Tag Archives: bible

I AM : The ultimate experience

I used to think that death was the greatest mystery of our existence. But I have learned that death can be explained easier than life. Death is mostly understood by the fact that it is the experience of transferring to another state of existence . Although what happens to our consciousness after death remains a huge mystery , the experience of death itself is as far as we can possibly go in our empirical and tangible world.  We can all understand that death is the end of our current existence as we know it.  Our bodies decompose and our minds , if they actually exist, enter the unknown.  We cannot begin to understand the unknown.
But what remains a huge mystery to me is not the end of existence , but existence itself.   The mere state of being aware.  And not only aware, but aware of ourselves.  Aware of the “I.”  The “self.”  How can we know what or who we really are?  How can each of us differentiate from other “I’s” or “selves.”? How can we even use the phrase “I am?
Religious scholars and teachers interpret the bible’s use of the phrase “I am” by referring it to God, or higher power.  It is used mostly to describe the eternal and “present” God.  It was written in the book of Exodus that when Moses asked God whom should he say sent him to liberate the Israelites from Egypt, God told him to tell Pharaoh that “I am” sent him (Exodus 3).  In the Gospel of John , Jesus also referred to himself as the “I am”.  Because of these references , scholars decided to associate the “I am” with the divine being or God . It is also agreed by most religions that God is omnipresent. He is everywhere. He is the eternal present.

In Buddhism , being in the present moment, or mindfulness, is one of its teachings to help avoid suffering.  To be aware of the present moment.  The here and now.  Is experiencing the here and now the same as experiencing God?  The “I am.” ?

Was God trying to teach Moses that He is the Eternal Present (“I am that I am”)?  Was Jesus teaching us that the resurrection (a new life) is in the eternal present, as opposed to in the future (“‘I am’ the resurrection”)?

But what exactly is the “I” or the “self.” Could it simply mean the “eternal presence” that we all ignore by focusing on the past and the future?
The present moment, or the here and now, is all we really have.   Everything else is a fabrication of our minds. We fool ourselves with the notion of reliving the past (remembering stories of past heroes and events) and anticipating the future ( maintaining hope and having goals ).  These mind created phenomena is what keeps us living an illusion, which then can turn into depression, anxiety, regrets, and fear.  We create our own heaven and hell in our own personal minds.  All of this while missing the here and now.

Is the “I” , the self, an illusion?  Are we truly individual beings?  Or are we connected as one big entity, while believing that we are separate beings?  And what about the phrase “I am?”  .

When I use the phrase “I am”, what can I use after it to accurately describe the self?  I am human?  I am a person?  I am a body?  What is being human, person, or body?  I am a parent.  I am a patriot.  I am a writer.  Which one of these are true?

None of the above.   Since they are all fabrications of the mind.  They are all identities that I use to attempt to create the nature of the self.  And while I write this post in this blog, I still keep using the word “I” as if it means something.  Or someone.  What is it?

Furthermore, saying ” We are ” or “They are ” can be questionable.  Not everybody will agree with whatever characteristic you give to a group of individuals.  But when it comes to identifying with the “I”, how can you question your individual present?

In its purest form , I am is simply I am . Nothing else… No other addition can make it more true . It is simply identifying myself with the present moment.  With the eternal present.

I am is the ultimate mystery.
The ultimate experience .


McMass: Would you like fries with that sermon?

I thought I would share this interesting link about a church that plans to build a McDonalds in its facility to attract more church members.

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/11/28/businessman-wants-to-build-mcdonalds-in-church/?intcmp=latestnews

The church is experiencing a decrease in its attendance.  I wonder why.

So… what do they decide to do then?  Do they pray harder for the “lost souls?” Do they start a campaign to reach out to the “least of these?” Or do they revise how they have been reflecting God’s message and try to be more spiritual and Christ-like?  If you think it may have been one of the above, you are completely wrong.

They are raising funds to put a McDonald’s franchise inside a place of worship.  Can you believe this?

Can I have fries with that order of holy burger, please?  Can I have holy water to drink?

“It’s time for churches to engage with entrepreneurship,” writes the group on its IndieGoGo site. “By combining a church and a McDonald’s we can create a self-sustaining, community-engaged, popular church, and an unparalleled McDonald’s restaurant.

