Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 963

Thread: The earth is round

  1. #81
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    LOL, Subteigh. I can't STAND books. Didn't you know?

    As a convert from longtime Evangelical Protestant practice of Christianity (various denoms), I've been long-aware of the shocking un-Christian allegations against Catholicism, propagated by mostly good-intentioned persons (since the average Christian would be careful not to make the mistake of bearing false witness). Converting to Catholic involved first reconciling such things by learning what the Catholic ChurchACTUALLY teaches, which is easy for any seeker on the internet. Yours is a common allegation.

    Here is one reputable place where someone asked that question, and its answered by eminent historian and Catholic theologian Dr. Wm Carroll: http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showme...=&Pgnu=&recnu=
    http://www.usccb.org/bible/understan...e-readings.cfm

    Average Catholics asked today how often they read the Bible likely would say that they do not read the Bible regularly. However, if asked how often they read Scripture, the answer would be different. Practicing Catholics know they read and hear Scripture at every Mass. Many also recognize that basic prayers Catholics say, such as the Our Father and the Hail Mary, are scriptural. But for most Catholics, the Scripture they hear and read is not from the Bible. It is from a worship aid in the pew.

    Scripture always has played an important role in the prayer life of the Catholic Church and its members. For the ordinary Catholic in earlier centuries, exposure to Scripture was passive. They heard it read aloud or prayed aloud but did not read it themselves. One simple reason: Centuries ago the average person could not read or afford a book. Popular reading and ownership of books began to flourish only after the invention of the printing press.

    Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.

    Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew.

    Scripture awareness grew after the Second Vatican Council. Mass was celebrated in the vernacular and so the Scripture readings at Mass were read entirely in English. Adult faith formation programs began to develop, and the most common program run at a parish focused on Scripture study. The Charismatic movement and the rise of prayer groups exposed Catholics to Scripture even more. All of this contributed to Catholics becoming more familiar with the Bible and more interested in reading the Scriptures and praying with them.

    In a round-about way, aspects of U.S. culture also have encouraged Catholics to become more familiar with the Scriptures. References to John 3:16 appear in the stands at sporting events. Catholics who hear of and see other Christians quote or cite Scripture verses wonder why they cannot. Such experiences lead Catholics to seek familiarity with the Bible.

    Such attitudinal changes bode well for Catholics, especially when reading and praying with the Word of God leads to lessons learned, hearts inspired and lives profoundly moved for good.
    Even today, if you ask Catholics of a certain age in Europe if they've read the bible, they will assert that they haven't, and seem quite proud of that fact.

  2. #82
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    [...]Indeed, one does not even have to be religious to be a Flat Earther, for those insisting so intently on this, a simple glance at the Q&A would show otherwise,[...]
    Possibly, but if the Flat Earther is of a particular religion, and of a particularly strong level of fundamentalism, it is easier to know the extent to which it is not worth arguing with them, and also to denounce their moral character, which is arguably a more important topic. If a person is stuck thousands of years in the past in terms of scientific understanding and insists also on claiming with certainty their position is true because their religion allegedly says so, people such as myself will know straightaway that the Flat Earther is not remotely likely to be interested in concepts such as "empiricism" and "falsifiability", and is not going to be amenable to considering any of the scientific evidence acquired over the last few millennia.

  3. #83
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    251 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Subteigh, I will get back later. Right now Jackal deserves a response after that mind-blowing among of typing.

    @TheJackal you are a fount of information! Like an encyclopedia-head. Did anyone ever call you that? Your conclusions, though, are off. Its sort of like you cannot see the forest for the trees? Its actually possibly to make it through the forest without identifying all of the trees and vegetation on the way, you know. Plus you miss things with your head down to the ground like that...
    ... Like the firmament above you.

    You have an active brain, Jackal. Scripture talks of how the people of the Church are a body, and all the parts need each other. Not one part is more important than another. All the parts are needed for the body to work well together. Yes, all the parts are important. None of us are complete in ourselves.

    Your Bible knowledge seems extensive (I am assuming this is not the total of your Bible arguments). Your conclusions are unique. You do know people claim the Bible to support ALL KINDS OF THINGS, right? That comes of reading into it what one wants, instead of reading it to understand what it is trying to tell one. Also we need help from above clarifying its meaning, since a single verse can yield diverse interpretations. That's why Jesus, in those 40 days of Eastertide after His Resurrection and before his Ascension, established a Church for us. Not a Bible (which the Church later gave us), and entrusted to it the Holy Spirit, to be with it til the end of time, so that the Church would not fail in matters of faith and morals.

    The Church won't tell a Catholic which branch of science to believe. though. A Catholic has to believe certain things, to call himself Catholic, like, for instance, that there is a Creator. However, you can believe pretty much how you want how He did it. Even if it makes no sense! You are allowed.

    I don't know what type you are, Jackal (and you ARE a type), but I'm sure I could tell you a few that you are NOT, after that.... You are not INFj, not ENFp, not ISTp, not ISFj, not ESFp, not INFp, not ENFj, not ESTp, not ISFp, not ESFj ...

    Well! That narrows it down a bit! 10 types of 16 that you are NOT. Now, you seem too much "in the head" to be ESTj, who is instead busy about his many activities. @Adam Strange would be a good one to say if there is any possibility you could be an ENTj. Though you sure don't sound like him, so I doubt it. @mu4 maybe could tell us if you could possibly be an ENTp. I doubt it though because you do not sound like him or my ENTp friend. Though I don't feel particularly well-schooled in that type..

    That's three left! INTj - they are smart, those brains hold a lot. And there's is a lot of stuff in your brain. But, all the INTjs I know are markedly kinder than you. They know they are smarter than most people around them, and they use that smartness to adjust that stuff in their brain to the size and form of the brain of their interlocutor. I don't see you doing that at all. More importantly, INTj's are Holographic Panoramic thinkers, and I am sure you are not that or my thinking process would not drive you so crazy. You'd see a kinship with it, even if you completely disagreed with my conclusions. Yup. So I am eliminating INTj.

    That's only two left!

    I think I will continue on this line, since its so close now.

    Hmm, ISTj, my conflictor. Or INTp. Hmm. Okay, so we have for you, after the 14 eliminations, these two:



    ISTj(also called LSI): The Casual-Determinist thinker.

    .................................................. ...Or

    INTp(also called ILI): The Dialectical-Algorithmic Thinker



    Jackal, you haven't studied this but I am thinking aloud. Both ILI and LSI are Cognitive types that are not found in my Dual pair, so I am not surprised I get so stuck discussing ideas with you.

    But you might find this useful :

    Here is a quick course in the Cognitive Styles thanks to @silke, posted low on this page, (above it is the longer course on Cognitive styles):

    Causal-Determinist cognitive style: ILE, LSI, SEE, EII
    This is a precise, single-course style of thinking, that is also called formal logic, deductive-axiomatic logic, or bureaucratic thinking. It is based on the four laws of formal logic. Most of the academic books are written according to the rules of this thinking style. This type of logic predominates in society.


