INTP and hating religion.

[Lark]

no, see, i dont believe in jesus christ as my lord and savior, or how ever you want to put it. so for this simple fact, a belief, I am supposed to go to hell and suffer forever? For what? A belief. And you, you pick the right god so you get to go to heaven and all the rest of us go to hell.

I can't see how I'm either supposed to like that or accept it.




sports dont drive people apart quite the same way religion does......

Yeah, I know why you think and feel that way because it IS how some poor examples of Christian believers choose to understand and by extention spread their faith, its the whole Ghandi in hell thing isnt it? South Park sent it up a couple of times with shots of hell which featured all the worst examples of humanity, Hitler, Saddam, alongside Ghandi.

That's inaccurate if you ask me, its not how I understand the life, ministry and resurrection of Jesus, I dont even buy too closely into the ideas of Jesus being a blood sacrifice to exhonorate the world of sin, it makes for the kind of reasoning featured in Confessions of a Justified Sinner (which is a great book if you're opposed to fundametalism and some of the flawed thinking it gives rise to, particularly Calvinism).

If you dont choose to believe in Jesus that's you're choice, I dont see the good news like that, its a little like if you were a persecuted minority in hiding fom the Nazis and the news reached you that your country was about to be liberated by the allies, you'd be relieved right? Whether you really believed in allies or not you'd benefit by their actions, which is how I consider the life and ministry of Jesus.

A lot of people of people are bound to be like Thomas, they wont believe until they see, but Thomas wasnt condemned for his lack of belief was he? He was admonished and he felt sorry for himself but that's the height of it. Still others will be like those mentioned, I think its James but I could be wrong, claim to love God and hate their neighbour, when they've seen their neighbour but never seen God, I dont remember how its exactly phrased but the writer thought it was daft too.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Milkyway's post, quoted above, is a perfect example of Ti frustration with Christianity in particular and popular level thought in general. Ti wants to break a system down to its fundamental components and subject them to rational analysis in order to discover their essence, what makes them distinct from the other components in the system. Ne wants to discover how those components are related. (Thank you Teslashock). Contemporary Christians just want faith. This is a bad combo. You're not supposed to understand God! You're trying to rely on head-knowledge. Christianity is about heart-knowledge: you have to feeeeeel it. God's ways are too high for us to understand. He's beyond human reason.

If God is beyond human reason, then what is the object of worship...?

What I don't understand about this faith approach is why then there are christians who point out to the bible and the universe as God's creation. It appears that they believe in the faith approach, but at the same time they try and back it up with 'evidence'.

Then there are christians and athiests that forget that, everything we see, even if backed up by head-knowledge is taken on faith in the end. The idea that while we are 99% certain, we can never be 100% certain - a leap of faith is required to bridge that final gap. So it doesn't make sense when people claim that you should just have faith and not try to understand it since you won't be able to.

Would God really want us blindly accepting stuff? I wouldn't think so. I'd figure he'd want a combination of analysis and faith approach. It's like being accepted without understood. Obviously I can't state with 100% certainty, but I'd think that God would like to be understood as well as accepted, even if we can't fully understand the parent.

 

[Eric B]

You should absolutely not stop thinking. The church has been running on the hard earned intellectual capital of her forebears, but she's not been replenishing the coffers. How many "Great Revivals" have there been in the U.S. now? Three for sure. I think we're supposed to be in the middle of the fourth. It's all emotionally driven: it's completely, intellectually bankrupt.

Contemporary Christians have abandoned the examined life, and, as a result, contemporary Christianity cannot be distinguished from contemporary Mammon and Ashera worship; we're not losing the culture war: we've lost the culture war. 75% of Americans claim to be Christian, but you wouldn't be able to tell by the way Americans behave. Oh, we like to fool ourselves by getting upset, getting emotional, when the 10 commandments are removed from a courtroom, but only 14% can name all ten commandments. What a farce. Instead of getting emotional, maybe we could we could stop and think about why those commandments are important so that we could give a rational defense of the law of God. Alas, to do that, one would first have to think about the law of God, but Christians have a severe allergic reaction to thought. phh... they're not even willing to give it enough thought to commit 10 sentences to memory. Frauds.

Milkyway's post, quoted above, is a perfect example of Ti frustration with Christianity in particular and popular level thought in general. Ti wants to break a system down to its fundamental components and subject them to rational analysis in order to discover their essence, what makes them distinct from the other components in the system. Ne wants to discover how those components are related. (Thank you Teslashock). Contemporary Christians just want faith. This is a bad combo. You're not supposed to understand God! You're trying to rely on head-knowledge. Christianity is about heart-knowledge: you have to feeeeeel it. God's ways are too high for us to understand. He's beyond human reason.

