INTp concept of God, devaluing conceptual understanding for a personal bond

[Ms. Kensington]

I think John Lennon's song God really resonates as INTp to me.

Not that all INTps will think about God the same way, but I think that the sentiments expressed -- devaluing of conceptual understandings of God, and instead looking toward personal bonds for knowledge about meaningful lives, seem Ni Te Se Fi.

It begins, "God is a concept by which we measure our pain". Next he lists religious concepts in which he does not believe. Then he says that what he believes in is Yoko and himself, which is what is real.

[Ritella]

My impression of an INTP:

"Define "God"?
all powerful? yes and no.. <writes 100 pages>
omniscient? yes and no.... <writes 200 pages>
male or female? <laughs> what is "male" or "female"? The mystical embodiment of complimentary forces of nature with differing genitalia? one will never know...
....
....
...

<1 million pages later>:
Now that we've defined God, does God exist?
Oh wait, we have to define "exist"?
Do I "exist"? Do marshmallows "exist"?
<writes another 1 million pages>

If God exists, how does it affect things?
<Lists every aspect of everything the world over, with 40+ caveats per item about God's effect on it.>

Leaps of Faith? That's the equivalent of sputtering nonsense. Let's be rational here. Leap of Faith is another way of saying "shitty logic."
<1 million more pages of gibberish that only an Ni ego could understand.>

In conclusion, I predict that a rainbow of destruction will one day shatter the earth."



There you have it folks. A proof of the existence of something in which everything has been basically annihilated. Inability to categorically phrase anything, resulting in nothing that can be said about anything without it somehow being wrong.
And you can't contest the INTP on this, because he _is_ right: there is an exception to everything. But how can you prove to him that that doesn't mean you can't make a generalization? I will never know....

[munenori2]

Are you talking INTP or INTp?

[Ritella]

Are you talking INTP or INTp?

I'm not even sure I know what a letter is.

[munenori2]

I'm not even sure I know what a letter is.

It's what I wrote you to tell you that it's not you, it's me.

[Ritella]

It's what I wrote you to tell you that it's not you, it's me.

oh. i'm not sure it was you.
i was ambivalent. and ambivalent about my ambivalence. and ambivalent about my ambivalence's ambivalence. And ambivalent about my ambivalence's ambivalence's ambivalence. And SUM of "ambivalent about my ambivalence's^x ambivalence," of x = 3 to infinity.
my emotions are like one big wad of chewing gum on which the hooves of tiny reindeer have irish-jigged.

[Jarno]

Are you talking INTP or INTp?

Can we please stop with that strange capitalisation.

Irrationals in MBTI are the same as Irrationals in Socionics.

If you can give one example where I'm wrong, I'll give you a dozen which prove I'm right.

It's just some error made by Ganin which everybody follows blindly without ever testing if it's true.

[munenori2]

Can we please stop with that strange capitalisation.

Irrationals in MBTI are the same as Irrationals in Socionics.

If you can give one example where I'm wrong, I'll give you a dozen which prove I'm right.

It's just some error made by Ganin which everybody follows blindly without ever testing if it's true.

I was asking if she was discussing an MBTI type or a socionics type. I can't tell if you're suggesting that MBTI type = socionics type or what. I'm not even talking about something as simple as a p/j switch, just that the types are simply not the same so figuring out which theory we're discussing is kind of important, particularly when my impression of what was written seemed more applicable of certain socionic functions that are not stressed as much in an INTp. Therefore, because I was uncertain of what exactly was being addressed, I asked a question. Is this alright with you, Jarno?

On a peripheral note, should my testing overwhelmingly as an INFP in MBTI suggest that I'm not a rational type in socionics?

[Jarno]

I was asking if she was discussing an MBTI type or a socionics type. I can't tell if you're suggesting that MBTI type = socionics type or what. I'm not even talking about something as simple as a p/j switch, just that the types are simply not the same so figuring out which theory we're discussing is kind of important, particularly when my impression of what was written seemed more applicable of certain socionic functions that are not stressed as much in an INTp. Therefore, because I was uncertain of what exactly was being addressed, I asked a question. Is this alright with you, Jarno?

On a peripheral note, should my testing overwhelmingly as an INFP in MBTI suggest that I'm not a rational type in socionics?

yeah I guess I'm getting a bit frusterated on that aspect. Not meant personally.