    Dialectical-Algorithmic cognitive style: SEI, EIE, ILI, LSE
    This is precise style of thinking that branches out and runs along multiple parallel courses (multi-course style of thinking). It works according to principle "thesis-antithesis-synthesis." Types using this type of logic make for the best programmers.


    Holographical-Panoramic cognitive style: LII, SLE, ESI, IEE
    This is imprecise, multi-perspective thinking. It is mosaic-like. It works according to the principle of a hologram - the creation of three-dimensional representation of the object through the imposition of several of its sections. It is suitable for solving complex multifactor problems that have no clear-cut algorithms.


    Vortical-Synergetic cognitive style: ESE, IEI, LIE, SLI
    This is imprecise, but holistic, single-course style of thinking. It works according to principles of natural selection - method of trial and error. This style of thinking is the most natural one. It can successfully solve the problems of self-organization. It is stimulated by competition. The society it is often rejected due to its random, chaotic nature.


    I'll quit now that I am down to two. I feel if I read very carefully and slowly and thoughtfully the longer versions of the explanations of the C-D and the D-A styles I might hit on which one you are. But I am out of time, and anyway maybe you want to figure it out yourself.


    .
    .
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  4. #84

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Possibly, but if the Flat Earther is of a particular religion, and of a particularly strong level of fundamentalism, it is easier to know the extent to which it is not worth arguing with them, and also to denounce their moral character, which is arguably a more important topic. If a person is stuck thousands of years in the past in terms of scientific understanding and insists also on claiming with certainty their position is true because their religion allegedly says so, people such as myself will know straightaway that the Flat Earther is not remotely likely to be interested in concepts such as "empiricism" and "falsifiability", and is not going to be amenable to considering any of the scientific evidence acquired over the last few millennia.

    I would definitely start referring to the Flat Earth Society as a religious group.. I would also agree that they, like many other religious groups, lack any concern or care for intellectual integrity ... That is generally what we find among such groups, their ignorance in many cases is straight up woeful.. If they were all on an Island and their religious beliefs insisted it would never sink, they would literally ignore the fact that it is sinking to the point where they will die drowning before admitting they were ever wrong.. Evidence means nothing to them.., they value ignorance as a virtue of their beliefs, and mostly because such requires this ignorance to survive here in the 21st century.. You have to ask what kind of person it takes to not only woefully lie to others, but to lie to themselves.... People like Ken Ham who are clearly crank.. What "Type" of person is that? Should we even remotely respect such people that espouse such absurdities they know are absurd? I find it really hard to have any respect at all for such pathological liars....., but a part of me yet considers that a good many of them are likely victims of brainwashing since child birth.. I had been a Christian for over half my life, but at some point I developed the amazing ability of critical thinking..., quite possibly sometime after having been introduced to Pantheism and academic journals concerning the Bible.. It was pretty difficult to come to terms to learning the Bible I was reading had been edited numerous times while still largely containing poor translations and fraudulent passages etc.. Learning that it is largely assimilated Pagan mythology dealt a crushing blow any confidence I had ever had in the Bible..

    What you learn in the academic arena is not something the Church teaches its congregations.. In fact, most churches I have been to quote mine from the bibles while more than half their congregations have no actual understanding of anything in it.. They are really good a cherry picking what they want to believe, and taking that to make it say what they want it to say.. It's like remembering the discussion I had with Christians about his supposed forgiveness of a woman accused of adultery..., most of them have no understanding there was no forgiveness, and that Jesus was merely adhering to Mosaic law. He had not witnessed her commit it, and the men who brought her forth did not step forth to stand as witnesses.. Under Mosaic law, he had to let her go, and the men were trying to trap him by having her put to death by getting him to bare false witness. It had literally nothing to do with forgiveness as many Christians are so taught in Church.. The Church is probably the most corrupt and crank institution when it comes to Christianity, theology, and the historicity of their religion.

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your conclusions, though, are off. Its sort of like you cannot see the forest for the trees? Its actually possibly to make it through the forest without identifying

    Is or is not Mt Sinai Yahweh's abode? Was the burning bush not on Mt Sinai? Did Moses not seek council from Yahweh at his holy mountain? I dare ask how you think my conclusions are wrong.. Though I would disagree with others that had suggested that Yahweh was a storm god giving they ignored that the phenomenon is most often attributed to the mountain often described in active volcanic imagery.. This also noting that such phenomenon were attributed to the mountains and mountain spirits even when they aren't exacting their wrath... Hence when the lord is happy, he is described in the context of a fertility God.., much as we found with El's wife Asherah.

    all of the trees and vegetation on the way, you know. Plus you miss things with your head down to the ground like that...
    Actually the academic citations and evidence are the fount of information (Thou you could read the "fountain of Knowledge" a non-contemporary literature to which attempts to described god in the Panentheistic context as the container and sustainer of all things).., I am just the messenger. They discuss the trees , what type of trees, what they are, and where they came from... This through the rigors of science, anthropology, geology, linguistics, and so forth.. We don't need to identify all the trees to understand what a tree is, or where particular trees come from.. This just like we don't need to identify every piece of scripture to understand where what we have had come from... Forensic science doesn't need all the pieces to make a determination ..., this even though the more pieces, clues, and evidence we have helps further understand what is being investigated..

    Scripture talks of how the people of the Church are a body, and all the parts need each other. Not one part is more important than another. All the parts are needed for the body to work well together. Yes, all the parts are important. None of us are complete in ourselves.
    Not really relevant, this is actually a common principle of pagan philosophy and religions..., especially among the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, Greeks, and Canaanites.. This is nothing unique to the bible or the scriptures..., much of which is borrowed or simply expressed common beliefs of the contemporary time periods..


    our Bible knowledge seems extensive (I am assuming this is not the total of your Bible arguments).
    This would be correct.. I could go all day and right into understanding how Proverbs deals with El's Wife Asherah, and how Asherah is assimilated into Yahweh's iconography and the image of the Tree of Life / Knowledge.., this and how original sin is largely reference to Idolatry to Asherah and Ba'al.. I could go into how Adam and Eve were taken from preexisting oral traditions of Adapa and Lilith... The rabbit hole goes extremely deep.. But hey, you can always read the Psalms and the Odyssey before reading "The Stilling Of The Tempest".. It gets pretty amusing pretty quickly.
    Your conclusions are unique.
    Actually they aren't, and if you read my articles, they are summarizing the given academic citations... Hence for example. Yahweh's name is more closely related the old Sanskrit word Yahveh, meaning ‘ever flowing’
    .
    * http://www.oldict.com/yahvat/
    yahvat 2[ yahv’at ] mf ( [ ‘atI ] ) n. ever-flowing ( waters ) cf. RV.
    Related words: yahvaYahveYahveh
    .
    Related Yahva:
    http://www.oldict.com/yahva/
    2[ yahv’a ] mf ( [ ‘I ] ) n. restless , swift , active ( applied to
    Agni , Indra and Soma ) cf. RV.
    —> continually moving or flowing ( applied to the waters ) cf. ib. (
    = [ mahat ] cf. Sāy. )

