User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 11

  1. #1
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default Circular Reasoning

    There are 3 categories of people. The first category includes literalists, The second category includes those who reject Articles of Faith, and the third includes those who occupy a nebulous region between literal interpretation and loose metaphorical interpretation.

    Literalists, otherwise known as Fundamentalists in Christian sects, adopt sola scriptura because they view Articles of Faith as infallible and divinely inspired and thus heed every word with objectivity. This ironically contradicts many of the Bible's elements and frequent use of parables and metaphors, some of which are daunting to separate from historicity. When the Bible is approached with a literalist perspective, the reader must rectify everything within it, including internal contradictions - a list of which can be found here. Let's not forget that Articles of Faith have been translated and reconstructed to suite the venerations of those who did so. Human error aside, the literalist embraces Articles of Faith upon the act of circular and fallacious reasoning, or "I'm correct because I'm correct", which is precisely what Articles of Faith claim, hence the crucial "Faith". Naturally, faith is characterized by a belief that is untouched by reason. Catholics would tell you that you must stir them both, but they are incongruous like oil and water.

    In the center ring we have those who dwell in the ambiguous area of observing scripture impartially with external evidence that would otherwise contradict it. They derive their own meaning from scripture, and always have been, hence the fragmentation of religious sects. However, once they derive subjective meaning from objective claims, they undo objective meaning, which is the gestalt of religion itself. They basically claim to be God by relaying their understanding of "objective truth". There is no such axiom among mankind, though it is readily seen how such a claim among men could instigate a cult following, and even martyrdom. How many lives have been lost in the name of Christ, in the name of Allah, in the name of Democracy, Communism, Buddhism?... the list continues and will continue until the end of time. Martyrdom and blood sacrifice does not indicate invariable truth, it only indicates a foolhardy illusion that one has obtained the truth. One should never have to prove one's-self by self-sacrifice!!!

    Lastly, there are those who go about their daily lives, mulling over what has been granted to them through this gift that we call life, harboring their own reasons and meanings for being who they are - which, as far as I can tell, is the only responsible, creative, and liberating path to follow. For me, anyway.

  2. #2

    Default

    Interesting parallels between religion and ideology, I've thought about that for some time, the character structure or personality traits are similar in each case.

  3. #3
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Interesting parallels between religion and ideology, I've thought about that for some time, the character structure or personality traits are similar in each case.
    What do you mean by personality traits? In relation to MBTI function theory? Yeah, it's pretty mind boggling, but I think that a package of uncertainty in one's back-pocket is very healthy. Not so much that you compromise your beliefs or lack-thereof, but just so much so that you are wary not to crush any skulls with your understanding, honed or vague.

  4. #4
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    There's only 3 categories of people in this world: those who can do math, and those who can't.

    That being said, this is a simple enough breakdown yeu have, though it's still really rather broad strokes. It does cover most versions of religion, however, but only those who are religious as it doesn't quite work with agnostics/athiests, as they are often uninformed or don't care, making it not possible for them to be of any of the three choices presented.

    Even so, it's actually quite a nice, concise way to describe believers, however =3

  5. #5
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    There's only 3 categories of people in this world: those who can do math, and those who can't.

    That being said, this is a simple enough breakdown yeu have, though it's still really rather broad strokes. It does cover most versions of religion, however, but only those who are religious as it doesn't quite work with agnostics/athiests, as they are often uninformed or don't care, making it not possible for them to be of any of the three choices presented.

    Even so, it's actually quite a nice, concise way to describe believers, however =3
    Thanks.

    Those who reject Articles of Faith may be classified as agnostics or atheists, though not necessarily. I suppose it's possible to conduct yourself by some faith that is independent of any written text, code, tenet, etc. This technically wouldn't be labelled a religion, as it may not have a leader or a follower aside from the individual. This is the category that I find myself in.

  6. #6
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tater Typhoon View Post
    Thanks.

    Those who reject Articles of Faith may be classified as agnostics or atheists, though not necessarily. I suppose it's possible to conduct yourself by some faith that is independent of any written text, code, tenet, etc. This technically wouldn't be labelled a religion, as it may not have a leader or a follower aside from the individual. This is the category that I find myself in.
    Welcome, of course.

    And yeah, that's pretty much where I find myself at the moment. I've come up with the term "practicing agnostic", to describe such, as it's an amusing oxymoron, and probably as accurate as I've come to describing such.

