[NT] NT & religions (& God)

[The Ü™]

What douche bag keeps resurrecting old threads? Stop quoting my posts from 5 years ago!!! You're cluttering up my inbox with junk.

 

[Coriolis]

I think NTs are capable of being spiritual/religious, but not blindly so like other types. We need to rationalize our beliefs, and so I don't think we could follow a religion without first dissecting it into believable concepts.

This has been my experience as well.

The Christian concept of God is one of the muddiest concepts of God there is, simply because there are so many sects of Christianity, all with their own ideas and principles, and many of them don't seem to follow the bible's idea of God at all. So one Christian's idea of God might make perfect sense to me, while another's would be total nonsense. I really can't answer this.

The Christian concept of God is one of the muddiest because it is full of internal contradictions, based partially on the co-opting of the Hebrew Bible (old testament) to provide a backstory for Jesus.

I think that a lot of New-Age religions as well as many Eastern religions (like Buddhism and Hinduism) appeal to intellectuals because they don't involve so many nonsensical stories and rituals like many monotheistic religions. What rational reason is there for a church to have stained glass windows, elaborate robes for the preachers, and crazy ceremonies in which you drink wine that represents the blood of a mystical demi-god who apparently died for your sins which he himself defined to the general public? It's all crazy flashy stuff that appeals to most people's instinct of "ooh, shiny, cool!" but has no place in personal faith. I've met a fair number of NT's who are monotheistic, and most of them get really into the technical aspects of religion (learning Hebrew and interpreting different parts of the Torah, for example) while shunning most of the flashy parts.

What it all comes down to is practicality. NT's value practical application above EVERYTHING, even their own faith. If our faith is impractical, we think of it as useless and something that needs to be destroyed. That's probably why so many NT's are anti-religion- they see all the impractical sides of religion and ignore the more practical human needs for faith, ideals and community. Buddhism is a lot more practical in some ways, since it tells us that we must work hard, help others and live simply, rather than saying "pray ten times a day to a 3D replica of a disgusting corpse and then go on living your life as a horrible person because you're going to heaven anyway.".

The highlighted are actually quite useful in religious practice. Whether it is stained glass windows, ministerial robes, and High Mass; or a grove of trees in the moonlight, ritual attire, and the calling of the quarters; these external trappings of religion serve to create sacred space. They set the event apart from everyday life as a way of helping the participant focus on the divine, however he/she sees that. One fact that many Christian groups have trouble with is that we were created with material bodies, in a very material world. They prefer to deny or suppress this, rather than work with it, engaging all our senses appreciating the creator(s) through the creation.

When I was growing up (Catholic), I had no patience with all the decorations, robes and falderal, and for a long time thought I hated ritual, symbol, and myth. I just had not been exposed to the "right" rituals and symbols: ones that are truly meaningful to me, and not just some rote series of actions or lexicon of images that is never fully explained, and represents things I don't believe in anyway. Done right, ritual sets up a symbolic shorthand that instantly transports the believer into a sacred mindset, and in a group setting, quickly and effectively aligns the practice (but not the individual beliefs) of the participants.

 

[Maxcool131]

I know exactly what you mean I was raised in a conservative christian household and still am (in highschool) however instead of turning to science (which in my mind cant help you on this subject) I turned to philosophy and theology at first I was happy because my idea of god in my mind at that point in time (the big soft cuddly man in the sky) is far from what I would call god now if it/he/she actually exists I now see god as something that us humans cant even begin to comprehend and shouldnt try to because we could spend eons on creating a definition of god and we can only discover info on god that which god allows us to see and even then its mind bursting so in summary I am a agnostic deist in the sense that even though I believe god exists we can only merely speculate and we have 3 options on determining whether god is real 1)God reveals itself and contacts us 2)Holy Texts are real and god revealed itself this way already (I wouldnt mind this) or 3)somehow proving god was needed for the universe to exist and anyway I dont think any of this knowledge is coming our way in my life time. So yea

 

[Coriolis]

I know exactly what you mean I was raised in a conservative christian household and still am (in highschool) however instead of turning to science (which in my mind cant help you on this subject) I turned to philosophy and theology at first I was happy because my idea of god in my mind at that point in time (the big soft cuddly man in the sky) is far from what I would call god now if it/he/she actually exists I now see god as something that us humans cant even begin to comprehend and shouldnt try to because we could spend eons on creating a definition of god and we can only discover info on god that which god allows us to see and even then its mind bursting so in summary I am a agnostic deist in the sense that even though I believe god exists we can only merely speculate and we have 3 options on determining whether god is real 1)God reveals itself and contacts us 2)Holy Texts are real and god revealed itself this way already (I wouldnt mind this) or 3)somehow proving god was needed for the universe to exist and anyway I dont think any of this knowledge is coming our way in my life time. So yea

Yes, science won't help you with the questions religion is meant to answer. It will help you with questions about the universe's material makeup and operation, which some religions erroneously claim can be understood through myth and theology (e.g. determining the age of the earth using the Bible).

