I would rather die then to deny the existence of God/ my christian beliefs.

Forced? Isn't the whole idea of belief kind of rendered irrelevant at that point?

You should take Scientology out and replace it with Rastafarian since it still has 0 votes. I highly doubt it would even get more than 2 votes total. Although it is kind of funny that no one has voted for it still. Tom Cruise must be shaking his head that no one wants to be forced into Scientology.

There should be a better word than force for the title. Like others have said religion shouldn't be about forcing people to change. However, I am not sure how you could properly address it.  I believe the thread title would be better if it was " You have change your religious beliefs - pick a new religion".  That would avoid problems with being forced into things.  I suppose I am dwelling too much on this...

I think if you mixed Rastafarian and Buddhist together then that would be the ultimate religion. 

IF he does that the poll will be reset, and that would suck. Also, I doubt many people want to even willingly get into Scientology.

Ahh that sucks I didn't know the entire poll would reset.  If that is the case then might as well leave it since most people have already voted.  I doubt Rastafarian would get that many votes anyways but I bet they would get a lot more on this site than Scientology.  Actually, now that I think about it the poll is perfect since no one dares to touch Scientology. 

What is this religion you mention?

What he's saying isn't really wrong.  Except possibly the whole anticrist thing.

Afterall if China got ahold of the Dhali Llama and all his followers, killed the Dhali Llama, insitutes yellow hat buddism as the national compulsitory religion... found the "new llama" and then used the new Llama to go on a rampage....

would you really blame Yellow Hat Buddism for that?

The Niceans he is talking about is of course the Nicean council which transformed Christianity into what it is today... getting rid of teaching they didn't like such as

1) Everyone gets into heaven... hell isn't a fiery pit so much as a being sad that you've failed your creator and being forced to share eternity with all those you've wronged and everyone knowing you've wronged them.

2)  Christ may not have actually been god himself.

3)  If God and Christ were the same person. (IE ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.")

4) Removal of various other books because they didn't fit with Roman ideals... even though some of the other principal books that couldn't be replaced referenced these books,(Aka the important gospels) instead of the ones that replaced them.

Really the number of Christians that exists generally depends on where he considers Niceans going "too far".  He could simply be a Coptic.  There are a decent number of Coptics out there.

Or he could be a more traditional Christian, though such a group I'd think would have to be built out of long painstaking research... unless there is a branch i'm missing, which is possible.

I knew he was referencing the Nicean council. As you said, they determined what christianity is today. And  your Yellow Hat Buddhsit analogy isn't quite appropriate. Weren't the people who took part in the Nicean council christians themselves? (people who held high positians in the Church actually).

In a related not, I'm quite annoyed by this part of what he wrote:

The Nicenes (Catholics and the faiths descended from Catholics)

Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't 'descend' from Catholicism, and Niceea was actually located in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire (the part which has never been Catholic).  It's quite ridiculous that people from the West pretend like those from the East don't even exist.

Oh, and O can't believe you used the word 'possibly' instead of 'probably', or better yet 'most definately'. (see bolded part in italics)

Sure is an interesting thread. Buddhism is very appealing to the intellectual or agnostic, so its expected to see it firmly at the top. I do meet a lot of people who say they lean towards Buddhism and like the philosophy, but disappointingly very few of them have any real understanding of these four principles:

The Four Noble Truths

1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

That is the philosophical base of Buddhism on top of which dharma (the way of human life) is built. These principles are inherent to material existence, for which there is systematic proof through the truth of practice. For instance, it is explained how the realizations of these truths are hidden to those who do not practice ahimsa - non-violence. So by this method and under the guidance of guru (teacher) there is a semblance of empirical verification as one progresses.

Importantly, Buddhism forms a subset of what is now referred to as Hindiusm. This word 'Hinduism' was in fact a misnomer - an external imposition by an invading people who assumed superiority over the people of Inida. If the Persians could pronounce 'S' then it would've been 'Sinduism'. The prevailing misconceptions around Hinduism can doubtlessly be traced back to the vast and expensive academic campaign by the British to devaluate anything from India as inferior. History indicates that they were privately intimidated by such a vast, coherent and superior philosophy:

Schopenhauer: "Vedas are the most rewarding and the most elevating book which can be possible in the world." (Works VI p.427)

Niels Bohr: ''I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.''

Erwin Schrödinger: ''There is no kind of framework within which we can find consciousness in the plural; this is simply something we construct because of the temporal plurality of individuals, but it is a false construction....The only solution to this conflict insofar as any is available to us at all lies in the ancient wisdom of the Upanishad.''


Werner Heisenberg: ''After the conversations about Indian philosophy, some of the ideas of Quantum Physics that had seemed so crazy suddenly made much more sense''

Julius Robert Oppenheimer: ''Access to the Vedas is the greatest privilege this century may claim over all previous centuries.''

Henry David Thoreau: ''In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial.''

Ralph Waldo Emerson: ''I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad-Gita. It was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions which exercise us.''

It is a little sad that so many vote 'Buddhism', but do not know who Adi Shankara (or Shankaracharya) was. I am quite certain his writings and explanation of dharma would very appealing considering the great teachings of the Vedas and they're underlying Sanskrit structure.

Of Sanskrit I could speak 10 000 words, but I guess I'd rather not.

Anyways, just thought I'd contribute something. I didn't vote since I don't really see the world that way (People who think I'm a Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Atheist etc.). It doesn't make sense.

Well firstly.  Pretty much all outside historical scholars suggest that Rome is the city written about in revelations, and that who it is written about is inconclusive, everyone has their own idea.

Secondly, there originally were no "high ranking" christians, outside of like... the apostales.

It only evolved poistions of "ranking" after it found it's way to the Roman Empire... and immediatly the Roman Bishop ended up being the highest ranking.