[ENTP] Christian ENTPs?

[Nicodemus]

Well it's from a novel, not his life, books need to have catch phrases. He actually considered politics etc to be a fact of life with the idea that there's no such thing as 'not taking a position'. He wasn't living in a cave or anything. S

Actually, it is from a play.

 

[Sniffles]

I'm sorry for not saving every conversations we ever had. I only keep interesting stuff.

In other words you have nothing.

 

[Oberon]

I just said that religious people are delusional, which until proof of the contrary is as much a fact as saying that rain is wet.

This 'logic' thing... You understand how it's supposed to work, right?

 

[onemoretime]

Well it's from a novel, not his life, books need to have catch phrases. He actually considered politics etc to be a fact of life with the idea that there's no such thing as 'not taking a position'. He wasn't living in a cave or anything. S

Calm down, bro. You're taking this far too seriously.

 

[onemoretime]

In other words you have nothing.

Must be awful to live in a world where nothing is interesting.

 

[Perch420]

The funny thing is.

If we (the believers) are wrong we lose nothing.

If however, you are wrong... you lose everything.

What if Bin Laden is right and when you die you will go to hell for being a Christian? What makes one variation of the afterlife more likely to occur than another? Probability wise, the sheer amount of different religions with the belief that anyone not of their faith will suffer forever, you will almost certainly end up in some sort of hell or another. I can't believe I'm even arguing this. A 5th grader could dismantle these arguments. I was always an atheist, but I was pretty ambivalent about religion. It had its purposes, I thought. Now, I see that the only purpose it has is to propagate itself; it's the definition of a virus.

 

[Samvega]

I love Christianity by design, it's almost flawless in its built in system to deal with followers questioning it as it's with the devil making you do so.

You do however gotta give a faith respect for having so much faith in itself it's built around questioning not only everything but also the very foundation of the faith.

If I hadda pick one, I would pick that one that allowed me to do funked up shit in the name of God. I'd avoid that virgin crap though, I like sexually empowered women!

 

[guesswho]

This thread should be renamed.

The arguing marathon or something.. .

 

[funkadelik]

This thread should be renamed.

The arguing marathon or something.. .

Yeah, no kidding! I like debating for the sake of debating as much as the next NT, but things just got really silly here really fast.

 

[Beorn]

Again, I was talking about how Christianity is linear, in terms of the Bible that embodies it. It starts at Genesis/creation, then goes through Revelation and projects to an endpoint. Everything is about projection through that endpoint. And when people get to heaven, they seem to pretty uniformly believe that people stay there forever. Perfection -> Fall -> Struggle -> Perfection --> STOP. End of story. The main bulk of Christians vehemently deny circular paths such as reincarnation.

While I don't believe in reincarnation I don't really believe things stop... that is I don't think people are stuck in heaven for eternity constantly bowing. I think there will be a new earth (probably the same earth just revitalized) and everyone will have a physical body and life will go on as it does today just with no evil.

Other cultures might be far more about cycles, seasons, rise and fall, and good and evil are not necessarily enemies but two sides of the same coin.

I understand this. The two sides of the coin thing does get under my skin, but I believe that because of it's opposition to eastern religions Christianity has really underemphasized the importance of cycles and seasons. Even the circumstances under which evil should be expected and accepted.

Western vs Eastern or even tribal culture also mirrors Levi-Stauss' view of hot/cold cultures. Western culture, with its constant focus on "moving forward" toward better things with an endpoint of perfection, is wrapped up in Christianity. More tribal cultures that are labeled as cold do not having time moving forward inevitably, are not as nearly focused on "progress," and are instead about maintaining a circular balance, a stable balance.

I think you're right to some extent, but I hate the worship of progress. To me the focus on moving things forward is a refusal to respect God's sovereignty and timing. This of course has huge real world such as the christian support of israel based on eschatological views.

I like stability and balance far more than I like progress.

Kirk Cameron as "Neo." I guess we should be glad it was Keanu!