As for assessing the reality of God, I don't think we will ever do (3). (1) and (2) have some validity, though most believers overestimate the value of religious texts, and underestimate the value of their own personal experiences of the divine (or fail to recognize them).

 

[Maxcool131]

Yes, science won't help you with the questions religion is meant to answer. It will help you with questions about the universe's material makeup and operation, which some religions erroneously claim can be understood through myth and theology (e.g. determining the age of the earth using the Bible).

As for assessing the reality of God, I don't think we will ever do (3). (1) and (2) have some validity, though most believers overestimate the value of religious texts, and underestimate the value of their own personal experiences of the divine (or fail to recognize them).

I would definitively have to agree that alot of believers I know overestimate there holy texts and others seem to contradict everything in there holy texts while still claiming to be part of that religion. And personal experiences with god if they exist would be so amazing and cool because of all the knowledge and wisdom (my intp is showing ) I mean a I see god as the uncaused cause that started universe I wont go any farther cause then we end up on a slippery slope but yea the definition of god is hard enough.

 

[Cartesian Theater]

The highlighted are actually quite useful in religious practice. Whether it is stained glass windows, ministerial robes, and High Mass; or a grove of trees in the moonlight, ritual attire, and the calling of the quarters; these external trappings of religion serve to create sacred space. They set the event apart from everyday life as a way of helping the participant focus on the divine, however he/she sees that. One fact that many Christian groups have trouble with is that we were created with material bodies, in a very material world. They prefer to deny or suppress this, rather than work with it, engaging all our senses appreciating the creator(s) through the creation.

When I was growing up (Catholic), I had no patience with all the decorations, robes and falderal, and for a long time thought I hated ritual, symbol, and myth. I just had not been exposed to the "right" rituals and symbols: ones that are truly meaningful to me, and not just some rote series of actions or lexicon of images that is never fully explained, and represents things I don't believe in anyway. Done right, ritual sets up a symbolic shorthand that instantly transports the believer into a sacred mindset, and in a group setting, quickly and effectively aligns the practice (but not the individual beliefs) of the participants.

You're very right. I hope I haven't offended you with my drunk rant post. xD Rituals are very useful in transporting somebody to a different state of mind. I think what I meant is that many sects of Christianity say that these are necessary to your personal spiritual accomplishments, which never made any sense to me. Like I've had Mormons tell me that if I drink alcohol I'm going to hell, while Catholics will say if you don't do communion you won't be saved (confusing much?). And there are sects that believe premarital sex = instant damnation, while others think there's nothing wrong as long as you don't commit adultery. Then there's the Catholic idea that if you don't say a few quick apologies for all the sins you've committed, you will be judged for them (Like why can't I just feel sorry and not have to say hail Mary a dozen times?). I guess it just comes down to practicality.

 

[Avik]

Personally, I believe neither in God, nor in Religion. There was a point, in my childhood, where school (I went to a Catholic, Anglo-Indian one) and my parents (One Hindu, the other Catholic) managed, to an extent, to brainwash me into thoughtlessly accepting the God concept. That phase ended when I was about eight years old, when I began to explore parallel theories.
To understand the origins of the God concept, we must first keep in mind that all the Religions theories were put forward at a time when the knowledge of Science, and also, the common sense of the general masses, were at their nadir. I find, that the concept was cooked up with the intention of keeping said masses under control. To instill the fear of something great into them, something greater than humankind itself. Given that the mortality rate was far higher during the birth of the religions, when the knowledge of the scientific realm was negligible, it gave people something to hope for. Something to pat them on the backs and assure them things would be alright. Another theory I believe in, suggests that God was the easy way out when explaining the hordes of mysteries that surrounded them.
I'm unaware of what the other NTs feel about Pantheism, but I find it not much different than Theism. What DOES differ, is the definition of God. An Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent, mighty being, as opposed to an Omnipresent energy.
A person's personality type is a large deciding factor for their beliefs. An SF, for example, is more susceptible to the poeticism of Pantheism, while an NT would choose a theory that is backed with tangible evidence.
All things considered, I opt to not discuss Religion in person. Either, the person will agree with me, in which case there's no point to the discussion, or the person will disagree, but won't go about their side of the argument in a rational way, so it'd be a waste of my time and energy. The conclusion being my having accepted the attitude of an ISTP- 'Live and Let Live'.

