Say what you will but no confessions expected. Just looking for some statistical results. Sorry in advance if you find the choices limiting; just choose the one that fits best!
Is there an official belief system for being a 'born again'? I typically think of born agains as people just reaffirming their faith after straying from the path... i.e. falling across all denominations but w/ a little 'oomph' signifying their rededication.
My favorite semireligious story. It mother's day. I'm at Church in a small town, Shiner, visiting my aunt. The priest is on top off his game...decisive and quick. A short thirty-five minute mass. At the end he says "I know this mass was a little short today, but my sources tell me that Santa Fe is the only restaurant open today. Beat the Methodists!" We paraded to santa Fe chanting "beat the methodist, beat the methodist" By the time the methodist got out there was over an hour wait.
The church that my sister goes to moved their services an hour earlier so that the older members(they were the ones that voted for this) of the congregation could beat the other Churches to Luby's. CK
yup, christianity's all about beating the other guys to Luby's... mmmm... fried fish, tartar sauce, fried okra, mashed taters and strawberry shortcake desert with all that artificially colored red strawberry goo! praise jesus rH
I have always wondered what I am? I believe in God but I don't believe he did everthing that the Bible states (Example: I believe in evolution) and I don't believe he is as powerful as most people believe, so what exactly is a person like myself called?
I may be incorrect, but maybe a Cultural Christian is a person who was raised in the Christian Church, basically lives his/her life according to Christian morality, but does not practice the spiritual aspects of Christianity (chuch-going, Bible-reading. praying, etc.). Although I'm an atheist at heart, I would probably fall under this category. Hard to let go of the ideals you were raised on.
subtomic, I'd say most atheists are therefore 'culturally religious', though the altruism and reciprocity expressed in religions of course predate those religions (Christian/Muslim/Judaism/Hinduism/etc. all have golden rules, altruism and reciprocity, etc., but so do squirrels that bark to their kin about the hawk in the sky). I used to find it interesting that Nietzsche's 'noble man' was simply a man that expressed the same ethos found in Christianity/Judaism and Islam. Then I learned all of the other religions had 'be nice' tenants too. Then I learned that several other species have kinship/altruistic behavior selected for too. Mmmm, hmmm... altruism and reciprocity, coefficients of relatedness, Hamilton's rule, blah blah blah.
Q: What kind of Christian are you? A:The kind that finds it repulsive that anyone would want to quantify the answer to such a personal and clearly non-quantifiable question such as this. AKA I abstain.
maybe you're..... agnostic Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g- Function: noun Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- Date: 1869 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god - ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun from http://www.m-w.com or not. rH
rockHead, I forgot to tell you that your images always rock. btw, maybe lil pun is a liberal quaker. Lil Pun, you're always safe in the Unitarian Church, hell everyone's always safe in the Unitarian Church. Ottomaton, grand stand much? (j/k btw)
<b>achebe</b>: Born-again Christians would define themselves as someone who has had an overwhelming, life-changing experience in the spiritual realm upon inviting Jesus into their life. Thus they are born anew. I don't think of it as a re-ignition. It is way bigger than that. <b>kim, et al</b>: Cultural Christians have the veneer of Christianity but lack the substance. They just go along with it, as it were, with only a shallow depth of meaning. For example, they pray when everyone else is praying but never do it on their own... if you get my drift. THESE ARE MY APPROXIMATE DEFINITIONS. YOU MAY PREFER OTHERS. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS... MOST OF THEM! <B>Otto</b>: I didn't ask you to quantify anything; I asked you to characterize. If you are offended, don't read the damn thread! And certainly don't post in it...
Sorry... Not offended.... Consider it my half-hearted attempt at religious passive-resistance. It seems to me to be vulgar to even want to ask these questons....
But they cut across all denominations, correct? In what way(s)? I'd apologize in advance for being nosey, but you started the thread. BTW, do Protestants feel discriminated against? Catholics get a box, 'born agains' (whatever that means) get a box, and then the rest... ~75% of Christianity, always get lumped into Protestant. Ehhhh... Assembly of God, Methodists, they're all the same.
Achebe: You're completely wrong about Nietzsche. His "noble man" was almost the exact opposite of the Christian ethos. In fact, the best part of Christianity is considered the most difficult part of one's lesser self that one must part with before "going under." Such is made clear in "A Geneology of Morality" and "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." Nietzsche really, really despised the Christian ethos as the slave revolt of morality. In his opinion, the Greeks had it right. Quoting from a paper I once wrote: "Classical Greek culture, the birthplace of Western civilization, conceived of good as that which was “noble of soul,” “high-natured of soul,” and “priviledged of soul.” Bad was originally the inverse, of this, meaning “common,” “vulgar,” and “base.” Nietzsche argues that the priestly class, as the most “powerless,” basically turned the table on the “strong” and “free.” This priestly class, embodied by Judaic culture, caused a “slave revolt in morality,” in which the traditional qualities possessed by and desired by a slave became conceived of as the “good.” Nietzsche finds this problematic not because morality was changed (no harm in that, certainly) but rather because of the phenomenon of ressentiment: slaves define themselves by negation of the “noble” class. Nietzsche argues that “whereas all noble morality grows out of a triumphant yes-saying to oneself from the outset slave morality says “no” to an “outside.” . The slave revolt reversed the aristocratic formulation of the good from “good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = beloved of God” because they were not these things; rather, the good became the “suffering, deprived, sick, [and] ugly.” This is called the “transvaluation of values. Evil, in fact, is nothing more than a theological construction of bad as perceived by the priestly class."
