User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 105

Thread: Jesus Loves Me!

  1. #71
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    It's very difficult to put together a lie with solid internal consistency, especially the more complicated it gets. That's why interrogations are used in law enforcement, and why circumstantial cases can be built against people, and so forth.
    Perhaps we are using different concepts of "lie". When I said "the first rule to lieing", I meant it in the sense that the way to convince someone of anything is to play into their biases. People actively reject information that does not fit into their biases. I don't mean in the sense of an outright "lie" like the "The sky is red", but rather the convincing of a particular concept by selectively introducing it into their biases.

    That is to say, something that is false is easily accepted if it fits into your world view... while something true is easily rejected if it does not.

    In the example of the stories from the Bible, the stories that "make sense" fit into your world view while the ones that do not are rejected. Selectively taking the "coherent parts", ie: the ones that fit into your world, is, IMO, the definition of bias.

    As such, any equivalent story, true or not, that fits into your concept the world would be likely accepted. I'm sure that you do question these stories - more than most - but it still happens.

    Incidentally, we still use that process regularly on a daily basis -- internal consistency. It is usually our first "screening" technique when we interact with others. If someone appears to us to be saying things that are inconsistent with themselves, we flag it and explore further. Again, it's a very good tool in the toolbox.
    Absolutely. The question is on methodology. The OP was the question on why the Bible should be considered an authoritive source, and/or why figuratively interpreting such a book wouldn't reduce its authority to nothing.

    For example, I have a couple of books packed away that helped me develop my sense of morality (ie: Moral Calculations, Critical thinking and Communication, although I think I have earlier versions ). There is a reason why I picked those books and that methodology, but rejected religion as a moral authority... that's really the root of my question.

    Of course, this is probably not the best thing to be addressing with you, since you aren't really using it in that way...

    No, I suppose ultimately I derive my morality from what I see intuitively as working the best, based on my experiences and observations.
    Me too, heh. I think in that sense we aren't different - and honestly, I don't think anyone is different this way. Some people just shrink their experiences and observations down through bias (including narrow world views like fundamental literalists).

    I suppose context would determine which approach is more effective.
    This is what I see as well.

    Basically, you're right -- I cannot predefine what would change my mind. But I can tell you that I clearly am open to it, as soon as I run across something that seems to carry weight. I am constantly projecting and revising.
    You mean you think you would change your mind and that you are open to it. Changing types showed me exactly how "open" I thought I was. It wasn't the first time - I'd be surprised to hear that you were never stubborn in changing your mind...

    Bias is only bias while you are unaware of it. Pretend that this conversation was happening and I was still an INTP. A "topical" change - not much has changed in who I am - yet the nature of the conversation changes. Bias is very dangerous.

    Meh. I think you don't really yet understand the mentality, or you see only one facet of it. I can spin this on its head and say that your process is the most likely to be incomplete. I take a risk by projection the rest of the missing picture; you take a risk by refusing to take educated guesses, opting instead for the solidity of known data.
    Hah hah... a good example of what I was just talking about... Would I of understood if I was "the same as you", an INTP? Would I still not understand if I turned back into an INTP? Once upon a time, I said that Bluewing, you and I all have very different ways of posting - that I wouldn't be surprised if I was an ISTP, you were an INFP and BW was an INTJ. Do you remember the responses? Apparently we did think very much the same then. But now we do not? Now I don't understand, now I am fundamentally different? Have I taken on a new role? Did you change your opinion with just a slight change in a letter in my description? Or did you not believe that I was INTP earlier?

    Anyway, back to the type sniping - mine is incomplete because I don't fill it with assumptions. I don't pretend to know either. If coherency is the goal, it's easy to just stuff any theory full of selective biases and be done with it. (I believe we call that "INTJs", FWIW. Bwahahah. )

    Basically, the points I offered in my prior reasoning do not necessarily apply to everyone, they are just the tendencies (i.e., on the bell curve, many people fall into that bracket more or less).
    That seems measurable to me This is exactly what I'm talking about.

    You can take the bible and read about the whole sin of lying with woman before marriage. You don't believe it literally, so it has no authority as such. However, you compare it to your own world - one that is much closer to taking it literally. They believe this. You look around and find examples of how it can be supported. You agree with it, and so it becomes true for you.

    You read that existance was created in 6/7 days, 6000 years ago. At some point, you realise that doesn't reflect reality, so you throw it away.

    Take both of those examples and go back a thousand years. Has the truth of creation changed? Only the data has. What was coherent is no longer coherent. This is good - adapting is critical. However, the point is that the "truth" as "coherent" isn't a good measuring stick. I would think that not knowing is better than knowing something false.

    (This gets into a whole lot of epistimology and how can we act with imperfect knowledge, blah blah... so consider it an example of how a "made up story" changed from literal to figurative rather than literal to lie.)


    --

    (On the N/S divide; how I see the real seperation between them)

    The flaw in the lack of projection (S) is that I do not project these measurements to the individuals. Ne is like factor analysis - I can say that getting married early is one of the most correlated factors to divorce. I do not mean and I do not say that individuals will get divorced when young - that's an N leap. I will say that no matter what they say, statistics says that group will have more divorces. Not one in particular. But what value does that give us? Nothing. Data isn't valuable on it's own - it's the next step, the implications of the data that really matters.