I'm sketch-painting -- but I'm talking mostly about the Christian culture that is fairly affluent (upper-lower to middle through upper class, including the mega churches), that does utilizes more modern worship (since those who strongly confine themselves to hymns probably avoiding interacting and absorbing from the current culture altogether), that tends to vote politically conservative and have conservative takes on public issues, are into Christian media, etc. Does that help?

If those people are liberal you must come from an uber-fundie background.

i was thinking you meant like mainline protestant liberal.

The original writers of the Gospels used particular words and forms when Jesus was speaking in a allegorical fashion, such as in the parables. They used different ones when he was speaking plainly. Everything Jesus said involving wealth and treatment of the poor was written in the literal fashion.

Yes, I didn't say he was speaking allegorically I said he was speaking personally. That is he wasn't preaching to a crowd, but was speaking to an individual and telling that particular person what he needed to hear. Since this is a personal message I think it's more important to extract the general principle rather than the exact statement particularly since he never says anything comparable to this in a sermon or to the disciples.

Jesus wasn't just saying that he needed to give up his possessions because he valued them more than God; he was saying that to have excess wealth was in itself valuing it more than God. If you placed God first, you would willingly give up your wealth to help others, as God had commanded. Remember the two great commandments - "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your soul" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you hoard wealth when someone else needs it, you are disobeying the second commandment, and by not keeping His commandments, you are breaking the first.

You're missing the whole point of the conversation.

The rich young ruler (ryr) asks Jesus how to gain eternal life.

Jesus asks him if he has kept the commandments

The Ryr explains that he has

Jesus catches him on the 1st commandment and his unwillingness to part with wealth (and he would catch anyone who claimed to keep the commandments)

The ryr departs saddened

Jesus then says "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Many people stop right here and ignore the rest of the story presuming this is just about money, but it's not.

The Crowd then asks: “Who then can be saved?”

Jesus replies: “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

So he could have done this same story with almost anyone and with any sin. The point was that without God people cannot achieve eternal life. Everyone has sin that they can't rid themselves of.

On a side note I recently heard an interesting theory that the ryr was actually Luke given that we know he came from a rich family and that it is only in Luke's account that the author knows the emotions of the ryr and that he was made sad.

That also runs counter to the words of Jesus, who specifically spoke of not being of "this world," of a Kingdom where all the assumptions are turned on their head, of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's... it honestly doesn't sound anything close to what Jesus said.

Yes, well the argument goes that even if we are not of the world we are still in it and so the question is to what extent being "in and not of" creates unity between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man.

 

[Kasper]

I leave religion alone, in return I expect it to leave me alone!

But, without God there is no reason to love or admire anything... everything just is. Without God all value judgements (including what is beautiful) are completely subjective and just the result of chemical reactions in the human brain. Nothing more.

Value judgements are completely subjective

I suppose then you view atheists as unable to love or admire? Bud, it's part of human nature, not something that comes with belief in a God.

The funny thing is.

If we (the believers) are wrong we lose nothing.

If however, you are wrong... you lose everything.

My life with religion was repressive and miserable, my life without religion is delightful. I gained much by leaving it.

I am almost for sure that was a funny, there is no way on God's green earth an ENTP old enough to drink would feel that strongly about it.

There are other options, the two most obvious are:

Joksy ENTP
Serious non-ENTP

I'm pretty sure she's serious after hearing her religious views on homosexuality.


Obie has posted that he is a Christian ENTP tho.

 

[Beorn]

Value judgements are completely subjective

You and others may think you believe this, but I don't think you actually act in accordance with this belief.

Have you ever discussed mass genocide and attempted to understand the context of the situation to see if genocide was wrong in that instance?

I suppose then you view atheists as unable to love or admire? Bud, it's part of human nature, not something that comes with belief in a God.

No, they can love but their belief system doesn't give them a good reason to do so or any reason to elevate love above hate. They are both essentially just preferences driven by chemical reactions. I believe that the essential nature of love is higher than mere chemical reactions.

 

[entropie]

You and others may think you believe this, but I don't think you actually act in accordance with this belief.

