Advice on label for this belief

RayJeena said:

I just took it, as it's Beliefnet-based and I have an account somewhere over there (though I haven't used it in ages).

My results:

Mostly Mahayana Buddhism, followed by:
Neopaganism at 87%
New Age at 85%
Liberal Quakerism at 84%
Unitarian Universalism at 82%
Liberal Christian Protestantism at 73%
And various others, Christian and otherwise, after that...

I probably need to change my label also, lol!!

Click to expand...

My results:

Orthodox Quakerism

Followed by:
Liberal Quakerism 97%
Unitarian Universalism 88%
Conservative Christian Protestant 79%
Liberal Christian Protestantism 79%

I have no idea how UU and Evangelicalism ended up on that list. A little bit of Sola fide goes a long way, apparently.

cloudyday2 said:

I guess the label doesn't matter as long as it doesn't give the wrong impression about my beliefs. "Agnostic" has the advantage of being unoffensive - kind of like white paint on the walls LOL. But I do suspect there is a personal benevolent God, so I thought it would be nice if the label matched that idea.

Click to expand...

Yeah, nobody ever knows what to make of agnosticism. Everyone just assumes immediately that you're not on the other side.

cloudyday2 said:

Good idea
Reformed Judaism
Islam 84%
Bahai 80%
Liberal Christian Protestant 77%
Liberal Quakerism 73%
Unitarian Universalism 70%
Orthodox Judaism 70%
...

Most of the questions were things I don't care about or there wasn't a selection that matched my ideas.

Also, the quiz should ask you what you actually believe, so it can improve its algorithm IMO

Click to expand...

Yeah 20 static questions doesn't do a lot considering if you prioritize them as medium, one question is already 5% of a score. If they asked maybe another 20 questions, you could really drill down but its hard to make this sort of thing generic enough to incorporate all belief systems while also trying to get at some of the distinguishing points.

Jane_the_Bane said:

We-ell, I'm a secular humanist, according to this test.
It's not a label I'd necessarily give myself (I'm more of a post-humanist, for starters), buuut there is a lot of common ground. The rest is quite interesting as well:

88% Unitarian Universalist
87% Liberal Quaker
72% Atheism
71% Taoism

And at the very bottom: Roman Catholicism (7%), Eastern Orthodox (7%), Orthodox Judaism (7%) and Jehova's Witnesses (5%).

Interestingly, the label I use on these forums, (neo-)pagan, only ranks at 50%, although it's still above Buddhism, which I'd consider one of my influences as well.

I really need to find a better label for my spirituality. There's lots of secularism in there, to be sure, but also shamanic practices, a reverence for life/nature, a sense of ecological and spiritual interconnectedness, and awareness and appreciation for the unconscious/subconscious/symbolic that's lacking in most offshoots of the Enlightenment.

Click to expand...

That's interesting! Admittedly, the secular humanist label makes sense from my vantage point but I think its mostly because of the material that you mostly comment on. Just my opinion. You're describing a lot of my belief system in a great way. I utterly prefer and accept secularism in the public sphere but find private spirituality to be very colorful and interesting. With tremendous reverence of nature too, of course.

Silmarien said:

Welcome back.

I'd go with Seeker or Pagan, probably. Theist, if it gets added.

Click to expand...

Seeker is good but people read that as you need to "find" something (preferably their religion) and do it quickly. I like that label a lot but for me it doesn't always tell the whole story. Agnosticism in a way is more of a state of belief system rather than its own.

For example, I am relatively agnostic about my pagan beliefs. Sure, I could totally be wrong about spiritual matters and that's OK. I think the idea that its okay is something not commonly held, though.

Zoness said:

Seeker is good but people read that as you need to "find" something (preferably their religion) and do it quickly. I like that label a lot but for me it doesn't always tell the whole story. Agnosticism in a way is more of a state of belief system rather than its own.

