types and christianity

[sassafrassquatch]

Jesus was a douche bag.

 

[Colors]

But as Substitute said, there's a difference between being a Bible thumper and being a believer in the ideas of Christ, which are quite valid from a humanistic and even logical standpoint.

Many of the Christians I know don't force their beliefs upon other people, and they are rather spiritual in a good way -- they aren't dogmatic. They are followers of Jesus in that they agree with his ideals, such as "love thy neighbor as you love thyself."

And most of the SJs I've seen are not really religious and not avid churchgoers. They're just more into the social traditions that just so happen to be established around religion.

It's interesting... how the religion strives to adapt to present day values/environment but is held back (or grounded) by the Bible, and the people who insist on continuing to follow its word. Some room for interpretation, but at what point are they so far from the source material that it is barely related, except in name? I suppose that's how sects, and ultimately diverging religions form, but would people relinquish the power of the majority/togetherness for the integrity/uniqueness of beliefs.

 

[substitute]

But as Substitute said, there's a difference between being a Bible thumper and being a believer in the ideas of Christ, which are quite valid from a humanistic and even logical standpoint.

Many of the Christians I know don't force their beliefs upon other people, and they are rather spiritual in a good way -- they aren't dogmatic. They are followers of Jesus in that they agree with his ideals, such as "love thy neighbor as you love thyself."

And most of the SJs I've seen are not really religious and not avid churchgoers. They're just more into the social traditions that just so happen to be established around religion.

Thank you Uber, I was just about to sigh and resign myself to the fact that yet again, any discussion about religion and belief gets polarized into total atheists versus dogmatic fundamentalist Bible thumpers!! Oh, and yet again nobody seems to think that MBTI applies to anyone outside of America!

I was just thinking that the relationships of the types to religion would depend quite a lot on the place of religion in the society or sub-culture in which they live. Since quite a large portion of type behaviour has to do with the person's relationship to society in general, it makes sense to me that the same person might have a different response to faith and the idea of religion, depending on how that idea was presented to them and the examples and options for applying it that they're able to observe in their immediate environment.

In France, being atheist is just as normal and accepted as being a devout Roman Catholic. In Britain, the vast majority are non-religious and indeed I'd hazard that at least half are hostile towards religion and religious people, and Liberal, humanist styles of Christianity are mainstream in what's left of the religious "scene". I'd say that most church attenders under retirement age have come into faith later in life, having not been raised with it, as a result of their own independent research and choices.

The older generation of habitual/social church goers have had to wrestle and reconcile their style of religion (made for a culture long gone, in which religion was prevalent) with the needs, questions raised and changes made by and for the younger generations, for whom "it's just the done thing" doesn't factor anywhere in their reasons for attending church or believing.

It's just as accepted and normal in my local area to say you're a Druid or Neo-Pagan, and in fact most people under retirement age respond more positively to that in my experience, than to someone who wears a crucifix round their neck.

A person's response to religion in these situations could be very different to what it'd be in a context such as rural Bible Belt USA, where fundamentalism and regular church-going is the norm.

I have a strong suspicion that the sense of pressure and coersion that's prevalent regarding church attendance and religious belief in some parts of the USA, as well as the non-questioning, absolutist approach that's the main flavour of religion on offer, and the sheer "normality" of it, have as much to do with any person's opinion of faith in general, as their MBTI type. I believe that in many people, it's this pressure and this 'take' on Christianity and its place in society (and its recommended/intended place for them in society), that many people are reacting to when they talk about religion, as opposed to faith or religion in the general, broader sense implied by a questionnaire.

 

[Mort Belfry]

Does anyone know what function it is that has primary emphasis on religion? Be it Ne, Ni, Si or Fe?

Or does religion have nothing to do with individual functions and includes all? Even Pascal's wager smacks of a retarded Ti.

 

[substitute]

Does anyone know what function it is that has primary emphasis on religion? Be it Ne, Ni, Si or Fe?

Or does religion have nothing to do with individual functions and includes all? Even Pascal's wager smacks of a retarded Ti.

That's what I was trying to say: that someone's reaction to the concept of religion depends as much on their experience of religion and its place in their home culture and their reaction to that, as the order of their cognitive functions.

If there's a function that has to do with a tendency to defy authority, then the person with that type as dominant would be more likely to be anti-religion in a culture where religion is seen as an authority, than in one where it's a minority movement.

If there's a function that has to do with a need to be and be seen as normal and respectable, again the person with that function as their dominant would react to religion differently in a culture where it's a minority movement and not normal, than in one where it's de rigeur.

 

[Mort Belfry]

So maybe in a place like China where religion is somewhat frowned upon, a rebellious ISTP might say, "Fuck you guys, I'm following Jesus."

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

In response to the fact that NTs tested high on this list...

(I'm going to remember this the next time someone says NT = free thinker, however.)

This point of view has always bothered me. Why is it that a "free thinker" is so commonly taken to mean someone who gravitates to a particular set of beliefs (atheism, socialism, conspiracy theories, etc.), instead of someone who considers all evidence and determines an opinion for themselves?

Are some people are so certain of their own conclusions that they feel any reasonable person who truly engaged in free thinking could not help but come to the same conclusions?

 

[Mempy]

This point of view has always bothered me. Why is it that a "free thinker" is so commonly taken to mean someone who gravitates to a particular set of beliefs (atheism, socialism, conspiracy theories, etc.), instead of someone who considers all evidence and determines an opinion for themselves?

Are some people are so certain of their own conclusions that they feel any reasonable person who truly engaged in free thinking could not help but come to the same conclusions?