    Yahveh at English => English (WordNet) Of Explained:

    Yahveh
    n : a name for the God of the Old Testament as transliterated
    from the Hebrew consonants YHVH [syn: {Yahweh}, {YHWH}, {Yahwe},
    {YHVH}, {Yahve}, {Wahvey}, {Jahvey}, {Jahweh}, {Jehovah},
    {JHVH}]

    Related words:

    yahva yahvat Yahve

    Most Christians do not know this, and is largely regarded as a key epithet of EL of the Psalms as an ever flowing mountain.. To be more concise, El was often regarded as the eternal ever flowing god, or
    ʼlḏ‘lm to which is understood to be vocalized as ʼil ḏū ‘ôlmi, ‘ʼĒl Eternal’ or ‘God Eternal’. If it weren't for other evidence showing Yahweh as a son of EL, we would think Yahweh was simply another name for EL / El Shaddai rather than an assimilation there of. Now if you further read the bible you will note that he often threatens to pour his spirit upon you.. He is like flowing burning sulfur and is not only the spirit of the mountain for which is his abode, but is the mountain itself.. The various books and authors describe this deity much in their own ways..., much like what you can see when reading Daniel 7 and Revelations.. The house of El Shaddia was to be established as the chief of the Mountains.. Hence we already know that mountain god worship strongly influenced the writings of the bible and the development of Yahweh's iconography.. This largely and mostly assimilated from the Canaanite and Amorite El Shaddai / El.. Hell, if you even google Mountain Church, and sermons, you will get what is being discussed here..

    Jeremiah 31:23
    This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: "When I bring them back from captivity, the people in the land of Judah and in its towns will once again use these words: 'The LORD bless you, you prosperous city, you sacred mountain.'
    The foundation of your Church rests in the holy mountains , and your lord's foundation is in the holy mountains... He is referred to as the Rock of Israel, and if you read Psalms 18, you will begin to grasp what it is you are actually worshiping here.. You will better understand Daniels vision, and Revelations ... Mountain god worship is a fundamental aspect of the OT and NT.., and derives from its pagan roots. This including other assimilated influences from Zoroastrianism etc as the bible writers didn't simply just assimilate pagan mountain gods... Hell Abraham came from the city of Ur, the epicenter of the worship of the moon god Sin..., and it is notable that Mt Sinai derives from Sin..., and means "Moon Mountain" .. Abraham had made El Shaddai his Elohim, the patron God of the city of Shaddai ..
    "
    Shaddai is a derivation of a Semitic stem that appears in the Akkadian shadû(“mountain”) and shaddā`û or shaddû`a
    “mountain dweller”, one of the names of Amurru. Amurru/Martu was probably a western Semitic god originally. He is sometimes described as a ‘shepherd’ or as a storm god, and as a son of the sky-god Anu. He is sometimes called bêlu šadī or bêl šadê, ‘lord of the mountain’; dúr-hur-sag-gá sikil-a-ke, ‘He who dwells on the pure mountain’; and kur-za-gan ti-[la], ‘who inhabits the shining mountain’.

    .
    1.”The Targum from the Beginnings: “Tablet
    2. Bailey, L. R. (1968). “Israelite ’Ēl šadday and Amorite Bêl šadê”, Journal of Biblical Literature 87, 434–38.
    3. Cross, Frank Moore (1973). Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 10, 57–58. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-09176-0.
    4. Jordon, Michael. Encyclopedia of Gods, Kyle Cathie Limited, 2002
    5. Ouellette, Jean (1969). “More on ’Ēl Šadday and Bêl Šadê”, Journal of Biblical Literature 88, 470f.
    6. ETSCL: Narratives featuring deities: Other deities, including “The Marriage of Martu”.
    7. Iconography of Amurru (PDF-article)
    8. http://www.academia.edu/1233946/The_God_Amurru_as_Emblem_of_Ethnic_and_Cultural_Id entity

    It is pretty undeniable without woeful ignorance of these facts..
    Religion largely began as animism and grew into more complex anthropomorphism.. You can literally see this in the Bible itself, and to the point where natural things like mountains are given personas while attributing things like Thunder as the voice of these Gods.. We see this in every known mountain cult to which includes the Maasai People here in the 21st Century..
    Last edited by TheJackal; 01-27-2016 at 10:34 PM.

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Btw, typing someone on an intellectual discussion is nonsensical.. Furthermore, the types you listed are subjective, as in a person can appear to be anyone of those given any given situation, subject.. It's like trying to call someone a Liberal when in fact they can be conservative depending on what the subject and situation is.. Typing is like generalizing and labeling..., it is largely obtuse..

    But, all the INTjs I know are markedly kinder than you. They know they are smarter than most people around them, and they use that smartness to adjust that stuff in their brain to the size and form of the brain of their interlocutor. I don't see you doing that at all.
    You can't assess how kind someone is over a discussion on the internet ..., If you find people who are straight forward with you and won't simply let you get away with dishonesty as unkind, I am not sure if you understand what it means to be a kind person as intentions are important here. I am neither smarter or superior to anyone here... , but if I take the time to share information with you, that is an attempt at my expense and time to try and help everyone either educationally or along in the discussion to further it to have something of meaningful value.. If I call you out on something, that's not being an asshole or being unkind.., that's standing up for the principles of integrity.. I don't ever consider someone unkind who corrects me when I am wrong, I have too much humility to do so. Humility is a rare thing, and rarer still when discussing religions and religious beliefs as people don't want to hear things contrary to them... It is like, how do you respond to someone that claims Gravity is god pushing you down? :

    http://www.theonion.com/article/evan...h-new-int-1778

    I would imagine for most of us that this is clearly nonsensical and crank.. Hell, I would imagine them testing their faith at the cliff's edge, or praising the lord for breaking their kid's neck after falling off their bike... I can just imagine their argument about terrorists throwing people off buildings and how GOD helped them kill them... I must ask, how nice am I supposed to be to dishonest cranks who do nothing to earn any respect? I mean, am I supposed to like this, agree to it, and just be so kind that I don't question it? Hence, what extent of kindness do you think I should give the woefully dishonest? Then suddenly my kindness is super great when I cuddle with my beloved cat , or spend my time with my nephew and niece while helping to bring them up to be respectable adults. You can't just simply toss people into any given label or category (type).. I will very depending on the subject, situation, or issue at hand..
    Last edited by TheJackal; 01-27-2016 at 09:10 AM.

  7. #87
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    251 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pa3s View Post
    .... It was Martin Luther's lifework to translate* the Bible and make it widely available to the common people, after all.
    And also REMOVE some of those pesky books of scripture that did not agree with his ideas of how things should be... (because he knew what was best for those common people).

