Your religious affiliation, or lack thereof, and why?

[Big Jim P]

I've to go with Loviatar for obvious reasons. *nods*

Then again, Lolth is pretty unpleasant.

Agreed.

[Sun Wukong]

Are you Christian?

Yeah.

You see, this is the problem with Christianity: It can mean literally anything. You learn nothing about a person when they tell you they're a Christian. It would actually be more useful for them to just confirm their gender.

[Conscentia]

Yeah.

You see, this is the problem with Christianity: It can mean literally anything. You learn nothing about a person when they tell you they're a Christian. It would actually be more useful for them to just confirm their gender.

No it can't.

[Othelos]

Are you Christian?

Yeah.

Jeremiah 23:24:
"Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord."

[Bezombia]

More poll options. You're discounting like, 2 billion people in that poll.

Not really. The majority of people in the world are Christian/Jewish/Muslim/non-religious. And I put an 'other' option.

Hell no. Judaism only makes up 0.22% of the world's population. In fact, twice as many people practice Sikhism than Judaism, and Buddhism makes up over two hundred times as many people as Judaism.

[Othelos]

Not really. The majority of people in the world are Christian/Jewish/Muslim/non-religious. And I put an 'other' option.

Hell no. Judaism only makes up 0.22% of the world's population. In fact, twice as many people practice Sikhism than Judaism, and Buddhism makes up over two hundred times as many people as Judaism.

I already added more options to the poll...

[Rostogovia]

Then again, Lolth is pretty unpleasant.

Agreed.

Kiaransalee is worse

[Conscentia]

When I say he transcends reality, I mean he is above it. In a sense he is more real than our reality. He is part of reality in the sense that he is real, but he is not part of the reality he created except to the extent he has inserted himself there.

That literally makes no sense. Where are you getting this from?

[Alliir]

As Christian, I do believe that the world would be better if everyone followed god. However, I try not to be unnecessarily pressuring toward Atheists. The sad fact is, there are certain Christians who go too far in trying to convert non-believers, and this leads to a large number of anti-religious atheists, which then cause anti-atheist theists, continuing the cycle. Which is why usually I stay away from religious threads, but this seemed like a good place to explain my view.

[Othelos]

As Christian, I do believe that the world would be better if everyone followed god.

How come?

[West Tristania]

Yeah.

Jeremiah 23:24:
"Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord."

The first part of that is about omniscience. As for the second part, I guess I do believe in omnipresence in a sense. I don't think he is everywhere in the sense that he is in every part of reality, but his presence is everywhere because he is the continuous source of all existence.

When I say he transcends reality, I mean he is above it. In a sense he is more real than our reality. He is part of reality in the sense that he is real, but he is not part of the reality he created except to the extent he has inserted himself there.

That literally makes no sense. Where are you getting this nonsense?

He is more real in the sense that an author is more real than its story.

[Magna Libero]

Protestant or Other Christian to put it roughly.

[Conscentia]

That literally makes no sense. Where are you getting this nonsense?

He is more real in the sense that an author is more real than its story.

That's because stories are fiction, not reality.

Saying something is more real than reality makes no sense. It is not possible to be more real than that which defines realness.

[Othelos]

Jeremiah 23:24:
"Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord."

The first part of that is about omniscience. As for the second part, I guess I do believe in omnipresence in a sense. I don't think he is everywhere in the sense that he is in every part of reality, but his presence is everywhere because he is the continuous source of all existence.

If his presence is everywhere, he's everywhere.

[The Grey Wolf]

I guess the label of Agnostic Deist would be the best way to define me, because while I believe in God, I also think his existence is unknowable, and I'm skeptical of creation. Possibly a Panendeist at times.

[Sun Wukong]

You see, this is the problem with Christianity: It can mean literally anything. You learn nothing about a person when they tell you they're a Christian. It would actually be more useful for them to just confirm their gender.

No it can't.

Really, it can though. As a declaration without explicit content, it doesn't rule anything out.

[Antirome]

I suppose I am a Catholic, though I do have my points of contention with the Church. As for why, I feel that I am somehow moved to believe in God. I don't know why, but I find myself inherently leaning towards theistic thinking and find it difficult to separate myself from that.

[West Tristania]

He is more real in the sense that an author is more real than its story.

That's because stories are fiction, not reality.

Saying something is more real than reality makes no sense. It is not possible to be more real than that which defines realness.

I'd say God defines realness. He is the source of reality. He is the most real being. Our reality is something he imagines.

The first part of that is about omniscience. As for the second part, I guess I do believe in omnipresence in a sense. I don't think he is everywhere in the sense that he is in every part of reality, but his presence is everywhere because he is the continuous source of all existence.

If his presence is everywhere, he's everywhere.

He is the source of everything's existence without necessarily being in that existence.

No it can't.

Really, it can though. As a declaration without explicit content, it doesn't rule anything out.

It means that at the very least you claim to be a follower of Christ.

[Sun Wukong]

That's because stories are fiction, not reality.

Saying something is more real than reality makes no sense. It is not possible to be more real than that which defines realness.

I'd say God defines realness. He is the source of reality. He is the most real being. Our reality is something he imagines.

If his presence is everywhere, he's everywhere.

He is the source of everything's existence without necessarily being in that existence.

Really, it can though. As a declaration without explicit content, it doesn't rule anything out.

It means that at the very least you claim to be a follower of Christ.

I've met Christians who didn't think that Jesus was a real person.

[Ioghrnia]

I'm an agnostic atheist. The problem of evil in Christianity (God is all knowing, all loving and all powerful, yet he allows evil to exist) put me off of any form of christian religion. Islam is too entrenched in the anti-gay for me to even give it a second thought and, all in all, I just find the thought of any kind of "spiritual" force to be too simplified. Science makes so much more sense.

[Immoren]

Bluth was only true Christian on this forum. *nods*

[Antirome]

Bluth was only true Christian on this forum. *nods*

Oh good Lord, us Paulinists quiver at his very name.

[Pandeeria]

I'm an agnostic atheist. The problem of evil in Christianity (God is all knowing, all loving and all powerful, yet he allows evil to exist) put me off of any form of christian religion. Islam is too entrenched in the anti-gay for me to even give it a second thought and, all in all, I just find the thought of any kind of "spiritual" force to be too simplified. Science makes so much more sense.

Good job.

[West Tristania]

I'd say God defines realness. He is the source of reality. He is the most real being. Our reality is something he imagines.

He is the source of everything's existence without necessarily being in that existence.

It means that at the very least you claim to be a follower of Christ.

I've met Christians who didn't think that Jesus was a real person.

I don't consider them to be Christians. That does not fit the lable.

Bluth was only true Christian on this forum. *nods*

Oh, God. I remember him from back when I had a different account.

[Sun Wukong]

I've met Christians who didn't think that Jesus was a real person.

I don't consider them to be Christians. That does not fit the lable.

You don't have believe Socrates was a real person to follow Socratic teachings. But you're demonstrating my point: Christians always have their own definition of what the word means, and they don't bother to tell you what that is when they announce that they are one.

So you go, and you say you are a Christian, someone brings up widely held Christian beliefs, and you go and say, "well, I don't hold those beliefs." And then you go on to elaborate on beliefs that don't seem to have any scriptural or traditional basis at all.

And that's fine - I mean, your arguments aren't fine, those have glaring problems- but you don't have to believe what other Christians do. It just gets a bit frustrating because, it's such a vacuous term that it's almost impossible not to strawman.