It claims that, in the United States alone, three million people leave the church.  You can include me in that statistic.  So they think of combining church with McDonalds.  After all, this particular restaurant “brings communities together.”  So why not have a church use this company to help bring its community together as well?  I mean, who needs prayer and Bible studies, when you can have McMass?

What are they going to think of next?  DisneyMass?

This is an example of how screwed up  today’s church is.  They notice that they are losing members, so they start acting “in the flesh.”  Instead of focusing more on the spiritual, they think more about raising millions of dollars to buy a franchise.  Instead of thinking about how to send the message of love and compassion that God brought through Jesus, they think about how to attract people with burgers and fries.

Am I the only one embarrassed about this?  And we wonder why people, particularly skeptics, criticize today’s church.

What would Jesus do if he walks inside one of these McMass projects?  Would he throw out all the McDonald’s staff who work in the church, like he did at the temple in Jerusalem 2000 years ago?

“I’m loving it.”

You can see the full story on the Indie GoGo website  here.  http://igg.me/at/mcmass/x 

 

 

 


Just Wondering….

I have been wondering lately:
Is my desire to know God triggered by my fear of being alone?
Do I insist in finding and knowing God more because I don’t want to face an existential desperation?
When I tend to feel a desire to read some portions of the Bible, is it just mere curiosity?
When I sense some enthusiasm when I listen to some Christian music and I shed a tear, is it a simple inspirational, emotional experience, or some true supernatural intervention?
My previous post talks about my willingness to be “tuned it” to God.
Am I being hypocritical by saying I am trying to listen, but at the same time I am doubting and scrutinizing every inspiration I feel regarding the divine?
Is God truly speaking to me…?
And if so, why am I not being more receptive and, instead, I start questioning more?
I am either an undisciplined student and a stubborn, defiant child… or a mere skeptic and an ambitious explorer who does not satisfy with the possibility of the supernatural.

I honestly don’t know what to think. Perhaps I am thinking too much, and not trusting enough.
Perhaps I need to quiet down my questioning thoughts, and simply be.

After all, what am I but a single being, among billions of beings in a tiny planet revolving around a massive star?  And this star is among billions and billions of others stars in a seemingly endless universe.  Why would I be so important?

What is the “self” anyways?  What makes me distinct (and similar) from other beings?  How do I know that this consciousness that I experience, which allows me to perceive “reality,” is the only consciousness I will ever experience?

See?  I can’t stop questioning and wondering about these things.

Just Wondering….


Tuned in: Testing God once again

There is an interesting blog titled “A Year Without God” which caught my attention a few months ago. It is a provocative blog that describes a former Adventist pastor deciding to live a year as if God did not exist .   He says in one of his posts titled “Where I stand: a six-month report” that he does not believe in God because of lack of empirical evidence.  These are his exact words :

I don’t see how there is any empirical, scientific evidence for God’s existence.I don’t see any evidence for any recognizable pattern of God’s interaction in the world. I don’t think the Bible records anything more than ancient people’s search for the divine.”  (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yearwithoutgod/)

This is a  powerful and bold statement regarding the possible existence or non-existence of an all powerful being.   Although I understand his point of view, I also tend to be cautious and vigilant about any conclusions I make about that which possibly created my mind in the first place.  I sometimes ask myself :  Can the cartoon character conclude that there is no cartoonist?  Can the painting prove that there is no such thing as a painter?  I cannot reach such a bold conclusion if I am not capable of fully understanding what the universe is all about and what other people are perceiving and experiencing.  It is true that we may not be able to “prove” the existence of God by using physical evidence that only our five senses can detect.  But do we have only five senses?

Having said this, I am currently in a position in my life where I felt the need to get on my knees and plead for an answer.  I have been evolving in my spiritual journey, from being a catholic, to a pentecostal fundamentalist, to a more liberal reflective Christian.    For the past two to three years, I have gradually distant myself from the traditional Christian faith.  I chose to liberate myself from living a fundamental religious lifestyle, and adopt a more liberal and inclusive approach.   I have learned a lot from other faiths and traditions in this journey of mine.  You can read more about this spiritual journey in the following posts:  Spiritual Roller coaster,  Is this all there is to Life?, Am I Losing Faith?, Embarrassed by the Church, How NOT to be a Good Christian,  Religiously Correct. 

I am not ashamed to say this, because I also believe that doubt and skepticism can be utilized to learn more about the true nature of my existence, and also about God, as I am capable of understanding Him.

