For Non-Christians Only: If You Were Christian, What Kind of Christian Would You Be?

[ChristineM]

The main reason has to do with 3-D thinking, which is not yet supported by human language.

Picture a tennis ball that part of 3-D reality. We can approximate this 3-D ball, with a large number of 2-D circles, each with a common center; Jesus, but each at different angles, filling in the 3-D volume.

Each denomination is one of the circles, with each having it own unique angle or spin on Christianity. Even though all have different angles, they are all, nevertheless, centered on Jesus. The sum of all these circles approximates the 3-D tennis ball, which is the whole integrated 3-D truth.

Three dimensional or 3-D thinking is not easy to do, since there is no current human language that can support the speed of 3-D thinking. Human Language is more designed for 2-D thinking; cause and affect. To approximate 3-D concepts, it is needs to be done using an approximation in 2-D, so human language can be used.

All the 2-D circles; based on some version of biblical cause and affect, expresses part of the truth. However, it requires all the circles, together, to reach the full truth in 3-D. This extra third thought dimension is felt through intuition and faith, based on focusing, not on your specific angle, but on the common center that all circles sense; Jesus. Atheism which is more 2-D, may not be able to comprehend 3-D thinking and ways to approximate it.

Consider this scenario. Say God used his golden tennis racket to serve this 3-D tennis ball of Christianity. God has a hard serve, causing the ball to distort in 3-D; function of force impulse over time; 4-D thought. It also moves in space and time. The hit would cause many of the 2-D circles, to distort and move out of their 2-D planes, creating local 3-D affects ; inspiration that can add another circle. This 4-D thinking is even harder to describe with 2-D language, but it anticipates the future, such as new denomination circles, with the time element in 4-D, like an inspirational spirit that has a mind of its own; subroutine.

Some day I will discuss thought dimensionality theory which can better explain the levels of human thought. It was a useful tool for mapping out the human psyche with 0-D to 4-D thoughts. In the case of the tennis ball being hit and one inspired to make a new circle this is about 3.5-D thought.

The main reason is there are so many versions of the bible being read by human beings who interpret the version they favour in their own way and nothing to do with tennis at all. Nice apologetics though.

BTW, i spent my working life as a 3D artist and helped develop some of the early 3D software that programs like Maya and 3Ds max are developed from. So i have no difficulty with 3D thinking, what surprises me is that some people think it's special

 

[Link]

Jehovah witness without the Jehovah witness (God doesn't have a name, his name is a metaphor for the word of God and his image and holy spirit in chosen ones) part nor Michael = Jesus part, and a few other things they get wrong, but overall they are on point.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

As someone who has never once considered himself a Christian, I obsess about this question a lot.

The thread title is all you need to answer the question for yourself, and with this introductory post I am going to elaborate on this for myself.

So, the main groups I am interested in include: Messianic Judaism/Jewish Christianity, Mennonites, Evangelical Lutheranism and Mormonism. I will list each in its own paragraph explaining why I'm interested in them.

Messianic Judaism/Jewish Christianity: Possibly the most legitimate version of Christianity out there, that teaches to respect both the new and the old, and if you can quote scripture Jesus literally says that following the Torah is essentially following him, that he is the Law. And I don't really subscribe to replacement theory, where the New supersedes the old in any way. If you only believe in the Gospels why is there a Old Testament? Jesus was Jewish. End of story.

Mennonites: I consider myself a pacifist. Mennonites are both against abortion and the death penalty. I would have a hard time believing that any other group in America is also against both at the same time.

Evangelical Lutheranism: Okay, so I took a religious quiz and got 100% Evangelical Lutheran. I would say half of the responses were "only if I were a Christian" where the other half was truly me. The reason why I think I would make a good Evangelical Lutheran is they both promote the inerrancy of the scripture and at the same time are mainline and for things like gay marriage and women pastors. And I agree!

Mormonism: Mormons believe in many Gods, that you can become a God, and all of that, and to that remark I say Mormonism is very close to the Earthseed and Syntheist argument of, "God is change."

