User Tag List

First 31112131415 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 173

  1. #121
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Journey View Post
    I feel sad and react with sorrow for them.
    It's interesting... that was my own reaction to your beliefs. It's interesting how I have no strong defined belief, yet have a reaction similar to yours.

    I suspect it has to do with what we identify with now. It's natural, almost a requirement, that we tend to assume who and what we are is good and true... and by extension the best thing for everyone. Granted, I don't have a formal framework that defines who I should feel sorry for, but because my early identity of exploring all beliefs came from my experiences in a narrow religious sub-culture, my reaction towards fixed beliefs is similar to any strong identity. Guess you could say that I feel sorry whenever someone believe they hold the one final truth in their hands. I probably would have the opposite (more in line with you) reaction had I embraced that lifestyle.

  2. #122
    @.~*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 Journey View Post
    Because God says so. My evidence is my relationship with God. And God taught me most of what I know of the Bible personally.
    Serious, soft-spoken question:
    Could you clarify what you mean by the last part, so that I can better understand?

    I also don't know how to figure things out when two people with somewhat dissenting views both claim that their relationship with God is solid. Either one or both is wrong; or else it's the overlap/similarities between the views that is the right/effective part (leading to the "good relationship with God") and the rest (which both might be insisting is necessary stuff in the belief system) is actually the superfluous stuff.

    ..at least, that's where my rationality takes me.
    "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

  3. #123
    Senior Member Journey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Jeremy, our "ways of religion" are entirely different. I am depending solely on Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross for my salvation. I don't know what you are depending on, but it's not going to work for you. Gail
    "My Journey is my Destination."

    "Today Counts Forever." R.C. Sproul

  4. #124
    Senior Member Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Serious, soft-spoken question:
    Could you clarify what you mean by the last part, so that I can better understand?

    I also don't know how to figure things out when two people with somewhat dissenting views both claim that their relationship with God is solid. Either one or both is wrong; or else it's the overlap/similarities between the views is the right part (leading to the "good relationship with God") and the rest is superfluous.

    ..at least, that's where my rationality takes me.
    I think that's one realm where it has to be defined by each individual. There is no objectivity when it comes to God. You have your way, and everyone else has theirs. It's not that one way is "right" and one way is "wrong".. they're just different. Ultimately, we can't truly objectively know if God exists. It's impossible. But the fact remains that, for most people, God does exist. He affects their lives on a daily basis.

    Neither Journey nor a (for example) Buddhist is "wrong" insofar as they are both being fulfilled by their religion. Now, who is objectively right? Well, that doesn't matter. The religion is real in that it does make changes in your life and in the lives of others. If you're going to believe in one, you have to make that leap of faith - it's never something that you can prove using scientific logic, try as many might to do so.
    "Can you set me free from this dark inner world? Save me now, last beats in the soul.."

    Fonewearl and proud of it!

    I (85%) - N (80%) - F (35%) - P (90%)
    O: 94% C: 18% E: 21% A: 94% N: 38%
    9w1 (SP, SX, SO)
    (9, 5, 4)
    RCUAI (Primary Calm)

  5. #125
    Senior Member Journey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Jennifer, when I study, read or meditate on the Bible sometimes the Holy Spirit teaches me things I didn't know before. You would probably say that I just figured it out for myself, but that is not the case. This is a common experience for a believer. Gail
    "My Journey is my Destination."

    "Today Counts Forever." R.C. Sproul

  6. #126
    @.~*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 Jeremy View Post
    I think that's one realm where it has to be defined by each individual. There is no objectivity when it comes to God. You have your way, and everyone else has theirs. It's not that one way is "right" and one way is "wrong".. they're just different. Ultimately, we can't truly objectively know if God exists. It's impossible. But the fact remains that, for most people, God does exist. He affects their lives on a daily basis.
    I agree with much of this, I'll explain the points I veer from here:

    • While we can't know if one way is right and another is wrong, it doesn't mean that there AREN'T ones that are "right" (or "more right") and that there AREN'T ones that are "wrong" (or "more wrong") though. We just have no faculty to confirm or deny this... except for indirect evidences. (e.g., a "good life" -- whatever that means.)
    • Many people BELIEVE God exists. They BELIEVE and feel that they experience him affecting their lives on a daily basis. However, when someone studies these things from the outside, the evidence is subjective and only serves to convince the individual, it can't be applied any more broadly... except in again indirect methods. (Lauren Slater wrote a wonderful essay where she expressed her inner conflict over an interview she had with a mother whose comatose daughter could supposedly heal people with God's power -- that part also was ambiguous -- yet the mother was dying of cancer and the daughter didn't heal her.)


