What's your religion?
Pages
| Author | Topic: What's your religion? |
|---|---|
|
Shaper
Member # 5450
|
written Saturday, August 6 2005 15:05
Profile
Homepage
1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%) 2. Unitarian Universalism (93%) 3. Liberal Quakers (85%) 4. Secular Humanism (76%) 5. Reform Judaism (75%) 6. Neo-Pagan (67%) 7. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (66%) 8. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (65%) 9. New Thought (63%) 10. Theravada Buddhism (61%) 11. Bahá'í Faith (61%) 12. New Age (60%) 13. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (59%) 14. Sikhism (58%) 15. Nontheist (57%) 16. Taoism (57%) 17. Scientology (54%) 18. Mahayana Buddhism (52%) 19. Orthodox Quaker (43%) 20. Jehovah's Witness (39%) 21. Orthodox Judaism (37%) 22. Islam (35%) 23. Jainism (35%) 24. Hinduism (26%) 25. Eastern Orthodox (26%) 26. Roman Catholic (26%) 27. Seventh Day Adventist (23%) Hm...I am surprised about the Buddhism. -------------------- I'll put a Spring in your step. Polaris Posts: 2396 | Registered: Saturday, January 29 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, August 6 2005 16:51
Profile
Homepage
1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2. Liberal Quakers (95%) 3. Secular Humanism (89%) 4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (86%) 5. Reform Judaism (81%) 6. Sikhism (69%) 7. Neo-Pagan (68%) 8. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (65%) 9. Bahá'í Faith (62%) 10. Theravada Buddhism (62%) 11. Nontheist (59%) 12. Jehovah's Witness (55%) 13. New Age (54%) 14. Orthodox Judaism (53%) 15. Jainism (48%) 16. Mahayana Buddhism (46%) 17. Taoism (45%) 18. Orthodox Quaker (45%) 19. Islam (45%) 20. New Thought (44%) 21. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (39%) 22. Scientology (36%) 23. Hinduism (35%) 24. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (34%) 25. Seventh Day Adventist (29%) 26. Eastern Orthodox (25%) 27. Roman Catholic (25%) —Alorael, who is a Reform Jew. He'll accept that everyone should be a Unitarian, he has associated with and deeply respects the Quakers, specifically Liberal ones, and he's perfectly happy with humanism. Protestantism is a little anomalous, but okay. And then, in number 5, his own religion half by choice and half by default. It shows. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 3521
|
written Saturday, August 6 2005 18:34
Profile
1. Mahayana Buddhism (100%) 2. Hinduism (87%) 3. Neo-Pagan (84%) 4. New Age (76%) 5. Sikhism (75%) 6. Jainism (74%) 7. Unitarian Universalism (70%) 8. Theravada Buddhism (66%) 9. Orthodox Judaism (64%) 10. New Thought (63%) 11. Reform Judaism (57%) 12. Liberal Quakers (56%) 13. Scientology (55%) 14. Bah�'� Faith (53%) 15. Islam (44%) 16. Taoism (44%) 17. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (40%) 18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (37%) 19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (32%) 20. Orthodox Quaker (32%) 21. Nontheist (28%) 22. Seventh Day Adventist (21%) 23. Secular Humanism (20%) 24. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (8%) 25. Eastern Orthodox (8%) 26. Jehovah's Witness (8%) 27. Roman Catholic (8%) I'll posit that the reason why I didn't score highest in Hinduism is that the test overly generalizes many Hindu beliefs. Certainly there is diversity within Hinduism, but I'm of the opinion that progressive Hindus are entirely in agreement on a belief system, while those still following archaic versions of the religion muddle up this unity. The general belief of progressive Hindus is that the Bhagavad Gita is the only relevant element of scripture for modern Hinduism. The BG deals almost exclusively with the abstract concepts of Brahman, atman, reincarnation and moksha, and doesn't attempt to dictate how humans are to live their lives. As such, I chose "Not applicable" for all of the last set of questions, and assigned high priority to each question. -------------------- Stughalf "Delusion arises from anger. The mind is bewildered by delusion. Reasoning is destroyed when the mind is bewildered. One falls down when reasoning is destroyed."- The Bhagavad Gita. Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, August 7 2005 02:12
Profile
Homepage