I have thought about this so hard I am surprised I haven't already called myself a Christian. The last service I went to was an Evangelical Lutheran service, and it would be very easy for me just to walk there and (eventually) get baptized. This syntheist pantheistic trinity I hold: The Omniverse, Entropy and Extropy can easily be translated into The Holy Spirit, The Father and The Son. Honestly, when I answered the questions as if were a Christian I didn't feel as if I was really lying either.

I am not saying I am Christian. Gnostic syntheism runs strong in my veins. I feel as one who is this faith I can know and understand God better than any Christian ever could. Maybe it is because I focus a lot of it on The Omniverse or Holy Spirit. I don't know.

What I do know however is, if one day I decided to convert, I would get baptized at the Evangelical Lutheran church minutes away from my house. If I decide to attend church on Sunday, that's great, but that church has video recordings of services on YouTube. Whenever I would feel like my faith isn't strong enough I would study the Old Testament on Saturdays to understand the Torah and prophets thereafter. And honestly I could see myself possibly one day, if I could deny my own syntheism, to just follow Christ in a way that would best suit me.

In the end I would probably not call myself any of those four labels, but instead, just a Christian and I would probably own a cross necklace. And I wouldn't let anyone let me get between The Son and me, and I would tell nobody how is the correct way to get to Him.

Overall I could be a very decent and upright Christian. And Christianity has it in the way which, as long as you believe in Him, that you can virtually be any kind of person you want to be. There are maybe three types of syntheists: the pantheist, the atheist and the humanist syntheists. All three are essentially the same. Things like pacifism doesn't really apply directly to syntheistic teachings. Having a religion of 2.2 billion followers offers more flexibility than say, a religion of maybe ten thousand followers.

I already own multiple Bibles, both in print and in audiobook format. I have contemplated many times how I can do this in a way where I'm not just arguing my syntheism to the pastors. The last service I went to I felt uplifted by the message but also felt like the things being said disagreed with my scientific understandings. And probably the hardest thing for me to truly wrap my head around is, well, I'm gnostic. I feel like right now I know God so well already, as time progresses I see things change more and more. And if, let's say, I became a Lutheran, I might only have faith in God again, rather than the knowledge of God I understand from my syntheism.

Anyways, I think about this more often than I would like to admit. And I know there's probably some Christians right now who are probably reading this who are like, "we're so close!" I developed my syntheism when I was 14, and have been in the syntheist realm since then. As far as Christian Syntheism goes, I might as well at that point become a Mormon. But Mormonism is a bit too hands-on for my tastes, honestly.

So, what do you think?

To be honest, I'm pretty adamant about never being a Christian again. I was one for 30 years, and as I explained in an older post here, it was an absolute miserable experience for me. It took me a long time to overcome the Christian indoctrination I had been subjected to throughout my life, and it was a very difficult experience to go through. I don't regret my decision to disavow my Christian faith and my belief in God because I feel like the distressful journey to free myself was well worth it. I can honestly say that renouncing my faith was the best decision I've ever made for my mental health and for my life overall. It took a while to overcome the Christian mindset, but I've done well getting past it. I finally have peace in my life, and I'm a much happier person since I turned away from Christianity.

 

[mangalavara]

So, what do you think?

I would be an Esoteric Christian.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Is it made by an independent body or a group of Christians trying to rebuild Christianity.

It may be true that there are 2 or 3 hundred bigger denominations in America, i wonder how many of the small groups that have gone their own way have been counted in that.

BTW, there are over 200 English language bibles, each slightly different from the others. How many in other languages? I don't know? Each of those bibles has various groups who each interpret the bible they favour in their own way

The glaring truth is that Christianity is widely fragmented and has been since the beginning of the religion. Personally, I think it's ironic that there are Christians who believe and insist that Christianity is the only true religion in the world because they can't even agree amongst themselves what the Bible actually teaches or be united with each other in interpreting the Bible. They don't agree with each other on theology, dogma, church doctrine, church rituals, salvation, eternal life, baptism, speaking in tongues, the end times, and female pastors. The list goes on. The truth is, if you ask a group of diverse Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant) the same theological question, you'll get different answers to your question, and all of these Christians will use the Bible to justify their answer, despite the fact that their answers are obviously different. So, which one of these hundreds of Christian churches is correct about their preferred interpretation of the Bible? I wouldn't expect the same kind of answers because Christians like to believe that they are absolutely correct in their theology and biblical interpretation and all other Christians are completely dead wrong in theirs.