    Neither Journey nor a (for example) Buddhist is "wrong" insofar as they are both being fulfilled by their religion. Now, who is objectively right? Well, that doesn't matter. The religion is real in that it does make changes in your life and in the lives of others. If you're going to believe in one, you have to make that leap of faith - it's never something that you can prove using scientific logic, try as many might to do so.
    • I think it DOES matter which one is right, doesn't it? Because if something is WRONG, it will lead you astray? And you WON'T be as fulfilled or mature as you could be? The issue again is that there is no good way to SHOW which is right objectively.


    I agree with the rest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Journey View Post
    Jennifer, when I study, read or meditate on the Bible sometimes the Holy Spirit teaches me things I didn't know before. You would probably say that I just figured it out for myself, but that is not the case. This is a common experience for a believer. Gail
    I've had the same experiences as well, then... but I draw different conclusions from them.
    And apply the faith and view its place in culture differently than you do.

    I definitely see an Ni vs Ti difference at work here, btw: You just "know" things without having to justify them because you just see them, I "reason" them and thus I need to have evidence that I see and then draw conclusions from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    Should I remind you some basic principles of modern phenomenology? How does Husserl suggest we can suspend our own judgment?
    And have you read Wittgenstein, for instance?
    OOoooh, pulling out the big guns.

    There's a name for that strategy, you know: Intellectual Intimidation. ("I know more philosophy than you do, hence I must be right.")
    "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

  7. #127
    Senior Member Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I agree with much of this, I'll explain the points I veer from here:

    • While we can't know if one way is right and another is wrong, it doesn't mean that there AREN'T ones that are "right" (or "more right") and that there AREN'T ones that are "wrong" (or "more wrong") though. We just have no faculty to confirm or deny this... except for indirect evidences. (e.g., a "good life" -- whatever that means.)
    • Many people BELIEVE God exists. They BELIEVE and feel that they experience him affecting their lives on a daily basis. However, when someone studies these things from the outside, the evidence is subjective and only serves to convince the individual, it can't be applied any more broadly... except in again indirect methods. (Lauren Slater wrote a wonderful essay where she expressed her inner conflict over an interview she had with a mother whose comatose daughter could supposedly heal people with God's power -- that part also was ambiguous -- yet the mother was dying of cancer and the daughter didn't heal her.)




    • I think it DOES matter which one is right, doesn't it? Because if something is WRONG, it will lead you astray? And you WON'T be as fulfilled or mature as you could be? The issue again is that there is no good way to SHOW which is right objectively.


    I agree with the rest.



    I've had the same experiences as well, then... but I draw different conclusions from them.
    And apply the faith and view its place in culture differently than you do.

    I definitely see an Ni vs Ti difference at work here, btw: You just "know" things without having to justify them, I "reason" them and thus I need to have evidence.
    And I just sort of get these feelings out of nowhere and I'm like AHA! That makes sense :P

    I understand where you're coming from Jennifer. Either way though, the reality is that with something as subjective as religion, what may be "more right" to one may be "wrong" to another. It's just impossible to know what that may be for each person. It's not an individual religion that is more or less right, but an individual's interpretation of it.

    Many people take a religion and change it to fit their own views of the world in any case. That's how Christianity can be the right religion for so many people with differing world views, and that's why there are so many factions within it. People always try to find evidence that goes along with their own view of how the world works, and they make a religion that follows that same path. It's not the religion that makes the person - the person makes the religion, and follows the parts of the religion that make sense to them.

    So even if there was a completely, 100% true religion, people would take it and change it so that it fits their own views. That's why I think it's entirely possible to live life by your own set of codes, ethics and spirituality. Even if you rely on a mainstream religion for a base, most people have a code of ethics that they apply using the mainstream religion. The mainstream religion doesn't always supply us with a way of viewing the world; most people develop their views on the world on their own, or through their parents and social links. Religion is used as a means to back up that view. With a religion, it's possible to refute any attacks on your way of life - you have the immutable word of God behind you. You don't have to worry about having your values attacked, because to you, your values are the word of God.

    So a religion cannot really be determined as a whole to be a "Right" or "Wrong" religion. It has to be something that comes from within. The religion is merely used as a way to back that up. A person's religion is right for that person, because it's already a reflection of the values and beliefs that they have - if their values or beliefs change, then their religion will change with it.