If God is beyond human reason, then what is the object of worship...?

Wow! Have you been reading Michael Horton, or someone else like him using the Barna polls?

What I don't understand about this faith approach is why then there are christians who point out to the bible and the universe as God's creation. It appears that they believe in the faith approach, but at the same time they try and back it up with 'evidence'.

I've always noted that too. The "evidence" then comes in handy when citing Romans 1 and saying God has given everyone enough "revelation" to condemn them for not realizing He's real, they're sinners and asking Him to reveal himself and/or save them. Only when the difficulty of belief based on the evidence is pointed out, they then fll back on "it's by faith".

 

[Owl]

I remember something that went something like this:

"Christian" and "Athiest" are terms that only intellectualize the problem, and faith is something that cannot be intellectualized. Just because someone intellectually "believes" doesn't mean that they really do. As many have said in this thread, "if Christians are right, then Atheists have a lot more to lose" is an argument to accept God out of fear. Assuming one would rather not fear than fear, this fear is actually rejection. As in, the labels of "Christian" and "Atheist" are rather useless because they don't really show what one would do in the face of God necessarily unless He had revealed himself to these people and had turned them one way or the other: "you never know what people are capable of until they're put in hot water," "there are no atheists in foxholes," etc.

A.K.A, one is not "lost" if one is not a Christian in a Christian land. Unlike with most, God will not blame you for your crappy education, and pure lip service will get you nowhere.

I agree with this. (Although quite a bit hinges on the "and" in: "they don't really show what one would do in the face of God necessarily unless He had revealed himself to these people and had turned them one way or the other").

However, I am very suspect of any position that says someone can be saved if they don't accept Christ before their physical death. I've found no reason to accept this as true and much evidence against it. No one is outside the grace of God; he can and will save whom he pleases, but everyone among the saved will come to realize the importance, the necessity, of the atonement.

Here are some of my fav. scripture quotes. You can skip them, but they address the topic at hand.

Psalm 19:1-4, ESV:

The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for the sun

Psalm 87, ESV:

On the holy mount stands the city he founded;
the LORD loves the gates of Zion
more than all the dwelling places of Jacob.
Glorious things of you are spoken,
O city of God.
Selah

Among those who know me I mention Rahab and Babylon;
behold, Philistia and Tyre, with Cush—
"This one was born there," they say.
And of Zion it shall be said,
"This one and that one were born in her";
for the Most High himself will establish her.
The LORD records as he registers the peoples,
"This one was born there."
Selah

Singers and dancers alike say,
"All my springs are in you."

Mat 7:21, ESV

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

...

What I don't understand about this faith approach is why then there are christians who point out to the bible and the universe as God's creation. It appears that they believe in the faith approach, but at the same time they try and back it up with 'evidence'.

Then there are christians and athiests that forget that, everything we see, even if backed up by head-knowledge is taken on faith in the end. The idea that while we are 99% certain, we can never be 100% certain - a leap of faith is required to bridge that final gap. So it doesn't make sense when people claim that you should just have faith and not try to understand it since you won't be able to.

Would God really want us blindly accepting stuff? I wouldn't think so. I'd figure he'd want a combination of analysis and faith approach. It's like being accepted without understood. Obviously I can't state with 100% certainty, but I'd think that God would like to be understood as well as accepted, even if we can't fully understand the parent.

I think this is an excellent post.

Granted, there is much work that needs to be done in epistemology and metaphysics, but I don't think this means we can't know that God exists in a very strong sense of the word "know". Can we know with 100% certainty? Do I have to rule out the (supposed) possibility that I am a deluded dog or a butterfly's dream in order to know that I have hands?

Or, in order to know any proposition P, do I have to know that ~P? (Or must I know that ~H, where H is a skeptical hypothesis that is inconsistent with P?)

Admittedly, I haven't all the answers.

Wow! Have you been reading Michael Horton, or someone else like him using the Barna polls?

No. You're the first to mention them to me, but they seem like a great resource. Thank you.

 

[onemoretime]

I remember something that went something like this:

"Christian" and "Athiest" are terms that only intellectualize the problem, and faith is something that cannot be intellectualized.

Why not?

Just because someone intellectually "believes" doesn't mean that they really do.

Why not?