    That's what N is good at. Ns and Ss both meet at the same "decision making" point. The N needs to reach across and pull the data to make the decision - one made without data is totally without grounding and will never reflect reality. The S needs to reach across and see what the data means - data without significance is totally without application.


    The circle I try to follow is simple - problem -> define problem (N) -> Define needed data (N-S) -> Find data (S) -> evaluate data (N-S) -> Apply data to problem (N). Cutting out any one of those steps is errant.

    Using the SBM again;

    SBM or SAM -> Marriage rates, biological ramifications -> Statistics -> Sufficient -> SBM (my conclusion)

    But, just as an example, N as data gathering means that one only looks around their own world - sees the patterns they want to see. It's not rigid enough to gather data objectively, parse through it and see what it really means. But the S as the applying of data to a problem is a joke too - closed minded, etc.

    In the same way, most literalists are Ss. Without a proper definition of a problem, there can be no "solution". No change.

    Preferences are just that. Once both are put into context then you can draw upon others (or if you can manage, yourself) to fill in the gaps. Using the right method for the current step is what matters. It doesn't matter if it's an N using N for the wrong task or an S using S for the wrong task... they mirror each other this way.

  2. #72
    Member Vicki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ????
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    Jesus has always loved you. Glad you've found something to make you happy.
    yeah

  3. #73
    Mamma said knock you out Mempy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,226

    Default

    In response to the OP:

    I'm really sorry about your family and friends.

    My last couple years of high school I knew a pair of twins who attended a large Church of God youth group. A lot of the kids in that youth group went to our school, and since I'd attended one of their meetings I knew what they looked like and I saw them around a lot. It was tempting to join the youth group just so I could feel a sense of community and make a lot of friends.

    But hearing about how your family and friends don't seem to talk to you any more, I wonder what would have happened if I'd joined that youth group, then left sometime later. Would they have estranged me, stopped speaking to me?

    I still have no idea what Church of God is all about, but the point is that they were really welcoming and probably would have really liked it if I joined. The sense of community was really tempting. I'm glad I didn't join just because of that.

    I really am sorry about your friends and family. All I can offer is hugs.
    Last edited by Mempy; 08-31-2007 at 02:05 AM.

  4. #74
    Fight For Freedom FFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I'm curious... if the Bible is not a literal guide book to how to act morally, then do you believe it is a figurative guide book on how to act morally? Do you assume that it wasn't written by God then? Do you not feel you could determine this morality without a figurative interpretation... rather, do you see a difference between interpreting a book and interpreting what you could learn otherwise?
    I didn't read all of the gatsby/Jennifer discussion because I'm lazy, but I'd like to add my Christian INTP thinking into the mix here and start by addressing this set of questions. I was raised as a Catholic and ended up an atheist mainly as a result of rejecting Catholicism without an alternative. I first became an independent Christian, and then ended up a Charismaniac for a few years. Now I meet with an obscure group that encourages lots of fellowship and meetings in the homes outside of the official large group meetings.

    Well, like Jennifer kinda mentioned, the Bible has 66 different "books" and about 44 different authors. Each book has a different purpose and context involved. You should take books of the law as laws Jews should have lived by. You should not take Proverbs and Song of Solomon as a book of Jewish laws. You should not take any of the New Testament as a book of law or list of rules you must follow. The New Testament is a depiction not of how to act morally but of what God's trying to do in the world today. God is not trying to give men a list of rules to follow. Jesus did not say, "I have come so that they'd behave themselves, and so I could give them a long list of all the details involved in being good." He simply said that He came so people could have life.

    The Greek word being translated life there and in many other places (especially if the apostle John wrote it) is very important to learn about if you wish to understand the point of the New Testament. The Greek word there is zoe, which is quite different from psuche, and bios. Bios refers to your physical life, psuche (think psyche) encompasses the mind,will, and emotions but zoe refers to a higher form of life, a spritual form of life or the essence of life.

    If you remember the Adam and Eve story, you'll remember that Adam and Eve were said to have died, but their hearts were still beating, and their minds, wills, and emotions were still there. That must mean the death involved affected their zoe. Afterwards, they were kicked out the Garden of Eden and the way to the tree of life (tree of zoe in Revelation) was guarded so that they couldn't get to it. I don't think the trees are literal, and the tree of zoe represents God/Christ. The guarding makes sense when you consider that Jesus opened the way to the tree of life in a way that just wasn't available to OT believers.

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes into Him would not perish but have age-abiding zoe.

    When you bring that verse up after what I just described, you see how Jesus is not trying to promote the production of some form of morality by means of human effort, but He instead is trying to dispense His zoe-life into people who were born without it as result of the initial fall and death of humanity.

    How does this relate to morality? Well, if you check the latter half of Galations 5, you'll see a list of the works of the flesh, and then you'll see a list of the fruits of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, etc.). Paul is using the flesh to represent the sinful nature that other verses depict as being stored with the body. The spirit refers to the part of humanity that was brought to life as a result of receiving zoe. When the spirit is fed, nourished, supported, you began to see the fruits of the spirit popping out of you quite randomly.

