God is just as interested in me or Henry Kissinger, or a blind, crippled orphan in Turkey? 

[MGshaggy]

What, no Rastafarianism?

[Viking]

What, no Rastafarianism?

No Pastafarianism either. Nor did I see IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn" as an option either.

[roo_ster]

I mashed "Protestant," as I was confirmed baptized & confirmed Lutheran, currently am a member of a LCMS church with a doctrinally and theologically conservative pastor, and send my children to that church's school. 

I did, however, belong to some non-denominational churches and Baptist churches for a while there after college.  None of them had a category on your poll, being non-protestant Christian churches.

It makes me wonder if the notion of personal freedom is more closely associated with folks of the above genre as opposed to followers of 2 of the 3 faiths that subscribe to the belief in the biblical God.  It seems to me that Judaism and Islam would tend to not hold to personal freedom as they are very "rule" oriented faiths.  Christianity, having free will as part of the belief system, would hold to the notion of personal freedom more closely than it's two cousin faiths.

The universalism and self-rule inherent in Christianity and the Anglo-Saxon notion of liberty are the two big ingredients that informed English and later American governance and the sovereignty of the individual.  Such a conception of government works when the complementary ideas of self-discipline and liberty (most of life outside gov't sphere) are balanced.  The less self-discipline, the more gov't will be required.

The joke religion, I sometimes defend (for nothing but lulz) is that the world was created as is at the start of the Unix epoch -- and that the gods want us to use free software. 

Is that you, Richard Stallman?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1077990546282608126

I used to consider myself a Christian.  Some rather unfortunate experiences drove me away from organized religion.  It wasn't until later I realized it's all a bunch of hooey.

An old pastor of mine used to joke about "disorganized religion."  Usually included a punchline something along the lines of, "And then who'll bring the cookies & coffee?"

Evangelical is a subset of protestant.  One that I am less and less happy to be identified with. 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Some evangelicals are completely outside the whole R Catholic/Protestant deal.

There were groups/denominations/what-have-you that were neither R Catholic/Orthodox that existed before the Reformation.  Not just Chaldeans, Copts, etc.  Anabaptists, arminian sects, & others I forget.

[lee n. field]

There were groups/denominations/what-have-you that were neither R Catholic/Orthodox that existed before the Reformation.  Not just Chaldeans, Copts, etc.  Anabaptists, arminian sects, & others I forget.

You may be thinking of the much persecuted Waldensians (which, you will note "Over time joined the Genevan or Reformed branch of Protestantism. "--did not keep themselves separate from the rest of the "evangelical" (in the 16th century sense) church.).

Some evangelicals are completely outside the whole R Catholic/Protestant deal.

I suspect we're using the word in different ways, which supports my assertion that "evangelical" is not a useful term anymore.

[Strings]

Aw, what the heck. I'll go out on a limb here...

 we're discussing Divinity. This is something that, by it's very nature, transcends human understanding: there's just no way for humanity to understand "God", anymore than an ant can understand astrophysics.
 
 The core of my belief is that there is NO "One True Way". We all understand different aspects of Divinity, but it all leads to the same totality.

 Telling someone of different beliefs that they are "wrong", simply because their beliefs differ from yours, is an act of monumental arrogance. Doing so says you understand the totality of Divinity, which (to my mind) is impossible for anyone EXCEPT Divinity.

 So you believe in your Risen Son, I'll believe in my Lord & Lady, and Bedlamite can believe in the FSM. All of which are nothing more than a human's mind trying to grasp something completely beyond it.

[Perd Hapley]

Telling someone of different beliefs that they are "wrong", simply because their beliefs differ from yours, is an act of monumental arrogance. Doing so says you understand the totality of Divinity, which (to my mind) is impossible for anyone EXCEPT Divinity. 

Might wish to take another look at your logic, there.  There's no reason why you would need to understand the "totality of Divinity," in order to know that your religion is the only correct one. 

Not to mention, it fails to account for the possibility that one of them "turn or burn" religious books is God-breathed and correct. 

[Strings]

See, this is why I don't really discuss my beliefs: you have circular logic in your favor:

"The Bible is the word of God"

"Where's the proof?"

"In the Bible"

 You believe you're following the "One True Way"? Rock on with yer bad self. I'll go my own way, and maybe I'll see ya on the other side (which is where, in all honesty, the only true "proof" lies)...

[grampster]

I think it was a book written by Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, that seemed to prove that by any secular test that can be used to verify the veracity or accuracy of documents or books, especially old ones, the bible met and exceeded all of the tests by a large margin over every tome from antiquity.  I don't have a copy of Mr. McDowell's book anymore, so I can't back up my recollection.  But I do remember being quite impressed with the information he had gathered to back up his conclusions.  I suppose his conclusions would be an entirely other opportunity to argue or discuss.   

While the above comments don't actually prove that the Bible is inerrant, it does seem to at least suggest that it has more credibility than any other document or book.  On that basis, it perhaps should be given more respect than it gets from some quarters.

But again, whatever spiritual direction one wants to go or not go, remains an individual decision based upon whatever one chooses or not choose to believe.

Life is, after all, a series of decisions and choices.  One thing that I've learned is that having a good deal of knowledge at times leads one to run the risk of not seeing the forest for the trees.  Occam's razor still, it seems to me, may hold more water than not with respect to areas of controversy.
 

[Perd Hapley]

See, this is why I don't really discuss my beliefs: you have circular logic in your favor:

"The Bible is the word of God"

"Where's the proof?"