To make a long story short, I recently encountered trouble in my immediate family and felt desperate about it.  More doubts came to my mind, but this time it was about the approach I have been taking in the last year.  I started wondering if this “God business” was actually a bad thing to walk away from.  The concept of hell, salvation through faith alone,  the “forgiveness” of sins, the Holy Trinity, and the divinity of Jesus Christ were a few of many questionable doctrines that simply became too mystical for me to accept and believe any longer.  But right now I am looking past these doubts and allowing God to work on me.  I still have my doubts, but my recent experience in life has been like a a bucket of ice water spilled on my face.  I needed to wake up.

 

So I started to pray, like I have not done in months.  I humbled myself against my rational and intellectual nature, and started to talk to this “invisible” and “distant” God out of desperation.  I often criticized the act of prayer as a manipulative way of getting God to do what I want, which you can read more in the post “Why pray?.”  But I felt like a vegetarian craving for a hamburger in the middle of a desert.

I also started posting and sharing messages in a Christian forum and started reading an inspirational Christian book as well.  As I read some of the pages, my rational mind kept saying to myself:  “be careful…. don’t fall into the religious trap…. you know it is just superstitious….. this is only religious fanaticism… fairy tales.”

But my personal family ordeal was pulling me away from my rational mind, and towards the “unknown” of spiritual life.  I craved for answers.  So I decided to give God another chance.  I blindly got to my knees and plead for my heart to be transformed.  Instead of blaming others and expecting circumstances to change, I accepted the challenge of opening my heart again and let “God” do whatever needed to be done.  I was basically “testing God.”  I remember praying : “you want my attention?…. you got it!”  I cried like a baby.   I remember saying, “I don’t have a lot of faith… but I am here pleading, just in case you are listening!”

I then came across this other wonderful blog titled “Isaiah 53:5 Project” where it has a recent post called “God is calling, Pick up the Phone” The author described a time when he decided to open up to the possibility of God’s call:

” Since I couldn’t escape thinking about the possibility of God or continue to ignore His constant calls I finally, and reluctantly, “answered the phone”.

 

This post helped me realize that God may be “calling me.”   I have asked God if He is listening.  This post asked me if I have been listening to God.  The answer is probably NO.  Like the prodigal son, who walked away from his father, but returned after he has been starving to death.    I still have my doubts.  But that is ok.  I don’t believe God expects me to know everything for certain in order to grow spiritually.   Christianity may still not have all the answers, but I am willing to learn.  I am willing to listen.

I am tuned in.


“Blessed are the violent” : A book review on Zealot

Since it was published, I became interested in reading the book Zealot, by Reza Aslan.  I finally got the chance to read it and decided to share a book review with my readers.

The book starts with stressing on how the Roman empire took dominion over Jerusalem. It focuses on the fact that the Jews were jealous people who strongly believed they were God’s chosen people and that every foreign invasion and cultural “impurity ” had to be abolished at all cost. In spite of this nation wide grandiosity, Jerusalem was simply a small province at the corner of the great Roman empire. The author emphasizes that the Jews did not see this exceptionalism as arrogance or pride, but a direct command from a jealous God.  But out of this insignificant portion of human history, a great figure submerges which proved to influence history forever. In chapter two,  the author explains that Jesus was executed mainly for being one of many “bandits ” who rebelled against Roman dominion.  Jesus is then described as a leader who declared war on Rome by identifying himself as a Messiah or “King of the Jews “. However, Herod was the “king ” chosen by Rome (client -king) to maintained control and peace in Judea, although he was hated by the Jews for working for Rome and not God.  Herod was followed by one of his sons, Herod Antipas, who took over Galilee when Jesus became famous.  The idea that Jesus was originally a violent enemy of Rome brings a lot of questions to mind.

In chapter three the author writes that Jesus was born and raised in the insignificant town of Nazareth, and not in Bethlehem (which was added to link Jesus to King David and only mentioned in Matthew and Luke ). When Jesus decides to go to Jerusalem to the festivities, he admitted people knew who he was and where he was from (as opposed to what the scriptures say about the Messiah) but instead made emphasis on his heavenly origins.  So instead of being an earthly king and Messiah, he is described by gospel writer John more as a divine being or logos. (“The verb was with God from the beginning …” Jn 1:3).  The author then asserts that Luke’s story about the Roman census during Jesus ‘s infancy is inaccurate.  He mentions this to explain that these ancient authors did not write to show historical “facts ” but revealing “truths .” Readers back then were not interested in what actually happened but were more interested in what it means, which may have been the case.  In chapter four, the author talks about Jesus’s mother being raped, Jesus having siblings, and probably being married.  He also stressed on how impossible it is to say anything about Jesus ‘s early life because before he was declared Messiah it did not matter what kind of childhood a Jewish peasant had.  And after he was called the Messiah, the “only aspect of his childhood that mattered were those that could be creatively imagined to buttress whatever theological claim ” about Jesus’s identity as Christ.  Out of many rebellious gangs, the author then describes an extreme group of extreme rebels called “zealots “, thus the title of this book.