According to Catholics, the Roman Catholic Church is the one and only true church, and salvation only comes through Christ and his Catholic Church (source). However, I've heard Orthodox Christians claim that their church is the one and only true church, and I've also heard plenty of Protestants claim that the true Christian Church is universal and includes all believers in Jesus, despite their church affiliation. Which one of these churches is the true church? The answer to this question depends on which Christian you ask.

 

[Link]

I would be an Esoteric Christian.

Too close to Paganism and polytheism in my view, leads to dark arts in my view. Not for me.

 

[Jainarayan]

My family is Roman Catholic, so naturally I was Catholic from birth. I left Catholicism and became Eastern Orthodox at about 23 years old. I abandoned Christianity for Hinduism, which I was always drawn to even as a Christian. If I had to pick a more attractive and palatable form of Christianity again it would be Eastern Orthodoxy again. There is a mysticism and philosophy, and theology that is I won't say similar to Hinduism because it's not, but Orthdoxy is less dissimilar to Hinduism that Catholicism or other Christian denominations. Besides, I love the hats and veils, and get-ups the clergy wear.

 

[viole]

As someone who has never once considered himself a Christian, I obsess about this question a lot.

The thread title is all you need to answer the question for yourself, and with this introductory post I am going to elaborate on this for myself.

So, the main groups I am interested in include: Messianic Judaism/Jewish Christianity, Mennonites, Evangelical Lutheranism and Mormonism. I will list each in its own paragraph explaining why I'm interested in them.

Messianic Judaism/Jewish Christianity: Possibly the most legitimate version of Christianity out there, that teaches to respect both the new and the old, and if you can quote scripture Jesus literally says that following the Torah is essentially following him, that he is the Law. And I don't really subscribe to replacement theory, where the New supersedes the old in any way. If you only believe in the Gospels why is there a Old Testament? Jesus was Jewish. End of story.

Mennonites: I consider myself a pacifist. Mennonites are both against abortion and the death penalty. I would have a hard time believing that any other group in America is also against both at the same time.

Evangelical Lutheranism: Okay, so I took a religious quiz and got 100% Evangelical Lutheran. I would say half of the responses were "only if I were a Christian" where the other half was truly me. The reason why I think I would make a good Evangelical Lutheran is they both promote the inerrancy of the scripture and at the same time are mainline and for things like gay marriage and women pastors. And I agree!

Mormonism: Mormons believe in many Gods, that you can become a God, and all of that, and to that remark I say Mormonism is very close to the Earthseed and Syntheist argument of, "God is change."

I have thought about this so hard I am surprised I haven't already called myself a Christian. The last service I went to was an Evangelical Lutheran service, and it would be very easy for me just to walk there and (eventually) get baptized. This syntheist pantheistic trinity I hold: The Omniverse, Entropy and Extropy can easily be translated into The Holy Spirit, The Father and The Son. Honestly, when I answered the questions as if were a Christian I didn't feel as if I was really lying either.

I am not saying I am Christian. Gnostic syntheism runs strong in my veins. I feel as one who is this faith I can know and understand God better than any Christian ever could. Maybe it is because I focus a lot of it on The Omniverse or Holy Spirit. I don't know.

What I do know however is, if one day I decided to convert, I would get baptized at the Evangelical Lutheran church minutes away from my house. If I decide to attend church on Sunday, that's great, but that church has video recordings of services on YouTube. Whenever I would feel like my faith isn't strong enough I would study the Old Testament on Saturdays to understand the Torah and prophets thereafter. And honestly I could see myself possibly one day, if I could deny my own syntheism, to just follow Christ in a way that would best suit me.

In the end I would probably not call myself any of those four labels, but instead, just a Christian and I would probably own a cross necklace. And I wouldn't let anyone let me get between The Son and me, and I would tell nobody how is the correct way to get to Him.

