Beliefnet has a couple of interesting tests to determine your spiritual type. I came out orthodox quaker this time, but sometimes I come out hindu. I usually come out 65 or 75% compatible with
catholicism.
I scored an 82 on the "what is your spiritual type" test, which is on the low side of "confident believer."
try it, it's fun

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html

Interesting test. I'm a Neo-Pagan (I just knew I was neo something), followed by Liberal (oh, the irony) Quaker. But then I suppose what they refer to as liberal when it comes to Quakers doesn�t mean I�m likely to stand in line for my third viewing of a Michael Moore film.

What�s interesting is what I am supposedly least like, which is a Jehovah�s Witness, a faith that I have more than a passing knowledge of, and a faith that, except for a few oddities, seems like a pretty decent one. Second from the bottom was "Seventh Day Adventist". I couldn�t even begin to tell you what they believe. And � gasp! � third from the bottom is Roman Catholic! Finally, I�ve been outed as a Pope-hating Protestant.

But I found the questions to be problematic. The choices of "Agree" and "Disagree" when it comes to a question such as "Social betterment programs should be fundamental" is much too limited a choice. I "agreed" but I seriously doubt that Greenpeace will be getting any of my money while the Salvation Army almost certainly will.

100% Roman Catholic
100% Eastern Orthodox
98% Orthodox Quaker (what's that?)
93% Mainline to conservative Protestant

Brad, a neo-pagan? Geez!

By George, are you a Saint, Romaine? I'll bet you score "candidate for clergy" on the "what is your spiritual type." If you go to the Catholic section, there is a test; "What type of Catholic are you? Six categories from Bishop Spong liberal yuck! to the Right Hand of God.

http://www.beliefnet.com/secti...ctionID=&surveyID=95

I scored a 62 "liberal Catholic" Did'nt know I was a liberal anything

veritas,

michael


<*))))><

Brad, a neo-pagan? Geez!

I know. I feel like I should run out and buy the whole Wiccan outfit; maybe tip over a few cows, that sort of thing. The difference between me and a neo-pagan, perhaps, is that while I'm not sure that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, that uncertainty is not then channeled into rejection, bitter or otherwise. I do not reject authority for authority's sake and then say that I worship the wind and rain (or government, or political correctness, or Mother Earth) which then supposedly makes me feel rather smart, independent and cutting edge. It would be disingenuous to say that I hold the many beliefs of the world in some type of creative tension, because in none of them have I deeply delved. And it would not be entirely untrue to say that I have rejected them all to some extent, but it is also not entirely untrue to say that I accept, to a point, and with much doubt and uncertainty, a good deal of traditional Christian religion. And it's not a question, necessarily, of me submitting or being too stubborn to submit (as has previously been the case). It's more a matter now of recognizing that I don't fit the mold, even as flexible as that mold may be. Or I'm in that mold now because it is so flexible.

The long and the short of it is that I don't feel smarter than you because of what I don't do and what you do do.

Congratulations! Both for your honesty and the strength of your convictions. Socrates would indeed be proud! Not to worry, they seldom send hemlock over the internet

I am working with several thirty-something recent university graduates. Although you seem to reject postmodernism, the result seems largely what professor Allan Bloom waxed so very eloquently about
back in 1987 in The Closing of the American Mind.

Meet me over in "Why Christianity"

veritas,

premodernmichael

<*))))><