Posted on 04/20/2005 7:33:52 AM PDT by loreldan
Even if you don't know what faith you are, Belief-O-Matic knows. Answer 20 questions about your concept of God, the afterlife, human nature, and more, and Belief-O-Matic will tell you what religion (if any) you practice...or ought consider practicing.
Jehovah's Witness
I did not know they confess to a person or belived in the Trinity.
72 years as a Catholic. Wow, I'm glad that test strightened me out.
I confused the test, or I confused myself
1. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (100%)
2. New Thought (78%)
3. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (72%)
4. Scientology (70%)
5. Neo-Pagan (69%)
6. Unitarian Universalism (68%)
7. Liberal Quakers (65%)
8. Mahayana Buddhism (62%)
9. New Age (61%)
10. Bahá'í Faith (60%)
11. Hinduism (59%)
12. Taoism (56%)
13. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (56%)
14. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (50%)
15. Theravada Buddhism (50%)
16. Jehovah's Witness (49%)
17. Sikhism (48%)
18. Secular Humanism (43%)
19. Jainism (37%)
20. Nontheist (36%)
21. Orthodox Quaker (32%)
22. Reform Judaism (32%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (29%)
24. Islam (29%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (29%)
26. Roman Catholic (29%)
27. Seventh Day Adventist (10%)
I did not take the Belief-O-Matic test and just spent the time it took for me to type this thanking God that I did not need to. :-)
Obviously, the survey ignored those particular Catholic tenets.
"Obviously, the survey ignored those particular Catholic tenets."
Or perhaps it just presented them in a different vocabulary, without the familiar buzz words.
Oh, I'm just sure there must be any number of ways to couch in 'different vocabulary' the concepts of an earthly church father and/or a heavenly, perpetually-virgin, perpetually-sinless, bodily-assumed co-redemptrix in order to coax agreement from a 100% Conservative Christian/Protestant. LOL.
"Oh, I'm just sure there must be any number of ways to couch in 'different vocabulary' the concepts of an earthly church father and/or a heavenly, perpetually-virgin, perpetually-sinless, bodily-assumed co-redemptrix in order to coax agreement from a 100% Conservative Christian/Protestant. LOL."
Well, I presume you selected "one incarnation," which rather indicates that you believe that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
Do you have some reason to think that Mary went to Hell?
(Oh, by the way, "co-redemptrix" is one of those buzz words. Satan is using it now to confuse people, but that whole thing should go away in the next hundred years or so.)
Truly bizarre. I avowed complete atheism, rejection of any possibility of an afterlife, rejection of ritual, baptism, etc. and got:
Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)
Yeah, sure, that's the ticket. Nevermind all that extra-biblical, man-made stuff about her. We think she's in hell. Uh-huh.
That sounds about right!!!
With all due apologies for crashing this thread, I will point out that Protestants are often needlessly harsh in our characterization of Marian dogma.
In order to be a Christian (let alone a Catholic or a Protestant) one must affirm that "Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary". Most Protestants affirm that:
-Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ's conception.
-She concieved by the action of the Holy Spirit.
-She bore Christ.
-She had faith in Christ and died a holy saint.
-She is present with Christ in heaven.
Caveats:
-There is no evidence that Mary was either sinful or sinless.
-She was indeed the mother of Christ, and therefore the mother of God, BUT because Christ pre-existed before her in His perfect fullness she made no spiritually significant contribution to his incarnate being. The title "Mother of God" implies that Mary had a genitive role in the incarnation. Protestants deny such a role, and thus the title itself is viewed dimly.
-There is no evidence that she remained a virgin after Christ's birth. In fact, scripture strongly suggests otherwise.
-There is no evidence that she participated in Christ's redemptive work in any way (other than to bear Him in the first place and make it possible).
-There is no reason to believe that Mary is "Queen of Heaven". Accrediting her such a title is perilous, as it may attract worship rather than respect.
True, except by some measure of deductive reasoning. In the Magnificat, I recall she said something about her Savior. One who is sinless has no need of a Savior.
1. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (98%)
2. Eastern Orthodox (100%)
3. Roman Catholic (100%)
4. Orthodox Quaker (85%)
5. Seventh Day Adventist (85%)
6. Orthodox Judaism (67%)
7. Islam (63%)
8. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (60%)
9. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (58%)
10. Hinduism (57%)
11. Jehovah's Witness (53%)
12. Sikhism (47%)
13. Bahá'í Faith (43%)
14. Liberal Quakers (36%)
15. Reform Judaism (33%)
16. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (32%)
17. Jainism (30%)
18. Unitarian Universalism (29%)
19. Scientology (26%)
20. Mahayana Buddhism (26%)
21. Theravada Buddhism (25%)
22. New Thought (24%)
23. Neo-Pagan (21%)
24. Nontheist (18%)
25. New Age (13%)
26. Secular Humanism (10%)
27. Taoism (9%)
_____________________________________________________
For the record, I am number one...