1. Orthodox Quaker (100%) 2. Seventh Day Adventist (90%) 3. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (88%) 4. Eastern Orthodox (86%) 5. Roman Catholic (86%) 6. Orthodox Judaism (80%) 7. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (76%) 8. Jehovah's Witness (74%) 9. Sikhism (71%) 10. Islam (69%) 11. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (62%) 12. Hinduism (61%) 13. Bahá'í Faith (56%) 14. Liberal Quakers (56%) 15. Reform Judaism (54%) 16. Jainism (46%) 17. Unitarian Universalism (46%) 18. Neo-Pagan (36%) 19. Mahayana Buddhism (35%) 20. Theravada Buddhism (34%) 21. New Age (29%) 22. Secular Humanism (28%) 23. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (23%) 24. Scientology (23%) 25. Taoism (21%) 26. New Thought (19%) 27. Nontheist (19%) Humm... From the first two, I would choose the #2. -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Sunday, August 7 2005 02:52
Profile
Homepage
What is New Thought, exactly? -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Sunday, August 7 2005 03:46
Profile
Homepage
My top 3: Liberal Quaker (100), Unitarian Universalism (98), Reform Judaism (93). I prefer the first test. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Sunday, August 7 2005 05:04
Profile
I wonder if non-theist and secular humanists have an organized church. That would be interesting. I can't be an independent deist... :P Maybe I can turn my brain over to the universalists or the buddhists... They can encase it in wax, chant and hit the gong so it gets good vibrations. [ Sunday, August 07, 2005 05:06: Message edited by: I'll Steal Your Toast ] -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 3364
|
written Sunday, August 7 2005 05:59
Profile
Homepage
First results... Christianity 96% Buddhism 46% Judaism 42% Islam 33% Hinduism 17% agnosticism 4% Paganism 4% atheism 4% Satanism 0% Second results... 1. Jehovah's Witness (100%) 2. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (98%) 3. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (95%) 4. Seventh Day Adventist (91%) 5. Orthodox Quaker (90%) 6. Eastern Orthodox (86%) 7. Roman Catholic (86%) 8. Orthodox Judaism (76%) 9. Islam (72%) 10. Hinduism (68%) 11. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (67%) 12. Sikhism (62%) 13. Reform Judaism (53%) 14. Bah�'� Faith (51%) 15. Liberal Quakers (48%) 16. Jainism (46%) 17. Unitarian Universalism (39%) 18. Mahayana Buddhism (29%) 19. Theravada Buddhism (28%) 20. Christian Science (23%) 21. Neo-Pagan (23%) 22. Scientology (22%) 23. New Age (20%) 24. New Thought (20%) 25. Nontheist (19%) 26. Secular Humanism (16%) 27. Taoism (13%) ... Jehovah's Witness? :eek: No wonder I feel inclined to invite them in when the come to visit every year. -------------------- "Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05 "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, August 7 2005 12:27
Profile
As a response to Jumpin' Salmon's proposed general theory of religions: I'm afraid I'm doubtful. Only some religions care much about society, and those that do generally don't show, in their foundational teachings, any significant awareness of future social developments. So if religion has been a tool for changing society in the ways that it has actually has changed, it must have been a mainly unconscious tool. Some religions at some times have arguably played roles in fostering developments that are often labelled progressive. For instance, Christianity's peculiar (not to say, awkward to the point of being notoriously paradoxical) combination of realism and idealism probably did help form the philosophical foundation of natural science. On the other hand, religious prejudices have probably made things worse at many times and places. Although Jews, Christians, and Muslims do try to base their lives on their holy books, I don't think that either the Bible or the Qu'ran is really a book about how to live. At least, not in the sense of being a list of rules or even of principles. Both books do contain substantial tracts of moral or social law, but in practice the religious communities that are founded on both scriptures are guided more by secondary bodies of law that have built up around the fundamental books -- and that frequently seem, at least to unschooled observers, to contradict the supposedly more fundamental revelations. Both sacred books also contain huge amounts of history and preaching and prayer and poetry, which have only indirect implications for how one should live. Finally, in its initial expansion Islam was to some extent spread by force, despite Qu'ranic injunctions that there should be no compulsion in religion. Conquest and raiding, for loot and slaves, were considered pious if conducted against infidels, but were obviously grave crimes if conducted against Muslims. Although this might not exactly equate to converting people at swordpoint, it naturally had a similar effect. Of course if you want to argue about which religion was nastier in medieval times, the crusaders generally didn't offer people