    *There were twenty-seven editions of the Bible in German before Luther published his own translation.

    More on Luther - not the mythical hero he is esteemed to be, but a complex and oftimes very strange man:
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  8. #88
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    And also REMOVE some of those pesky books of scripture that did not agree with his ideas of how things should be... (because he knew what was best for those common people).

    *There were twenty-seven editions of the Bible in German before Luther published his own translation.

    More on Luther - not the mythical hero he is esteemed to be, but a complex and oftimes very strange man:
    Why did "the Church" take so long to translate the bible into regional languages (and even longer to translate into a form that the layperson could understand)? It was only because of the external force of Protestantism that they actually got round to it at all.

    Attacking Luther is not especially meaningful: you are attacking someone who had faults, but who was "less bad" than the Church (certainly far less evil than many of the Popes at the time), and actually understood Christian theology better than the Catholic hierarchy did.

    Also, as we've discussed before, what the Catholics consider part of the bible was only actually formerly determined around the time of Luther, more than 15 centuries after the alleged time of Jesus. Further, with things like the Catechism of the Catholic Church: what are considered core Catholic teachings are actually longer than the bible itself, which illustrates well about the sort of indulgence Luther campaigned against.

  9. #89
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,642
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    And also REMOVE some of those pesky books of scripture that did not agree with his ideas of how things should be... (because he knew what was best for those common people).
    What books did he remove and what information did they include? Besides, the catholic priests only told the people what was convenient for them, so they're not any better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    *There were twenty-seven editions of the Bible in German before Luther published his own translation.
    I know it wasn't the first translation, but the most important one. Its success was heavily boosted by the printing press, Luther's activism and the interests of the wordly nobles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    More on Luther - not the mythical hero he is esteemed to be, but a complex and oftimes very strange man:
    He was also an outspoken antisemite and a sexist. But back in the day, everyone was. It's hardly fair to measure people according to today's standards.

    If you're looking for a more moral and egalitarian contemporary with similar goals try Thomas Müntzer.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  10. #90
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    251 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    Btw, typing someone on an intellectual discussion is nonsensical...
    Nope.

    In fact last night I realized I could go with my intuitive Panoramic view, and confirm that you are INTp (ILI). No doubt about it. You don't read at ALL like the ISTj's I know. I say INTp, final and confirmed.

    As to not reading like an ISTj, I find you read like another INTp I know - @Subteigh. Yes, Subteigh self-types as INFj (because he is so careful to be polite with people and have empathy for their feelings?) but he knows I think he is INTp instead. There is something alike in discussions with you - probably your religious discussion amplifies it. Amplifies, hmm. You aren't exactly like Subteigh - you read like "Subteigh on Steroids". Subteigh with no holds barred, and lacking in a gentler edge? Perhaps you and Subteigh are different Subtypes? (See this: http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/t...INTp/subtypes/)

    You are aggressive in your posts here. And that would be typical of an INTp according to this ("These are types who exhibit aggressive tendencies in their everyday life..."). Being an NT, that would come out in discussions about theories and your opinion of what is logical.

    I thought about the INTps I know in real life and I realize I never get uncomfortable around them, ever, like I do in these discussions - the one here with you and the ones with Subteigh on his view of religion. Yet I am sure you are the same types as those I know IRL. I suspect the INTp, IRL, does not insist so on asserting his opinion quite so strong as he/she might in writing, particularly in a discussion of an idea he feels confident and schooled in.



    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    Furthermore, the types you listed are subjective, as in a person can appear to be anyone of those given any given situation, subject.. It's like trying to call someone a Liberal when in fact they can be conservative depending on what the subject and situation is.. Typing is like generalizing and labeling..., it is largely obtuse...
    INTp's would say exactly this! It's due to their Democratic rather than Aristoractic "Reinin Dichotomy". (Democratics on this typing site particularly object to typing at times). Since ISTj's are Aristocratic I am even more confirmed I have spotted your Socionics type.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    You can't assess how kind someone is over a discussion on the internet ..., If you find people who are straight forward with you and won't simply let you get away with dishonesty as unkind, I am not sure if you understand what it means to be a kind person as intentions are important here
    You are absolutely right, intentions are important. I like what you say here.

    I suspect you are a lot kinder and nicer IRL than you have come across to me in these posts.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    I am neither smarter or superior to anyone here... ,
    Great! Your idea on that came across to me a bit differently in these posts.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    but if I take the time to share information with you, that is an attempt at my expense and time to try and help everyone either educationally or along in the discussion to further it to have something of meaningful value.. If I call you out on something, that's not being an asshole or being unkind.., that's standing up for the principles of integrity.. I don't ever consider someone unkind who corrects me when I am wrong, I have too much humility to do so. Humility is a rare thing, and rarer still when discussing religions and religious beliefs as people don't want to hear things contrary to them...
    Thanks for explaining.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    It is like, how do you respond to someone that claims Gravity is god pushing you down?
    LOL, how would I respond to that statement. That it's ridiculous and strange! But I tend to withhold judgment from my initial reactions, however strong they may be, while I wait for more info. I would look for what that person was actually trying to say, vs. the craziness of how their statement sounds. Because sometimes, things aren't what they seem to be. Sometimes, anyway.

    I don't' have time to read that article with the care it deserves right now, or much of any other reading right now. In fact I need to hurry and finish this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    I would imagine for most of us that this is clearly nonsensical and crank.. Hell, I would imagine them testing their faith at the cliff's edge, or praising the lord for breaking their kid's neck after falling off their bike... I can just imagine their argument about terrorists throwing people off buildings and how GOD helped them kill them... I must ask, how nice am I supposed to be to dishonest cranks who do nothing to earn any respect? I mean, am I supposed to like this, agree to it, and just be so kind that I don't question it? Hence, what extent of kindness do you think I should give the woefully dishonest? Then suddenly my kindness is super great when I cuddle with my beloved cat , or spend my time with my nephew and niece while helping to bring them up to be respectable adults. You can't just simply toss people into any given label or category (type).. I will very depending on the subject, situation, or issue at hand..
    Okay, I am persuaded. You are not an unkind person.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  11. #91
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Nope.

    In fact last night I realized I could go with my intuitive Panoramic view, and confirm that you are INTp (ILI). No doubt about it. You don't read at ALL like the ISTj's I know. I say INTp, final and confirmed.

    As to not reading like an ISTj, I find you read like another INTp I know - @Subteigh. Yes, Subteigh self-types as INFj (because he is so careful to be polite with people and have empathy for their feelings?) but he knows I think he is INTp instead. There is something alike in discussions with you - probably your religious discussion amplifies it. Amplifies, hmm. You aren't exactly like Subteigh - you read like "Subteigh on Steroids". Subteigh with no holds barred, and lacking in a gentler edge? Perhaps you and Subteigh are different Subtypes? (See this: http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/t...INTp/subtypes/)

    You are aggressive in your posts here. And that would be typical of an INTp according to this ("These are types who exhibit aggressive tendencies in their everyday life..."). Being an NT, that would come out in discussions about theories and your opinion of what is logical.