    EDIT: This is also how I come to view science and logic, and by extension, atheism and agnosticism, as religious style beliefs. People who adhere to these ideologies also use them to justify their views, just as Christians do. People have to have some sort of framework through which they interpret and place their values in our world.
    "Can you set me free from this dark inner world? Save me now, last beats in the soul.."

    Fonewearl and proud of it!

    I (85%) - N (80%) - F (35%) - P (90%)
    O: 94% C: 18% E: 21% A: 94% N: 38%
    9w1 (SP, SX, SO)
    (9, 5, 4)
    RCUAI (Primary Calm)

  8. #128
    @.~*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 Journey View Post
    I never felt any antagonism from you. I felt you were giving me advice. I suppose you thought so because of the quote, but it was just a general exposition on the Christian experience today as it has been in former eras.
    I think I've run across the attitude too much in my past, along with some very nasty judgment and rejection attached to it, that I have trouble reading it in any other light. Anyway, it's funny -- I was feeling unsettled by the tone of the conversation and how it left me feeling inside. Now I need to evaluate that some more.

    maybe the fact you're not picking up on it either means I'm oversensitive or that you're not aware when you create feelings in people with your delivery (or both).


    How you experienced your church experience is not how I experience mine, nor are they the same experience. I don't believe being a Christian is to be in a irrelevant or destructive philosophy. I don't find it "devouring and destroying" itself from within. You must be talking about something other than the holy catholic church (do not confuse with the Roman Catholic Church.) There will always be trouble from apostate churches and churchgoers, but you have to engage with true believers who are in many different churches in order to find that good fruit and self-sacrificial love and health you talk about. I've found it.
    I guess I am evaluating your position by its inherent ramifications on relational living as I have experienced it and studied in throughout my life. I see what has brought good results. I see what has invariably brought bad results.

    I don't know how you live in real life, or what you are like -- in fact, I am betting actually you go out of your way to be there for people, live purely, deal with your responsibilities, and act very graciously -- but I think that lifestyle (which I consider very positive) is not based on the inherent theology that you describe here, which I think if you distilled it down and looked at it in terms of where it leads, actually ends up being destructive if applied directly.

    So when you talk about how God never changes and thus the church should never change (or it compromises its values), well, that's not what I'm really talking about.

    I see the church (especially the conservative elements) as having good intentions but having become blinded to its overall mission -- so in its quest to defend orthodoxy ends up losing and shoving away the very people it claims it wants to save. There is a disconnect there in terms of how attitudes and behaviors result in very different outcomes than intentions would dictate.

    Does that make sense?

    As for being in tune with this culture, I'm afraid Christians will never be--

    John 15:19-20
    If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

    If this culture is satisfied with us Christians, then we are doing it wrong!
    Again, your comments like these tell me you're not getting my point. That's not at all what I am trying to say.

    Maybe this example will get my point across:
    • Jesus hung out with hookers, thieves, tax collectors, and social undesirables.
    • he didn't do this as a missions trip. He did it because he actually loved and liked them... and he really hated hanging out with religious people.
    • Look at how he treated them (with fondness and fun and love) and the sort of people they were RELATIONALLY, as opposed to the sort of people the evangelicals of the time (the Pharisees, who actually had GREAT INTENTIONS and were trying to 'restore the culture' and 'purify the faith' -- they really were trying and thought they were right!) were and how Jesus really loathed talking to them.
    • What happened to Jesus? He got blacklisted and eventually killed because he was a "bad influence."


    Jesus did not apply the "can't relate to the world" thing the way it's coming across when you say it here.

    And I use Jesus' example in real-life (not some abstract theology or crystal-clear ideology) to help me figure out how to interpret my life.

    I have to go by Jesus.

    I also think that the world would LIKE the Jesus who hung out with them, rather than walking around complaining about how the culture was going down the tubes, and how they no longer had a voice, and how no one loved God. That's not because they were sinners, Gail, it's because the Jesus they see there is actually someone who loved them, treated them with respect, and could acknowledge and value and delight in them as human beings.

    That's what I feel the more conservative elements of the church are missing when they try to practice their faith. They are so concerned with "protecting the faith" and "keeping political power, for the good of all" and other such things that they are missing the bottom-line truth: People responded to Jesus because of how he treated them.

    That's where the faith is lived out.

    I quote the Bible because it is the ultimate authority. I quote others because I admire how they say things better than I could have said it myself. I am a librarian and I read widely and have a vast number of quotes at my disposal. It doesn't mean that I do not think.
    I don't mean to say you don't (and based on your articulateness and your vocational background, I'm assuming you are extremely intelligent, honestly).