    This is a much better plan than trying to get those naughty fallen humans to be good. Whenever you have to try to be good, you're always being good for the wrong reason. Even when you appear genuinely good, it's usually based on some sort of condition. The ideal that God would want his believers to live up to is a love that even extends itself even to one's enemies. I just can't produce that in myself with all the human effort I could muster up. On a good day, I might be able to produce it in my behavior, but my motives are definitely corrupt. It helps to see that even doing something because you're trying to be a good Christian is a corrupt motive because it either has to do with your image, or you still think you need to produce good behavior to be accepted and redeemed by the Lord.

    Jesus said, "I am the way, the reality, and the zoe." Also, 1 Cor 15:45 says the last Adam (Christ) became a zoe-giving spirit. I just wanted to add this to show how Christ not only gives zoe but actually is zoe.

    To simplify things.

    Christ gives you zoe, and proper feeding and maintainence of zoe results in the production of the fruits of the spirit, which results in the right behaviors for the right reasons. In the mean time, you have grace and forgiveness because you started out as a damn mess, and you'll probably continue looking like a damn mess on the inside for quite a while even if you clean up your act and start making other people think you're good. You'll probably never reach perfection, so that grace and forgiveness is going to keep covering you until you die.

    Christian religion often says try to be good, and if you maintain a certain level of goodness, Jesus will love you and accept you and if you die while you're in the middle of a good phase, you might actually be considered good enough to make it to "heaven."

  5. #75
    Fight For Freedom FFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    I will never, ever be able to understand how religious INTX's minds don't rip themselves apart like a super-dog that chases its tail so fast the centrifugal force blasts its guts out.
    It helps to use these three simple words, "I don't know."

    What's up with evolution and all that? I don't know.

    How much of Genesis one and two should be taken literally? I don't know.

    Who created God? I don't know.

    You get the point.

  6. #76
    Senior Member Bushranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    169

    Default

    How it starts: "God/Jesus loves you"

    How it develops: "You love god, so we love you"

    How it they isolate you: "They don't love God, so they don't love you"

    How it ends: "You don't love god, so we don't love you"

    Religion and friendship don't mix, sometimes you might be lucky, but don't bet on it.

    Do you know how 'horse whispering' works?
    1. Start with a wild/independent horse.
    2. Get it into an isolated and controlled environment.
    3. Using horselike body language, make it feel isolated and excluded from your 'herd'. (done by turning away from the horse continuously or something (I'm no expert, but that seems to be the core of it)).
    4. Keep doing this until the horse begins acting deferential and seeks acceptance.
    5. When you are certain that the horse's deference is genuine, change your body language to make it feel accepted.
    6. Grateful for acceptance, the horse will let you do almost anything.


    Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it. Social animals are so easy to control.
    I'll get you my pretty, and your little hermit crab too!

  7. #77
    Fight For Freedom FFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushranger View Post
    How it starts: "God/Jesus loves you"

    How it develops: "You love god, so we love you"

    How it they isolate you: "They don't love God, so they don't love you"

    How it ends: "You don't love god, so we don't love you"

    Religion and friendship don't mix, sometimes you might be lucky, but don't bet on it.

    Do you know how 'horse whispering' works?
    1. Start with a wild/independent horse.
    2. Get it into an isolated and controlled environment.
    3. Using horselike body language, make it feel isolated and excluded from your 'herd'. (done by turning away from the horse continuously or something (I'm no expert, but that seems to be the core of it)).
    4. Keep doing this until the horse begins acting deferential and seeks acceptance.
    5. When you are certain that the horse's deference is genuine, change your body language to make it feel accepted.
    6. Grateful for acceptance, the horse will let you do almost anything.


    Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it. Social animals are so easy to control.
    What is your point?

  8. #78
    Senior Member Bushranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ImNotTooPopular View Post
    What is your point?
    You don't know?
    I'll get you my pretty, and your little hermit crab too!

  9. #79
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ImNotTooPopular View Post
    Christ gives you zoe, and proper feeding and maintainence of zoe results in the production of the fruits of the spirit, which results in the right behaviors for the right reasons. In the mean time, you have grace and forgiveness because you started out as a damn mess, and you'll probably continue looking like a damn mess on the inside for quite a while even if you clean up your act and start making other people think you're good. You'll probably never reach perfection, so that grace and forgiveness is going to keep covering you until you die.

    Christian religion often says try to be good, and if you maintain a certain level of goodness, Jesus will love you and accept you and if you die while you're in the middle of a good phase, you might actually be considered good enough to make it to "heaven."
    I don't have time to comment right now, but there is probably not much I can add to that. I thought the entire post a good summary of "zoe" Christianity vs Christian religion.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #80
    Fight For Freedom FFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushranger View Post
    You don't know?
    I'm an INTP. I'm not a "social animal."

Similar Threads

  1. why doesn't God love me?
    By miss fortune in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: 05-05-2010, 10:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO