Dyspraxic Adults

Just thought I'd start a topic to get everyone's views on religion - it's a contentious issue, but always makes for interesting reading!

I'm a Catholic myself, though I'm doing a Diploma in Ministry at an Evangelical College (I also go to University).

Feel free to contribute, and please don't be shy - I don't think anybody is here to judge.

I'm an atheist, but was brought up an anglican. My reason for not believing in a god is simple: I struggle to believe in people most of the time, let alone a deity that has everything predetermined

I thought the predetermined thing was something the Free Presbiterians believed in? I'm a non-practicing catholic. I like to hear about different religions. It's very interesting so see the differences and similarities between all of them.

im awkward with religion. i try to live by the wiccan rede, and the 4 magical principals, just because i think it is a good way to live your life. as far as paperwork goes, i would generally say pagan, but i dont really fit exactly into any religion, including agnositc and athiest. the not fitting one exactly really bothers me.

I used to be a Jehovahs Witness. From experience it felt really good to be part of that community and if the world was perfect those are the people i would like to be surrounded with. Unfortunately the world isnt perfect, and I felt I was restricted from expanding my knowledge about this life so much so I had to leave and experience life on the other side to educate myself.

abby wrote: the not fitting one exactly really bothers me.

Can I ask why it bothers you?

Im a Thelemite /Taoist (not that far removed ) . Also ritualistic magician and not come a cross a God/Goddess who won;t say hi (Lua are always friendly ).
Simply ethos i follow is Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law loves is the law love under will.
And the only sin is restriction ! Yours and others , so be careful of every action and though and word you speak.

As the Hindu's say Prayarma , Dhrama ,and Ashana

Btw did you know Catholic means "universal " before the reformation the Catholic church was the Holy Roman Empire

religiously atheist/humanist...and a veeeery pacient and commited teacher!

I'm liking the variety here; different religions fascinate me also, though I dedicate most of my research to the numerous Protestant demoninations. The sheer number of them astounds me. I guess I find them most fascinating because they follow the same scriptures as the Catholic Church - albeit in very different ways.

@Osymandus - yes I do know that Catholic means "universal" and the church was known as the Catholic church since the time it was legalised by Constantine. The Roman Empire had actually fallen apart well before the Reformation.

It had evovled not fallen apart the core of the structure of imperial Rome still remained (Personally i prefered the lot in Constantinople but hey and some of the Cathars were ok )). Constantine used parts of teh early teachings of the Kristos , but im sure you know the first council of Nichie had some interesting edits from the original gospels.
Actually not true as they had no reason to call themselves Catholics , as there was little need for letting people know the difference .

Where do you stand on the theological debate that as Mary Magladine was the first person to greet Jesus from the tomb she could technically be teh first Bishop , or the influence of the Roman deity Mithras (not the Persian Mithra) on the image of Jesus ?

agsiul wrote:

abby wrote: the not fitting one exactly really bothers me.

Can I ask why it bothers you?

im not sure why it bothers me. i think its just things should be black and white, at least that's how i see it.

abby wrote:

agsiul wrote:

abby wrote: the not fitting one exactly really bothers me.

Can I ask why it bothers you?

im not sure why it bothers me. i think its just things should be black and white, at least that's how i see it.

In Taoism , Yin means "The side of the mountain that is in shadow" and Yang means "The side that is in light" until we see of mountain we cannot know all , and we must experience both the "light" and "dark" . If we see only in one shade or teh other me miss all the textures of creation. Its scary but fun.

this is a very interesting theological and theoretic debate, but do you really seriously these things happened? why not the Olympic gods? or the Teapot? or gods as an explanations to what we cannot give explanation to and/or we are scared or unsure of?

Evasura wrote:this is a very interesting theological and theoretic debate, but do you really seriously these things happened? why not the Olympic gods? or the Teapot? or gods as an explanations to what we cannot give explanation to and/or we are scared or unsure of?

NOne what so ever , infact any of the Parthenon's could be as valid as any of the others . And im sure the stealing fire from Olympus , teh Golden shower of Zeus impregnating a young lady , and the prior images of the Greeks (Sumarian , Hindu/vedic / Babylonian, Egyptian) had just as much importance with their symbols as well .

There was even a Pharaoh who tried to get everyone to worship a mono-deity . Silly idea you ask me

I almost forgot The Order of the Sub-Genius (hail Bob ) and the Flying spaghetti monster (all hail is noddle tendralness)