Overall I could be a very decent and upright Christian. And Christianity has it in the way which, as long as you believe in Him, that you can virtually be any kind of person you want to be. There are maybe three types of syntheists: the pantheist, the atheist and the humanist syntheists. All three are essentially the same. Things like pacifism doesn't really apply directly to syntheistic teachings. Having a religion of 2.2 billion followers offers more flexibility than say, a religion of maybe ten thousand followers.

I already own multiple Bibles, both in print and in audiobook format. I have contemplated many times how I can do this in a way where I'm not just arguing my syntheism to the pastors. The last service I went to I felt uplifted by the message but also felt like the things being said disagreed with my scientific understandings. And probably the hardest thing for me to truly wrap my head around is, well, I'm gnostic. I feel like right now I know God so well already, as time progresses I see things change more and more. And if, let's say, I became a Lutheran, I might only have faith in God again, rather than the knowledge of God I understand from my syntheism.

Anyways, I think about this more often than I would like to admit. And I know there's probably some Christians right now who are probably reading this who are like, "we're so close!" I developed my syntheism when I was 14, and have been in the syntheist realm since then. As far as Christian Syntheism goes, I might as well at that point become a Mormon. But Mormonism is a bit too hands-on for my tastes, honestly.

So, what do you think?

Probably this

ciao

- viole

 

[Alien826]

The main reason has to do with 3-D thinking, which is not yet supported by human language.

Picture a tennis ball that part of 3-D reality. We can approximate this 3-D ball, with a large number of 2-D circles, each with a common center; Jesus, but each at different angles, filling in the 3-D volume.

Each denomination is one of the circles, with each having it own unique angle or spin on Christianity. Even though all have different angles, they are all, nevertheless, centered on Jesus. The sum of all these circles approximates the 3-D tennis ball, which is the whole integrated 3-D truth.

Three dimensional or 3-D thinking is not easy to do, since there is no current human language that can support the speed of 3-D thinking. Human Language is more designed for 2-D thinking; cause and affect. To approximate 3-D concepts, it is needs to be done using an approximation in 2-D, so human language can be used.

All the 2-D circles; based on some version of biblical cause and affect, expresses part of the truth. However, it requires all the circles, together, to reach the full truth in 3-D. This extra third thought dimension is felt through intuition and faith, based on focusing, not on your specific angle, but on the common center that all circles sense; Jesus. Atheism which is more 2-D, may not be able to comprehend 3-D thinking and ways to approximate it.

Consider this scenario. Say God used his golden tennis racket to serve this 3-D tennis ball of Christianity. God has a hard serve, causing the ball to distort in 3-D; function of force impulse over time; 4-D thought. It also moves in space and time. The hit would cause many of the 2-D circles, to distort and move out of their 2-D planes, creating local 3-D affects ; inspiration that can add another circle. This 4-D thinking is even harder to describe with 2-D language, but it anticipates the future, such as new denomination circles, with the time element in 4-D, like an inspirational spirit that has a mind of its own; subroutine.

Some day I will discuss thought dimensionality theory which can better explain the levels of human thought. It was a useful tool for mapping out the human psyche with 0-D to 4-D thoughts. In the case of the tennis ball being hit and one inspired to make a new circle this is about 3.5-D thought.

In answer to the original question, I can't see my subscribing to any "flavor" of Christianity again. Been there done that.

@wellwisher - that's interesting, I may take the time to look into it one day. My problem is very basic though. When you picture Jesus as the fixed point in the middle of the tennis ball, all I see is the word "Jesus". The idea, or understanding, of Jesus in different "Christian" beliefs can vary considerably. Instead of your fixed point I would substitute a large number of points, mostly in the same general area with some distant outliers.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

All these answers suggesting the Quakers got me investigating the Quakers again and man I agree so much with them. I would fall somewhere between Liberal, Universalist and Non-Theist Quaker. Imagine if there was Syntheist Quakerism... That would be too good to be true.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Truly, I'd rather be dead than go back.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Probably this

ciao

- viole

Isn't the blood of Finland part metal, or something?