For example, I am relatively agnostic about my pagan beliefs. Sure, I could totally be wrong about spiritual matters and that's OK. I think the idea that its okay is something not commonly held, though.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think we've become so obsessed with certainty that it's difficult to be comfortable with ultimately not having any. I can't say that I'm totally okay with the idea of being wrong, because the sorts of claims that Christianity makes really do matter, but I think how beliefs affect your life is at least as important as their truth value. I've started to take a sacramental attitude towards pretty much everything, including agnosticism itself.

As a former secular humanist, though, I'm pretty amused by how anti-secular I've become. My postmodernism has gone out of control and developed a bit of a Platonic edge to it.

cloudyday2 said:

I've been thinking lately that "agnostic" is no longer the best label for my beliefs, but I don't know what the proper label might be.

It seems to me that a personal benevolent God exists due to apparent guidance as I look back at weird experiences over my life.
- "Agnostic" suggests less certainty than I have.
- "Deist" suggests a distant and indifferent God.
- "Seeker" suggests I am seeking something, and I am not.
- "Theist" is a bit too vague.
- "Other Religion" suggests I have a religion, and I don't.
- "Hindu" suggests that I have read the Vedas and put paint on my forehead LOL.
- "Panentheist/Pantheist" suggest that I see God in creation, but I see Him as separate.

Also, I was thinking about changing my signature to say:
"Religion is like putting clown makeup on the face of God"

Would that offend? I said that once on an atheist forum, and people thought it was funny. IDK

Click to expand...

My only comment is that I think it's a good thing that your seeking.

@cloudyday2 , welcome back to the slippery slope of Theism - which is likely your best label, I think. We'll see how long you can cling to the slopes before ending up somewhere, imperfectly.


I took this beliefmatic quiz. Many questions seem very loaded and imprecise, and I really don't see why all the questions on issues like homosexuality, equality and abortion - your religion informs your social choices, but I don't think people choose religions based thereon. Maybe it puts some people off of one or the other, but your religion is about your fundamental metaphysical beliefs, less about political ones.

Anyway, my results:

Orthodox Quakerism
Conservative Protestantism 93%
7th day Adventist 91%
Roman Catholicism 89%
Orthodoxy 85%

Then there is a big drop down to 62% before the liberal Christian and Orthodox Jew. So according to their algorithm, I am basically where I am supposed to be.

Quid est Veritas? said:

@cloudyday2 , Many questions seem very loaded and imprecise, and I really don't see why all the questions on issues like homosexuality, equality and abortion - your religion informs your social choices, but I don't think people choose religions based thereon.

Click to expand...

Are religions really *chosen* the way people choose a pair of shoes or a haircut?
I cannot really choose what qualifies as an accurate depiction of reality to me: if it fails to convince, it fails to convince, and if it's accurate, it's accurate.

That said, I *do* think socio-political questions are an important part of the equation.
Seeing all the blatant sexism in Islam (and the Bible, for that matter) serves as a pretty strong clue that this religion is a product of a patriarchal middle eastern society, NOT the timeless creation of a perfect, enlightened superbeing.

Likewise, if I needed any more proof that the Bible was just as man-made as Greek mythology, Deuteronomical rape law ("If you damage the goods, you must buy them") is just as effective as Noah's flood - if not more so.

Of course, just because a person (in this case a deity) is clearly depicted as a jerk with a very benighted value system doesn't necessarily mean they are fictional. It could just mean that the universe is ruled by a self-obsessed tyrant who thinks of women as male property and second-class citizens, and tortures people who do not worship him for the crime of being fallible mortals.
But when the book(s) clearly tries to establish this character as an all-wise, all-benevolent superbeing, such depictions do undermine credibility. (And the rest suffices to also dispel this notion.)

So while socio-political matters may not truly be the first or only factor in figuring out whether a religion is true or not, they may certainly contribute to this process.

Jane_the_Bane said:

Are religions really *chosen* the way people choose a pair of shoes or a haircut?
I cannot really choose what qualifies as an accurate depiction of reality to me: if it fails to convince, it fails to convince, and if it's accurate, it's accurate.

Click to expand...

I agree.

