User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 91

  1. #61
    Member Fife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    81

    Default

    In 1000 years, many people who would have denied the Book of Mormon in this present day may accept it fully because it happened "so long ago".

    I am not challenging you, but I have one question out of curiosity. Is it within the realm of your thinking that these ancient texts, such as the Bible, were taken as lightly as the Book of Mormon in their time but have gained credence simply because there is no way to disprove it, since it happened so long ago?
    I've been quite surprised in the past by the shear amount of data - much of it non-biblical - which still exists in the record from biblical times. From my research it appears that Christianity spread very rapidly. ( I understand that popularity is no indication of truth.) My own faith has arisen from teenage years spent in research - but I'm no NT. I also believe evolution and the big bang - keeping quiet about it in most circles because I don't think it's that important compared to whether the resurrection occurred.

    My prayer-partner is INTJ. He really knows his stuff - we were discussing dates, evidence and so forth the other day. I've also heard that C. S. Lewis was an INTJ

  2. #62
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    I'm not so sure about that. You may be thinking only of a certain religion or sect, but there are Divinity schools even in the Ivy League. And the long tradition of Judaism surely promotes research and knowledge. In fact, there are certain texts men are not even allowed to read until age 40, to make sure that their minds are receptive and probing enough to read and study it.
    No doubt, in the past history, most inquiry of a scientific nature was endorsed by the religious organizations, especially because those 'educated' were mostly done so to be spiritual leaders, hence, most likely to take on inquiries of other abstract/intellectual nature as well.

    As well, there are of course, scientists who do follow a religion, just like a school with a great research center can also have a divinity school. This is actually one of my points of why Science cannot be a religion. Because they are not mutually exclusive. Science makes NO commentary on religion, either way, good or bad. What we infer from the findings of Science, does.

    My main point with falsification was that there is not one organized religion that has malleable basic tenants. I.e. every one of the main organized religions have some basic 'codes' that are given to be the 'truth' - immovable, indisputable, not up for falsification. While, EVERYTHING, in scientific inquiry, by its very definition, is up for falsification - there is no faith in Science.

    I believe that most religion encourages questioning and research. It's only when it is filtered down through people that may otherwise want to control you, or large groups of people, that questioning is discouraged.
    I won't disagree.


    Just because science isn't successful, it doesn't mean that it doesn't try to be successful.

    Anything that aims at an action is trying, otherwise, they wouldn't engage in the action in the first place, if not to try, and hopefully, succeed. But, trying is most usually the common motivation.


    A main purpose of science is to provide explanations. And because you feel that religion is arrogant doesn't discount that it is also there in order to provide explanations. The only difference is that many religions claim to have all the answers, while science has only claimed to have some of them.
    The bold, sure, that may be the case, but, imo I'd say its a more deeper fundamental difference. That of a priori versus a posteriori in terms of promoting a certain knowledge. Religion the former, science the latter, hence, my usage of the word, 'arrogance' for the former.

  3. #63
    Your time is gonna come. Oom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    IsfP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    511

    Default

    I'm agnostic as far as I know. I've considered religion, but I'm afraid I couldn't follow one seriously. I see people who do follow a religion with they're whole life built around it and the majority of the people I see are just trying to keep up with their peers. They are the yuppies that are religious because their friends are. It's just like high school when you walk into a church that is dominated by middle aged brown nosers.

    I've always been too afraid to endorse any view for the reason that I'm never really sure about anything and I don't think anyone else is either. And I have the feeling that I'll be the biggest fool once we all find out what is behind the big picture, because I happened to believe in something that wasn't true.

  4. #64
    Senior Member TopherRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    2w3 so/sx
    Posts
    1,273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post


    except --> accept

    Sorry, not trying to be nit-picky, just a recent encounter has made me sensitive to this error:
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...19-post30.html
    Really, that's okay. Proper word choice is very important to me--it's an articulation thing. It's really hard to be respected when you don't spell correctly, have bad grammer, or simply choose the wrong homophone.
    Love is the point.

  5. #65
    Your time is gonna come. Oom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    IsfP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzcrossed View Post
    Really, that's okay. Proper word choice is very important to me--it's an articulation thing. It's really hard to be respected when you don't spell correctly, have bad grammer, or simply choose the wrong homophone.
    Was that on purpose?

  6. #66
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    My main point with falsification was that there is not one organized religion that has malleable basic tenants. I.e. every one of the main organized religions have some basic 'codes' that are given to be the 'truth' - immovable, indisputable, not up for falsification.
    If truth is of an eternal nature, then of course it would not be malleable. But if truth is malleable, then as a concept it cannot really exist.

  7. #67
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    If truth is of an eternal nature, then of course it would not be malleable. But if truth is malleable, then as a concept it cannot really exist.
    Hence my using the word 'arrogance', that you've (religion) reached the end, concluded that you've (religion) FOUND the Truth (a priori, no less). Rather than a pursuit for the truth, which would need to be malleable by the very nature of an honest search/inquiry.

  8. #68
    Senior Member TopherRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    2w3 so/sx
    Posts
    1,273

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    To this quote I must say that, for me, the reliance on a church to come to a spiritual answer is a big hindrance for me. I truly wish to associate with no organization and follow no religious leader, or text. I am agnostic, meaning that I am without knowledge and don't know what to believe. But I will surely believe in God before I believe in Man.
    First of all, I think you are being completely logical when you say that and it sounds like you've actually thought this out--just something about that kind of honesty is very...en fuego.

    Seriously though, because of your intellectual purity, I feel like I should encourage you to search; however you feel you can do so. I don't know if discovering "whatever is actually out there" is a life goal, but I believe the truth will surface if you seek it out and there are truly no emotional barriers to get in your way.
    Love is the point.

  9. #69
    Senior Member TopherRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    2w3 so/sx
    Posts
    1,273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oom View Post
    Was that on purpose?
    Ooo...um totally, yeah. *writes Grammar on the board 10 times.*

    I thought that word was wrong, but I didn't want to look it up because of it's potential comedic effect.
    Love is the point.

  10. #70
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Hence my using the word 'arrogance', that you've (religion) reached the end, concluded that you've (religion) FOUND the Truth (a priori, no less). Rather than a pursuit for the truth, which would need to be malleable by the very nature of an honest search/inquiry.
    Looks like I need to repeat St. Anslem once again, Credo ut intelligam(I believe so that I may understand). Faith is the foundation for rational inquiry into the truth. Without such a foundation, any inquiry into truth will go nowhere. In logic such a foundation is called an axiom.

    So you're setting up a strawman here concerning religious claims upon the nature of truth, and man's capabilities for discerning it. I can also add a historical dimension to the argument here as well, which I will do in a few minutes.

    You seem to have fallen into the all too-common temptation of forgoing uncertain truth for certain untruth.

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs and time
    By Natrushka in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 02:56 PM
  2. [NT] NTs and controlling thoughts
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 02:10 PM
  3. [NT] Berens' comments on NTs and conflict
    By rivercrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 05:05 PM
  4. [NT] NTs and Concentration
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-23-2007, 01:17 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