Question #12 got me, because it was about how you could be saved, or something to that effect. I didn't see the "right" answer on there.
I agree. Scripture makes no explicit mention of Mary's sinfulness (or lack thereof), but the implication that she herself believes that she needs a savior is telling.
I wish that the church would content itself with calling her blessed and direct its excess energy into devotion to her Son. After all, without Him, she (and we) would be nothing.
BTW, I came in 100% for conservative Protestant BUT I also got 94% for Roman Catholic. When you boil down the doctrine, that is actually about right.
Lenin would have scored 100% association with Mainline to Liberal Protestant.
"We think she's in hell. Uh-huh."
I did not imply that. I'm sorry to say it, but it seems that your hostility is interfering with your ability to hold a civil discussion.
I saw the discussion proceeding something like this:
Do you think she's in Hell?
No, of course not.
Okay, so we agree she's in Heaven. Then...
And so on.
“Protestants are often needlessly harsh in our characterization of Marian dogma.”
I appreciate that acknowledgement.
“There is no evidence that Mary was either sinful or sinless.”
Discussions of what constitutes evidence are usually never-ending and bootless. I’ll just say that some things necessarily follow from known things. If someone says to us that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man, we really shouldn’t need for them to spell out that this means Socrates is mortal.
“She was indeed the mother of Christ, and therefore the mother of God, BUT because Christ pre-existed before her in His perfect fullness she made no spiritually significant contribution to his incarnate being. The title "Mother of God" implies that Mary had a genitive role in the incarnation. Protestants deny such a role, and thus the title itself is viewed dimly.”
In His incarnation, Christ was both fully God and fully man. Is it conceivable that becoming fully man was not “spiritually significant?” If it were insignificant, why would He have done it?
Saint Mary had a genitive role in bearing Our Lord as fully man, and in acting as mother to Him as baby and child. Christ as God was begotten of the Father; Christ as man was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, then gestated, borne, and nurtured by Saint Mary. The importance of her genitive role derives from the importance of the Incarnation itself.
“There is no evidence that she remained a virgin after Christ's birth. In fact, scripture strongly suggests otherwise.”
For some reason, this issue always reminds me of the stadium scene in Life of Brian. I am obedient to the Church in this, but I frankly don’t see that it matters.
“There is no evidence that she participated in Christ's redemptive work in any way (other than to bear Him in the first place and make it possible).”
I’m not well educated in Catholic dogma, but I don’t believe that the Church requires me to believe that she “she participated in Christ's redemptive work in any way.” Maybe it’s simplistic, but I’ve always thought that we were redeemed through His suffering as He passed under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, and died, which leaves me raising an eyebrow at the term, “redemptive work.”
Prior to His bitter Passion and death, He educated and He healed, but He redeemed with His suffering. After the Resurrection He continued to educate, but the Redemption was complete, which is what I think He meant on the Cross: “It is finished.”
It wouldn’t surprise me if Sister Mary Dieseldyke and Fr. Bruce Candypants, enemies of the Church as defined by Saint Pius X, went around preaching the equality of Saint Mary with Our Lord. Heretics do that kind of stuff. I do regret that some people get the notion that this is the true teaching of the Church.
“There is no reason to believe that Mary is "Queen of Heaven".
I’m not going to try to persuade you on this one, but I do think your statement would more accurately be phrased, “There is no reason *that I would accept* to believe that Mary is “Queen of Heaven.”
“Accrediting her such a title is perilous, as it may attract worship rather than respect.”
I don’t think that’s really a concern. The risk of heresy exists with or without the title, but a proper catechism and orthodox priests offset it.
Oh? You sure fooled me.
I'm sorry to say it, but it seems that your hostility is interfering with your ability to hold a civil discussion.
The underlying tone in all your posts seems to exude little or no interest in having a civil discussion. You sound like a Catholic with a chip on his shoulder, searching for an excuse to be a victim and for a "Catholic basher" to smite. Then, once you think you've found what you're looking for, you cop the "it seems that your hostility is interfering with your ability to hold a civil discussion" 'tude.
"Oh? You sure fooled me."
No, you fooled yourself.
"You sound like a Catholic with a chip on his shoulder"
No, sorry, that's projection, in the strict sense of the term: "Attributing one's own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.