What if you exercise your freedom of choice and voluntarily start following some political or religious movement? If you voluntarily let a group control you?

Sure you can do that. The problem is when you decide everybody else has to follow your beliefs and these idiologies use political power to enforce restrictions on everyone.

I agree with both of you.

I don't have a problem with people conforming to the rules and regulations of a religious or political group as long as they know what they're in. I don't even have a problem with these people firmly believeing in their own teachings (I mean, this just shows they honestly believe in their ideology), and I don't have a problem with debating with these people, as long as they don't force anything on me and as long as they can keep the debate reasonable.

Honestly believeing that your own ideology is the best of them all and that others should hear about it and follow it because it's the best ideology isn't bad in my opinion. But forcing everyone to follow this ideology crosses the line and is extremely bad.

Hilarious!

I totally agree. If you are to get into my head, heart, spirit, etc, you need to show me some facts and get me interested, if there is anything there, I will check it out and decide for myself wither or not it is right for me.
I am a Christian btw and if you were to force someone to believe, than do they really believe? It's like putting a gun up to someone's head and telling them to be a squirrel.
~Tim

Oh yes. As the history's showed us, people from various religions have done exactly that. In the long run it didn't work.

Eventually the people ended up abandoning their squirrelship and putting a gun to others' heads and telling them not to be a squirrel in any circumstances.

Me too, but only when I'm in the mood and if I trust the person and I can be sure nobody's getting emotional (or, alternatively, if I don't know the person at all, so getting emotional about religion wouldn't ruin a good friendship ). I like discussing even my own religion and beliefs in theoretical level, but sometimes (especially with the F people) the religious beliefs are getting a bit hard to keep in the theoretical level only.

When the discussion about religion gets too personal for me, and if the other person is too emotional about their own view, I'll start behaving the way the INTP profile at typelogic.com describes: "INTPs are relatively easy-going and amenable to most anything until their principles are violated, about which they may become outspoken and inflexible."

Luckily I do that pretty seldom.

Naah, the admin also goes around checking people's profiles. It's FUN, that's what the profiles are made for

Well well well... do you not find this a bit absolute? I mean, of course a lot of damage has been done in the name of god, a lot of crimes too; but that is not the religion's teaching (or at least not in most cases), it is the humans' wrong way to exploit and interpret their religion. Nevertheless, when someone thinks this way, I am always open to any of their effort to prove my beliefs irrational and injurious. Not my official church's teachings, but my personal beliefs. I am not offended, do not take me wrong; I just find any absolute idea easier to fall.

Hmm. Injurious, maybe. Irrational? No.
I agree, most of the damage done to Christianity was probably done by Christians themselves. Whenever people represent something, it is bound to be mis-represented.

And, without arguing, just stating my disagreement, there is only one way to heaven. It is a simple learned truth. A truism if you will. Just because others don't believe it, doesn't make it false. If I drop a rock on earth, it will always hit the ground. The truth, gravity. If you don't believe it will, it still does. My apologetics are really weak, actually non-existant, but something I definatley have an interest in.

Thank you for hearing my opinion and I agree, I don't like saying I'm right and you are wrong, but on some subjects, I guess, we are bound to come to that conclusion.

So, I humbly leave you to debate this without me,
::Bows out of the conversation::

~Tim

I was not debating with you (I assume that was for me and not heretic, right...?) Really. Any belief is respectable and respected by me, trust me. As I said - I never drag someone in a beliefs' discussion without their will. So, no debate here
Peace

And it really should be....So, I COWARDLY leave you to debate this without me, ROFL~!

It's mainly my Christian knowledge that has me debating this with Heretic and Relaxo (so far). I feel as it is my Christian duty, which I will now forefit for fear of mis-representing my faith.

~Tim

Sorry, it seems like I keep coming back to this thread - I just couldn't help noticing the INTP way in this phrase; everything is relative, right relaxo? I am with you on that...

Neh, I haven't exactly done a study on fascism, mind you. I'm your average "well, that's what the Nazi's were, weren't they?" kind of layman on the subject.

But if you were quoting me at the top, you are in error. I am not sad. I don't wish it wasn't true. What sense is there in that? I said this: "There's one path and it is simply the way it is." Mind you, there's loads of lovely ways to walk it. I favor moving with one hand on the guiding bar hopping on one foot with my thumb on my nose.

I just wish all of Christianity wasn't lumped together ad nauseum. Will I ever hear the end of the horrible things done in the name of Christianity, of religion? How about the terrible things done in the name of science? In the name of equality for all people? Or things done in the creation of this country? In the name of chastity (female circumcision in some parts of the world, which leaves me understandably queasy, just another example).

There have been bad things in the history of Christianity even as you can find good things about fascism. Heck, you can say that the murders by the Manson family gave them a sense of belonging. Extreme statement, obviously. But that's all when reasoning runs rampant.