 

[Stonetree]

My family is Roman Catholic, so naturally I was Catholic from birth. I left Catholicism and became Eastern Orthodox at about 23 years old. I abandoned Christianity for Hinduism, which I was always drawn to even as a Christian. If I had to pick a more attractive and palatable form of Christianity again it would be Eastern Orthodoxy again. There is a mysticism and philosophy, and theology that is I won't say similar to Hinduism because it's not, but Orthdoxy is less dissimilar to Hinduism that Catholicism or other Christian denominations. Besides, I love the hats and veils, and get-ups the clergy wear.

If we chose a belief system because of attire.......Nudism might be considered.

 

[Stonetree]

The glaring truth is that Christianity is widely fragmented and has been since the beginning of the religion. Personally, I think it's ironic that there are Christians who believe and insist that Christianity is the only true religion in the world because they can't even agree amongst themselves what the Bible actually teaches or be united with each other in interpreting the Bible. They don't agree with each other on theology, dogma, church doctrine, church rituals, salvation, eternal life, baptism, speaking in tongues, the end times, and female pastors. The list goes on. The truth is, if you ask a group of diverse Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant) the same theological question, you'll get different answers to your question, and all of these Christians will use the Bible to justify their answer, despite the fact that their answers are obviously different. So, which one of these hundreds of Christian churches is correct about their preferred interpretation of the Bible? I wouldn't expect the same kind of answers because Christians like to believe that they are absolutely correct in their theology and biblical interpretation and all other Christians are completely dead wrong in theirs.

According to Catholics, the Roman Catholic Church is the one and only true church, and salvation only comes through Christ and his Catholic Church (source). However, I've heard Orthodox Christians claim that their church is the one and only true church, and I've also heard plenty of Protestants claim that the true Christian Church is universal and includes all believers in Jesus, despite their church affiliation. Which one of these churches is the true church? The answer to this question depends on which Christian you ask.

To me, a Christian is one who follows the teaching of Christ. Unfortunately, in my opinion the Church, any organized Christian Church is a human institution proclaiming human assumptions based on Tradition or/and the Bible as 'Truth'. The Old and New Testaments exhibit contradictions..There are two commandments that I accept as the teaching of the carpenter's son. 1.Love your God 2. Love thy neighbor as thyself......I've experienced 'neighbors' all my life. My problem is; How often have I experienced God?.....Possibly once I may have experienced a benevolent exterior presence in my life. My experience with prayer, that time, seemed to confirm for me an existence of powers outside myself when so many more past experiences with prayer requests were fruitless....There is so much convincing theological criticism of both the Old and New Testaments how does anyone just ignore those studied opinions?....To answer the question posed in this sub forum: I would have to answer, Agnostic Christian... Because the Christian Church wants it's members to accept Christ based on 'Faith', Christianity criticizes Thomas who wanted to see for himself if it was possible to be in the presence of a Resurrected Jesus.....(Fictitious story?) Is it possible that human belief can create a God or Gods? As an agnostic I just don't know.

 

[viole]

As someone who has never once considered himself a Christian, I obsess about this question a lot.

The thread title is all you need to answer the question for yourself, and with this introductory post I am going to elaborate on this for myself.

So, the main groups I am interested in include: Messianic Judaism/Jewish Christianity, Mennonites, Evangelical Lutheranism and Mormonism. I will list each in its own paragraph explaining why I'm interested in them.

Messianic Judaism/Jewish Christianity: Possibly the most legitimate version of Christianity out there, that teaches to respect both the new and the old, and if you can quote scripture Jesus literally says that following the Torah is essentially following him, that he is the Law. And I don't really subscribe to replacement theory, where the New supersedes the old in any way. If you only believe in the Gospels why is there a Old Testament? Jesus was Jewish. End of story.

Mennonites: I consider myself a pacifist. Mennonites are both against abortion and the death penalty. I would have a hard time believing that any other group in America is also against both at the same time.

Evangelical Lutheranism: Okay, so I took a religious quiz and got 100% Evangelical Lutheran. I would say half of the responses were "only if I were a Christian" where the other half was truly me. The reason why I think I would make a good Evangelical Lutheran is they both promote the inerrancy of the scripture and at the same time are mainline and for things like gay marriage and women pastors. And I agree!

