• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

MBTI type and belief in god

S

Sniffles

Guest
Interesting way of putting it. Most Christians really do not understand faith, do they?

In many ways no, I wouldn't say so. Then again truth doesn't depend upon majority adherence or not.

I am sure you are very tired of hearing Ti users debunk the logical inconsistencies of faith, so here is an Ne perspective that you may find interesting:

Well actually what bugs me is people who actually try to use MBTI to explain or dismiss religious claims(example: I can't believe in your god because I use Ti). That's actually stepping outside the legitimate realms of Typology(or rather psychology in general) - as Martin Buber noted in his critique of Carl Jung.


And so this leads me to my previously stated conclusion: that the value of religion is largely philosophic in nature, and great for some people because it's precisely what they need to hear to stay motivated. I do recognize that freely admitting this may ruin the value in faith for some, but I also know religious people who openly admit that their holy stories are probably not literally true, but that participating in religion fulfills external world goals to the extent that its internal consistency (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.
Your conclusion is wrong, and misses the entire point of religion. Doesn't make a darn difference if you use Ne, Ti, Ni, whatever function to come to this conclusion - you're still wrong. Religion deals ultimately with metaphysical realities; which goes beyond mere ethics - although many like to try reduce it to that. It's common practice among those who adhere to the "Christ of Culture" perspective as Reinhold Niebuhr termed it. In fact your whole argument here seems to rest upon that perspective; and many peoples' perspectives on religion falls under that category. That or occassionally the "Christ Against Culture" perspective.

Now on taking holy scriptures literally. Non-literal interpretations of scriptures have a very long history - dating to at least to the woks of the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria in the first century BC. Now concerning Christianity specifically, I have to once again note that it evolved from the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism. One first century Christian text, the Epistle of Barnabas, actually condemns those who take scriptures literally as dupes of the Devil.

Fundamentalism or scriptural literalism as we know it today didn't really develop until the 18th-19th century. Similar situation to Islamic fundamentalism actually, particularly in the form of Wahhabism. So ironically the form of religion that gets condemned the most for supposedly being "primitive" or "out of date" etc. etc. is in actuality a product of modernity itself.

At this point I must insist: When in a hole, stop digging.


So the question is: Does it matter if you're wrong?
Yes of course it does.
 

millerm277

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
978
MBTI Type
ISTP
ISTP - Agnostic that leans pretty far to Atheist. I accept that there is a possibility of a god, or there not being a god, but my personal belief is that the probability of no god (In the traditional sense depicted in the bible and such), is more likely than their being one by a large amount.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
What I do know about x is that it works for me.
1. It gives me comfort
2. it gives me courage
3. it gives me strength
4. it gives me perspective
5. gives me God as a wonderful friend
6. Sometimes (particularly under stress ( it feels like it gives me superpowers to accomplish remarkable things.)
7. It is like my home. It gives me shelter and for a person abandon that shelter and become homeless seems inequitable.

Have also seen in others how surrendering yourself to a higher power can really turn their apparently previous hopeless lives around: (i.e. alcoholics)

Am sure that there must be some pragmatic satisfaction in being an atheist. Kinda like how it felt adult not believing in Santa Claus when a bunch of the younger kids still believing. But even then as soon as that happened I stopped getting presents from Santa.:doh:

I've already covered all of this. Religion is very useful for some people, and I wouldn't take that away from most of them because they need it for the reasons you listed, but that doesn't make any more likely to be true. Granted this is not the point for most religious people, so fine, but for purposes of this discussion I believe we're discussing the probable truth/falsehood of a literal interpretation of God, not whether or not religion is useful.


In many ways no, I wouldn't say so. Then again truth doesn't depend upon majority adherence or not.

k


Well actually what bugs me is people who actually try to use MBTI to explain or dismiss religious claims(example: I can't believe in your god because I use Ti). That's actually stepping outside the legitimate realms of Typology(or rather psychology in general) - as Martin Buber noted in his critique of Carl Jung.

I think you don't understand why the functional explanations apply here. You can use any function to confirm or deny God if you want to; the idea isn't that Ti is automatically atheistic or anything like that, it's all in how you use that function to reach your personal conclusion on the topic. There are theists and atheists of every type, so obviously no function always reaches the same conclusion in different people.