    I thought about the INTps I know in real life and I realize I never get uncomfortable around them, ever, like I do in these discussions - the one here with you and the ones with Subteigh on his view of religion. Yet I am sure you are the same types as those I know IRL. I suspect the INTp, IRL, does not insist so on asserting his opinion quite so strong as he/she might in writing, particularly in a discussion of an idea he feels confident and schooled in.



    INTp's would say exactly this! It's due to their Democratic rather than Aristoractic "Reinin Dichotomy". (Democratics on this typing site particularly object to typing at times). Since ISTj's are Aristocratic I am even more confirmed I have spotted your Socionics type.

    You are absolutely right, intentions are important. I like what you say here.

    I suspect you are a lot kinder and nicer IRL than you have come across to me in these posts.


    Great! Your idea on that came across to me a bit differently in these posts.


    Thanks for explaining.

    LOL, how would I respond to that statement. That it's ridiculous and strange! But I tend to withhold judgment from my initial reactions, however strong they may be, while I wait for more info. I would look for what that person was actually trying to say, vs. the craziness of how their statement sounds. Because sometimes, things aren't what they seem to be. Sometimes, anyway.

    I don't' have time to read that article with the care it deserves right now, or much of any other reading right now. In fact I need to hurry and finish this post.

    Okay, I am persuaded. You are not an unkind person.
    If I'm ILI, then @God is ILI.





    The Abrahamic God is even more aggressive.

  12. #92

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Nope.

    In fact last night I realized I could go with my intuitive Panoramic view, and confirm that you are INTp (ILI). No doubt about it. You don't read at ALL like the ISTj's I know. I say INTp, final and confirmed.
    You're trying to make your subjective opinion into a fact by asserting it..., especially based on a format of debate with someone you know next to nothing about... Your arguments sound similar to how Scientologists try to type people , usually appealing to common core things they can manipulate among personality traits that are common place in pretty much everyone.. Your typing system is like trying to label someone a Liberal in the generalizing context when they can also often be conservative.. You can't realistically or honestly do that. Nor would I say you are qualified to make any sort of profiling or diagnosis on anyone here.. You seem very enthusiastic or zealous about all this.., but I can't take you seriously here.

    As to not reading like an ISTj, I find you read like another INTp I know - @Subteigh. Yes, Subteigh self-types as INFj (because he is so careful to be polite with people and have empathy for their feelings?) but he knows I think he is INTp instead. There is something alike in discussions with you - probably your religious discussion amplifies it. Amplifies, hmm. You aren't exactly like Subteigh - you read like "Subteigh on Steroids". Subteigh with no holds barred, and lacking in a gentler edge? Perhaps you and Subteigh are different Subtypes? (See this: http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/t...INTp/subtypes/)
    Sorry, people are not written books, and you can garnish pretty much nothing on the type of person someone is in a debate other than whether or not they are intellectually honest, knowledgeable, intelligent, or meaningful in the subject of debate.. We aren't engaging in typical social interactions here, this is a debate format regarding a specific subject of debate.. You're also almost trying to dogmatically label people using the obtuse typing system in a debate.. I dare say you're being obtuse.

    You are aggressive in your posts here. And that would be typical of an INTp according to this ("These are types who exhibit aggressive tendencies in their everyday life..."). Being an NT, that would come out in discussions about theories and your opinion of what is logical.
    I am really not sure if you understand the principles of a debate .... I can literally suggest that you are aggressive here and zealous and attach the same label / type to your own posts.., or anyone's for that matter. All I have to do is say "oh they are against my position, they must be type A).. Kind of like the dogma of the use of the term "Satan" among Christians who label anyone and everything that doesn't conform to their brand of religious beliefs... Social typing is pretty much crank..


    I thought about the INTps I know in real life and I realize I never get uncomfortable around them, ever, like I do in these discussions - the one here with you and the ones with Subteigh on his view of religion. Yet I am sure you are the same types as those I know IRL. I suspect the INTp, IRL, does not insist so on asserting his opinion quite so strong as he/she might in writing, particularly in a discussion of an idea he feels confident and schooled in.
    You're trying to type someone based on their knowledge and academic education on a subject matter.., and that when they share it with you, you feel they are making an assertion of their "opinion"..., this sounds more like an avoidance to engage in a subject you are clearly unprepared to engage in... Hence, you argued that my posts on your religion were a unique opinion, and clearly that wasn't the case. I then asked you simple questions you did not answer, these to which you avoided to make some irrelevant pitch on what type of person you think I am. I am not sure you understand the commonly expected etiquette of a debate to which involves addressing people on a point by point basis..., and you have shown no respect to the people who you choose to have a debate with when you literally spend all your time shifting the debate and not addressing anything on a point by point basis. That is an unwillingness to learn, it is a common format of debate among religious cults, religions, and zealous followers there of.. Hence neither you or Job did any actual debate, you tossed a salad of stuff in the format of a sales pitch, and you wonder why people are being aggressive with you in this discussion. To be more concise, the aggression you are receiving is an effect and response of your own arguments, assertions, and statements to which show no respect or regard for honest discourse or the person you are debating with.



    INTp's would say exactly this! It's due to their Democratic rather than Aristoractic "Reinin Dichotomy". (Democratics on this typing site particularly object to typing at times). Since ISTj's are Aristocratic I am even more confirmed I have spotted your Socionics type.
    So if I labeled you as a Racist, and if you deny that, I can therefore say you are a confirmed INTp... And since ISTj's are Aristocratic, I am even more confirmed I have spotted your Socionics type ... I am sorry, but when I see people do this sort of thing, they are subjective cherry picking to brand labels in what are generalization fallacies. I don't think you understand that I can be numerous types on your list depending on the circumstances just as I can be a liberal on an issue or a conservative on another. You are attempting to use a typing system as a method of generalizing a persons character.. You can't honestly do that anymore than I could label all Muslims as Terrorists or all Christians as homophobic witch burners, fanatics, or fundamentalists.