    Religious, without following any religion, and being highly open to alternate possibilities XD

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Posted by Tater Typhoon: "Martyrdom and blood sacrifice does not indicate invariable truth, it only indicates a foolhardy illusion that one has obtained the truth. One should never have to prove one's-self by self-sacrifice!!!"
    A small point if I may:
    Martyrdom could be of two typesa) voluntary (which was strongly accused by the early Church) and (b)involuntary. If we examine your claim in light of the former then indeed your point is valid. However, once we examine your claim in light of (b) then a difficulty arises!
    The following premises emerge:
    (i)If martyrdom is involuntary, then the reason that causes it has to do with the illusion that the one who executions the believer shares *the executioner wouldn't kill unless he shared the illusion that the believer's claim carries a serious moral threat*!
    (ii)If martyrdom is involuntary then one no longer *tries* to prove himself, but rather the executioner does indeed try to prove that the believer is wrong(and not through dialectical means but rather through brutish means as Schopenhauer would say"Intellectuals fight their battles via intellect, whereas brutes fight their battles by employing force".

    MArius Manci
    [

  8. #8
    ThatGirl
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tater Typhoon View Post
    There are 3 categories of people. The first category includes literalists, The second category includes those who reject Articles of Faith, and the third includes those who occupy a nebulous region between literal interpretation and loose metaphorical interpretation.

    Literalists, otherwise known as Fundamentalists in Christian sects, adopt sola scriptura because they view Articles of Faith as infallible and divinely inspired and thus heed every word with objectivity. This ironically contradicts many of the Bible's elements and frequent use of parables and metaphors, some of which are daunting to separate from historicity. When the Bible is approached with a literalist perspective, the reader must rectify everything within it, including internal contradictions - a list of which can be found here. Let's not forget that Articles of Faith have been translated and reconstructed to suite the venerations of those who did so. Human error aside, the literalist embraces Articles of Faith upon the act of circular and fallacious reasoning, or "I'm correct because I'm correct", which is precisely what Articles of Faith claim, hence the crucial "Faith". Naturally, faith is characterized by a belief that is untouched by reason. Catholics would tell you that you must stir them both, but they are incongruous like oil and water.

    In the center ring we have those who dwell in the ambiguous area of observing scripture impartially with external evidence that would otherwise contradict it. They derive their own meaning from scripture, and always have been, hence the fragmentation of religious sects. However, once they derive subjective meaning from objective claims, they undo objective meaning, which is the gestalt of religion itself. They basically claim to be God by relaying their understanding of "objective truth". There is no such axiom among mankind, though it is readily seen how such a claim among men could instigate a cult following, and even martyrdom. How many lives have been lost in the name of Christ, in the name of Allah, in the name of Democracy, Communism, Buddhism?... the list continues and will continue until the end of time. Martyrdom and blood sacrifice does not indicate invariable truth, it only indicates a foolhardy illusion that one has obtained the truth. One should never have to prove one's-self by self-sacrifice!!!

    Lastly, there are those who go about their daily lives, mulling over what has been granted to them through this gift that we call life, harboring their own reasons and meanings for being who they are - which, as far as I can tell, is the only responsible, creative, and liberating path to follow. For me, anyway.
    This seems like validation vs affirmation vs rectification.

    There is an underlying component between all three perspectives.

    Nice op.

  9. #9
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    I'm the second type, and why yes, I see myself as God in a way. what I say goes.


    What's funny is that Psalm 82 told me that I was a god. So I've got approval straight from the horse's mouth.

  10. #10
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    haha, i already regret posting that. i'm just trolling, sorry. it's one of the more enigmatic texts in judaic literature, i think.

Similar Threads

  1. [SP] Top 3 reasons for why SPs suck...
    By The Ü™ in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 205
    Last Post: 01-07-2013, 09:58 AM
  2. [NT] Top Three Reasons For Why INTs Suck
    By Haight in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 773
    Last Post: 08-29-2012, 06:57 AM
  3. [SJ] Top 3 reasons for why SJs suck...
    By The Ü™ in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: 04-05-2011, 07:21 PM
  4. [NF] Top 3 reasons for why NFs suck...
    By The Ü™ in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 132
    Last Post: 12-24-2008, 04:20 AM
  5. Reasons to move to Rome...
    By sdalek in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-25-2007, 04:41 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