Your conclusion is wrong, and misses the entire point of religion. Doesn't make a darn difference if you use Ne, Ti, Ni, whatever function to come to this conclusion - you're still wrong. Religion deals ultimately with metaphysical realities; which goes beyond mere ethics - although many like to try reduce it to that. It's common practice among those who adhere to the "Christ of Culture" perspective as Reinhold Niebuhr termed it. In fact your whole argument here seems to rest upon that perspective; and many peoples' perspectives on religion falls under that category. That or occassionally the "Christ Against Culture" perspective.

Any response other than flat contradiction?



Now on taking holy scriptures literally. Non-literal interpretations of scriptures have a very long history - dating to at least to the woks of the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria in the first century BC. Now concerning Christianity specifically, I have to once again note that it evolved from the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism. One first century Christian text, the Epistle of Barnabas, actually condemns those who take scriptures literally as dupes of the Devil.

Fundamentalism or scriptural literalism as we know it today didn't really develop until the 18th-19th century. Similar situation to Islamic fundamentalism actually, particularly in the form of Wahhabism. So ironically the form of religion that gets condemned the most for supposedly being "primitive" or "out of date" etc. etc. is in actuality a product of modernity itself.

Okay, this is a fair point. Unfortunately the fundamentalist view has become the most popular one today, so it unfortunately causes faith in general to get a lot of flack.



At this point I must insist: When in a hole, stop digging.

Wow, more free condescension. Great, what a deal.





Yes of course it does.

Why? Won't the ultimate effect on your life be the same?

Also, main question: How do you decide which ideas to place faith in and which ones not to?
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Okay, this is a fair point. Unfortunately the fundamentalist view has become the most popular one today, so it unfortunately causes faith in general to get a lot of flack.
No it's just the perspective that gets the most attention from the media. The majority of Christians do not adhere to a fundamentalist view; and I'd wager neither do the majority of Muslims either.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
No it's just the perspective that gets the most attention from the media. The majority of Christians do not adhere to a fundamentalist view; and I'd wager neither do the majority of Muslims either.

Okay, perhaps not fundamentalist, that's fair.

But it does seem like the majority of Christians do believe that God is a literal and conscious entity who answers prayers and will one day bring all the believers to eternal joyous afterlife with him and condemn everyone else to eternal suffering.

That's the part I can't really get behind.

Any responses to the rest of my last post?
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Okay, perhaps not fundamentalist, that's fair.

But it does seem like the majority of Christians do believe that God is a literal and conscious entity who answers prayers and will one day bring all the believers to eternal joyous afterlife with him and condemn everyone else to eternal suffering.

That's the part I can't really get behind.

So it's the issue of a personal God you're having problems with?

Any responses to the rest of my last post?

There's not much to respond to really. You keep repeating your claim that religion is largely about ethical behavior when anybody who's bothered to study religion know that the ultimate end of any religion deals with metaphysical realities. Without that metaphysical foundation, then you don't have religion. There certainly are practical/utilitarian aspects to religion, but you can't confuse that one aspect for the whole thing. That's the mistake you consistently insist upon making.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
So it's the issue of a personal God you're having problems with?

Mainly, yeah. If God exists I find myself unable to rationalize that he would be morally judgmental, or even be a "he" or other conscious entity at all. I also don't believe in any afterlife whatsoever. Once you get to that point of vagueness I just don't understand the purpose anymore.

What might belief in a personal God do to improve my life?



There's not much to respond to really. You keep repeating your claim that religion is largely about ethical behavior when anybody who's bothered to study religion know that the ultimate end of any religion deals with metaphysical realities. Without that metaphysical foundation, then you don't have religion. There certainly are practical/utilitarian aspects to religion, but you can't confuse that one aspect for the whole thing. That's the mistake you consistently insist upon making.

I see. I was commenting more on the practical positive effects of religion that I've observed in others, not so much on what religious people actually believe about the purpose of their own faith. Obviously they think it's much more than just ethics, as you've aptly demonstrated.

As for the metaphysical foundation...obviously it's a choice made outside of any sort of reason, but how is it that you decide to follow this particular uncertain truth and not a million other possible but uncertain truths? Why Christianity and not Islam or Hinduism or any other traditions?

For that matter, how is it that you've decided purely objective truth even exists at all?
 

Spamtar

Ghost Monkey Soul
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
4,468
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
but that doesn't make any more likely to be true. Granted this is not the point for most religious people, so fine?

Ok now not clear on the scope of the thread beyond its title but I am game for the moment. Why doesn't it make it more likely than not that something that has a use (i.e. what I listed, the earth etc.) presuppose a cause or architect of the tool for the purpose of addressing that use? For example a watch is useful to tell time but there is a valid presumption that the watch was created by some intelligent design, a watchmaker of sorts. Similar to a watch the earth is a very complex design, is it your position that the earth just got lucky, that it just came together as a coincidence? Regardless of your belief or my belief I would nevertheless say this is presentable evidence to show the relevance evidence. In other words a matter that has a tendency to prove or disprove a material matter under dispute.

So if God/Faith in God has no use it would have a tendency to prove your position.

If the earth was never able to support life and just a floating rock and not something of useful or artistic design I would say it has a tendency to prove your position.

I am not saying you should throw your hands in the air and praise the lord. What I am saying is it is relevant and reasonably creates a presumption of a God or an Architect. Thus the "weight" of the applicable evidence needs to be addressed if it is to be proven (what is the standard of proof by the way? A possibility, a preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing proof, beyond reasonable doubt? Who is to be the finder of fact, a jury a judge any voir dire, how many preemptory strikes etc...?;)

As I think I have noted I for one am less concerned with truth or falsity and more concerned with pragmatics and simply begging the question. I think we can agree God is useful to me, regardless if he/she is any use to you. There simply isn’t the evidence available to clearly show enough weight if God exists or no to change anybody’s mind who doesn’t have the propensity to belief one way or the other. All there is, is “argument” not "evidence", only clever or bad applications of logic, semantics and endurance. Some of your rebuttals are not bad but otherwise I think you are biting more than you can chew. Cheers and good luck in finding what you are looking for.:)
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Mainly, yeah. If God exists I find myself unable to rationalize that he would be morally judgmental, or even be a "he" or other conscious entity at all. I also don't believe in any afterlife whatsoever. Once you get to that point of vagueness I just don't understand the purpose anymore.
This remind me of Chesterton's observation on the difference between mysticism and pure logic:
"Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid. The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say "if you please" to the housemaid. The Christian permits free will to remain a sacred mystery; but because of this his relations with the housemaid become of a sparkling and crystal clearness. He puts the seed of dogma in a central darkness; but it branches forth in all directions with abounding natural health."

Orthodoxy by Gilbert K. Chesterton, Chapter 2

You're insisting that God make sense rationally, without taking into account that reason has its limits - especially when dealing with entities like God. Now that doesn't mean reason can aid one in understanding God better(or attributes of God, if not his full essence) - as St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrated with his 5 proofs. But ultimately the issue of knowledge of God(at least in the Abrahamic sense) lies in revelation.

Even Kant I believe dealt deeply with the issues of the limitation of reason, especially when dealing with issues related to God and its nature in Critique of Pure Reason.

As for the metaphysical foundation...obviously it's a choice made outside of any sort of reason, but how is it that you decide to follow this particular uncertain truth and not a million other possible but uncertain truths? Why Christianity and not Islam or Hinduism or any other traditions?

Well there are plenty of reasons to pick Christianity over other religions, some are primary and others are secondary. A good secondary reason in my case would involve my cultural heritage for example - although it does point to an important secondary reason when comparing it to Islam for example.

But a good primary reason I could thing of is simply that Christianity makes more sense than the other religions when viewed from a comprehensive viewpoint. For example, Christianity has one god while Hinduism has several gods(thousands even I believe). Well Ockham's razor: One god makes more sense than thousands.

Concerning Islam; the common perspective on God's interaction with the natural world is that of Occasionalism - ie whatever happens is simply the will of God. Contrary to what many claim, Christianity has never adhered to such - but rather that God of course is the primary mover(or the unmoved mover) and through secondary agents interacts with the world. Of course sometimes God does directly intervene in the natural world, and these are called miracles. But miracles by their very nature are unusual events; and certainly cannot be taken as explaination for the normal course of natural events. For more info: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Miracle

I have discussed plenty of times here about the major impact such a perspective and other Christian theological concepts had upon the development of science as we know it; including the concept of methodical naturalism(which too often is mistaken for metaphysical naturalism by religion critics). Furthermore, many of the basic presuppositions of Modernity itself(on which much of atheism as we know it today grounds itself) are founded upon theological concepts derived in wake of the rise of Nominalism and the crisis it provoked within Medieval thinking. So the irony is that without Christianity, atheism as we know it could not even exist.

Now does this definatively prove Christianity is the one true faith? No it doesn't. That's an ultimately an issue of faith. But if you look at Christian perspectives as a whole and the wide-reaching impact they've had on the world(even when compared to that of other faiths); it can certainly point one to that conclusion.

I've barely scratched the surface of this issue with a few examples; but there's literally an over abundance of resources about Christianity's impact upon the world, not the mention entire treastises concerning debate with the claims of other religions.


For that matter, how is it that you've decided purely objective truth even exists at all?
I guess for now I can answer that since it's important for the cosmos to be governed by order, objective(or even more so universal) is a must - otherwise you'd have chaos. Of course that's just one major piece in the much larger puzzle here. After all, one's view of ultimate things effects one's views on everything else. Even in a political context universal truth is important; for it is upon such that concepts of justice and even human rights are founded upon. Without universal truth(which comes from God), all you have is the mere arbitrary power of the state and might basically makes right. That's why Plato argued that atheism was so contrary to the political order; because it denies the ultimate foundation for morality, justice, and the order of being itself. So the issue of order and disorder does play an important role in the issue regarding objective/universal truth. But again I'm just barely scratching the surface here.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
You're insisting that God make sense rationally, without taking into account that reason has its limits - especially when dealing with entities like God. Now that doesn't mean reason can aid one in understanding God better(or attributes of God, if not his full essence) - as St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrated with his 5 proofs. But ultimately the issue of knowledge of God(at least in the Abrahamic sense) lies in revelation.

Reason has its limits, yes--but how is this duality of attitudes of which he speaks relevant to a person of faith? It sounds as if you see God as only one possible interpretation of what is going on in the universe, like you're skirting the line between faith and non-faith so that you can gain the most perspective from both.

I think this is a cool idea, but I must wonder--if you are not certain, how is it that you really have "faith"? If you believe the real world to be just as important as the spiritual world, are you not something of an agnostic yourself? It sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too--"Oh yeah I have total faith in God, but I'm not really totally sure, plus I find worldly wisdom just as important and necessary as divine wisdom...but seriously guys, I'm a devout Christian." It sounds like you're bending over backwards to make an unreasonable position sound reasonable.

Well there are plenty of reasons to pick Christianity over other religions, some are primary and others are secondary. A good secondary reason in my case would involve my cultural heritage for example - although it does point to an important secondary reason when comparing it to Islam for example.

Yeah, that's the reason most people rely on, whether consciously or not.

But a good primary reason I could thing of is simply that Christianity makes more sense than the other religions when viewed from a comprehensive viewpoint. For example, Christianity has one god while Hinduism has several gods(thousands even I believe). Well Ockham's razor: One god makes more sense than thousands.

Well, that's quite up to debate, isn't it? You've made a sloppy error in reasoning here by assuming Occam's Razor applies in all cases...either that or arbitrarily decided that it applies here because it seems most comfortable to you.

Seriously, your entire case against Hinduism is that it has too many gods? That seems to suggest that you aren't too well-versed in the philosophy of Hinduism or other eastern religion.

Concerning Islam; the common perspective on God's interaction with the natural world is that of Occasionalism - ie whatever happens is simply the will of God. Contrary to what many claim, Christianity has never adhered to such - but rather that God of course is the primary mover(or the unmoved mover) and through secondary agents interacts with the world. Of course sometimes God does directly intervene in the natural world, and these are called miracles. But miracles by their very nature are unusual events; and certainly cannot be taken as explaination for the normal course of natural events. For more info: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Miracle

As you know, I'm of the opinion that all so-called "miracles" have reasonable explanations.

I have discussed plenty of times here about the major impact such a perspective and other Christian theological concepts had upon the development of science as we know it; including the concept of methodical naturalism(which too often is mistaken for metaphysical naturalism by religion critics). Furthermore, many of the basic presuppositions of Modernity itself(on which much of atheism as we know it today grounds itself) are founded upon theological concepts derived in wake of the rise of Nominalism and the crisis it provoked within Medieval thinking. So the irony is that without Christianity, atheism as we know it could not even exist.

That's great, and I absolutely regard the study of Christianity and the Bible as an integral part of a well-rounded education. I don't, however, understand how "But it influenced lots of people a whole bunch!" as any kind of reasoning for believing in its supposed metaphysical truth value.

Now does this definatively prove Christianity is the one true faith? No it doesn't. That's an ultimately an issue of faith. But if you look at Christian perspectives as a whole and the wide-reaching impact they've had on the world(even when compared to that of other faiths); it can certainly point one to that conclusion.

