User Tag List

First 78910 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 91

  1. #81
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Here's one, where he was replying on a discussion board - I have removed the names of the participants:

    I am a Christian, and do believe the Bible as a source of revelation. I also enjoy the pursuit and study of both science and philosophy and have a passion for scientific inquiry and method. I am very critical of fundamentalists Christians who rely on blind faith and naturalists who arrogantly assume that science and naturalism hold all aspects of truth and meaning.

    I view my own faith as being informed by revelation and reason, and my philosophical worldview as being informed by both my faith and my logical capacity. I felt obliged to share my background so nobody questions my agenda. I believe in absolute and objective truth and pursuit of it is my interest.

    Person 1: We are in agreement that "God did it" doesn't add any empirical knowledge to our understanding of the universe. However I have to wonder, if God really did do it, would you ever reach that conclusion via reason? Or would you construct a falsehood that fits your naturalistic worldview and never know for sure? I suppose my point is that the question of origins can only ever be philosophically and forensically analyzed, and not scientifically. This is my problem with several aspects of Darwinism and Uniformitarianism.

    I am very curious to hear how accepting God into our lives is Nihilistic?

    Person 2: I like your answer of mystery for question number one.. fits pretty snugly with mine. However in all fairness I must point out that "it is a mystery" is very similar to "God did it".

    For your 3 questions are interesting, have given me something to ponder. thanks.

    I misunderstand your second group of questions... are you referencing the trinitarian nature of God?

    Person 3: I have never liked the adjective and noun "supernatural". Presupposing God exists.. and is therefore the author of natural law.. then would not He himself be the very definition of pure natural? Would miracles be supernatural if the sovereign of nature itself caused them? I suppose it could be debated that being creator of natural law implies separate existence from it which would make God, but not miracles, supernatural.

    I agree that natural law in it's physical form could be derived from observation.. how bout it's moral form? Is it not hard to deny the existence of objective morality as well as natural law and order? The question of source is theological/philosophical in nature... does that make it any less relevant?

    I apologize for the straw man. But I have trouble coming up with anything other than pure randomness at best when I remove the concept of God from existence. I guess in a way, the ordered nature of existence and the concept of naturalism seem contradictory to me.

    You ask how the concept of God can make life more meaningful? Now that is a loaded question. I suppose that's payback for asking loaded questions myself. I do have answer to that, but I would have to work to compress it to less than a novel.

    I will give you this... I do not believe God is any bit capricious, but very immutable, predictable, and consistent. I know, I just opened Pandora's box in regards to the Old Testament.

    Person 4:

    For the purpose of debate I'll forbid myself from using "God did it".

    1. All I can reason is that the concept of eternity and the eternal exist. The concept of something coming from nothing is as illogical as any religious claim could ever be. I'm not saying it isn't true.. just contradictory to our logic and observation.

    2. I can only say that like the previous question their must be a source. Every effect must have a cause, and every law a lawgiver.

    3. The very fact that meaning exists also suggest a source.

    So the question of the day is what is the nature of this source? And can it ever be ascertained by scientific process? Is it's inability to be ascertained by scientific process in any way decrease it's relevance?

    I personally believe that God is the source cause.

    Good talk.. thank you for the rational discourse all

  2. #82
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    more:

    "[I expect I would, given time, since if God really "did it" the evidence wouldn't be hidden for ever. I can't speak for the others.]"

    In response to that:

    - An intelligent design advocate would state that the evidence is not hidden at all, but blatantly obvious in every naturally ordered thing, demonstrating an intelligent will. The predictable response to that would be that they are using the "God did it" as a cop-out to replace truthful scientific inquiry. I guess the nature of my question was more leaning towards whether objective analysis of origins is even possible through scientific means? Is objectivity even possible, given that the difference between intelligent design theorists and naturalists may only be perspective?

    Your understanding of nihilism must be very different than mine. My understanding of it is the concept that "the entire universe exists only by chance; and higher meaning and purpose do not exist; therefore everything is pointless". Perhaps I just greatly misunderstand Nietzche.

    If you believe meaning is human in origin... does this mean it is completely subjective in nature? Could we extend that to assert that morality is also human in origin and subjective by nature? I would assert that morality somehow objectively exists and not just by virtue of human imagination.. (another thing I question the source of).

  3. #83
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    I think this should be enough for now...

    Well, first I would say the Qur'an is probably a poor example of alternative religious truth.. because it claims harmony with scripture and yet contradicts (abrogates is their word) teachings in scripture. Objective truth cannot contradict from my perspective. My confidence in scripture and everything Christian fully rests on whether one historical event did or did not take place... that is the Resurrection of Christ. Why would I believe such a thing? I would have to write quite a long post on this subject alone. Regardless, if I could be convinced beyond reasonable doubt the Resurrection did not take place, my faith in Christianity would probably evaporate in the wind.

    You speak of miraculous events which violate the laws of nature that we understand. I'm not saying your wrong in calling this supernatural. I am only postulating whether the creator of physical law manipulating what he intimately understands and is sovereign over is really outside of nature? In truth... I think we are arguing semantics, probably my fault.

    [The usual answer to this is "who created the creator?" so I will go ahead and ask it.]

    - I'll reference a previous post, I believe in response to Person 1.

    - I cannot see how morality can be internally driven and objective at the same time... since each source would create it's own version. Yet nearly every religion I know of in human history has reached the conclusion independently with the concept "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I believe this is powerfully suggestive of a higher objective source..or the world's greatest coincidence!

    On a side note, even our Constitutional form of government references a higher morality. The fact that we have inherent rights by natural law means that no just government can ever repress them. Our Constitution only recognizes what is ours by right and doesn't grant them.. which justifies personal and economic liberty as objective rights through objective morality!