    You are absolutely right, intentions are important. I like what you say here.
    And when I see people Phishing, I tend to question their intentions.. Job wasn't coming here to state his beliefs, he came here to phish and was unwilling to even discuss it on a point by point basis on any sort of intellectual level or respect for those objectors to his position. You employed a similar disrespect , and still come off as continuously doing so here.. If you want people to be more kind to you here, I would suggest showing them the same respect they have shown you...
    I suspect you are a lot kinder and nicer IRL than you have come across to me in these posts.
    A debate on a forum isn't going to give you who someone is in real life..., it will give you how they are when they are engaged in a debate, but it isn't going to tell you necessarily who someone is outside the debate environment. Although in certain type of debates, such as political debates, can often give you an idea of what kind of person they are.. Now if I said I didn't believe in Jesus for X, Y, and Z..., I often get labeled as the anti-Christ or as "anti-christian"..., this even though I would defend their right to believe and worship him with my life regardless of my position on his existence.. So am I really anti-Christian, or am I not convinced of his existence? I am not really fond of typing or labeling unless it is obvious. Hence Creationists identify themselves as Creationists, it is a label they give and identify with in regards to themselves while evolutionists is not a self-identified group to which exists.. Hence your use of evolutionists is a common socially dogmatic label, one of which often asserts that if someone believes in evolution it must mean they must also magically believe there is no God. And let us admit that you used that very argument / label.. My rejection of typing is based on a set of reasons, its not based on whether I personally feel offended , or have some emotional response. I can tell from our short interaction here that you are not qualified to be typing anyone other than yourself, this providing you can even be honest with yourself... And in that regard, I am willing to bet that no single type label is going to apply to you in any sort of generalization of your character..


    Great! Your idea on that came across to me a bit differently in these posts.
    How so? Was it based on my reluctance to allow you to get away with intellectually dishonest arguments such as your argument on evolutionists ? You need to realize that people will respond to you based on that, as in you are responsible for what you say. So if I call you out on your dishonesty, you're in no position to be complaining about it..., it comes off as professional victim-hood.. That doesn't help me or others here take you seriously, or have sympathy for your plight here in these debates when you openly insult our intelligence with such dishonest tripe.. The responses you are getting are rational rejection of the intellectual dishonesty you and Job have expressed here.. I would be far more kind to you if you hadn't gone down that route.., and this would be obvious to the common observer. This doesn't mean I would suggest you are of poor character in real life, or a bad person in real life either... Now could I have been nicer in my responses? Yes, but that would have required me to allow you to get away with what you were doing..


    LOL, how would I respond to that statement. That it's ridiculous and strange! But I tend to withhold judgment from my initial reactions, however strong they may be, while I wait for more info. I would look for what that person was actually trying to say, vs. the craziness of how their statement sounds. Because sometimes, things aren't what they seem to be. Sometimes, anyway.
    Actually, the argument in itself was nonsensical.. There is no way they could have spun that to make any coherent sense or have any relation to our understanding of physics.. There is no way one could spin that to avoid assigning that god as anything but a serial killer smashing people into the ground etc.. Hence, I don't think they thought that through, and I think that guy was clearly a crank.. That group is among those who don't think gravity is real, they think it is rather a force applied by a magical sky walker in the sky who intelligently pushes people down. Yes, it is ridiculous ..., and I have a good enough education to make that assessment with an extremely high degree of certainty.. Could I be wrong, and could there serial killer god exist who gets a kick out of pushing kids off their bikes? Yes, but most-likely not. I am not inclined to take their assertion seriously, especially when it was an assertion. I expect people to substantiate those assertions and not simply make them and then expect people to believe them on a whim without any criticism. Lastly, you didn't even bother to answer my questions in regards to that... I had several questions I asked to which you never addressed... People don't ask you questions for no reason, and avoiding them is generally bad form in such debates and discussions.


    Okay, I am persuaded. You are not an unkind person.
    Careful, I might fall under another type when snuggling with my cat
    Last edited by TheJackal; 01-28-2016 at 12:11 AM.

  13. #93

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


    Flat Earth Theory is neither officially nor unofficially associated with any religion. Throughout the ages various religious institutions have championed a flat earth model for the world. Unfortunately this leaves us with the vestigial thought that Flat Earth Theory and religions are symbiotic. They are not, even though many religions today, both mainstream and otherwise, still teach its followers that the world is flat. While they are not incorrect, believing in a flat earth isn't contingent upon believing in a deity or being a part of any religion."
    Accept itself is essentially a cult / religion.., this including that most of its adherents are in fact religious. I am also not sure if you understand what "associated" means when religious sects subscribe and promote it. You further won't find very many Atheist flat Earthers out there.., and those that are would more likely be playing the role of POE. However, atheism isn't immune to gullibility either., so you might have true keeper out there somewhere.. You further keep insisting that criticism of your position is combating your right to free thought or actions, and we both know that is a load of shit often used as an excuse to woefully ignore and not address the skeptical criticism of your assertions, beliefs, or faith.. You seem to be under the impression that professional victim-hood grants you credibility.. the Credibility of an idea or belief that doesn't conform the the mainstream is subject to the actual substantiation of that idea or belief. You don't get a free pass because you can play the victim... No offense, but an asserted idea means absolutely nothing unless you can establish it..., and I don't think you are going to achieve that by appealing to ignorance, formal / informal fallacies, bad math, science illiteracy, professional victim-hood, or crank quote mining and misrepresentation of science.. You're essentially begging for credibility..., and people shouldn't have to debunk your nonsense hundreds of times over...

    When you have to resort to that sort of discourse, we already know that you know you're crank.. Hence you woefully lie too much just as Ken Ham does.., and your entire belief system relies on it to try and have relevancy..
    Last edited by TheJackal; 01-28-2016 at 05:33 AM.

  14. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    Accept itself is essentially a cult / religion.., this including that most of its adherents are in fact religious. I am also not sure if you understand what "associated" means when religious sects subscribe and promote it.
    You don't have to be religious to be a FE.
    You further won't find very many Atheist flat Earthers out there..,
    Show me the statistics
    and those that are would more likely be playing the role of POE.
    Prove it
    However, atheism isn't immune to gullibility either.,
    Unsupported assertion and subject change
    so you might have true keeper out there somewhere..
    Conclusion based on assumed supposition
    You further keep insisting that criticism of your position is combating your right to free thought or actions,
    no I don't
    and we both know that is a load of shit often used as an excuse to woefully ignore and not address the skeptical criticism of your assertions, beliefs, or faith..
    it's your idea
    You seem to be under the impression that professional victim-hood grants you credibility..
    you are doing that thing again
    the Credibility of an idea or belief that doesn't conform the the mainstream is subject to the actual substantiation of that idea or belief.
    still what
    You don't get a free pass because you can play the victim... No offense, but an asserted idea means absolutely nothing unless you can establish it...,
    you are still writing about something else
    and I don't think you are going to achieve that by appealing to ignorance, formal / informal fallacies, bad math, science illiteracy,
    achieve what
    professional victim-hood, or crank quote mining and misrepresentation of science..
    you are still making things up
    You're essentially begging for credibility..., and people shouldn't have to debunk your nonsense hundreds of times over...
    this is absolutely nothing to do with what i've done or anything.

    When you have to resort to that sort of discourse, we already know that you know you're crank.. Hence you woefully lie too much just as Ken Ham does.., and your entire belief system relies on it to try and have relevancy..
    yes, a discourse which never happened except in your head and I don't know who Ken Ham is but who knows maybe you are dying to write about him.