As many have said in this thread, "if Christians are right, then Atheists have a lot more to lose" is an argument to accept God out of fear. Assuming one would rather not fear than fear, this fear is actually rejection. As in, the labels of "Christian" and "Atheist" are rather useless because they don't really show what one would do in the face of God necessarily unless He had revealed himself to these people and had turned them one way or the other: "you never know what people are capable of until they're put in hot water," "there are no atheists in foxholes," etc.

A.K.A, one is not "lost" if one is not a Christian in a Christian land. Unlike with most, God will not blame you for your crappy education, and pure lip service will get you nowhere.

So dogma's useless?

 

[Robert165]

Yeah, I know why you think and feel that way because it IS how some poor examples of Christian believers choose to understand and by extention spread their faith, its the whole Ghandi in hell thing isnt it? South Park sent it up a couple of times with shots of hell which featured all the worst examples of humanity, Hitler, Saddam, alongside Ghandi.

That's inaccurate if you ask me, its not how I understand the life, ministry and resurrection of Jesus, I dont even buy too closely into the ideas of Jesus being a blood sacrifice to exhonorate the world of sin, it makes for the kind of reasoning featured in Confessions of a Justified Sinner (which is a great book if you're opposed to fundametalism and some of the flawed thinking it gives rise to, particularly Calvinism).

If you dont choose to believe in Jesus that's you're choice, I dont see the good news like that, its a little like if you were a persecuted minority in hiding fom the Nazis and the news reached you that your country was about to be liberated by the allies, you'd be relieved right? Whether you really believed in allies or not you'd benefit by their actions, which is how I consider the life and ministry of Jesus.

A lot of people of people are bound to be like Thomas, they wont believe until they see, but Thomas wasnt condemned for his lack of belief was he? He was admonished and he felt sorry for himself but that's the height of it. Still others will be like those mentioned, I think its James but I could be wrong, claim to love God and hate their neighbour, when they've seen their neighbour but never seen God, I dont remember how its exactly phrased but the writer thought it was daft too.

i cant argue aginst your opinon
ask 1000 christians and you'll get 999 different responses
the bible, however, is consitent
it's the only thing that's consitent
among all 1000 denominations.
and the bible clearly calls for me
and every one who thinks like me
to go to hell

 

[BlueGray]

Er, what?

God works in mysterious ways makes perfect sense to me I'm afraid, what's wrong with that? Its simply saying that we shouldnt project our own or human motives and designs on to something which isnt human, if we could understand it it wouldnt be mysterious.

Yet at the same time people place their human ideas on god in the bible.

 

[Lark]

i cant argue aginst your opinon
ask 1000 christians and you'll get 999 different responses
the bible, however, is consitent
it's the only thing that's consitent
among all 1000 denominations.
and the bible clearly calls for me
and every one who thinks like me
to go to hell

Hmm, you posting that from a phone?

Perhaps you would get that many different opinions, Christianity as I understand it does not aim for a hive mind or single consciousness like, for instance Islam.

I dont believe the bible says that, if you read the discourse between Erasmus and Moore, Discourse on Free Will, you'll see, I think anyway, the two key personality types within Christendom both before and since the great schism/reformation.

There is no condemnation of people on anything other than behaviour in the bible, particularly in Mathew and James were the only real clear depictions of the final judgement are made its to do with actions and generally forgiveness, generosity of spirit, altruism, all those things which most people unless they're sociopaths are capable of doing fairly naturally. Dont take my word for it check it out.

I'm beginning to think that your contra-Christianity position is pretty entrenched, not that I ever expect to influence anyone on an online forum, peoples views arent made and unmade that way, generally they're formed in childhood or from childhood and the rest of life is spent accumulating evidence that corresponds with or correlates with those already formed opinions.

I respect that I'd suggest, I was thinking about this the other night, that you post something about your views rather than simply contraryism, if you dont think the bible is a civilising foundation text what is? What do you think provides salvation in this life or the next?

Its been nice talking to you but your hostility or animosity towards Christianity is serving you some how. I'm not saying its an ego defence or anything like that, you could as easily say that my faith serves the same function (like I said in the thread on the terrible truth). Just saying that the games' played out, thanks for playing.

 

[Lark]

Yet at the same time people place their human ideas on god in the bible.

Anthropomorphism. Its understandable maybe but a maturing mind would surely realise that aint so.

 

[Robert165]

Hmm, you posting that from a phone?

Perhaps you would get that many different opinions, Christianity as I understand it does not aim for a hive mind or single consciousness like, for instance Islam.