Chapter five starts with describing Pilate as a cruel and bloodthirsty governor, different from how the gospels describe him. After many massacres, the Jews declare war on Rome. Chapter six is simply a narrative going back and forth in history after Jesus’s death on how the Jews regained control of the Temple but lost their land back to the Romans.

In Part two, the author is fixated on the idea that Jesus was also an extremist or “zealous” rebel fighting for freedom and return the land to God.  He explains that when Jesus answered the question about whether to pay tribute to Rome or not, Jesus was “clear ” on the argument of God ‘s sovereignty over the land.  However the author does not point out the possibility that Jesus was probably wisely preventing to fall into the trap that his interrogators were desperately trying to set for him.  It was a tricky question very difficult to answer without creating more controversy.  If Jesus answered yes to paying tribute to Caesar, then he would be seen as a traitor and friend of the Romans.  If he would have answered no, then he was publicly claiming to be a rebel and a “zealot .”   Either way, Jesus was going to be targeted as a trouble maker.  But he apparently chose a more peaceful and neutral response, avoiding to engage in a political argument based on Jewish ambition to regain the land. Furthermore, the gospels don’t agree what kind of soldiers (Romans vs. Temple guards) came to arrest Jesus, but they all agree that he was targeted mainly because of his threat to the Sanhedrin, not to Rome .  The high priests tried to use political reason to justify execution, (“he called himself the King of the Jews! ” vs. …”son of God “) which worked.  But Jesus’s true crime did not necessarily involve a pure political rebellion against Rome, but against the Sanhedrin.  His mission was mainly emphasized on rescuing and serving the “least of these” or the poor, in my opinion.

In his notes at end of the book, the author stresses that those who perceive Jesus’s response as “apolitical ” are “blind to the political and religious context of Jesus ‘s times ” (pg. 241). He also argues that the “titulus ” above Jesus ‘s head on the cross was not a sarcastic sign because Romans were not humorous.  I wonder if this author remembers all the mocking and ridicule that Jesus received by the Roman soldiers before his death, which all four gospels wrote about.  This is another example of the author’s attempt to justify his view of Jesus as a political extremist rebel and threat to Rome among many other violent rebels on his time.

In chapter seven, Jesus is described as John the Baptist’s disciple, not the other way around, which may explain further Jesus fleeing back to Galilee after John’s execution.  Nevertheless, Jesus became much more powerful and influential than the Baptist.

In chapter eight, the author makes a statement which reflects more my understanding of Jesus ‘s teachings when he writes that Jesus was less concerned with the “pagan empire occupying Palestine than the imposter occupying the temple, ” specifically Caiaphas (Pg. 99). Jesus was clearly enraged by how the temple authority treated the poor. The author  then continues to describe Jesus as a unique teacher and leader such as including women as disciples, doing exorcism for free, and speaking with authority unlike the common religious leader in spite of being a peasant.  The author further emphasizes that Jesus ‘s miracles or magical powers were “something unique and distinctive” (pg. 111). They were done, which I could not agree more, as manifestation of God ‘s kingdom on earth as prophesized in Isaiah 35:5-6.  The author explains that Jesus healed a leper, for example, to make him pure and clean enough to enter the temple and be accepted in God’s presence, without all the traditional rituals, thus manifesting the kingdom of God.