    However, the way your beliefs seem constructed, you'll never have to.

    Life is ambiguous and complex, and I have found that having preset BROAD answers means I stop engaging people where they are at. Love happens in the Now, in the moment, when I step into a situation I don't quite understand, and engaging the people within it where they are at rather than just categorizing them upfront and spitting out the answer.

    I think you'll find that comes from a passage of scripture in Psalms 14:1 and again in 53:1 that "the fool says in his heart that there is no God." So it wasn't the quoted that was saying that the dissenters and criticts (read atheists) were fools and by quoting it, me, but God was saying it and we were agreeing with Him. That is by definition a position of intellectual and spiritual integrity and making His word known does help those who need to be awakened spiritually. So we disagree again. (I do however see the point in not calling an individual a fool or specific individuals fools, I would never want to do that, that would be a violation of love.)
    The first part of your comment: You might have been quoting the Bible, but you WERE choosing the context in which it was applied. So it wasn't an innocuous comment. You were stating something of a personal nature by quoting it at that time and place... you were describing your own particular opinion of what that verse meant and how it applied. The words might be "God's", but the context was chosen by you and conveys its own message.

    The latter part: I think context conveys attitude. I don't disagree that the "Word of God" has redemptive power, but it's a two-edged sword, isn't it? If you use it in the wrong context, you kill the person who you feel are trying to surgically save.

    I guess if I were in a situation where I was unsure, I would canvass the responses of the people to my comments and sharing of truth with them -- and if they were reacting negatively to me, it means one of at least two things: Either they're part of the "fallen world" and just won't accept/understand my comments (and I suppose could be labeled as "fools" in my mind, even though of course I would never say that out loud because that would be unloving?) ... OR.... the context in which I am placing those words is being more destructive, to the point where good-hearted people are legitimately responding negatively to God's truth because I'm twisting it somehow, even if i am not sure how

    That's what I do when I'm in discussions like this. I'm listening to the innate feedback of content and tone that others are sending back to me and reevaluating myself and my attitudes and words based on it.

    I've answered you point by point. I hope this appeases you. I don't intend to keep doing it.
    You don't need to appease me, especially if you don't want to.

    I'm not investing in this discussion to win you over, although that might be personally fulfilling for me. I just feel I need to put an explanation of the truth I've come to see alongside yours, so people can compare the two and come to their own conclusions.

    If I articulate myself well, then that's enough.
    "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

  9. #129
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    OOoooh, pulling out the big guns.

    There's a name for that strategy, you know: Intellectual Intimidation. ("I know more philosophy than you do, hence I must be right.")
    You're absolutely right.

    I was teasing Oberon, especially because I partly agree with him. But as an ENTP, it's always interesting to defend another kind of logic, to play the devil's advocate, just for the sake of it.

    I mean, objectively, not because these "names" are intimidating, but because, somehow, they have written interesting epistemological theories.

    But the point wasn't to say "I know more philosophy than Oberon" (that is obvious ), but to arouse Oberon's curiosity. And since Oberon is a very clever mouse, there's a genuine probability that he may have read Wittgenstein or Husserl. Or even more.

    I'm pretty sure that this fiendish mouster may have a lot to teach me.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  10. #130
    Lasting_Pain
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I think I've run across the attitude too much in my past, along with some very nasty judgment and rejection attached to it, that I have trouble reading it in any other light. Anyway, it's funny -- I was feeling unsettled by the tone of the conversation and how it left me feeling inside. Now I need to evaluate that some more.

    maybe the fact you're not picking up on it either means I'm oversensitive or that you're not aware when you create feelings in people with your delivery (or both).




    I guess I am evaluating your position by its inherent ramifications on relational living as I have experienced it and studied in throughout my life. I see what has brought good results. I see what has invariably brought bad results.

    I don't know how you live in real life, or what you are like -- in fact, I am betting actually you go out of your way to be there for people, live purely, deal with your responsibilities, and act very graciously -- but I think that lifestyle (which I consider very positive) is not based on the inherent theology that you describe here, which I think if you distilled it down and looked at it in terms of where it leads, actually ends up being destructive if applied directly.

    So when you talk about how God never changes and thus the church should never change (or it compromises its values), well, that's not what I'm really talking about.

    I see the church (especially the conservative elements) as having good intentions but having become blinded to its overall mission -- so in its quest to defend orthodoxy ends up losing and shoving away the very people it claims it wants to save. There is a disconnect there in terms of how attitudes and behaviors result in very different outcomes than intentions would dictate.