Mormonism: Mormons believe in many Gods, that you can become a God, and all of that, and to that remark I say Mormonism is very close to the Earthseed and Syntheist argument of, "God is change."

I have thought about this so hard I am surprised I haven't already called myself a Christian. The last service I went to was an Evangelical Lutheran service, and it would be very easy for me just to walk there and (eventually) get baptized. This syntheist pantheistic trinity I hold: The Omniverse, Entropy and Extropy can easily be translated into The Holy Spirit, The Father and The Son. Honestly, when I answered the questions as if were a Christian I didn't feel as if I was really lying either.

I am not saying I am Christian. Gnostic syntheism runs strong in my veins. I feel as one who is this faith I can know and understand God better than any Christian ever could. Maybe it is because I focus a lot of it on The Omniverse or Holy Spirit. I don't know.

What I do know however is, if one day I decided to convert, I would get baptized at the Evangelical Lutheran church minutes away from my house. If I decide to attend church on Sunday, that's great, but that church has video recordings of services on YouTube. Whenever I would feel like my faith isn't strong enough I would study the Old Testament on Saturdays to understand the Torah and prophets thereafter. And honestly I could see myself possibly one day, if I could deny my own syntheism, to just follow Christ in a way that would best suit me.

In the end I would probably not call myself any of those four labels, but instead, just a Christian and I would probably own a cross necklace. And I wouldn't let anyone let me get between The Son and me, and I would tell nobody how is the correct way to get to Him.

Overall I could be a very decent and upright Christian. And Christianity has it in the way which, as long as you believe in Him, that you can virtually be any kind of person you want to be. There are maybe three types of syntheists: the pantheist, the atheist and the humanist syntheists. All three are essentially the same. Things like pacifism doesn't really apply directly to syntheistic teachings. Having a religion of 2.2 billion followers offers more flexibility than say, a religion of maybe ten thousand followers.

I already own multiple Bibles, both in print and in audiobook format. I have contemplated many times how I can do this in a way where I'm not just arguing my syntheism to the pastors. The last service I went to I felt uplifted by the message but also felt like the things being said disagreed with my scientific understandings. And probably the hardest thing for me to truly wrap my head around is, well, I'm gnostic. I feel like right now I know God so well already, as time progresses I see things change more and more. And if, let's say, I became a Lutheran, I might only have faith in God again, rather than the knowledge of God I understand from my syntheism.

Anyways, I think about this more often than I would like to admit. And I know there's probably some Christians right now who are probably reading this who are like, "we're so close!" I developed my syntheism when I was 14, and have been in the syntheist realm since then. As far as Christian Syntheism goes, I might as well at that point become a Mormon. But Mormonism is a bit too hands-on for my tastes, honestly.

So, what do you think?

this pastor, and his church, ain’t bad, either
Klaas Hendrikse - Wikipedia

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

[Non-Christians] Do religious discussions on RF make you want to be a Christian?

I am an Ahmadiyya peaceful Muslim. We neither believe in Hellenist-Paul nor the Pauline-Christianity founded by Hellenist-Paul that has got nothing to do with Jesus and or his teachings, I gather, please . Right?
We not only believe in the truthful Jesus' First Coming but we also believe in Jesus' Second Coming 1835-1908 in the form of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, as we understand.
I welcome one's polite invitation to unite, but that is possible if the Pauline-Christianity people realize their fault of accepting Hellenist-Paul and start believing Jesus' Second Coming
1835-1908 as explained above, please. Right?
Have a good day!

Regards

 

[Sand Dancer]

Most people don't consider Unitarian Universalism a Christian denomination anymore ... they split off and became their own thing. In theory you could be a liberal Christian in Unitarian Universalism but now days they mostly cater to the atheists and humanists.

I wouldn't say they cater to them. They don't espouse any one religious view, but take from different religions. It's fascinating.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Besides, I love the hats and veils, and get-ups the clergy wear.

Are those official terms? lol

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I wouldn't say they cater to them. They don't espouse any one religious view, but take from different religions. It's fascinating.