    The real reason I don't engage you is because I have a happy life and I don't want to upset myself or use my time arguing with you about no particular argument, as you have not presented anything substantial worth devoting too much of my time on the internet, as I have demonstrated to you here, while you have your angry preaching tone. I like to talk and learn and discuss and I am a friendly person in these regards.

    If you would like advice, try to be a little nicer and treat people better, you obviously want to talk about this subject and you will likely find yourself becoming frustrated when people don't want to talk to you because your frustration about it comes over as angry.

    I would like to say, free of coercion and judgement, if someone wishes or wishes not to read about FE, they can, everyone has a personal choice to make in this and other particular regards

  15. #95
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    251 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    ... I had several questions I asked to which you never addressed... People don't ask you questions for no reason, and avoiding them is generally bad form in such debates and discussions.
    Becasue I am avoidant of a discussion with you. I do not think you are unkind, but your way of discusing feels so to me. You, as INTp, are a "Construtivist", and I, as ENFp, are Emotivist. This has nothign to do with the Feeling/Thinking differences in our type (The F or T in those letters) but instead its this, explained bereifly, below:

    Constructivist

    -Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.
    -Have emotional 'anchors' (eg, books, films, places) which they use to support their internal emotional state.
    -Can become 'emotionally hooked', and can have a strong reaction to a particular part or section regardless of their feelings towards the entirety.
    -Have greater difficulty disassociating from others' emotions and experiences than from requests for action or consideration.
    -"I prefer when people offer concrete solutions instead of comfort or sympathy."


    Emotivist

    -Tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction, with 'business' a secondary concern.
    -Prefer the new and novel over the old and known.
    -Information perceived as unprofessional or low-quality can leave them indifferent.
    -Have greater difficulty disassociating from requests for action or consideration than from others' emotions and experiences.
    -"If a conversation is emotionally negative, I consider it wasted."

    Emotivist Types: LII (INTj) SEI (ISFp) LSI (ISTj) IEI (INFp) SEE (ESFp) LIE (ENTj) IEE (ENFp) LSE (ESTj)
    Constructivist Types: ILE (ENTp) ESE (ESFj) SLE (ESTp) EIE (ENFj) ESI (ISFj) ILI (INTp) EII (INFj) SLI (ISTp)


    See that part I bolded purple part? That's me.

    So that and our different thinkign styles make it hard for us to discuss. Furthermore, your type excels in "Ti" function while my type prefers to avoid it as much as possible. You not only try to draw me into that, but you aggressively try to impose your Dialectical-Algorithmic of thinking on the discussion. I am sure you look at my Holographical-Panoramic cognitive style as a woefully inadequate mode of thinking. But in some instances it works better than your style. And its my preferred mode of thinking.

    Also said of IEEs: "They are often disturbed by conflict or aggression, and rather than espousing a confrontational or accusatory attitude, when possible they often prefer to politely smile and avoid being drawn into contentious arguments."

    Yes, this is TOTALLY TRUE of me and I do that. At rare times I allow myself to get involved in a contentious argument, and thats only if its for a reason I see as greater than myself. The rare time I do this will be:
    - to reach understanding and/or peace with a person because I highly value understanding people and being at peace with people.
    - to defend something higher than me, like lies spread about my faith.

    If I find that the argument is not bearing any good fruit at all, or is getting frighteningly more offensive, I leave it. I will not argue just to argue. I hate that. I won't be a part of something that brings out the worst in people, either.

    That's what i do.

    I am so sorry you rejected Christianity. I think you should read more someday, Jackal. Christianity has its rabid detractors, as does every good thing. It also has its failed adherents, but you cannot judge it by that. There are great heroes the faith, too. You need to be fair.

    As to its pagan roots, it feels gainful to some people to propagate that myth. Here is an article I found recently,http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/b...gins-christmas. It might help you see their are other researched and more historically accurate views to consider.
    .
    .
    Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 01-28-2016 at 09:04 PM.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  16. #96
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    I am so sorry you rejected Christianity. I think you should read more someday, Jackal. Christianity has its rabid detractors, as does every good thing. It also has its failed adherents, but you cannot judge it by that. There are great heroes the faith, too. You need to be fair.

    As to its pagan roots, it feels gainful to some people to propagate that myth. Here is an article I found recently,http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/b...gins-christmas. It might help you see their are other researched and more historically accurate views to consider.
    .
    .
    If there are any heroes in Christianity, it is not because of Christian doctrine, which is fundamentally evil (in regards supporting the genocide of the Old Testament, and the doctrine of Damnation).

    By the way, I can see no evidence of any Pope in recent times (i.e. the last several hundred years) who advocated the position that the Earth is flat. True, the papacy denounced those who suggested that the Earth was not the immovable centre of the Cosmos and in actually fact orbited around the Sun, but at least since Medieval times, they did not make a fuss of disputing the evidence provided since antiquity that demonstrated that the Earth is spherical.

  17. #97
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    251 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    If there are any heroes in Christianity, it is not because of Christian doctrine, which is fundamentally evil
    You INTp, you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    (in regards supporting the genocide of the Old Testament,
    For things that make no sense I consult the views trusted scholarly theologians.. because some things don't. Gods ways are not our ways...


    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    and the doctrine of Damnation).
    We talked about this alleged "doctrine" of yours already...



    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    By the way, I can see no evidence of any Pope in recent times (i.e. the last several hundred years) who advocated the position that the Earth is flat. True, the papacy denounced those who suggested that the Earth was not the immovable centre of the Cosmos and in actually fact orbited around the Sun, but at least since Medieval times, they did not make a fuss of disputing the evidence provided since antiquity that demonstrated that the Earth is spherical.
    My husband pointed the same sort of thing out - that the Church hasn't said so, and that this is pretty significant... But since the Church is not going to rule on the cell evolving into animal and then to man theory, then it unlikely they are going to rule on this one. Apparently, you can believe your uncle's a monkey and still be Catholic. Holy Mother Church will keep us straight on matters of faith and morals - the essentials - and tolerate all sorts of other nonsense.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  18. #98

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    You don't have to be religious to be a FE. Show me the statistics Prove it Unsupported assertion and subject change Conclusion based on assumed supposition no I don't it's your idea you are doing that thing again still what you are still writing about something else achieve what you are still making things up this is absolutely nothing to do with what i've done or anything.
    I don't think you really understand the definition of "religious", especially when it comes to faith based assertions in which there is a zealous belief in... Flat Earthism is without a doubt a cult / religious belief.. Now if you called science a religion or empiricism a religion as some sort of attempt at a clever response, it wouldn't bother me as I would take that over which rests on assertions and blind faith over evidence.. I don't take your belief any more seriously as I do for the existence of Smurfs, or I do in regards to hallow Earth Creationists. What I do take seriously is the spread of ignorance to which has throughout history has unnecessarily cost people their lives. If someone gets killed because they seriously believe your assertion in a flat Earth, that blood is on your hands. Hence if someone on a plane is having a life threatening medical emergency and that some pilot was a flat Earther and decided the shortest route was the straight route between destinations over a trans-pacific flight to which winds up resulting in the death of their passenger that would possibly have otherwise survived, that blood is on your hands.. People who spread woeful ignorance like a commodity or for the purpose of a cult are inconsiderate assholes.. It's like those planned parenthood cranks making intellectually dishonest videos to which then resulted in causing a terrorist attack to which got people killed. And the worst part of that is that they don't even think they are responsible for it..

    yes, a discourse which never happened except in your head and I don't know who Ken Ham is but who knows maybe you are dying to write about him.
    It was an accurate comparison ..., you are fundamentally no different than Ken Ham pushing Creationism ..

