GOD who is yours ????

[YTDN]

I say there's some.. thing up there what made us and is mighty and high and all-powerful and funky, and you might as well call s/he 'God'.

However, i decide not to follow a religion cause that is whole load of smurfing bs.

[boris no no]

I'm a Wiccan

[escobert]

christian (Protestant)

[Acid Raine]

Who's the pagan?
I'm the pagan!
Where's the pagan?
Here's the pagan!
Why a pagan?
Because.

[Erdrick Holmes]

I have my own religion. Nakasium. Our holy god is Yuji Naka.

[Druggelz]

Officialy I'm a Christian, but I try to make my own religion by mixing the stuff I like form other religions, so I don't really know what to pic....
So I choose 'other'

[RPJesus]

I don't like when people take parts that they like from other religions because they think it's cool....

I'm not really saying anything, above guy, but I hate when people make up their beliefs because they think it sounds cool. Some people do do that. It's annoying...

I guess I'm atheist... I guess. I'm from a Catholic family, though. Irish Catholic- the best kind! Basically, I think it's junk. There are so many things that don't make any sense and just annoy me, about every religion, really. At least what I know. But I can't go on, unless I find something to argue with.

Also, your options are... not very good. You're missing out a good few religions. And atheist.

[Mittopotahis]

I am a strong Christian. It's awesome, you need to try it.

If the bible is the true word of god....then why are there so many versions of it?

Not different versions, just different translations. Remember that the bible was not written in English, and so it has been translated so that we can understand it. NIV is written with normal language (kinda), Contempory is written with today's kind of language, KJV was written in the type of language they used back then etc. It's all the same story, just in a different translation.

I am amazed no one has said Ciddism yet. Amazed, but dissapointed.

[Hambone]

I don't know.

[Acid Raine]

I am amazed no one has said Ciddism yet. Amazed, but dissapointed.

Maybe thats because Cid is lame.

BRING ON THE FLAMERS!!!!

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

Its spelled Qu'ran not koran

I learned to spell it Qur'an also there is a macron on the a. *does not know how to make a macron* *shrugs* But as long as we know what we are all talking about, I think details in transliteration are not that big of a deal. I mean "koran" could just be another way to romanize the Arabic language, like there is many different systems for romanized spelling of Chinese.

[RPJesus]

Not different versions, just different translations. Remember that the bible was not written in English, and so it has been translated so that we can understand it. NIV is written with normal language (kinda), Contempory is written with today's kind of language, KJV was written in the type of language they used back then etc. It's all the same story, just in a different translation.

There are different versions, depending on what time period you're in- the version of the New Testament before it was adopted by the Roman Empire is quite different than the modern one. Among others, it doesn't recognise that Jesus was divine in himself. It simply says that he was a human being who was the the son of God. In fact, there's evidence to suggest that in older versions he wasn't literally seen as the son of God, which would make that "we're all God's children" thing finally make sense.
Besides, the King Jame's version was different than both the Roman Catholic version and several Protestant versions at the time, as well as the versions used by the Orthodox churches and several minor Eastern Churches (e.g. the Armenian church) . That's why the Scottish made such a big fuss about it. They were Presbyterian, and wanted to use their own version.

[bipper]

RP, the differences that you bring up are of real on consious effort to change or skew the bible. Besides, the autography of most of the new testament is still in tact, and it's credibility is upheld through the autography of the new found book of Judas.

Back to the differences, the story was not changed, persay, the wording and flow of the New Testament was a very complex thing for people to grasp and several sects (as you said RC vs Pros) inturpeted things very differently. Therefore people 'enhanced' early on what they could. This kind of abuse became less rounded when doctrines began surfancing. The Nicene Creed seems to be where the contradictions you brought up were - not sure though. Hope that somewhat helped, I am reaaaaly tired yet - but yea.

Bipper

[RPJesus]

I think you should reorganise this poll into the following categories:

• Semitic Abrahamic Monothiesm (Islam, Judaism, etc)
• Non-Semitic Abrahamic Monotheism (Christianity, Rastafarianism, etc)
• Non-Abrahamic Monotheism (Sikhism, Zoroastism, etc)
• Indian Polytheism (Hinduism)
• East Asian Religion (Shinto, Taoism, etc)
• Local Religion (e.g. native tribal faiths/paganism)
• Religous Atheism or Agnosticism (Buddhism, etc)
• Non-religious Agnosticism
• Non-religous Atheism (no belief in God/s)

Admittedly, lumping Judaism and Islam together may be a bad idea, but looking at from a global or historical viewpoint, it makes more sense- placing religions in groups like this makes more sense than naming the major religions and sticking everything left over into "Other", which covers everything from Shinto to Zoroastism, which are rather different.
Also, I know "native religon" is a bit vauge, because it covers relgions from Mesoamerica to Siberia, but since there's very few followers of these faiths, it's just easier.

[Acid Raine]

Um.....cereal. How many Taoists, Shintos, Zoroastists, Sikhists, and Rastafarians do we have here?