the choice of conversion, and weren't supposed to keep slaves, so they just slaughtered their infidels. Most of the conversion of what is now the Islamic world was post-conquest and peaceful, however. Quite consistently across many empires and over centuries, Muslim rulers have allowed religious freedom, but have made non-Muslims second-class citizens as far as taxes and legal rights were concerned. Between this, and the basic fact that Islam is a powerfully impressive religion that might well have made headway even against persecution, there was a steady drift of conversion that gradually made Islam the preponderant religion in much of the world. In effect, conquering rulers were the missionaries of Islam. [ Sunday, August 07, 2005 13:10: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5785
|
written Sunday, August 7 2005 13:03
Profile
Agnosticism 96% atheism67% Buddhism54% Paganism54% Satanism54% Judaism38% Islam38% Christianity25% Hinduism13% No kiddin'. I allready knew I was Agnostic (even though I can't fully accept their definition of Agnosticism) 54% Satanism is kinda funny, even if not far too farfetched. I hope people know the difference from Satanism and Devil-worshipping, however. Edit: Cut and paste my butt. [ Sunday, August 07, 2005 13:05: Message edited by: Contra ] -------------------- "..The seventh wave of Thrall stumbled and climbed over the slippery, piled dead and Mazzarin saw The Watcher with them and at last knew the number of his days." Posts: 522 | Registered: Wednesday, May 4 2005 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3368
|
written Sunday, August 7 2005 16:44
Profile
The second test I like better because the questions are more vague and you can't arrive at the result that you want as easily. The questions on the first test show obviously the religion that it will give points to. But on the second one can actually suprise you. For example I try to stay as far away from most monotheistic religions as I can. But I ended up with very high Christian score. And Ben ended up being 100% Quaker :P . -------------------- "Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending" Posts: 287 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Sunday, August 7 2005 20:40
Profile
It's pretty sad when I don't even remember what I said to provoke such a well thought response. So I re-read what I said, which does seem like a unified theory or something. I did mean to define society as any group of people living together, rather than a more broad definition which would encompass an entire country. I guess I had in mind specific examples, and sort of extracted some sort of general principle based on those. 1. Jewish food law is religious in nature, and is intended to create a food which is not spoiled, and thus is good to eat. It is better for society to have a healthy source of food, even though the USDA does a poor job of it. 2. Several of the ten commandments are very good rules to follow if you live in a society. Some of them less important. 3. I can't think of the others right now, but I'm sure you get the gist of my thought pattern. *this message sponsored by food handlers local #213* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Sunday, August 7 2005 22:53
Profile
Homepage
quote:Here, you've brought up one of the key differences between Christianity and Jewdaism and Islam. For Christians, as you've described, the spiritual idea are most important and holy books are just guides to direct people towards more moral life. On the other hand, for Jews and Muslims, Torah and Quaran are literally the books of law. Torah literally gives the list of 600+ rules that Jews are supposed to follow in their everyday life. In addition to that, it contains a code of criminal law detailing specific punishments that should happen if the rules are broken. All other Jewish law is just an interpretation and expansion of Torah's laws to make them applicable to all aspects of modern life. The Talmud (the main body of Jewish law and the most important set of books for Orthodox Jews) is simply a set of legal analysis of Torah, building a complete legal code with whole pages dedicated to smallest points, ranging from "when can a woman whose husband was lost a sea be considered a widow (and be allowed to remarry)" to "at what time should evening prayers be said". Torah is like US constitution and Talmud is like the full set of laws passed by Congress. Jewdaism and Christianity are near the opposite ends of physical-spiritual spectrum: Jewdaism gives its followers a set of rules to follow and says that their rewards or punishments will come in this life. There is some