I suppose it could, but you could find the same conclusion about virtually anything you wanted to. Not to mention, how does the fact that it's been widely influential indicate anything about its actual truth value?

I'm sure I needn't remind you how many blatant lies have become vastly influential across numerous time periods and cultures in centuries past.

I've barely scratched the surface of this issue with a few examples; but there's literally an over abundance of resources about Christianity's impact upon the world, not the mention entire treastises concerning debate with the claims of other religions.

Once again you point to "It's had enormous influence" as evidence for its truth value, which does not follow at all.



I guess for now I can answer that since it's important for the cosmos to be governed by order, objective(or even more so universal) is a must - otherwise you'd have chaos.

We do have chaos. Look around you. The vast majority of your life circumstances are determined by random chance.
 

Bubbles

See Right Through Me
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
1,037
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w3
Nature vs nurture, right here. If I hadn't been raised Catholic, it's quite quite quite possible (almost one hundred percent likely) I wouldn't have wound up one. :D Thinking I'd be believing in something though. Don't know what. If anything, I'd believe in humanity, at least.

Part of the reason I believe in God the way I do, though, is because I have so many wonderful memories and experiences attached to my faith. It's how it was founded for me that keeps me coming back.

...and I totally derailed sim's and Peguy's debate, carry on... -.-
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Yeah, that's the reason most people rely on, whether consciously or not.
Indeed, but as I clearly stated it's at best a secondary reason for myself. You're free to challenge me on that score, but I must warn I have an unfair advantage over you.

Seriously, your entire case against Hinduism is that it has too many gods?
I believe I clearly states that this and other arguments I made are just simple examples, but are only the tip of the iceberg involved with the issues here.

That seems to suggest that you aren't too well-versed in the philosophy of Hinduism or other eastern religion.

Actually I am. During my time as an atheist, I read heavily into Buddhist texts and almost considered becoming one. On the other forum I post on I'm continously discussing matters of religion and philosophy with Hindus and Buddhists. Not to mention I have a Hindu friend whom I discuss these matters with. Plus studying world religions has been a passion of mine for much of my life.

That's great, and I absolutely regard the study of Christianity and the Bible as an integral part of a well-rounded education. I don't, however, understand how "But it influenced lots of people a whole bunch!" as any kind of reasoning for believing in its supposed metaphysical truth value.

Well again, if you study the wider impacts it's had and the specific nature of that impact - it can help one come to that conclusion; especially when one take in account that culture and history are very much the realms where ideals connect with reality - or from a more religious perspective where mankind connects with the divine. It's still secondary to larger metaphysical matters, but it's still an important secondary matter.

Not to mention, how does the fact that it's been widely influential indicate anything about its actual truth value?

I'll repeat this one last time: it can help one come to that conclusion; but again it does not definatively prove Christianity's truth. That is ultimately a matter of faith.

I'm sure I needn't remind you how many blatant lies have become vastly influential across numerous time periods and cultures in centuries past.
I'm well aware of that, so no need really. As Risen once said on Vent, it's pretty much a violation of a law of nature to try to debate me on history. :D


We do have chaos. Look around you. The vast majority of your life circumstances are determined by random chance.

That's only true if one decides to adopt a reductionist approach to life.
 
Last edited:

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
What happened? I'm curious because currently I am experiencing somewhat of an existential crisis. Toying with nihilism is leaving me in ruins and I am questioning revisiting spirituality.

There was a period of several years there were I was looking into different religions and belief systems. Ultimately what I was looking for was something that would have the greatest positive impact on my life. At one point I went to a Bible study with some Christians that I knew from grad school. I was impressed with the inner peace and authenticity they had. After a while this lead me to pray to God and commit my life to Him.

When I first started looking into various belief systems I didn't want to give Christianity a try. I had known to many hypocrites growing up, and the beliefs didn't make much sense to me on top of that. I thought, "if any of these religions are true, then surely Christianity cannot be it." Now that I've become a Christian I'm really glad I gave it a chance though, because it's had such a positive impact on my life. It was really my most important life changing decision. :)
 

ilovetrannies

New member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
83
MBTI Type
ISFP
I'm an ISFP. I've always been an atheist, even as a kid I could tell it was bullshit from a mile away. My parents are sensers, too and they don't give a damn about religion or god. Anybody, got a problem with it?
 

Snuggletron

Reptilian
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
2,224
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
10
I'm an ISFP. I've always been an atheist, even as a kid I could tell it was bullshit from a mile away. My parents are sensers, too and they don't give a damn about religion or god. Anybody, got a problem with it?

lol, I like your attitude.