I'm going to be honest with you. When I first investigated the concept of Unitarian Universalism and read its description on Wikipedia, it really made me think. When it comes to every religion, everyone is either right or everyone is either wrong. This isn't like that. Someone in this church must be right, therefore, this religion makes the most sense.

I went to Chalice Circles and YANKS. We never talked about God, the afterlife or our opinions on anything spiritual, theological or religious. In fact, the entire thing seemed to be so secular I always wondered afterwards why they call themselves a religion. It just appears to me to be a bunch of people too socially awkward to talk about God that they invented a religion to discuss everything else.

And yes, I understand that Unitarians take their idea of progressive action quite seriously. Almost in a spiritual way. I don't consider myself a progressive and I don't really identify too well with the Unitarian message anymore. I never quite understood what Unitarianism even met... One God ... is that God the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit? Some answers you'll just never know.

The final nail on the coffin happened when I realized that I'm not really a Unitarian or Universalist. Why? Because 1 - I believe in a three-part God: The Omniverse, Entropy and Extropy. And 2 - I realize that many people don't want to go to Heaven or even exist after they die. Are we going to force people to be eternally happy forever simply because it's better to exist than not? It's foolish.

When I came back to RF I decided that I would keep an open mind about things. Since then I changed my religion, and Facebook religion, from Pantheistic Syntheism to Gnostic Syntheism to Syncretic Syntheism. Would any organized religion accept any of my views? No. Would Unitarian Universalism accept my views? No. If I had a serious discussion about my syntheism with them they would probably change the subject to something that suits their style - like being politically progressive or hating Trump.

I don't want or need that in my life right now. My parents are atheist and every time I talk about my syntheism to them they act as if I belong on another planet. At least half of the time I agree with their conservative view points. My parents are atheist and Republican and it will be very difficult to have a true dialogue with them if I were a progressive Christian or Unitarian Universalist.

There's things in your life that change. Some of it is inevitable, some of happens unexpected, and then there's just things that don't. In my life time I've been a Unitarian, a Baha'i, a hard-core conservative and a conservatarian, and I have to say being in the middle about these issues has made it a lot easier for me to understand the other points of view. Right now I'd say I'm a centre-libertarian syntheist.

Even though I understand other points of view, it doesn't mean I don't understand mine at the same time. Libertarians have a lot of weaknesses - the victim of drugs are the users - most crimes already have a victim - some people need to depend on the government for assistance - and overall some government actually does a lot of help for people. But the last two Presidential elections I voted for the Libertarians - Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen, and Gary Johnson and William Weld. We need a Libertarian in office, America is desperately due for it. Between government deficits and the needless wars we're having, we need change.

Most people don't know what syncretic or syntheism is. But guess what - I didn't invent the terms. If you search for the meaning you can actually get results from Wikipedia. And to dissect it - it's simple - syncreticism is when you combine multiple ideologies into one path, and syntheism is about creating God. So ultimately, what I'm trying to say is that we are creating God with multiple paths to this God. And I still consider myself pantheistic and gnostic at the same time - the reason why I changed the wording is because I realized that some words are better descriptors than others... Also, most people think Christian when you refer to gnosticism.

But regardless, what I'm trying to say overall is that at one point I thought I could be this "Unitarian Quaker", having both progressive revelation and action, but honestly I didn't like the person I was becoming. Sitting in a group of forty people praying silently for an hour isn't fun to me, even if someone did have something to say once in awhile. And UUs are so progressive politically that I can't support almost anything they do. And again, actually have a discussion with one of these folks and they'll almost never talk to you about God or theology.

I realize at this time that I'll never have an organized religion that I can follow. I could try the omnist route again and ignore more scientific sensibilities, but I don't like arguing with the pastors about things I see as common sense. So I'll probably be this pantheist, gnostic, syncretic syntheist here and advocate in probably the world's largest online church - Religious Forums.com

 

[Sand Dancer]

I'm going to be honest with you. When I first investigated the concept of Unitarian Universalism and read its description on Wikipedia, it really made me think. When it comes to every religion, everyone is either right or everyone is either wrong. This isn't like that. Someone in this church must be right, therefore, this religion makes the most sense.