    The concept of internally driven subjective moral codes is a very disturbing concept! In all fairness.. I can recognize your empathy assertion.. but damn my inquisitive nature.. why do we have "empathy" or "conscience", and what is the source?

    My conception of God is only what God has seen fit to reveal. Immutable and consistent with "traits" of personhood. Of course my concept is based on Scripture being authentic revelation, which is based on many observations I have made.. but the key one being God intervened in history and it was well documented and witnessed. I told you above the key link, break that and I am forced to unravel the whole chain in order to maintain subject to reason.

    I guess I just simply could have chosen the Yahweh answer and saved you the reading huh?

  4. #84
    Is Willard in Footloose!! CJ99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    582

    Default

    ^Interesting. It sounds more like philosophy than religion though due to the lack of any superstition. I think that a religious NT is more a philosopher rather than a religious believer.

    I wonder if theres a difference in attitude between american and european NTs as religion is far more accepted and encouraged in america.
    "I'd never die for my beliefs, I might be wrong"

    "Is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairys at the bottom of it too"

    "Intelligence is being able to hold too opposing views in the mind at the one time without going crazy" - Now all I need to figure out is if I'm intelligent or crazy!

  5. #85
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ99 View Post
    ^Interesting. It sounds more like philosophy than religion though due to the lack of any superstition. I think that a religious NT is more a philosopher rather than a religious believer.

    I wonder if theres a difference in attitude between american and european NTs as religion is far more accepted and encouraged in america.
    This could be true. But I must state clearly, lest he thinks I'm fudging his world view, that he absolutely believes in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as proof of his faith. He has written me pages upon pages of reasons why, and I am still swimming through them.

    But other than this one thing that I debate with him constantly, he does tend to look at God more philosophically than religiously, even though he is a firm believer.

  6. #86
    Is Willard in Footloose!! CJ99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    582

    Default

    I just read the third one. His arguments about there being a higher morality are interesting but I still disagree.

    I'm starting to understand how an NT could be religious in a way but that way of being religious is different to the conventional idea of religion. Its far more scientific and philosophical than the traditional concrete beliefs of standard religion.
    "I'd never die for my beliefs, I might be wrong"

    "Is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairys at the bottom of it too"

    "Intelligence is being able to hold too opposing views in the mind at the one time without going crazy" - Now all I need to figure out is if I'm intelligent or crazy!

  7. #87
    Is Willard in Footloose!! CJ99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    This could be true. But I must state clearly, lest he thinks I'm fudging his world view, that he absolutely believes in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as proof of his faith. He has written me pages upon pages of reasons why, and I am still swimming through them.

    But other than this one thing that I debate with him constantly, he does tend to look at God more philosophically than religiously, even though he is a firm believer.
    Then I think I need to rephrase my statement about NTs not being religious.

    I think the to say what I'm try to say is that I don't think NTs can have solid unquestionable beliefs/core values like thoughs of many religious people. While they may have religious beliefs thoughs beliefs are still questionable and changable like scientific theories. They have none of the absolutes of other religious believers.
    "I'd never die for my beliefs, I might be wrong"

    "Is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairys at the bottom of it too"

    "Intelligence is being able to hold too opposing views in the mind at the one time without going crazy" - Now all I need to figure out is if I'm intelligent or crazy!

  8. #88
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ99 View Post
    Then I think I need to rephrase my statement about NTs not being religious.

    I think the to say what I'm try to say is that I don't think NTs can have solid unquestionable beliefs/core values like thoughs of many religious people. While they may have religious beliefs thoughs beliefs are still questionable and changable like scientific theories. They have none of the absolutes of other religious believers.
    Well, I think you are looking at religion by dogma and not by faith. There are some, as I wrote earlier, that try to restrict access to independent thought but I do not believe that this is a basic tenet of most religions. It's only the interpretation through the filtration of man. Of course, there are some religions that are just restrictive. I can't speak for all religious society.

    My friend absolutely believes in God, and in Christianity. This is the standard baseline but everything else is open to question. There is no doubt in his mind whatsoever - it's like air and water and fire - simply true. But you are correct in your assessment that he's not particularly dogmatic (except when it comes to abortion issues).

    I think Substitute (ENTP) has been on a spiritual journey himself, but I am reluctant to speak on it, because I don't know much except a few things he had in his blog. But I'm pretty sure that I can represent him as being Christian, as well.

    My whole point in bringing this up is to show that we, as people (not solely as MBTI type), are always on the pursuit for a higher truth, answers or comfort. Some focus on the scientific method, while others search for what created said method, while some others rely on pure faith. But it's not a zero-sum game.

  9. #89
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    well, I wasn't raised in the USA, nor with a religious family, but I believe in God very strongly and aspire to becoming a Franciscan friar (and have done since my earliest memories). On account of which, I generally stay out of most threads that contain the word "religion" in the title. I know there are too many assumptions going on there for me to really be able to meaningfully communicate. For the same reason, I'm hesitant to call myself Christian, to those who think the word means other than simply "follower of Christ".

    Make of that what you will
    Ils se d�merdent, les mecs: trop bon, trop con..................................MY BLOG!

    "When it all comes down to dust
    I will kill you if I must
    I will help you if I can" - Leonard Cohen

  10. #90
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Hrm... well this's kind of nice at least. After skimming through it, I don't feel so odd about my religious views XD

    I'd like to go into great detail, but am quite tired so that's not going to happen right now, likely tomorrow yeu peoples shall get to witness a rant of massive proportions that... everyone will basically skip over. But that's okei. I barely can even read half the stuff I write myself anyway.

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