labels can get 'sticky'.........
labels can get 'sticky'.........
it is easier to say what isn't enough when it comes to identifying your religious position and this is the fault of tol
As shared before, I offered some suggestions to broaden the 'religious affiliation' options in one's profile to Knight, and he created "Other" as a kind of generic umbrella category for everything 'else'. "Other" does cover any catagories NOT listed, obviously, and one can discover what that one believes or his religious school of thought via discussion. 'Labels' don't always convey a perfect description as some liberties and diverse viewpoints may exist within any given tradition, but they help if used knowingly.
christian
other are totally unacceptable
Years ago I did identify under this banner. Its fine as it is, showing that one considers themselves to be a follower of 'Christ' but does not consider himself under any of the other labels of kinds of 'Christian' provided. I found it suitable at the time, since I'm more of a mystical, eclectic, metaphysical 'christian', not limited to any 'denomination', inclusive of all and transcending all.
protestant
is just a little better
Careful, some might 'protest' that
mad should have its own category especially since they dominate tol
I don't think this ought be an option as a 'religious affiliation', since its a sub-set doctrinal belief within Christianity.
catholic, muslim, orthodox, calvinist, baptist, luthern are examples of being clearly identified
Yes, but all that is provided under the umbrella of
Christianity is -
- Christian
- Christian (Other)
- Catholic
- Protestant Christian
- (and a few other heterodox Christian groups - LDS, Jehovah Witness)
The labels 'catholic' and 'protestant' cover most Christian denominations, without getting into specific sects within Protestantism, let alone Orthodox groups who might still associate as 'catholic' still in orientation and doctrine. Where differentiations exist within any given category, a sub-group or individual may differ in some particulars of doctrine but still identify with the base-tradition.
Labels can help, but also confuse,...unless properly explained.
Also, I've proposed the category of
'Unitarian-Universalist' and may do so again, as this venue covers a broad, eclectic and universal range of religious dispositions or pluralism, very all-inclusive, but respecting individual paths and philosophical interests. I could easily choose this 'catagory' rather than 'Other', since it does provide a somewhat more definitive description of my 'vision'.
But also know that as a student of non-duality (Advaita) I can easily drop all labels, concepts and identities....and just BE. The mind can adopt a quagmire of intellectual concepts and denominations and be none the more enlightened for it, and quite often more con-fused thereby
- unless one can discern properly and recognize things intelligently, discerning what is real from what is not. But this is a more ancient tradition from the great Hindu rishis (seers/sages), the true path of 'yoga' (union with Spirit). From the Advaita Vedanta perspective....one's true nature is 'God' (Brahman) and not any body-mind apparatus or complex. The 'mind' assumes various identities, personalities, assumptions, denominations, concepts, beliefs, opinions, etc. But what I AM is not that. I Am prior to all concepts.
pj