"In the Bible"

 You believe you're following the "One True Way"? Rock on with yer bad self. I'll go my own way, and maybe I'll see ya on the other side (which is where, in all honesty, the only true "proof" lies)...

Is that supposed to be a response to me?  It has nothing to do with my earlier post, or even yours.  I didn't say anything about why the Bible was true. 

And no, I don't believe the Bible is true merely because it says so.  Folks like me do like to point out that the Bible claims its own inerrancy and inspiration, but that is only part of a much larger set of evidence. 

Lastly, this talk of arrogance never accounts for the possibility that God might have actually given us One True Way or One True Holy Book, or that he might actually notice us.  It might be a little credulous to believe that he's reading our conversation right now, but it is hardly arrogant. 

[Nematocyst]

I chose agnosticism, but even that doesn't quite describe me.
Neither does "theism".

I was raised in a Christian family, but it didn't stick past my teens.
I found too many unanswered (for me) questions about it.

I'm an evolutionary biologist, but the models of evolution that I follow aren't found in most high school or college texts.

I've practiced paganism (but found pagans fight among themselves more than Baptists).
I've studied a bit of some of eastern spiritual disciplines,
but most didn't resonate for me either.

These days, I call myself a Spinozan when it comes to the God question. Spinoza claimed that God is the laws of nature. In that view, God is not a personal god, and is not even sentient, and therefore doesn't care about humans or anything else. It's just the laws of nature that created everything.

Works for me.

Still, I'll stand and fight for your right to believe as you wish as long as you do the same for me.
When someone tries to force their view on me or my society, though, all bets are off.

[Strings]

Oh, don't misunderstand Fistful & I: he'll stand to fight for my right to be a godless heathen just as readily as I'll stand and fight for his right to be a bible-thumper... 

[Nematocyst]

Hey, Strings. Good to see you.

My comment wasn't directed at you or anyone else.
Just a general statement. 

[grampster]

"These days, I call myself a Spinozan when it comes to the God question. Spinoza claimed that God is the laws of nature. In that view, God is not a personal god, and is not even sentient, and therefore doesn't care about humans or anything else. It's just the laws of nature that created everything."

Nemo, it seems to me that if the above resonates with you, especially with your background in science, and curious nature, you could just as easily call yourself a Deist?  I mean it wouldn't be much of a leap to come to an opposite conclusion would it?  Just wonderin'.

With me, sometimes the act of just being able to wiggle my fingers bespeaks an all encompassing sentience that made it so.  Epecially when one runs the gamut from someone like me who immediately begins to bleed and sow the seeds of destruction when picking up a tool to the delicate ability of a surgeon.

The Known Universe wheels around out there in majestic cadence.  Is it not just as easy to grasp a Supreme Being as architect, creator and conductor as it is to shrug and write it off as happenstance?  Again, just sayin'.

[Owens]

Had to go and dig this out of a board I used to visit. Its what I wrote up in response to a similar poll on that board. This answers the 'Why?' portion. It is NOT specifically aimed at anyone in particular. Just an answer to why.

=======
I do subscribe to the thought that "to the one who believes, no explanation necessary; to those who don't believe, no explanation possible". Do I try to cram "religion" down someones throat, I don't THINK I do, but that is me answering my own question. I simply know what I know by experience and faith.(Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.)Before I was a "believer", I can remember thinking how could someone believe this stuff?. Now as one, I look back thinking how could I NOT?

I try to take the approach that is stated so aptly in the Bible: (John 9:25) He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

In other words, it is up to someone else to decide whether or not they CHOOSE to believe. Yep, thats it in a nutshell. When someone has heard the gospel, the choice is in their hands and heart to accept or reject.

According to the scriptures by which I try to live, I should be sharing the Gospel (good news) with people. (Mark 16:15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.[the great commission].

You will note I said TRY to live by. Am I perfect? BY NO MEANS. Do I try, YES. Do I fail, YES! sometimes miserably. Falling off a bike doesn't make you stop trying to learn to ride though does it?
Thank God, that when I do fall, I shall arise though! And when I goof in God's eyes, I thank him for (1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

I have seen the word FAITH used in numerous posts. My definition of faith is "putting your trust in someone to do what they said they would do".

It makes things take on a slightly different light than using the word hope.

Why do I believe what I believe? Glad you asked. I can't explain it all though. Some of it has to be experienced (at least in my way of seeing things). What I came to realize is this:

1. We are all (including me) sinners that came into this world with inherrent sin.(Romans 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

2. There are penalties for our errant choices in life. (Romans 6:23) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

3. God provides a way out. (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

4. You don't have to get "cleaned up" to accept that salvation, and he is ready and willing to accept you as you are. (Revelation 3:20) Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

That is the foundation upon which I build. One that is "solid as a rock". Well, as to all the other whatifs and but if's, etc. All I can say is you don't clean a fish before you catch them. All the whatif's and such are answered slowly, one brick at a time (line upon line, principle upon principle) as you are able to accept and grow with God and in Him.
(1 Peter 2:2) As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

This is what I believe. As you can tell, I am not into religion, but faith in God.

One or two thoughts to ponder: IF by some thin chance, that I am wrong (I don't believe I am), I will have lost very little whenever I get to whatever. Just some time essentially. If however I am not wrong, there ain't enough asbestos and ice water.

[lupinus]

Based on the choices I choose Protestant.