I dont believe the bible says that, if you read the discourse between Erasmus and Moore, Discourse on Free Will, you'll see, I think anyway, the two key personality types within Christendom both before and since the great schism/reformation.

There is no condemnation of people on anything other than behaviour in the bible, particularly in Mathew and James were the only real clear depictions of the final judgement are made its to do with actions and generally forgiveness, generosity of spirit, altruism, all those things which most people unless they're sociopaths are capable of doing fairly naturally. Dont take my word for it check it out.

I'm beginning to think that your contra-Christianity position is pretty entrenched, not that I ever expect to influence anyone on an online forum, peoples views arent made and unmade that way, generally they're formed in childhood or from childhood and the rest of life is spent accumulating evidence that corresponds with or correlates with those already formed opinions.

I respect that I'd suggest, I was thinking about this the other night, that you post something about your views rather than simply contraryism, if you dont think the bible is a civilising foundation text what is? What do you think provides salvation in this life or the next?

Its been nice talking to you but your hostility or animosity towards Christianity is serving you some how. I'm not saying its an ego defence or anything like that, you could as easily say that my faith serves the same function (like I said in the thread on the terrible truth). Just saying that the games' played out, thanks for playing.

i dont care what erasums or moore had to say and i dont care what james had to say in one particular parts of the bible. i'm concenred with the parts i have objections with, namely the parts which say i'm going to hell becasue i dont believe like you. you can get mad at me all you want for pointing that out. it doesnt remove those passages from the bible, however.

 

[Robert165]

What do you think provides salvation in this life or the next?

i dont believe in an afterlife but if there were one i'd hope we were judged, rewarded or punished based upon or actions and not our beliefs.

 

[Haphazard]

However, I am very suspect of any position that says someone can be saved if they don't accept Christ before their physical death. I've found no reason to accept this as true and much evidence against it. No one is outside the grace of God; he can and will save whom he pleases, but everyone among the saved will come to realize the importance, the necessity, of the atonement.

Why, if God seems to emphasize one's eternal soul over the temporary physical realm? Again. I'm young and confused and not a Christian. I could get hit by a bus tomorrow and die an agonizing death, and then burn in agonizing hellfire for eternity because of your theory. Physical death is such an arbitrary deadline.

Here's a list of other people who would burn in everlasting hellfire:

1) those in the wrong place/wrong time to learn to accept Christ
2) those who did good in the world but did not dedicate their good works to Christ
3) Babies and young children who died without an understanding of Christ
4) Older people who, through whatever mental deficiencies, could not accept Christ
5) People with a crises of faith who just happened to die in the middle of it

Wow, that seems awfully unjust. I don't think I could love a God who would do that. Perhaps I will just have to martyr myself after death and burn in agonizing hellfire forever for my beliefs.

 

[sLiPpY]

Yup, it's f* nutz'!

 

[Snow Turtle]

i dont care what erasums or moore had to say and i dont care what james had to say in one particular parts of the bible. i'm concenred with the parts i have objections with, namely the parts which say i'm going to hell becasue i dont believe like you. you can get mad at me all you want for pointing that out. it doesnt remove those passages from the bible, however.

Quotes from the bible.

1. Are they really valid? Fine, we'll assume they are valid.
2. What is hell? This is where you get multiple interpretations.
3. Do people choose to go to hell? According to Christians, Yes.
4. Are you certain about the system how hell works? Interpretation.
5. Are people stuck eternally in Hell? Interpretation once more.

Otherwise why would Pegus have mentioned a while back that the nature of Hell is still questioned? If it was so black and white, there would be no need for interpretation. And if you claim that the text clearly states that hell is a fiery location (citation please) and thus should be taken literally, then I ask you, what about the creationism story? Noahs Ark? Adam and Eve and what not?

6. How do you know which parts are meant to be taken literally/metaphorically?
7. How do you know which parts are interpretations or exact words from God? (Back to stage 1)

For example an interpretation for Q number 2.
If hell is just abscence of God, then... well is hell really such a negative thing to be? Christians will claim Yes, Athiests will currently say No. They don't mind slipping off into nothingness since it's what they expected in the first place.

 

[Robert165]

Quotes from the bible.

1. Are they really valid? Fine, we'll assume they are valid.
2. What is hell? This is where you get multiple interpretations.
3. Do people choose to go to hell? According to Christians, Yes.
4. Are you certain about the system how hell works? Interpretation.
5. Are people stuck eternally in Hell? Interpretation once more.