That said, I *do* think socio-political questions are an important part of the equation.
Seeing all the blatant sexism in Islam (and the Bible, for that matter) serves as a pretty strong clue that this religion is a product of a patriarchal middle eastern society, NOT the timeless creation of a perfect, enlightened superbeing.

Likewise, if I needed any more proof that the Bible was just as man-made as Greek mythology, Deuteronomical rape law ("If you damage the goods, you must buy them") is just as effective as Noah's flood - if not more so.

Of course, just because a person (in this case a deity) is clearly depicted as a jerk with a very benighted value system doesn't necessarily mean they are fictional. It could just mean that the universe is ruled by a self-obsessed tyrant who thinks of women as male property and second-class citizens, and tortures people who do not worship him for the crime of being fallible mortals.
But when the book(s) clearly tries to establish this character as an all-wise, all-benevolent superbeing, such depictions do undermine credibility. (And the rest suffices to also dispel this notion.)

So while socio-political matters may not truly be the first or only factor in figuring out whether a religion is true or not, they may certainly contribute to this process.

Click to expand...

I am sorry, but your reasoning seems very confused. You say that Islam or the Bible's depiction might be correct, but then dispell them on the same grounds you say they might be right. For if a 'tyrant et al.' was God, then that was likely how a benevolent superbeing would be. Why would our human ideas of how He should be, trump His own if a superior being? This is a very simplistic way of depicting either Islam or Christianity, which both have various interpretive frameworks. You are measuring God on some created meta-standard beyond God, which quite frankly is not nor can be, established. This is why our political ideals are merely our preferences and can hardly be used to judge metaphysical truths; rather the reverse should be the case.

Besides, a benevolent God interacting with a bronze age people would hardly bring down the full plethora of modern progressivism without destroying that society and causing far more ill, assuming this even a laudable goal to do. You should rather be arguing with Jesus' ethical framework, as that is the pinnacle of Christianity, and refers to the fulfillment of the OT. If this framework is established in full, I cannot see much opposition to the label of a Benevolent God being responsible.

cloudyday2 said:

I don't have any desire to climb on the slippery slopes of Mt. Theism LOL. That's why I don't like the "seeker" label. I just think based on weird events over my life that there is a God who has been trying to help me along for some reason. One of the things I seemed to hear from God was that I should not follow other people. At the time, I had just left Eastern Orthodox, and I was concerned about attending another denomination due to the Orthodox prohibition against that (particularly communion). God seemed to tell me that all Christian denominations are fatally wrong, because people are following each other and nobody has their eyes on God/Jesus.

Of course, it might be my own psychology talking to me instead of God. I detest religion. When I was Eastern Orthodox, my dream was to go live in a hole in the ground as a monk - just me and my cat LOL. So God might be me telling me what I want to hear.

Click to expand...

I've often thought of living in a hole somewhere. I have a repeated fantasy of going to live on a compound with my little family, alone. The way the world is turning, it seems better and better each day. Just my gut feeling, but I'd bet you'd have been a fine monk.

Quid est Veritas? said:

I am sorry, but your reasoning seems very confused.

Click to expand...

I prefer to think that we are merely not seeing eye to eye on this, at all.

Why would our human ideas of how He should be, trump His own if a superior being?

Click to expand...

Attributing an unfathomable, unrelatable form of "goodness" to the deity renders it meaningless. Calling such a being "good" only makes sense if this quality relates to qualities and values we recognize as such, else it is utterly worthless as a value judgment.
In short, this would render the Deity into the equivalent of a Lovecraftian Great Old One: utterly alien in its motivations and ethical principles, so remote and strange that it could devour whole planets without any moral implications within its own unfathomable code.
Re-defining goodness to mean whatever this alien entity does deprives the term of meaning.

To wit, let's imagine a far superior extraterrestrial species, in relation to whom we are no more intelligent than cattle, and who finds our flesh just as tasty as many of us find a good steak. From their moral frame of reference, incarcerating and killing us for food would be morally acceptable, seeing how we cannot even comprehend XPTL!Xt, and have a primitive nervous system incapable of experiencing Gh2TzLK.
Calling them "good" from our frame of reference would be totally out of the question, however. They would run contrary to anything associated with the term, and appear to us as nothing more than evil aliens trying to kill and eat us.

