MBTI type and belief in god

[/DG/]

Uh, yeah. Hence, why I labeled myself under Christianity in the first place.

Well you had me a bit confused when you left out Jesus in explaining your beliefs.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Well you had me a bit confused when you left out Jesus in explaining your beliefs.

I thought it was obvious when I said basics of Christianity and triune God.

I don't tend to discuss such personal matters with people openly.

 

[/DG/]

I thought it was obvious when I said basics of Christianity and triune God.

I don't tend to discuss such personal matters with people openly.

Well, to be fair...some people who say they are Christian don't even believe Jesus was the son of god.

And gah! Sorry, I didn't the word "triune" before. I'm such a horrible sensor, aren't I? :/

 

[Coriolis]

Ok, I will get more specific since apparently I have to. In the triune God scenario I believe in God the father, Jesus the Son, as the holy spirit.

Why? Why three persons and not 2, or 12, or 99? Why these specific three? (I am always interested in what motivates and informs someone's beliefs.)

Edit: for the record, I am INTJ and pagan.

 

[Sniffles]

haha, no it is, as in I believe in the basic tenements of the Christian faith. I just tend to focus on the basics and don't care much for the details that don't really matter.

You mean like the Nicene creed?

 

[Anew Leaf]

Why? Why three persons and not 2, or 12, or 99? Why these specific three? (I am always interested in what motivates and informs someone's beliefs.)

Disclaimer: I don't pretend to be some scholar on theological subjects, this is entirely from my personal experiences and study over my life. I've been everything from Catholic (childhood) to atheist to agnostic to Taoist to Buddhist to whatever I am now. I also extremely rarely talk about this subject because I loathe the idea of looking like some crazy fundamentalist who is bent on saving the world single handedly.

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.

I figure the worst case scenario is that there is nothing and I die and dissolve into nothingness. Doesn't change the fact that I may have made a positive impact on the world, and doesn't lessen it in my eyes. Best case scenario, there is "another world beyond this one, a better one."

I feel like I am rambling, but there is my response for you.

 

[TheStarchDefenders]

Why? Why three persons and not 2, or 12, or 99? Why these specific three? (I am always interested in what motivates and informs someone's beliefs.)

Edit: for the record, I am INTJ and pagan.

What do you believe? I don't know too many pagans irl.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

I remember trying to defend the trinity scripturally once. I looked into early church teachings, original greek, textual variants etc. My certainty that the trinity is scripturally defensible gradually dwindled. In the end the strongest argument I could summon amounted to: "If it's wrong then why did God let us all believe it? Given that at one stage trinitarianism hinged almost solely on the conviction of one person (Athanasius), surely it would've been easier to erase that conviction than to vastly duplicate it?" Which obviously isn't much of an argument.

Let the record show I'm INFP and don't know if I have a religion anymore. How INFP is that?

 

[Eugene Watson VIII]

^ they do call them dreamers. I always thought INFPs were more philosophical, whatever that means.

 

[Nicodemus]

I remember trying to defend the trinity scripturally once. I looked into early church teachings, original greek, textual variants etc. My certainty that the trinity is scripturally defensible gradually dwindled. In the end the strongest argument I could summon amounted to: "If it's wrong then why did God let us all believe it? Given that at one stage trinitarianism hinged almost solely on the conviction of one person (Athanasius), surely it would've been easier to erase that conviction than to vastly duplicate it?" Which obviously isn't much of an argument.

Let the record show I'm INFP and don't know if I have a religion anymore. How INFP is that?

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.

 

[Beorn]

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 informed incorrectly. Augustine and Athanasius managed to argue for the trinity from the bible without ever referencing the later introduced words you're referring to.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

You are informed incorrectly. Augustine and Athanasius managed to argue for the trinity from the bible without ever referencing the later introduced words you're referring to.

Yeah I looked into their arguments as part of my investigation, as well as those of the Cappadocian Fathers, Tertullian, Origen and others. It seemed to me that there was a lot of politics and misunderstandings/mistranslations involved, and not much scriptural basis. Which was not the conclusion I wanted to arrive at, believe me. If it were any lesser doctrine I'm sure it would be dismissed out of hand. But it's pretty hard to dismiss the Trinity and remain a Christian.

 

[Beorn]

Yeah I looked into their arguments as part of my investigation, as well as those of the Cappadocian Fathers, Tertullian, Origen and others. It seemed to me that there was a lot of politics and misunderstandings/mistranslations involved, and not much scriptural basis. Which was not the conclusion I wanted to arrive at, believe me. If it were any lesser doctrine I'm sure it would be dismissed out of hand. But it's pretty hard to dismiss the Trinity and remain a Christian.

Well, at least you didn't join an Arian cult. I had one of those guys try to proselytize me while we were both running a long distance race. It was pretty annoying.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Well, at least you didn't join an Arian cult. I had one of those guys try to proselytize me while we were both running a long distance race. It was pretty annoying.

Yeah, I just lost my faith. Take that, Arians!

 

[/DG/]

DisneyGeek that's called Apatheism.

Ahh yes, this is a much better word.

 

[Nicodemus]

You are informed incorrectly. Augustine and Athanasius managed to argue for the trinity from the bible without ever referencing the later introduced words you're referring to.

That by itself does not say much. Using the Bible, Harold Camping managed to argue that the rapture would take place on May 21, 2011. Do you have their arguments at hand?

 

[Beorn]

That by itself does not say much. Using the Bible, Harold Camping managed to argue that the rapture would take place on May 21, 2011. Do you have their arguments at hand?

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.

 

[Nicodemus]

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 question is not whether their conclusions are true, but whether they follow from the text. I am not asking you to argue for them. I just thought you might have the arguments ready for presentation.

 

[Beorn]

The question is not whether their conclusions are true, but whether they follow from the text. I am not asking you to argue for them. I just thought you might have the arguments ready for presentation.

But, if you don't think the conclusions can be true then what's the point?

Anyway, far be it for me to not provide Christian reading materials when there is an opportunity...

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.

 

[Nicodemus]

But, if you don't think the conclusions can be true then what's the point?

The purpose is to collect arguments that even christians must accept: If I find obvious errors in their arguments, the fact that "Augustine and Athanasius managed to argue for the trinity from the bible without ever referencing the later introduced words you're referring to" is rendered meaningless.

Anyway, far be it for me to not provide Christian reading materials when there is an opportunity...

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.

I will look into it later this week. My back hurts.