However, in chapter 10, the author points out that, in addition to being a new order where the rich will be poor and the poor will be exalted, it will also be a total overthrow of the Roman Empire.  And this could only be done through violence.  The author explicitly writes that he thinks Jesus was “not a pacifist ” (pg. 120) and then uses one biblical verse to justify this view (Mathews 10:34, Luke 12:51) but does not include verses that point to the contrary, which are the majority ( Mark 9:50;  Mathew 5:9,  5:44, 11:28, 18:21-22, 26:52; Luke 6:35, 23:34; John 14:27, 16:33, 20:21, 24:36, ) . If the gospel writers and early church members were desperately trying to distant Jesus from a violent and “zealous nationalism ” as the author points out, wouldn’t they have omitted the few verses that mention swords and war? And yes, Jesus was a Jew, but his teachings were full of invitations that included Gentiles. He prophesized to a Samaritan woman, healed another Samaritan woman and also healed a Centurion’s servant. He also commanded his disciples to spread the good news to the “ends of the earth.” Israel was NOT all that mattered to Jesus. The author only presented questions as to whether Jesus was planning to become an earthly king in the Kingdom of God.  But he wisely mentioned that Jesus was clearly the personification of the new Kingdom as evidenced by his miracles and signs.

In chapter eleven, the author repeatedly points out that Jesus did not openly call himself the Messiah, which, as the author says and I agree, may have different definitions according to the time in history.  It was most commonly used to describe an earthly king who would deliver the Jews from earthly foreign domination, which Jesus did not accomplish.  The Son of God was also a title given to past kings such as David and Solomon (Psalm 2:7, 1 Chronicles 28:6).  Son of Man, on the other hand, was a self claim title more frequently stated by Jesus, which may have been a humble way of Jesus referring himself as a mere man, thus manifesting his humaneness. In chapter twelve, the author insists that most of what the gospels say about Jesus ‘s last moment is false, simply because he believes that early Christians were trying to avoid appearing as zealots themselves to the Romans after the Jewish war and so they’d depicted Pilate as a considerate governor manipulated by the “blood thirsty ” Jews.   It is more credible that early Christians invented some details to depict Jesus more as a Messiah.  But it is ridiculous to assume that early Christians chose to change Jesus from a violent revolutionary to a pacifist leader.

The author starts Part 3 by emphasizing that most of Jesus’s followers and writers of the New Testament did not meet Jesus or lived in Jerusalem during Jesus ‘s a time, which is an important key to point out.  In spite of this, this fact does not necessarily discredit what these authors wrote about what Jesus could have really represented. In Chapter thirteen the author interestingly points out that no where in the Old Testament is the messiah prophesied to suffer and die, like Jesus claims about himself.  The image of Jesus must have been evolved from being an earthly messiah to a celestial king seating at the right hand of God. The author is right by stressing that Paul perceived Jesus as not human , distant from the Jewish background and more like a cosmic being. And this makes sense since Paul admits he did not learn from any apostle but claims that God himself revealed it to him (Galatians 1:15-17).  Paul, in my opinion , created his own version of Jesus based on Roman pagan religion.   I agree with the author that Paul’s version of Jesus is the standard doctrine of today’s church.  In chapter fourteen the author is right when he  stresses on James ‘s role in the early church as the most accurate version of what Jesus is all about: helping the poor.

We  are all  guilty of interpreting, choosing and dismissing verses according to our preconceived ideas of what Jesus really taught and  who he was.  What must be kept in mind, however, is the inevitable conclusion that Jesus’s presence in human history, with or without some fabrication and embellishment in his story, has surpassed all other historical figure in the last 2000 years. Whether we perceive Jesus as a violent rebel (which I personally doubt), the messiah (which he did not fulfill according to Hebrew Scriptures), the son of God (which title was also given to king David ), or a peaceful rebellious leader concerned for the poor and sick of the whole world and not just Jerusalem,  Jesus was (or is) the manifestation of what God represents... Unconditional love.


God versus Humans: Part 2

We, humans, have declared war on God.  But this is not an ordinary war.   It is a different kind of war.  We have tried very hard to fight Him, not with guns, tanks, and bombs, but with our egos. Our weapons are our egos.  We try to use human logic to explain away the existence of God.  We attempt to justify the non existence of God by using suffering and evil as evidence.  We try very hard to live independently. We try to own our lives.  But we truly own nothing.  Not even our own bodies. Once our bodies die, we lose them forever.

No matter how many rules, regulations, and laws we create, we humans will continue to break them.  And when we break the rules and laws, we must create consequences to enforce the laws.  And when we enforce the laws, we are also creating a hierarchy of those who have the power to enforce the laws, and those who must obey the laws.  This creates different classes based on different levels of authority.  And by doing so, we create inequalities among ourselves.  Those who can and those who cannot. Those who must obey, and those who must be obeyed.  And this almost always leads to injustice, abuse of power, and hatred.  It is a dead end.

