MBTI type and belief in god

[Coriolis]

I guess it comes from my personal experiences with trying to seek out is there a God or not over the years. I stumbled upon a church in my area with a pastor who's sermons really resonate with me because the guy is a genius and incorporates a lot of science into what he talks about. (Also Lost and the Lion King.) He teaches the concept that God is love and that love is only possible in a relationship. (Which is part of his explanation on why God isn't singular, in that love has to occur between two or more beings in order for it to be love. My guess on that there are three is that there is something to the give and take of a triangle relationship.) I don't see any downside in living this way. In the end it is a leap of faith to make that jump from what I see and have proof of with my limited views.

Trying to live in a loving fashion makes me a calmer and happier person overall. It affects the people I come into contact with because they like being around me and getting loved by me. Some of them are inspired to try and love other people.

The highlighted is the best argument for the trinity that I have ever seen. People usually refer to the Bible, which assumes one accepts the validity of the Bible. Your reasoning is independent of that. The "real" truths of the Bible should find independent corroboration elsewhere. I mentioned that I am pagan, and even my tradition understands this idea of necessary relationship, and the significant difference between a relationship involving 2 and one involving 3. We see 3 as a minimum, though, not a limit.

I'm not going to argue this with someone who doesn't believe the bible to contain any truth to begin with. You have already concluded that what is in the bible is false so there is nothing for me to argue.

The Bible contains plenty of truth, just not always the truth people want to ascribe to it.

 

[Beorn]

The Bible contains plenty of truth, just not always the truth people want to ascribe to it.

And the incarnation of Christ is one of things that non-believers already dismiss without caring what the bible says.

 

[Anew Leaf]

The highlighted is the best argument for the trinity that I have ever seen. People usually refer to the Bible, which assumes one accepts the validity of the Bible. Your reasoning is independent of that. The "real" truths of the Bible should find independent corroboration elsewhere. I mentioned that I am pagan, and even my tradition understands this idea of necessary relationship, and the significant difference between a relationship involving 2 and one involving 3. We see 3 as a minimum, though, not a limit.


The Bible contains plenty of truth, just not always the truth people want to ascribe to it.

I am glad you enjoyed it. It is the only one that makes sense to me as well, and it's why it finally resonated with me after a life-thus-far-long struggle of "wtf."

That idea along with many others that he talks about are what convinced me that this was worth exploring again.

That is interesting about your perspectives and relationships and their necessity. I guess for me I find it to be 3 versus 99 or a million just because it's the most distilled down common denominator. I am not sure I can put the thoughts adequately into words. The concept is supposed to be one God within whom there are three parts. I can accept that, but thinking beyond that it starts getting muddled and bizarre. One God with 99 parts just seems counter productive and too confusing. Three in the concept of a balanced relationship makes a lot more sense. Especially since the concept of 3 into 1 is complicated enough to confuse most everyone to the point where they either just blindly accept or outwardly reject it.

 

[Coriolis]

And the incarnation of Christ is one of things that non-believers already dismiss without caring what the bible says.

If the only "evidence" for this is what is written in the Bible, I can understand why they dismiss it.

 

[Mole]

I don't know what you mean. You don't know me and you haven't met one of them, and I'm assuming you're not a Celtic Wiccan, so what's your point?

To be a 'Celtic Wiccan' today is to be part of the Romantic Movement which is a reaction to the Enlightenment in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries.

And the Romantic Movement is a denial of reality based on evidence and reason. Just as being a 'Celtic Wiccan' is a denial of reality today.

 

[chickpea]

i guess i believe in some kind of higher power, but my feelings on this change a lot based on circumstance and my mood. sometimes i'm more atheist-leaning but i wouldn't identify myself as one. i'm open to the possibility of something, and i think attributing everything to logic and science is equally foolish to blindly following a religion. i am envious of people who have a deep belief in god because i feel like they're happier, but i can't make myself believe.

 

[Mole]

trinitarianism hinged almost solely on the conviction of one person (Athanasius)

We know the Ancient Greeks had the idea of the Triune God, so the Trinity goes much further back than Athanasius.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

We know the Ancient Greeks had the idea of the Triune God, so the Trinity goes much further back than Athanasius.

"Ancient Greeks" is a very broad term. Which ancient Greeks are you referring to?

 

[Mole]

"Ancient Greeks" is a very broad term. Which ancient Greeks are you referring to?

Athenian philosophers.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Athenian philosophers.

They fell outside my field of study, but I suspect they weren't advocates of the consubstantiality so crucial to the modern doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Sniffles]

I think what Victor maybe referring to is the concept of a "Triple deity", which is common in many traditions.

 

[greenfairy]

To be a 'Celtic Wiccan' today is to be part of the Romantic Movement which is a reaction to the Enlightenment in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries.

And the Romantic Movement is a denial of reality based on evidence and reason. Just as being a 'Celtic Wiccan' is a denial of reality today.

Have you studied the matter or are you just making bigoted sounding conjectures?

 

[Mole]

Have you studied the matter or are you just making bigoted sounding conjectures?

Surely you don't think critiques of Celtic Wiccan are ignorant and bigoted?

 

[Nicodemus]

Augustine on the Trinity
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.i.html

Athanasius on the incarnation
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm#ch_9

There are hundreds of more pages, but that should be a start.

Very funny. Do you have arguments-only texts too?

 

[Salomé]

Just as being a 'Celtic Wiccan' is a denial of reality today.

A fairy just lost its wings.

As far as I am informed, the trinity was introduced into the texts that ended up in the Bible through interpolations. In other words: It is even more made-up than the rest.

You are correct, Sir.

 

[gromit]

God-leaning agnostic. Not sure on type.

 

[greenfairy]

Surely you don't think critiques of Celtic Wiccan are ignorant and bigoted?

I do if they involve the blanket assertion that they deny reality, especially with no explanation.

A fairy just lost its wings.

Oh yeah? Try to take em away. Still here.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I'll bet that Ns are more atheistic than Ss. But the complicated area is when it comes to atheistic spirituality (like Buddhism). I can see Ss, especially SPs, having a high rate of identification with atheistic spiritual traditions, but I would also bet than Ns, especially NTs, would show the most knowledge and devotion/investment and paradoxically, the least identification (because I think NTs like to refrain from identifying with others).

 

[Mole]

I do if they involve the blanket assertion that they deny reality, especially with no explanation.

When our beliefs are questioned, we are stung, and we can respond with violence, or we can respond with insults. You have responded with insults by calling me ignorant and bigoted.

 

[greenfairy]

When our beliefs are questioned, we are stung, and we can respond with violence, or we can respond with insults. You have responded with insults by calling me ignorant and bigoted.

I think you're projecting. You didn't "question" my beliefs, you made the blanket statement that people of my persuasion deny reality. That's hardly a legitimate intellectual critique. It's equivalent to just saying "you're delusional." Which is an insult. Whereas, instead of making a claim about you, like you are out of touch with reality, I categorized your claim as bigoted. I don't have a problem with people raising legitimate objections to my opinions. I do feel insulted when you label a whole spiritual group of which I am a part as being out of touch with reality. And I didn't call you ignorant, I asked you whether you had studied the matter. If you haven't, meaning if you haven't studied Wicca or paganism or the beliefs of the Celts, then you may not be generally ignorant, but you lack enough information about the issue to have a valid opinion (much less make a judgment).