Besides, a benevolent God interacting with a bronze age people would hardly bring down the full plethora of modern progressivism without destroying that society and causing far more ill, assuming this even a laudable goal to do. You should rather be arguing with Jesus' ethical framework, as that is the pinnacle of Christianity, and refers to the fulfillment of the OT. If this framework is established in full, I cannot see much opposition to the label of a Benevolent God being responsible.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, this old straw man.
We are talking about an entity who had so little qualms about interventionism and shaping society according to His will that He murdered thousands for depicting Him incorrectly, thousands more for a king who conducted a census at the wrong time, and wasn't averse to ordering the death of a person who was caught collecting sticks on the wrong day of the week. And yet, that same entity could not be bothered to abolish slavery, keep people from treating women as property, or laying down other rules for a society that outpaces the barbarism of the bronze age?
Nope, sorry, that does not fly.

Jane_the_Bane said:

I prefer to think that we are merely not seeing eye to eye on this, at all.

Click to expand...

Then address the inconsistency.

Attributing an unfathomable, unrelatable form of "goodness" to the deity renders it meaningless. Calling such a being "good" only makes sense if this quality relates to qualities and values we recognize as such, else it is utterly worthless as a value judgment.
In short, this would render the Deity into the equivalent of a Lovecraftian Great Old One: utterly alien in its motivations and ethical principles, so remote and strange that it could devour whole planets without any moral implications within its own unfathomable code.
Re-defining goodness to mean whatever this alien entity does deprives the term of meaning.

To wit, let's imagine a far superior extraterrestrial species, in relation to whom we are no more intelligent than cattle, and who finds our flesh just as tasty as many of us find a good steak. From their moral frame of reference, incarcerating and killing us for food would be morally acceptable, seeing how we cannot even comprehend XPTL!Xt, and have a primitive nervous system incapable of experiencing Gh2TzLK.
Calling them "good" from our frame of reference would be totally out of the question, however. They would run contrary to anything associated with the term, and appear to us as nothing more than evil aliens trying to kill and eat us.

Click to expand...

No one said anything about "utterly alien" conceptions. Ours would mirror His, as He would be the Author thereof, we would just understand it imperfectly. This is how the Christian God is at least seen. A perfectly good deity would appear tyrannical to rebellious subjects, intent on their own aims. This is like a child that hates his strict father for forcing him to do homework or keeping him away from his bad friends. Utterly unlike our own it is not, but lacking an infinite perspective, we cannot write it off as in contradiction to what we perceive as good either.

Ah yes, this old straw man.
We are talking about an entity who had so little qualms about interventionism and shaping society according to His will that He murdered thousands for depicting Him incorrectly, thousands more for a king who conducted a census at the wrong time, and wasn't averse to ordering the death of a person who was caught collecting sticks on the wrong day of the week. And yet, that same entity could not be bothered to abolish slavery, keep people from treating women as property, or laying down other rules for a society that outpaces the barbarism of the bronze age?
Nope, sorry, that does not fly.

Click to expand...

Madam, I believe you are erecting the strawman here. As I clearly intimated, the goal is Jesus' ethics, so some form of preparatory mythos is required, a way to mould a bronze age people into a nation that could understand it and freely choose it. The goal is a virtue ethic, not rule by fiat, though by nature some such would be required to get it there. Anyway, most of all that would clearly be mythic in your eyes, so literally it would seem as if God would be working with kid gloves, mostly via prophets and narrative, not by other means.

Quid est Veritas? said:

Then address the inconsistency.

Click to expand...

I don't see it.