vague idea of "the world to come", but little influence is placed on it and there is no idea of hell. Christianity places main focus on the idea of accepting Jesus as your personal savior and talks a lot more about spiritual ideas than about practical sets of rules to follow. The main rewards and punishments come after your death in the form of being sent to either heaven or hell. From what I know of Islam, it is very similar to Jewdaism in this respect. Quaran is a legal text that serves as the basis for all Muslim laws and gives specific rules on how to live your life. (However, this is just a secon-hand knowledge, so you should check with religious Muslims to make sure.) The reason some religious scholars reach opposite conclusions based on the same texts is the same as the reason liberal and conservative judges reach opposite concluions in US courts: if you try hard enough, you can interpret most laws to say something similar to what you want to hear. [ Sunday, August 07, 2005 22:56: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5785
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 02:53
Profile
The problem with all these religions is that they leave too much room for interpretation. This has many reasons; A "wiseman" or prophet often spoke in cryptic ways, to appear both wise and a prophet. Another reason was the fear of being caught writing something illegal, and because of this you wrote in code. The Book of Revelations show many, many signs of being such a code over the Roman emperor Nero and his slaughter and presecution of Christians. A third reason would be that many things written are /allready/ interpretations, because they were written by followers or disciples, that naturally gave the words a certain tone or wrote them down as they remebered them or wanted to believe that they were said. None of us can put any proof behind either the Torah, the Bible or the Qur'arn, but just accept it as a part of oure faith, and have faith in what is said is true. In the last line of today, the common man interpret the bible in his own view aswell. There are the extremists, those that take every word of said written thing as true. There are those that try and see the meaning behind the words, or those that want to decipher a "code". And combined with the Human Error, all these fight eatchother because all of them think they are in right to do so ("I have God on my side!"). It would all have been much easier if eatch major prophet had hired a secretary, and only one, to write down his words exactly as they were spoken. Hell, maybe they have and we don't know about it. In short, we can't be sure of any laws that are written in these texts either. Just because the Talmund or Torah lists 600+ laws does not mean there will be people that will interpret them diffrently (like Zionists). Edit: And after all this writing i notice that Zevis had allready posted the same thing in four sentences. Bollocks. [ Monday, August 08, 2005 02:55: Message edited by: Contra ] -------------------- "..The seventh wave of Thrall stumbled and climbed over the slippery, piled dead and Mazzarin saw The Watcher with them and at last knew the number of his days." Posts: 522 | Registered: Wednesday, May 4 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 07:20
Profile
I like Zeviz's analogy with constitutional and statute law; I don't think it's exact, but it does seem to capture some of the flavor, as far as I understand the role of the Torah in Jewish and the Qu'ran in Islamic law. Of course the Torah, the five books of Moses, is only part of the Jewish Bible, which includes all of what Christians call the 'Old Testament' (because the early Christians, being Jews, considered the Jewish Bible to be their Scripture). And similarly the Qu'ran contains a lot of non-legal stuff. The practical importance of the extra-Biblical rabbinical commentary is hard to exaggerate, I think. For instance, the most famous Jewish law, against eating any meat and milk together, is based on the thrice-repeated Biblical injunction not to boil a young goat in its mother's milk. I think we have to call this a fairly long extrapolation. Similarly (in some ways), an enormous fraction of actual Muslim practice is based not on the Qu'ran, at least not directly, but on the 'Sunnah', or traditionally attributed sayings (hadiths) and precedent-setting actions of Muhammed. And in many cases these traditions tend to give rather liberal-sounding Qu'ranic principles a distinctly more conservative slant. For instance, the Qu'ran seems as though it might be compatible with a lot of changes in society, emphasizing as it does that it is