And there's where an INTP has some trouble. You can't reason out everything. You simply can't. Many INTPs and other thinking along certain lines will see faith as a series of coincidences and rationalizations. This is one of many reasons why I don't generally allow it to be a subject for debate as far as I'm concerned. The main reason is of course that in an oral debate I crumple like a paper bag. But it is also because those who most enjoy debate seem to think that anything can be brought to conclusion thus. There is no room in the mind of the thinker for leaving something unanswered. But I tell you that I all the answers do exist, whether we are ready for them or not. I have had my witnesses and will have more of the same and do not and will not consider the matter open for reasoning and redefinition.

I do not think my beliefs are best for everyone else. I know they are. They're facts as I see them and I push them on no one. And if I think it is a pity that others do not have the knowledge I have because they can't let go and take something on faith, I'm entitled to think it.

I'm not sending this with a snappish tone, by the way... it's just as if my eyebrows get into even my typing. That sounds weird, but I have rather stern eyebrows, the naughty things. Complete horizontal line, but for the gap in the middle.

I also am inadvertently debating. I apologize. You could tell me my whole faith is wrong from start to finish. It wouldn't make it the truth. And it won't.

You all are remarkable at maintaining a civil atmosphere, a thing I have not seen often in a message board. I always found this ironic since we have all the time we want to cool off before sending a reply.

And if you didn't, I'd go over by the wall and stand on my head until you promised to stop. That's from Harpo Marx.

No, I don't think it is really any more absolute than, say, Christianity's idea of "witnessing" to non-Christians.

Beyond this, I'm really pretty gentle in person unless you really step on my toes. If someone feels the need to evangelize to me, I'll return the favor by calling their beliefs into question. If someone expresses a conviction that has its roots in religion (many people are pretty overt about this and often times I discover it by further inquiry as to how they arrived at their opinion), I will provide my view as well, along with its background. And other times, someone will simply provide the information as to their religious affiliation or belief system and I instantaneously feel the need to pipe up and do the same. I refuse to believe that my thoughts on the matter are less worthy of sharing than anyone else's.

While some atrocities can be attributed to people exploiting and interpretting their religion, I contend that the teachings themselves are often injurious...


Christianity and Islam both seek to limit women to the roles outlined in their doctrines.

The Koran permits waging holy war against non-believers.

Many of Christianity's myths require faith, and therefore exclude reason -- a degradation of man's intellectual capacity, not to mention that it encourages intellectual passivity.

The concepts of sin, shame, and holding our basic human desires in contempt is psychologically injurious to the individual.

Most religions require obedience, undermining personal accountability, and some offer the concept of eternal torment for the disobedient and non-believers -- a scare tactic.



I wouldn't argue that some religious teachings have virtue, indeed they do, but I do not feel that these are virtues which could not be arrived at through a rational means of assessing human values.

I'm not unbending -- if someone presented a very rational argument or very convincing evidence for the existence of a god, I'd change my view -- but they'd still have to convince me of the validity of their religion. Furthermore, if a person's belief doesn't cause harm to anyone else and doesn't influence politics or laws in ways that I think are damaging, I have no problem with it.

I hope this clarifies my previous post. I'd be interested to hear about your beliefs, but perhaps we should move this to a new thread?

Yep, pretty many of us can relate to that...

You're from Sweden? Wow, we're neighbors then. I live in Finland, but I'm born in Sweden (in Botkyrka - is the name familiar in any way?) and I'm still officially the citizen of Sweden.

In retrospect you found out they were of opposite sex? Don't worry, that has happened to me a couple of times. /winks at Vaga
J/k

Sounds like you have some great aspirations. Oddy is a great INTP to talk to and I think he is about your age.
~Tim

LOL *grin*

Aw thankye =P And yes, I'm a couple grades younger than you/grokkfried/Jef... hm...

Interesting! To contrast: you present yourself as "quite passive, and quite afraid most of the time", and this other person is aggressive. In comparison to both of you, I'm probably horrifyingly narcissistic, haha. This lends me to be very competitive, but otherwise without everyday aggressive traits. Where we're similar is in aspirations. Granted, most men and many women want to leave their memory and their name imprinted on the world somehow (as a kind of assurance of meaningfulness and of life-after-death). What's probably more uniquely INTPish is "representing something that no one else is up there for"- since your work interests lie in Computer Tech., I might guess you mean specifically a discovery or invention. (That as opposed to a military victory, a famed romantic novel, etc.) From the impression I got, I doubt you want to be president anytime soon. Do we thus want to rely chiefly on our creativity and intellect to achieve something? (- and relegate alternative virtues like leadership, assertiveness, practicality, and popularity?) Though it may be comfortable to rely on being intellectuals, should we try to cultivate such traits outside of our comfort zone in order to achieve grand success? Or will focusing on only intellect and creativity [and other stereotypically INTP traits] actually be enough to allow for the achievement we desire?

Just some thoughts.

~Odyssey (ha! 43/45 allotted minutes online today, now for one more quick post and back to my essay, whee)