It's just a strange solution which ganin invented to make the functions in mbti and socionics compatible, which is useless since mbti functions are too messed up. If comparing judging and perceiving with socionics rational and irrational, you will notice that they are similar.

It's also strange the last letter is capitalized, since the biggest difference in definitions between soc. and mbti exists in introversm and extraversm.

[Ms. Kensington]

1 million pages!

[Ritella]

=)
Actually, mune, I thought you were kidding about the INTP/INTp thing.
I read the reasoning for the INTp capitalization awhile back. Whatever it is, I don't subscribe to it. As far as I'm concerned INTp = INTP = ILI = InTp = iNTp =....
heh.
EDIT: If there actually is a preference/convention here, I'll try to be cognizant of it. But it's in the same way as I would say "It's me" and not "It is I." Common usage > the actual reasoning behind the rule.

[crazedrat]

Ritella, I think you just don't like your ideas being questioned.
God in my opinion is a way of describing the laws of the universe. And also a way of explaining parts of the universe we don't understand. when you talk hear someone talk about god, you will usually be able to take the word god out and substitute in there 'the laws of the universe', modify the tenses of the sentence... then you will be left with a perfectly logical sentence.

[Warlord]

Ritella, I think you just don't like your ideas being questioned.
God in my opinion is a way of describing the laws of the universe. And also a way of explaining parts of the universe we don't understand. when you talk hear someone talk about god, you will usually be able to take the word god out and substitute in there 'the laws of the universe', modify the tenses of the sentence... then you will be left with a perfectly logical sentence.

Like "law of the universe hates America"?

[crazedrat]

To the other guy: You didn't modify the context of the sentence, but yes I'd have to agree with the basic message that america rapes the universe.

...anyway:
So you are discussing now that it is impossible to understand god, simply because god is omniscient, and we are not? I don't think I agree with this, because we can have an awareness of the potential for omniscience, kind of like I can know it is possible to know something without knowing it; but aside from getting into that, since this discussion is about how INTps believe they understand God; regardless of whether they are correct in their understanding, I don't see how this matters.

[consentingadult]

...I don't see how this matters.

It doesn't. Life's a bitch and then you die.

[consentingadult]

through the lens of Te alone, that is indeterminate.

You are right: humans aren't rational animals. Even better, we are not rational at all, although many of us like to believe rationality is the defining characteristic of human beings. Te is good only for simple things, such as replacing light bulbs and stuff. It should not be used for existential questions.

[Ritella]

Ritella, I think you just don't like your ideas being questioned.

What is this in reference to?

[ardentmoth]

I happen to (generally) agree with AQ.

I am an INTP, 5w4, Senior Philosophy undergrad. My dad is a pastor for a more conservative church. My mom does taxes. I see them both as "authoritarian former roommates who happen to give good advice." Dad is ENTP, mom is ISFJ.

I once believed almost blindly, hit the age of 18 or so, and everything changed:

I began to use my frontal lobe predominantly. Where I had tested as a depressed INFP before, I have only always tested consistently since then as an INTP. I think that perhaps I was tweaking my answers for some reason, and finally just stopped doing so.

My conception of God is simple. He is the "creator and sustainer of all things." Ibn Sina said it best with "His existence is implicit; his essence is existence." So, then, my definition of God can be summed up as follows:

That Being who promotes the most existence.

A corollary might be "That Being who denies the most death," and another could be "He who meets the most needs."

I have no reason to think this definition is somehow illicit, or that other religions do not follow it. I have no reason to think that such a being could not exist; in fact, all things exist (not all things obtain). Probability, Possibility, Time, and Space all dictate by their workings that everything -must- exist, even if it does not pertain/obtain to our universe.

So do I believe in God? Well, Is there a way not to? By His definition He -must- exist, or else nothing that is could be. Perhaps He is nothing (on a personal level) like anything we can imagine, or conceive of, yet there is no way that He could not exist.

So, I am no longer treading water in the vast and violent ocean of my former faith. I have reached the shore, and the sun is rising; seagulls are shitting everywhere, and the screams of a sinking ships fall as annoyances on my ears.

[ArchonAlarion]

I do not believe in a god, like many INTp's.

However, presents things in an "epic", meaningful, and novelistic way. Hidden connections come across as twists in a plot, so an INTp might wonder if there is an author behind the story of the universe.

At least thats how I feel.