The first paragraph speaks about how Bronze age morality promoted by a deity that's supposedly Moral Perfection undermines the credibility of said entity.
Paragraph two uses a specific example, and points out that such moral misconceptions are just as relevant as obvious misconceptions about the physical nature of the planet, biological life, or other tangible concepts.
The third paragraph addresses a potential objection to this, namely that God's flawed character as depicted in the Bible might just mean that He's thinking and feeling like an ancient middle eastern king, flaying his enemies and killing at the slightest hint of insubordination.
The final paragraph in the quote then addresses why this still undermines the character's credibility (to a contemporary audience).

No one said anything about "utterly alien" conceptions. Ours would mirror His, as He would be the Author thereof, we would just understand it imperfectly.

Click to expand...

There is no universe where an eternal place of torment for even a single being could qualify as anything other than abomination. Even if we amended matters and said that only Hitler would spend eternity there, it'd still be a million times more damning than Auschwitz to create and maintain such a place.

Madam, I believe you are erecting the strawman here. As I clearly intimated, the goal is Jesus' ethics, so some form of preparatory mythos is required, a way to mould a bronze age people into a nation that could understand it and freely choose it. The goal is a virtue ethic, not rule by fiat, though by nature some such would be required to get it there. Anyway, most of all that would clearly be mythic in your eyes, so literally it would seem as if God would be working with kid gloves, mostly via prophets and narrative, not by other means.

Click to expand...

The Jews would disagree.
Besides, not all of Jesus's moral dictums are that great, either. His stance on divorce makes sense in the context of his day (i.e. only men being allowed to dismiss their wives like a used car), but the whole idea of NO divorce at all is not all that superior, either, seeing how *some* relationships ARE dysfunctional, and no amount of counseling can fix them. Life-long monogamy makes sense in a patriarchal, agricultural society where controlling/suppressing female sexuality in particular is the only way of ascertaining that the child you raise is your own. But even then, the implications for women were pretty horrible.

Jane_the_Bane said:

I don't see it.

The first paragraph speaks about how Bronze age morality promoted by a deity that's supposedly Moral Perfection undermines the credibility of said entity.
Paragraph two uses a specific example, and points out that such moral misconceptions are just as relevant as obvious misconceptions about the physical nature of the planet, biological life, or other tangible concepts.
The third paragraph addresses a potential objection to this, namely that God's flawed character as depicted in the Bible might just mean that He's thinking and feeling like an ancient middle eastern king, flaying his enemies and killing at the slightest hint of insubordination.
The final paragraph in the quote then addresses why this still undermines the character's credibility (to a contemporary audience).

Click to expand...

I have been discussing it since post 30. You cannot establish our contemporary morality as superceding that of a being from which any morality would by necesity be derived, as in Islam or Christianity. So by establishing God in that mould, then that would be the determinant of morality. So the lack of credibility in modern eyes from our own moral stance, would merely leave us in the wrong.
As I said though, you paint a very simplistic and frankly specious picture of what this stance is, that you would juxtapose to a 'morality by convention' of the modern world and then treat it as an absolute against which we could judge a God.

There is no universe where an eternal place of torment for even a single being could qualify as anything other than abomination. Even if we amended matters and said that only Hitler would spend eternity there, it'd still be a million times more damning than Auschwitz to create and maintain such a place.

Click to expand...

Have we established this to be the case? That God "creates" hell? That it is eternal? There is a lot of debate around this. We have Universalists, those that say hell is merely the presence of God to the unsaved, those that argue that we bolt hell's doors from the inside, etc.

Besides, not all of Jesus's moral dictums are that great, either. His stance on divorce makes sense in the context of his day (i.e. only men being allowed to dismiss their wives like a used car), but the whole idea of NO divorce at all is not all that superior, either, seeing how *some* relationships ARE dysfunctional, and no amount of counseling can fix them. Life-long monogamy makes sense in a patriarchal, agricultural society where controlling/suppressing female sexuality in particular is the only way of ascertaining that the child you raise is your own. But even then, the implications for women were pretty horrible.

Click to expand...