forbidden to forbid what has not been explicitly forbidden. But Islam has been colored, to an extent that often alarms non-Muslims, by rather broad application of the famous hadith, "Every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Hellfire". The laws of the Qu'ran having been framed in small Arabian cities of the early 7th century CE, subsequent application of them to very different societies required elaborate interpretation, mostly by principles of analogy. Four distinct schools of Islamic law developed, which to this day are taught in parallel; but by the early 10th century CE, it had become accepted among the Sunni that the era of interpretation was over, and that 'the gate of opinion was closed'. No new principles of interpretation have been admitted in Sunni Islam for over a thousand years. It is the 're-opening of the gates' of this extra-Qu'ranic interpretive framework that people sometimes call for now, as a Muslim analogue of the Christian Reformation. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, August 8 2005 07:36
Profile
While we're talking about different religions, I'm very interested to hear from Stug that the Bhagavad Gita is considered the one major Hindu scripture by modern Hindus. I have the 1962 English translation by Juan Mascaro, and I am very impressed by the first two books. It's hard to beat the drama of Arjuna getting Krishna to drive him out into no man's land, between the two armies, and then becoming overwhelmed by the realization that he has friends and family on both sides, and refusing to fight. And as an allegory for spiritual struggle, I think that the Gita begins here with what is at least a strong candidate to be recognized as the essential starting point for spiritual awakening: the realization that the enemies against which we are supposed to fight are parts of ourselves. So, indeed, why must we fight them, and how can we? It would indeed be very nice to hear God answer these questions. As a Christian, with very little knowledge of Hindu thought, or of any Indian literature or culture, let alone of Sanskrit or the Mahabharata, I'm sure I lack the tools to get most out of the Gita. But from where I stand now, I'm afraid that for me the Bhagavad Gita seems to sort of bog down past book 2 or so. I'm awfully tempted to try to make a precis of the last 16 books. Any suggestions of where I could look for more insight into them? Or is a lot of their merit in their Sanskrit poetry, which just doesn't translate all that well? -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 4682
|
written Tuesday, August 9 2005 13:23
Profile
You scored as agnosticism. You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe. agnosticism 88% Paganism 79% Satanism 79% Buddhism 79% Judaism 75% Hinduism 67% atheism 58% Islam 54% Christianity 29% How in the world did I end up with 79% Satanism when I was against war and causing pain and everything? :eek: I guess I'll never know. Well, at least it's a good way to scare the parents! :D Except they probably wouldn't care much.... :( EDIT: Here's my results from the second poll. 1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2. Liberal Quakers (98%) 3. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (97%) 4. Neo-Pagan (93%) 5. New Age (85%) 6. Secular Humanism (82%) 7. Reform Judaism (71%) 8. Mahayana Buddhism (70%) 9. Theravada Buddhism (64%) 10. Taoism (62%) 11. New Thought (58%) 12. Bahá'í Faith (56%) 13. Orthodox Quaker (52%) 14. Nontheist (51%) 15. Sikhism (43%) 16. Scientology (43%) 17. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (42%) 18. Jainism (39%) 19. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (34%) 20. Orthodox Judaism (30%) 21. Hinduism (29%) 22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (27%) 23. Islam (22%) 24. Seventh Day Adventist (21%) 25. Jehovah's Witness (20%) 26. Eastern Orthodox (13%) 27. Roman Catholic (13%) [ Tuesday, August 09, 2005 14:47: Message edited by: Nicothodes ] -------------------- If anyone ever asks you why you did something, say "Because I could". Posts: 834 | Registered: Thursday, July 8 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6102
|
written Tuesday, August 9 2005 13:51
Profile
Heh. On the first religion poll, I got 100% Satanism :D . I think I'm the only one that got complete Satanism in this thread. Of course, Satanism doesn't mean that you worship Satan or anything...does it? Now the second poll I took had different results... [ Tuesday, August 09, 2005 13:51: Message edited by: Jeros ] -------------------- "Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies in the heart of mankind." -Edward D. Morrison Posts: 220 | Registered: Monday, July 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, August 10 2005 05:11