I went to Chalice Circles and YANKS. We never talked about God, the afterlife or our opinions on anything spiritual, theological or religious. In fact, the entire thing seemed to be so secular I always wondered afterwards why they call themselves a religion. It just appears to me to be a bunch of people too socially awkward to talk about God that they invented a religion to discuss everything else.

And yes, I understand that Unitarians take their idea of progressive action quite seriously. Almost in a spiritual way. I don't consider myself a progressive and I don't really identify too well with the Unitarian message anymore. I never quite understood what Unitarianism even met... One God ... is that God the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit? Some answers you'll just never know.

The final nail on the coffin happened when I realized that I'm not really a Unitarian or Universalist. Why? Because 1 - I believe in a three-part God: The Omniverse, Entropy and Extropy. And 2 - I realize that many people don't want to go to Heaven or even exist after they die. Are we going to force people to be eternally happy forever simply because it's better to exist than not? It's foolish.

When I came back to RF I decided that I would keep an open mind about things. Since then I changed my religion, and Facebook religion, from Pantheistic Syntheism to Gnostic Syntheism to Syncretic Syntheism. Would any organized religion accept any of my views? No. Would Unitarian Universalism accept my views? No. If I had a serious discussion about my syntheism with them they would probably change the subject to something that suits their style - like being politically progressive or hating Trump.

I don't want or need that in my life right now. My parents are atheist and every time I talk about my syntheism to them they act as if I belong on another planet. At least half of the time I agree with their conservative view points. My parents are atheist and Republican and it will be very difficult to have a true dialogue with them if I were a progressive Christian or Unitarian Universalist.

There's things in your life that change. Some of it is inevitable, some of happens unexpected, and then there's just things that don't. In my life time I've been a Unitarian, a Baha'i, a hard-core conservative and a conservatarian, and I have to say being in the middle about these issues has made it a lot easier for me to understand the other points of view. Right now I'd say I'm a centre-libertarian syntheist.

Even though I understand other points of view, it doesn't mean I don't understand mine at the same time. Libertarians have a lot of weaknesses - the victim of drugs are the users - most crimes already have a victim - some people need to depend on the government for assistance - and overall some government actually does a lot of help for people. But the last two Presidential elections I voted for the Libertarians - Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen, and Gary Johnson and William Weld. We need a Libertarian in office, America is desperately due for it. Between government deficits and the needless wars we're having, we need change.

Most people don't know what syncretic or syntheism is. But guess what - I didn't invent the terms. If you search for the meaning you can actually get results from Wikipedia. And to dissect it - it's simple - syncreticism is when you combine multiple ideologies into one path, and syntheism is about creating God. So ultimately, what I'm trying to say is that we are creating God with multiple paths to this God. And I still consider myself pantheistic and gnostic at the same time - the reason why I changed the wording is because I realized that some words are better descriptors than others... Also, most people think Christian when you refer to gnosticism.

But regardless, what I'm trying to say overall is that at one point I thought I could be this "Unitarian Quaker", having both progressive revelation and action, but honestly I didn't like the person I was becoming. Sitting in a group of forty people praying silently for an hour isn't fun to me, even if someone did have something to say once in awhile. And UUs are so progressive politically that I can't support almost anything they do. And again, actually have a discussion with one of these folks and they'll almost never talk to you about God or theology.

I realize at this time that I'll never have an organized religion that I can follow. I could try the omnist route again and ignore more scientific sensibilities, but I don't like arguing with the pastors about things I see as common sense. So I'll probably be this pantheist, gnostic, syncretic syntheist here and advocate in probably the world's largest online church - Religious Forums.com

I get it totally. To me, UU isn't really a religion but a type of church. It's progressive politics topped with spirituality. On politics, I thought Gary Johnson would make a good president, but I guess it was not to be. Religiously, I thought about being a Quaker, but like you, sitting for an hour doesn't sit well with me either. I want a place to belong, but don't agree with any religion enough to plunk myself down and commit. I don't like it. I desperately want to belong somewhere. I would like to know more about the syntheism and three-part god.