Have you ever discussed mass genocide and attempted to understand the context of the situation to see if genocide was wrong in that instance?

I think being 100% objective is virtually impossible. Yet one can thrive for it, to better oneself in certain situations. It's better than to knock everyone out, because you got angry at them for not thinking the same

 

[Beorn]

I think being 100% objective is virtually impossible.

There is nothing approaching an objective standard of value without God.

Yet one can thrive for it, to better oneself in certain situations.

There is no better or worst without God.

You may say you do not believe in God, but you cannot help but say and do things every day that would only make sense if he existed.

 

[A window to the soul]

I am almost for sure that was a funny, there is no way on God's green earth an ENTP old enough to drink would feel that strongly about it.

I would go so far as to say that it's the job of Ne to question everything so by design you couldn't have an ENTP that was that religious or they wouldn't in fact be Ne dom. Just like you couldn't have an ENTP that was 100% on the E function or an INFJ that was 100% on the J function otherwise they wouldn't be their respective types.

I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I am loyal to the people I love. After what God has done for me, I will always be loyal to him. I quickly soared to the top where few go, then fell flat on my face and lost EVERYTHING. That was no joke! God has humbled me. If there was a God in heaven, he was my only hope. Not only did he answer my prayers, he restored back everything I lost, plus so much more. I WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER accept that I am capable of doing anything on my own again without him. Christ's love has set me free from the ties that used to bind me. One of those ties was foolish pride, which would often manifest as cruel jokes at other's expense. I was in denial for so long that I was doing that. No more. Now, I work on honoring God and keeping my pride in check. I'm not perfect, but I believe God does the perfecting as we try. I remind myself that I am nobody; I am only somebody because of his love and mercy for me. To whom much is given, much is expected.

That's where I'll stand.

 

[Kasper]

You and others may think you believe this, but I don't think you actually act in accordance with this belief.

Have you ever discussed mass genocide and attempted to understand the context of the situation to see if genocide was wrong in that instance?

My values are subjective, I don't pretend they're not. By the very definition of objective they can be nothing else.

No, they can love but their belief system doesn't give them a good reason to do so or any reason to elevate love above hate. They are both essentially just preferences driven by chemical reactions. I believe that the essential nature of love is higher than mere chemical reactions.

Religion is your thang, good for you, but to be so blinded by your faith that you cannot perceive of any other reasons beyond a God for why people may have good reasons to elevate love over hate is so deluded.

 

[entropie]

There is nothing approaching an objective standard of value without God.

There is no better or worst without God.

You may say you do not believe in God, but you cannot help but say and do things every day that would only make sense if he existed.

I am sorry but I have troubles understanding you.

Do you mean like if I'ld believe in the goodness of people and if I'ld try to be good for example that means I automatically love God because he invented it. Does that means aswell if I drive a VW with a direct shifting gear which was invented by Porsche, I actually am driving a Porsche ?

 

[guesswho]

MOAR ARGUING!!!!!!!!

 

[Nicodemus]

Beefeater is right in his belief that there are not absolute values without something like god. However, that does not mean, that, given the human condition and the world we live in, we cannot have standards. As with all positive law, a violation of those standards is a not a crime in itself but a crime against one's contractual partners. We tend to regard positive law as important even though we know that it is man-made. This tendency holds true for ethics and art as well. That is why many do not even see the 'problem'.

 

[entropie]

Beefeater is right in his belief that there are not absolute values without something like god. However, that does not mean, that, given the human condition and the world we live in, we cannot have standards. As with all positive law, a violation of those standards is a not a crime in itself but a crime against one's contractual partners. We tend to regard positive law as important even though we know that it is man-made. This tendency holds true for ethics and art as well. That is why many do not even see the 'problem'.

What I've read often now still do not understand is the thing that we cant have absolute values without something like God. Couldnt a civilization have the absolute value for example that to kill each others sucks and only derive that by logical means, cause when they kill each other they are dead ?

Everytime "there are no values without something like God" come up in a discussion, I feel even coerced by it