I think certain types tend to lean in certain directions. My mom is an ESFJ, she doesn't go to church but she is a traditional Baptist for sure. She mentions biblical references every now and then. She believes in psychics and the Christian heaven. It kind of annoys me because I immediately want to sharpen my tongue at those points but I don't act on it. I respect others' spiritual preferences. But I still wonder why anyone would limit themselves to a specific doctrine since the universe is so large.

I don't have any beliefs myself, I think as humans we lack the capacity to completely understand the existence of a Deity(s). As I said, I find specific religions extremely limiting. Although from certain research on things like DMT and near-death-experiences I'd like to hope there is something more...but I'm not at a place to say I'm certain, and don't think it's possible for me to do so.

although this is one of those topics that doesn't do it for me to express anymore. :dont:
 

raz

Let's make this showy!
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
2,523
MBTI Type
LoLz
I'm ISTJ, and I was raised Catholic, but as I started to talk to other T's, I realized how easily everything in life could be questions if it were put under the microscope of analysis. This led to me questioning my religion, then questioning all religions, and eventually coming to the conclusion that there's too much doubt in anything, and then so many possibilities that we could be unaware of meaning I'd rather just focus on my own personal interests.
 

ayoitsStepho

Twerking & Lurking
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
4,838
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I am a Christian by choice.
I actually grew up in the baptist church and went along with it because that was what my mother did [my dad is/was a catholic...i really dont know what he is honestly] So our family has been split because of that. My mother took us kids to church while our dad did whatever he wanted to. Having a mother who is a Christian and having a father who really has no religious hold of anything can be severally confussing. My mom became a Christian after she had married my dad and after that my dad started telling her that she changed. She was into drugs [cocain, exstacy, anything really] and drank quite a bit. Thats what my parents did together, but once my mom became a Christian, eventually she quit everything. She felt a need for something different and those addictions she had weren't cutting it. It changed her alot.

So naturally when i became a teenager [15] I had alot of doubts and really I didnt really care about such things. I wanted to hang out with friends and I wanted to try to fit in. I was so insecure and did anything that was asked of me...I really never felt i belonged. When I was 17 thats when I felt God touch my heart and tell me that its "time for me to become who i am suppost to be." It was such an intense moment for me because i was searching for my identity in other teens my age...and it left me alone and hurt and never fulfilled.
To know that you have an identity in Jesus Christ is fullfilling. I found myself a great church that LOVED me and brought me in as a sister. Look i'd been to lots and lots of churches because we always moved. But this church...wow. You know somethings going right there. And i knew that love was something that was missing in my love and through my relationship with Him, I found it and I found my identity. Now whenever I've talked with old friends from those years of rebellion and such, they're all the same and they've claimed that I've changed in a really great way. Self confidence, courage, alot more friendly and just an all around better person to be around. And you know what? I'm happy and I'm at peace. I'm not perfect and i really know how to screw up, but i know that im forgiven for my mistakes and im still loved no matter how bad my mistake was!

Thats why I chose christianity. It isnt about being good and doing all these good deeds. Its not about what we can do. Its a relationship with God.
And you may not understand what I'm saying and thats fine. Because you can tell someone about chocolate and you can tell them all the facts and what its made of and even how chocolate makes you feel. but unless that person has eatten chocolate themselves, they wont really 'know' chocolate.

Anyway, im not looking for a debate, im only putting my faith out there. :)
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
Are NT's usually atheist?
Are NF's usually theists?
Are there any NT's who believe in god?
Are there any NF's who don't believe in god?
I have zero spirituality. Nil. Nada.
It is a question of accomodation.
The question of accomodation is about culture.
Culture is synonymous to field.

Conditioning is autonomous.
Accomodation is not.

Accomodation is voluntary.
An aspect of will.
Want does not wait.
 

raz

Let's make this showy!
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
2,523
MBTI Type
LoLz
I'm an ISFP. I've always been an atheist, even as a kid I could tell it was bullshit from a mile away. My parents are sensers, too and they don't give a damn about religion or god. Anybody, got a problem with it?

Exactly, we're taking something that should be absolute and turning it into something that's personal preference and debated about over thousands of years. That to me is bullshit. Why even bother, then? I think the debate is fun as just that...to point out counters to the argument while accepting that there is no absolute and this whole faith thing is pointless.
 
Top