Well, a married couple that treated each other as they would like to be treated, that did not cast stones, that forgave and brought restitution, etc. would be very happily married indeed, and not require divorce.
Even then, Jesus excused it for adultery, but defined adultery as even lusting after another. Thus, if your spouse is not first in your thoughts, divorce is allowed, although not the ideal as you failed therefore quite a lot of other moral precepts. This is why later we are told to love our spouses as Jesus loves us, ie to give our very lives if need be. I fail to see how anything negative can be said here, for someone following Jesus' morality would be very good indeed. If they only partially applied it on this one point as you would have it, divorce would be allowed.

cloudyday2 said:

I have been thinking about the story of Abraham in Genesis. He didn't seem to have any rituals or definite beliefs about God, but he believed God cared about humans and gave them guidance sometimes. That's the way I see it.

Click to expand...

Hello Cloudyday, Sorry but can't let you get away with that.
The story of Abraham in Genesis tells us of a man responding to a real God in real faith and growing in his understanding of who God is (i.e. having clearer and clearer 'beliefs' about Him).
As for rituals;
Genesis 12:5-8, 13:3-4, 13:17,18 - Abraham builds altars.
Genesis 15:9-21 - Abraham prepares the ritual of a blood covenant. Significantly it's God who 'performs' the ritual not Abraham.
Genesis 17:23-27 - Abraham has circumcised, himself and all males belonging to him.
Genesis 22:1-19 - Abraham is prepared to ritually sacrifice his son.
Genesis 24:2-9 - Abraham makes his servant take an oath according to an accepted ritual.

Label are useful but your Maker knows what's in the box. From what I can pick up from your posts agnostic seems near enough.
Go well
><>

cloudyday2 said:

I don't have any desire to climb on the slippery slopes of Mt. Theism LOL. That's why I don't like the "seeker" label.

Click to expand...

Do you hear that everyone? Whenever Cloudy is getting on your nerves just call him a seeker! Lol.

Jane_the_Bane said:

That said, I *do* think socio-political questions are an important part of the equation.
Seeing all the blatant sexism in Islam (and the Bible, for that matter) serves as a pretty strong clue that this religion is a product of a patriarchal middle eastern society, NOT the timeless creation of a perfect, enlightened superbeing.

Click to expand...

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

And of course there is my beloved Mary Magdalene, apostle to the Apostles. The Old Testament is a mess, to be sure (not counting a lot of the calls for social justice in the Prophets, never mind the fact that there were female prophets like Deborah), but historic Christianity always reinterpreted it in the light of the Gospel revelation. And there is some really interesting postmodern feminist theology to consider, including considerations of how strongly Jesus breaks with the traditional masculine image. (If you want masculinity as power, look no further than Mohammed.)

The Bible is the product of human authors, not the unmediated Word of God. I don't think it's very realistic to assume that it won't reflect the prejudices of the people who wrote it. The fact that Christianity, at least during its earliest centuries, proved so socially revolutionary in Roman society is enormously important to me. If there is no truth to the Gospel, then human dignity is a social construct and the very concept of human rights evaporates into meaninglessness. (Not because Christianity "invented" them, but because it confirmed them.)

Jane_the_Bane said:

There is no universe where an eternal place of torment for even a single being could qualify as anything other than abomination. Even if we amended matters and said that only Hitler would spend eternity there, it'd still be a million times more damning than Auschwitz to create and maintain such a place.

Click to expand...

I would suggest reading St. Isaac of Syria for some orthodox universalism.

Jane_the_Bane said:

Life-long monogamy makes sense in a patriarchal, agricultural society where controlling/suppressing female sexuality in particular is the only way of ascertaining that the child you raise is your own. But even then, the implications for women were pretty horrible.

Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty horrible to join a religion which demanded sexual fidelity from men as well instead of sticking to the old double standards. Sorry, Romans.

cloudyday2 said:

Of course, it might be my own psychology talking to me instead of God. I detest religion. When I was Eastern Orthodox, my dream was to go live in a hole in the ground as a monk - just me and my cat LOL. So God might be me telling me what I want to hear.

Click to expand...

Well, there is always Lutheranism. Nail those 95 Theses to the door and declare war on the establishment! (I may join you.)