 

[A window to the soul]

O my soul. >Lover of God< Jesus, lover of my soul.

 

[Nicodemus]

O my soul. >Lover of God< Jesus, lover of my soul.

You still make the best arguments.

 

[Ginkgo]

I'm a Christian but I have a touch of agnostic though.

I think that's the most realistic definition of Christian.

But how could I possibly know?

 

[WhoCares]

I am completely uninterested in group think and I am completely uninterested in any religion that gives the notion of a God human characteristics, like anger, veangeance, petty dislikes etc. Why? Because to my mind, if there is an omnipotent force out there it would not be bothering itself with issues that afflict the human conditoin much. It has many species, planets, galaxies under it's dominion, why give a shit about someone being gay, or drinking alcohol etc? Makes no sense but it makes perfect sense when you think about humans in general getting pissy with other human's about petty grievances. Most religous texts smack of petty grievances and sectarian control. So I threw out all membership and books associated with religions of the organised sort, eastern and western varieties.

But does that mean I don't believe in an ominoptent force holding the universe together? No it doesn't. I do ardently believe in something greater than me and what my limited mind can conjure. It would be the greatest arrogance to call myself knowledgable in all things and pretend I have all the answers. It also brings me comfort to think that I am not the highest end product of evolution. We would all be in dire shit in I was.

So I have my own religion if you like that I adhere to....

Belief in an omnipotent presence in the universe.
Belief that self-discovery of what that means to me is important.
Refusal to become evangelical about it.

 

[Cellmold]

Im no NT but I remember being taken to a church many times as a child by my mother.

The oddest thing was I never developed a belief in a deity of any kind. I noticed the institution surrounding the religion and I noticed the religion and it's relationship to the institution. But nothing more. If anything I usually found the place very boring.

Although I will admit I loved lent-lunch and it's free meals.

My belief is actually similar to [MENTION=16264]WhoCares[/MENTION] as it makes little sense to me that an omnipotent force created the incomparable immensity that is the universe just so 'it' could focus on an egotistical race of creatures inhabiting a small rock orbiting a rather small star.

If anything we are the bacteria on the universe's toe. Let's hope it doesn't start a course of intergalactic anti-biotics.

 

[Coriolis]

To understand the origins of the God concept, we must first keep in mind that all the Religions theories were put forward at a time when the knowledge of Science, and also, the common sense of the general masses, were at their nadir. I find, that the concept was cooked up with the intention of keeping said masses under control. To instill the fear of something great into them, something greater than humankind itself. Given that the mortality rate was far higher during the birth of the religions, when the knowledge of the scientific realm was negligible, it gave people something to hope for. Something to pat them on the backs and assure them things would be alright. Another theory I believe in, suggests that God was the easy way out when explaining the hordes of mysteries that surrounded them.
I'm unaware of what the other NTs feel about Pantheism, but I find it not much different than Theism. What DOES differ, is the definition of God. An Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent, mighty being, as opposed to an Omnipresent energy.
A person's personality type is a large deciding factor for their beliefs. An SF, for example, is more susceptible to the poeticism of Pantheism, while an NT would choose a theory that is backed with tangible evidence.
All things considered, I opt to not discuss Religion in person. Either, the person will agree with me, in which case there's no point to the discussion, or the person will disagree, but won't go about their side of the argument in a rational way, so it'd be a waste of my time and energy. The conclusion being my having accepted the attitude of an ISTP- 'Live and Let Live'.

The highlighted is incorrect. Bahai faith is a good example of a religion that came into being during a time of significant scientific discovery. Also, I don't know of any religion which was founded in order to control the masses, though most have been (mis)used for that purpose once they had garnered sufficient followers. In essence, they were co-opted by the powerful, or those seeking power. You are correct that divine or metaphysical explanations were offered when scientific ones eluded our understanding and experience. The history of science is to some degree a tale of how we brought more and more of these questions into the realm of scientific rather than religious discussion.

 

[The Great One]

I think that's the most realistic definition of Christian.

But how could I possibly know?

I don't see how it's possible for an Ne dom not to have at least a touch of agnosticism.

 

[Lark]

I think being interested in new age or buddhist beliefs has less to do with being NT than it does living in the world today which popularises those things or at least is alienated from the familiar, traditional or "old fashioned" and attracted by the unfamiliar, novel or different.

What is the christianity concept of God? I've studied world religions for a while and the variety and diversity of views about God even, apparently, within single denominations of the single faith is always surprising.

I've come around in time to feel that all faiths, and atheism, could have their value, they are not uniformly valuable I must say, and I'm still disposed to Franis Bacon, one of my personal heroes, view of atheism, that given the choice I'd prefer to believe every spiritual idea as believe in none.