Brilliant.

All right, I'm done complimenting you tonight. Stop saying intelligent things, you dolt.

 

[Mort Belfry]

Only going by the stats in the OP, I took each type's ranking, gave each function a score, the rank one times the dominant or double the auxilary and the order of the functions seems to be this.

Fe, Si, Te, Ni, Fi, Ne, Se, Ti.

Could it be said that this shows a progression from accomadating functions to the rebellious functions? The first and last definitely suggest so.

 

[6sticks]

So maybe in a place like China where religion is somewhat frowned upon, a rebellious ISTP might say, "Fuck you guys, I'm following Jesus."

ISTPs tend to be very self-reliant by nature, not mindlessly contrarion. I don't know any ISTP who would say they'd follow anyone.

I'm not saying there aren't any... it just seems to me that religion/collectivism is unnatural to ISTPs.

 

[The Ü™]

Thank you Uber, I was just about to sigh and resign myself to the fact that yet again, any discussion about religion and belief gets polarized into total atheists versus dogmatic fundamentalist Bible thumpers!! Oh, and yet again nobody seems to think that MBTI applies to anyone outside of America!

Well, don't get me wrong, I'm not a Christian. I'm just too cynical to be an avid Christ follower, but I don't necessarily disrespect the people who are. But I also highly doubt that the scientific method is the only possible explanation of the world's phenomenons. Truthfully, I think science is often a religion in of itself. Creationism can also be logically possible from a certain point of view. I tend to think of science as the official religion of academia. But the point is that both the Bible and science have a certain amount of truth but also a certain amount of speculation.

 

[Nocapszy]

Does anyone know what function it is that has primary emphasis on religion? Be it Ne, Ni, Si or Fe?

[X]

Or does religion have nothing to do with individual functions and includes all? Even Pascal's wager smacks of a retarded Ti.

Correct!

 

[Argus]

It does seem accurate -- Ti analyzes everything, but INTPs see possibilities, while ISTPs demand more concrete evidence of things.

It's just interesting, though, that Ti seems the least likely function to lead to Christianity. Ti determines the nature of things. It looks at what is, senses its nature, defines the pieces. It seems that God is least obvious when one examines the nature of evidence, and more and more likely the more one looks at other sorts of criteria.

Interesting. I would say my use of Ti gets put to use quite often and has been a great aid in my understand and confidence in my faith.

 

[Totenkindly]

Interesting. I would say my use of Ti gets put to use quite often and has been a great aid in my understand and confidence in my faith.

I think it depends on the data stream you have coming in and what information you are using as "evidence." Even if our Ti functions would be comparable in quality, our conclusions would be different. That's been my experience in my own life and in listening to other Ti-strong people on this forum, on INTPf, and other places.

My point is that Ti demands it all hang together coherently ... it's a bull detector, and it's major flaw is in the information that is fed into it.

 

[substitute]

Well, don't get me wrong, I'm not a Christian. I'm just too cynical to be an avid Christ follower, but I don't necessarily disrespect the people who are. But I also highly doubt that the scientific method is the only possible explanation of the world's phenomenons. Truthfully, I think science is often a religion in of itself. Creationism can also be logically possible from a certain point of view. I tend to think of science as the official religion of academia. But the point is that both the Bible and science have a certain amount of truth but also a certain amount of speculation.

Ah, I didn't see this reply way back when... but thanks for that Uber, that's the attitude I thought I perceived and which I was relieved to see displayed! It shows a truly open mind, which is quite rare to encounter in these types of discussions, which tend to end up being nothing but each side's futile attempt to convert the other, as well as the extreme polarization that I described before.

 

[Quinlan]

SP Hedonistic Heathens FTW!

Dominant Ni = ready made hyper faith and voices/compulsion/answers from heaven.

 

[Wade Wilson]

Ah, I didn't see this reply way back when... but thanks for that Uber, that's the attitude I thought I perceived and which I was relieved to see displayed! It shows a truly open mind, which is quite rare to encounter in these types of discussions, which tend to end up being nothing but each side's futile attempt to convert the other, as well as the extreme polarization that I described before.

Okay so I didn't go through every page of this thread so I may be beating a dead horse here but this is what I don't understand: Why this occurs. It just makes both sides seem equally fanatical and -- in my opinion -- unappealing.

Maybe I'm just crazier'n a sack of ferrets but it seems that when it comes to these extremes, both sides end up contradicting themselves. Why are people obsessed with absolutes? Yes, there ARE certain definitive answers in life but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING only has one explaination (which is basically what Uberfuhrer said).

 

[Tallulah]

This point of view has always bothered me. Why is it that a "free thinker" is so commonly taken to mean someone who gravitates to a particular set of beliefs (atheism, socialism, conspiracy theories, etc.), instead of someone who considers all evidence and determines an opinion for themselves?

Are some people are so certain of their own conclusions that they feel any reasonable person who truly engaged in free thinking could not help but come to the same conclusions?

Couldn't agree more. If you want to see some very closeminded "openminded" people, hang out at any graduate school. You'll also find some genuine free thinkers there, but you'll see lots and lots of folks that have just agreed "openmindedness = people who think like me."

I also agree with the person that said people's views/cynicism/optimism toward religion usually depends on their upbringing and personal experience. And a person who is a fervent atheist is probably not going to be in a position to hang out with a bunch of sane Christians, because the paths just don't meet that often. When you're an adult, you kind of choose to hang out with people that already believe like you do, or share the lifestyle you do.