This dead end is even more enforced by a very powerful armor that we tend to use: Pride.

Pride is a very dangerous thing to live with.  It blinds us to the point of exalting us to a level that is more than we really are, but is truly an illusion.  Pride gives us a false sense of security that is temporary and shallow.  It makes us even more vulnerable to suffering and pain.

But someone once said “love your enemies.”  He also said “be perfect as my Father in heaven is perfect,” “walk the extra mile,” “turn the other cheek,” “forgive seventy times seven,” and “those who are free of sins can throw the first stone.” How can you do all of these things, and still enforce rules, create hierarchies, and maintain our pride?

We simply cannot.  It is either us with our own strengths, or something else.  Something outside of us.

We humans cannot ever function perfectly without failing with our own limitations, unless we rely on something greater than us. Because, after all, it is not about us and our limited strengths.    Like a community is not built with an individual but a combination of different individuals, humans cannot surpass our limited ways of living without the collaboration of something beyond us. And it is through this collaboration that we can move beyond the strict set of rules and regulations that we cannot escape from on our own.  This collaboration is with something greater than us. Something transcendent.

I think we need to surrender to the fact that we cannot do this on our own.  We need to empty ourselves from our arrogant ways of living. We surrender ourselves by being poor in spirit.  In this spiritual poverty, we will then have the space to fill ourselves with something greater.  We will cease to look at other humans as inferior, but will see them as worthy.  And the key word here is Surrendersimilar to when soldiers surrender in a battle field.

We would not need to maintain a hierarchy.  We would not need to keep ourselves segregated or compartmentalized.  We would not need to create fear, abuse, or hatred. We simply would need to Surrender. And by surrendering, we are automatically welcoming Grace.

And when you have grace, then we start experiencing forgiveness.  We start having true harmony.  We begin to love our enemies.  We experience strong communities.  We encounter and start living a new way of existence.

“…for God, nothing is impossible.”

And by doing the above, we humans are already making peace…. With God.


What kind of Atheist or Believer are you?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/15/the-six-types-of-atheists/

The above link has been a popular blog post that CNN published recently regarding a new study that identified different atheists.  It invites some of us to try to identify with a particular type of atheism.

It looks to me like the beginning of the development of various “non-religious” denominations.

In the “religious”  or Christian world, there are those who identify themselves as Catholic, Pentecostal, or Episcopal.  There are also those who prefer to be called Baptists, Lutherans, or Methodists.  There is also the Church of God, The Church of Christ, the Assemblies of God, and the Church of the Nazarene.  Furthermore, there are others who attend the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the Unitarian Church, the Orthodox Church, and the Scientology Church.

There are people who are labeled as conservatives, moderates,  liberals, creationists, evangelicals, and missionaries.  There are those who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, and those who believe in the symbolism of the scriptures.  There are those who believe in the story of creation, and those who believe in evolution.  There are those who believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Sacraments, Baptism in water, praying to saints, and the intervention of angels and saints. There are those who believe in the Rapture, others in the second coming of Christ, and others believe in the Resurrection of our bodies in the latter days.

Not to mention Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jewish, the Baha’i faith, Wicca, and many other organized  religious affiliation.  The list goes on and on of the different kinds of churches and belief systems.

How much more division and labeling are we going to embrace?  How much contrasting are we going to endure?

According to CNN’s article, there are six main types of Atheists (is it a coincidence that they came up with the number 6?).  There is the “Intellectual”, the Activist,  the Seeker/Agnostic (which does not sound like an Atheist since it implies seeking something transcendent with an open mind), the Anti-theist, the Non-theist, and the Ritual Atheist.  What will they come up with next?

This is why I don’t necessarily like the idea of using labels to identify myself.  It tends to separate us from each other and from ourselves.   I have written that I call myself a Reflective Christian.  This does not imply any particular religious denomination or philosophy.  I am just a person who seeks and strongly believes in serving the poor, like Jesus, Ghandi, and Buddha taught.  Period.  If this description is not enough to fit the popular method of labeling and categorizing, too bad.

Do you identify yourself with a particular religious group?  Or are you more like one of the six kinds of Atheists?  Are you an “ABC” (Atheist, Believer, or Confused)?

I would like to hear about your opinion on this matter.

Thanks for reading.