Profile
So on the more elaborate test I get 100% for mainline-to-liberal protestant Christian, which I guess is true, and high percentages of a handful of other views that I recognize as fairly close to mine. In fact, the test seems pretty good for me down to about 40% or so. It gives me percentages in the 30s for a few religions I greatly dislike, like Scientology. I guess I might have some overlap with some of those beliefs, but the test doesn't seem to register how strongly I reject others. I happen to disagree particularly strongly with Jehovah's Witnesses, after once spending several polite but frustrating sessions talking to higher and higher ranking visitors. So it's reasonable that I get my lowest score, of 9%, for JW. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Wednesday, August 10 2005 08:20
Profile
The Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door this morning, actually. Unfortunately, I was half asleep and in my pajamas, so I couldn't answer the door to taunt and threaten them. Instead I just ignored them until they went away. Oh well. -------------------- The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) Famous Last Words - A local pop-punk band They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Cartographer
Member # 1851
|
written Wednesday, August 10 2005 10:38
Profile
Homepage
Wait. I change my mind. Go here, instead. It's an all episode special over at Happy Tree Friends. ^^ [ Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:39: Message edited by: Neito Psykopatus ] -------------------- "Son--err," her father said, "I mean... Daughter, I give you your first and only sword. Use it for with skill for great villainy." Nanoisms Ooh! Homepage - Blog - Geneforge, +2, +3 - My Elfwood Gallery - WannabeCool Forums So many strange ones around. Don't you think? Posts: 1308 | Registered: Sunday, September 8 2002 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Wednesday, August 10 2005 11:22
Profile
I don't mind Jehovah's Witnesses that much. I just politely tell them I am not interested, and after telling them a couple (few) times they move on the next house. I haven't seen a Jehovah's Witness in a long time, but Christians come to the door occasionally. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Wednesday, August 10 2005 11:27
Profile
Homepage
Revised results from the Belief-o-Matic: 1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2. Secular Humanism (91%) 3. Liberal Quakers (89%) 4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (86%) 5. Theravada Buddhism (74%) 6. Neo-Pagan (69%) 7. Nontheist (66%) 8. Bahá'í Faith (64%) 9. New Age (61%) 10. Mahayana Buddhism (54%) 11. Taoism (53%) 12. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (51%) 13. Orthodox Quaker (50%) 14. Reform Judaism (49%) 15. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (47%) 16. Jainism (47%) 17. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (41%) 18. New Thought (41%) 19. Jehovah's Witness (36%) 20. Sikhism (36%) 21. Scientology (36%) 22. Orthodox Judaism (30%) 23. Islam (27%) 24. Hinduism (25%) 25. Seventh Day Adventist (23%) 26. Eastern Orthodox (16%) 27. Roman Catholic (16%) All it really says for universal unitarianism is "Beliefs Vary". That's just so helpful... Chop off the first four and it's the same top scores from the last test. Interesting. Still, I didn't expect anything christian to even get close to 50%. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Cartographer
Member # 1851
|
written Wednesday, August 10 2005 11:33
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, if you tell them you're not interested in any way whatsoever, ever, they'll mark that down and never come again (unless you move of course. I think). Did you? -------------------- "Son--err," her father said, "I mean... Daughter, I give you your first and only sword. Use it for with skill for great villainy." Nanoisms Ooh! Homepage - Blog - Geneforge, +2, +3 - My Elfwood Gallery - WannabeCool Forums So many strange ones around. Don't you think? Posts: 1308 | Registered: Sunday, September 8 2002 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Wednesday, August 10 2005 11:58
Profile
No, I've lived here since I was born. They have come about five times, IIRC. I suspect they came back because I listened to them for a moment, but my mom was not quite as polite about telling them we were not interested. [ Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:59: Message edited by: Zaiu ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
