Which Early Christian Heresy are You (good silly fun quiz)

Cino

Cino

Big Love! (Atheist mystic)
Veteran Member
Messages
4,228
Reaction score
2,739
Points
108
Location
Germany
Which Early Christian Heresy are You?

http://uquiz.com/jyoHiC

I hope this is appropriate here. It is utterly not serious and goofy.

According to the quiz, I am Arianism, by the way.
 
So maybe we can give this a slightly less silly spin, by stating in which ways we think our personal insights differ from Christian orthodox (as opposed to heretical) views?

Me first: The quiz was spot on at least in the sense that unitarian views make more sense to me than trinitarian ones. I even go a step further, to paraphrase the non-dualists: "Not Three, Not even One". :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
I did try this, but I found the first question did not include any choice I could make, and then I was required to respond before being allowed to proceed to the next one. So, sorry, I couldn't even get past the first question ...

EDIT: To me it's about the spirit/soul. Not wrangling over religious technicalities. It's like you open (actually any) scripture and realize: Hey, that's just exactly my own experience. Text puts it into words.
 
Last edited:
That quiz is just some light silliness I posted to the "lounge" area initially. It is quite preoccupied with pomegranates...

And I think I recognize what you describe. I've had such "just so! Amen! Sadhu sadhu sadhu" moments, even from reading a newspaper headline once.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Cino said:
That quiz is just some light silliness I posted to the "lounge" area initially. It is quite preoccupied with pomegranates...

And I think I recognize what you describe. I've had such "just so! Amen! Sadhu sadhu sadhu" moments, even from reading a newspaper headline once.
Click to expand...
To me it all interlinks: Christ is the 'supersoul' link between 'God' and 'man'. Christ demonstrates God as and for Man. As opposed to, say, a fish or a red deer or a neutron star -- because 'God' is all this too --- the Holy Spirit interlinks.

It's all been said before: Krishna, Osiris ... but Jesus ended all the need to look for answers by a final demonstration and completion.

Every mystery is there.

Like that. Imo.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I think I get that. My understanding just got simpler over the years, dropping what I felt were constraints, like "last" (I like "timeless" better than "first" or "last") or "as opposed to" (I like the way it is expressed in the Heart Sutra).

Just a matter of taste. I like it "as simple as possible (but not simpler)", to quote Einstein.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Cino said:
Yeah, I think I get that. My understanding just got simpler over the years, dropping what I felt were constraints, like "last" (I like "timeless" better than "first" or "last") or "as opposed to" (I like the way it is expressed in the Heart Sutra).

Just a matter of taste. I like it "as simple as possible (but not simpler)", to quote Einstein.
Click to expand...
Yes. E=MC2 is probably the most beautiful equation ever written?
 
There are many beautiful ones, I love the geometrical derivation of the golden ratio, too.

E=mc^2 is more beautiful in the context of the conservation laws, I feel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
You are right, of course. I think it's a pity that science has become so anti-theist. It has moved from (rightly) not allowing 'spiritual' factors to be thrown up as answers, to aggressively and smugly crusading against God's existence -- insisting that God is imaginary -- mocking anyone with 'spititual' beliefs and insisting on material proof. Exhausting.

EDIT: It's a reaction by scientists to attacks upon it by certain aggressively fundamentalist groups, especially in the USA. Imo
 
I can sympathize with the "new Atheists", having held some of their positions at one time or another, and I'm in line with the number of gods they have in fact :)

"I don't believe in the gods you don't believe in, either" is a nice way to acknowledge the spiritual side of new Atheism's critiques, which are not to be brushed aside lightly, in my opinion.

Most of the new Atheist critique is social, however, and political, as you pointed out.
 
You believe God is an imaginary human construct?
 
In the sense that all human constructs are imaginary, yes.

I also believe that the biblical injunction against forming images of God is good advice, and should be extended to mental images, and assigning properties (including existence).
 
Assigning existence to God?
 
You know, giving the mental conception properties, like personhood, gender perhaps, location, names, preferences, what name you. Existence can be another abstract property assigned to a man-made concept of God. Or non-existence of course, as the new Atheists are fond of doing, once they are done thinking up an image if God they don't believe in.

The Bahais have a way of saying God is unknowable. Only then they go ahead and have a lot of specific ideas about God in their scriptures anyway.

So I don't believe that thoughts and concepts are a good way to experience God.
 
Teacher- What are drawing a picture of?

Kindergartner - God

Teacher - Nobody knows what God looks like

Kindergartener - They will when I'm done.

Works the same with scripture.
 
Cino said:
... So I don't believe that thoughts and concepts are a good way to experience God.
Click to expand...

But the divide is between those who believe in God's existence and those who do not? Regardless of religion or culture or scripture.

Call it a 'higher power' or 'spiritual intelligence' or 'the Great Spirit'. Do you believe there is a higher intelligence than human?

EDIT: Let's say: Do you believe there might be?
 
Those are interesting questions and much different than asking if you think anyone or group has any knowledge as to what it is or how it works or what happens next.

Maybe those are followups?
 
wil said:
Those are interesting questions and much different than asking if you think anyone or group has any knowledge as to what it is or how it works or what happens next.

Maybe those are followups?
Click to expand...
Correct, Wil.

21st century scientific wisdom is that consiousness is purely a result of brain activity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top