    Does that make sense?



    Again, your comments like these tell me you're not getting my point. That's not at all what I am trying to say.

    Maybe this example will get my point across:
    • Jesus hung out with hookers, thieves, tax collectors, and social undesirables.
    • he didn't do this as a missions trip. He did it because he actually loved and liked them... and he really hated hanging out with religious people.
    • Look at how he treated them (with fondness and fun and love) and the sort of people they were RELATIONALLY, as opposed to the sort of people the evangelicals of the time (the Pharisees, who actually had GREAT INTENTIONS and were trying to 'restore the culture' and 'purify the faith' -- they really were trying and thought they were right!) were and how Jesus really loathed talking to them.
    • What happened to Jesus? He got blacklisted and eventually killed because he was a "bad influence."


    Jesus did not apply the "can't relate to the world" thing the way it's coming across when you say it here.

    And I use Jesus' example in real-life (not some abstract theology or crystal-clear ideology) to help me figure out how to interpret my life.

    I have to go by Jesus.

    I also think that the world would LIKE the Jesus who hung out with them, rather than walking around complaining about how the culture was going down the tubes, and how they no longer had a voice, and how no one loved God. That's not because they were sinners, Gail, it's because the Jesus they see there is actually someone who loved them, treated them with respect, and could acknowledge and value and delight in them as human beings.

    That's what I feel the more conservative elements of the church are missing when they try to practice their faith. They are so concerned with "protecting the faith" and "keeping political power, for the good of all" and other such things that they are missing the bottom-line truth: People responded to Jesus because of how he treated them.

    That's where the faith is lived out.



    I don't mean to say you don't (and based on your articulateness and your vocational background, I'm assuming you are extremely intelligent, honestly).

    However, the way your beliefs seem constructed, you'll never have to.

    Life is ambiguous and complex, and I have found that having preset BROAD answers means I stop engaging people where they are at. Love happens in the Now, in the moment, when I step into a situation I don't quite understand, and engaging the people within it where they are at rather than just categorizing them upfront and spitting out the answer.



    The first part of your comment: You might have been quoting the Bible, but you WERE choosing the context in which it was applied. So it wasn't an innocuous comment. You were stating something of a personal nature by quoting it at that time and place... you were describing your own particular opinion of what that verse meant and how it applied. The words might be "God's", but the context was chosen by you and conveys its own message.

    The latter part: I think context conveys attitude. I don't disagree that the "Word of God" has redemptive power, but it's a two-edged sword, isn't it? If you use it in the wrong context, you kill the person who you feel are trying to surgically save.

    I guess if I were in a situation where I was unsure, I would canvass the responses of the people to my comments and sharing of truth with them -- and if they were reacting negatively to me, it means one of at least two things: Either they're part of the "fallen world" and just won't accept/understand my comments (and I suppose could be labeled as "fools" in my mind, even though of course I would never say that out loud because that would be unloving?) ... OR.... the context in which I am placing those words is being more destructive, to the point where good-hearted people are legitimately responding negatively to God's truth because I'm twisting it somehow, even if i am not sure how

    That's what I do when I'm in discussions like this. I'm listening to the innate feedback of content and tone that others are sending back to me and reevaluating myself and my attitudes and words based on it.



    You don't need to appease me, especially if you don't want to.

    I'm not investing in this discussion to win you over, although that might be personally fulfilling for me. I just feel I need to put an explanation of the truth I've come to see alongside yours, so people can compare the two and come to their own conclusions.

    If I articulate myself well, then that's enough.
    *overwhelmed by enormous amounts of information*

    I agree with Jenny, but I tend to use the Bible only to state contradictions and misconceptions that people draw from it. I particularly do not like when people quote the bible in serious conversations and expect for everyone to agree. Normally I never tend to rely on the Bible but I have read most of it and understand it.

Similar Threads

  1. Jimmy Carter: The U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-25-2015, 05:49 AM
  2. NOM is no longer 'nomnom'able?
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-20-2014, 12:46 PM
  3. [INTP] INTPs: If someone is no longer interesting, do you ignore them?
    By Anew Leaf in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 02-15-2012, 07:07 PM
  4. Is MBTI type (or part of it) genetic?
    By Macabre in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-16-2011, 10:35 AM
  5. [MBTItm] How Does One Deal With Heartbreak and Is Psychological Pain Necessarily Part Of It?
    By Winds of Thor in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: 05-28-2009, 09:43 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