Otherwise why would Pegus have mentioned a while back that the nature of Hell is still questioned? If it was so black and white, there would be no need for interpretation. And if you claim that the text clearly states that hell is a fiery location (citation please) and thus should be taken literally, then I ask you, what about the creationism story? Noahs Ark? Adam and Eve and what not?

6. How do you know which parts are meant to be taken literally/metaphorically?
7. How do you know which parts are interpretations or exact words from God? (Back to stage 1)

For example an interpretation for Q number 2.
If hell is just abscence of God, then... well is hell really such a negative thing to be? Christians will claim Yes, Athiests will currently say No. They don't mind slipping off into nothingness since it's what they expected in the first place.

The fact that there is so much confusion arising from the bible, from its contradictions and lack of clarity, is a PROBLEM, it's not a defense of religion. To recognize this problem and still be a christian is a bad thing, not a good one. Sorry if I didnt answer any of your specific questions, but I think it's pointless to give in depth comments on a book(s) that don't even agree with one another.

PS - this still doesnt mean any of the things I've listed aren't in the bible.

 

[Synarch]

The fact that there is so much confusion arising from the bible, from its contradictions and lack of clarity, is a PROBLEM, it's not a defense of religion. To recognize this problem and still be a christian is a bad thing, not a good one. Sorry if I didnt answer any of your specific questions, but I think it's pointless to give in depth comments on a book(s) that don't even agree with one another.

PS - this still doesnt mean any of the things I've listed aren't in the bible.

I don't think this captures the essence of faith at all. Contradictions may not exist so much in terms of physics or natural laws. But, in human affairs and affairs of the heart and soul; contradiction, opposition, and conflict is the rule. The bible need not be literally true. The problem with those who profess the truth of the bible are simply not confident that it can stand on its own. Which I think it can. The New Testament provides a wealth of life-affirming spiritual insight.

Faith is all about grasping the absurdity of it all and CHOOSING to believe anyway. This is what makes faith interesting and compelling. Pointing out flaws in the bible does nothing to diminish the impact of the Truth it contains. And even an atheist can acknowledge that it makes profound philosophical statements about the power of Love and aspects of human existence.

I say this as an agnostic, mind you. Yet, I am fascinated by faith. Faith is the only approach that respects the terror and awesomeness of Reality while maintaining significance. Any attempt to safeguard significance and meaning is essentially a religious impulse.

Instead of trying to repudiate and tear down religious belief, I would suggest trying to find a way to live in harmony with those who adhere to it. Just as I would recommend to those who espouse a particular religious belief system that repudiates those who live without a central religious orientation.

 

[Robert165]

I don't think this captures the essence of faith at all. Contradictions may not exist so much in terms of physics or natural laws. But, in human affairs and affairs of the heart and soul; contradiction, opposition, and conflict is the rule.

Yeah but we aren't talking about contraiditions of the heart and soul, are we. We're talking about ideas, and the diea of a loving god that sends peopel to hell to suffer forever, that makes about as much sense as a 3 sided square. The very defintions used to describe it make it an absolute impossibility.

 

[Synarch]

Yeah but we aren't talking about contraiditions of the heart and soul, are we. We're talking about ideas, and the diea of a loving god that sends peopel to hell to suffer forever, that makes about as much sense as a 3 sided square. The very defintions used to describe it make it an absolute impossibility.

Why must God meet your standard of what makes sense? Also, many mainstream Christian sects have no belief in Hell as a place of torment. Nor, am I certain of its biblical authenticity as a concept. I would like to know from the Christians if Jesus makes statements about Hell? I consider the words of Christ to have the most spiritual resonance.

 

[Robert165]

Why must God meet your standard of what makes sense? Also, many mainstream Christian sects have no belief in Hell as a place of torment. Nor, am I certain of its biblical authenticity as a concept. I would like to know from the Christians if Jesus makes statements about Hell? I consider the words of Christ to have the most spiritual resonance.

wow!!!!

its not about god making sense according to my defintion, its about the defintion christians give being (1) a complete contradiction, and (2) a very horrible, very bad, very cruel idea

 

[onemoretime]

Why must God meet your standard of what makes sense? Also, many mainstream Christian sects have no belief in Hell as a place of torment. Nor, am I certain of its biblical authenticity as a concept. I would like to know from the Christians if Jesus makes statements about Hell? I consider the words of Christ to have the most spiritual resonance.

Jesus said "gehenna" a lot in the Gospels. Take that for what you will.