    The real reason I don't engage you is because I have a happy life and I don't want to upset myself or use my time arguing with you about no particular argument, as you have not presented anything substantial worth devoting too much of my time on the internet, as I have demonstrated to you here, while you have your angry preaching tone. I like to talk and learn and discuss and I am a friendly person in these regards.
    That must be why you are here phishing.... /s

    If you would like advice, try to be a little nicer and treat people better, you obviously want to talk about this subject and you will likely find yourself becoming frustrated when people don't want to talk to you because your frustration about it comes over as angry.
    Nobody is angry here or frustrated, and you are treated as you deserve to be treated,, Come here and troll, phish, and present yourself to be a crank, that is how you will be treated as.. There is no reason to give any respect to the woefully crank, they like you have no regard or respect for intellectual integrity .. There is a reason why you are trying to personalize this discussion, it is what any cult does when it is called out on its bull shit

    I would like to say, free of coercion and judgement, if someone wishes or wishes not to read about FE, they can, everyone has a personal choice to make in this and other particular regards
    You have to have to be a pompous ass to think your aasertins should be free of judgement and think any skepticism and criticism of your nonsense constitutes as "coercion".. Nobody here is even arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to read about FE, this is a fantasy you have made up in your head.. You can feel free to quote where anyone here even argued that nobody had any "personal choice", or that they weren't allowed to have any "personal choice"... You're also appealing to people in regards to that because you somehow believe facts are irrelevant and that somehow someone can make them false through personal choice.. Sorry facts don't care what you choose to believe, they will not magically change to accommodate your religious beliefs..
    Last edited by TheJackal; 01-29-2016 at 08:06 AM.

  19. #99

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post


    For things that make no sense I consult the views trusted scholarly theologians.. because some things don't. Gods ways are not our ways...
    Do you even know what the definition of genocide is? If you are talking about theologians, most all of them are crank and use apologetics... Most of them can't even read Hebrew, and more than half of them can't even understand the basic principles of Hebrew Grammar.. First party theologians have too much invested interest in a particular narrative ..., and there is a reason why you rarely ever reference them in the academic arena.. , and anyone can note this, when for example, we look at mainstream secular archaeology and anthropology vs Mormon theologians..


    We talked about this alleged "doctrine" of yours already...
    Citation is required.. What doctrine of hers are you talking about? Or are you trying to be clever and say that the Bible doesn't condemn non-believers? If that is the case, I would be more than happy to educate you further on that "Doctrine".



    My husband pointed the same sort of thing out - that the Church hasn't said so, and that this is pretty significant... But since the Church is not going to rule on the cell evolving into animal and then to man theory, then it unlikely they are going to rule on this one. Apparently, you can believe your uncle's a monkey and still be Catholic. Holy Mother Church will keep us straight on matters of faith and morals - the essentials - and tolerate all sorts of other nonsense.
    I beg to wonder if you realize the human body is made up of mostly bacteria and other non-human cells..., this and that human living cells are Eukaryota cells to which are genetically related to single celled Eukaryota.. It is further notable that those non-human cells do much of the work that not only keeps you alive, but help regulate the chemical balance and functioning of your brain..We are multi-cellular organisms.. . We know who your parents and ancestors are through genetics alone, and through the same forensic science we can convict murderers and rapists for their crimes, or exonerate them for that matter.. The Church isn't going to rule on evolution? What church are you specifically talking about as there are tens of thousands of them? The Catholic Church not only contributed to modern evolutionary synthesis, but directly teaches it.. They don't hold to the errors of the Bible even though they cherry pick from it what they want to believe and adhere to as others do.. But we can at least say they aren't ignorant of evolutionary theory. And if you can worship a deity you believe has committed mass genocide, you're in no position to be arguing about how your "Church" will keep your morals straight.. Hell, you can't even manage intellectual fortitude and integrity here.., and I didn't realize lying was a moral value...

    Becasue I am avoidant of a discussion with you. I do not think you are unkind, but your way of discusing feels so to me.
    Again you need to learn proper etiquette.. You're trying to make excuses for engaging in a discussion with assertions while thinking that you should be dissolved to answering questions asked of you, or supporting your position.. This is known as "Question Dodging":

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_dodging

    And these are the sort of tactics I have seen between you and Job:

    http://freedomfromcommandandcontrol....-the-question/

    Hence, neither of you two really came here to seriously address the issues.. This entire post appears at best to be be a phishing probe with the common introduction and protagonist. Furthermore, when addressed, you seem more focused on the person who's debating you than anything of the debate itself.. This is keeping they eye off the ball, and generally leads a discussion to Ad nauseam. This is the general direction taken when the person or persons find themselves in a losing argument / debate.

    - to reach understanding and/or peace with a person because I highly value understanding people and being at peace with people.
    - to defend something higher than me, like lies spread about my faith.
    Nobody here has spread lies about your faith.. , and if anything they have presented you a much deeper understanding of your religion and its origin. You are free however to choose to ignore it and everything else.. You can convince yourself that infanticide isn't real and that Moses didn't Conspire with Yahweh to kill every first born in Egypt within the narrative of your religious doctrine..., you can feel free to convince yourself that either of them ever really gave a damn about their own commandment "thou shall not kill".., this as if the hypocritical Irony wasn't at all blatant.. It is pretty hard to argue your religion is morally sound when it begins morally bankrupt in hypocrisy. It is like reading the Island of Dr Monroe to which also places blame on the beasts of one's own creation for the wrongs they commit by and through hypocrisy. Hell, your religious institution makes children's toys and songs about it and promotes what is Stockholm syndrome... "Worship thy abuser out of fear there of..".. I am not at all impressed with your "Church" or "Religion", and this was one of many reasons why I left the Church.. I am not much into worshiping Narcissistic constructs or Egos with delusions of grandeur.. Someone once asked me ; "What is greater than GOD?"... My answer was simple: "Existence itself".. There is nothing greater for which all things require to exist and have meaningful purpose than Existence.. There is no other cause or source of origin you can cite than existence itself as it is the totality, essence, cause, meaning, function, and purpose of all that is. Literally by definition...... So when I ask a theist and my fellow former Christian brothers "What is god without existence", I get condemnation as a typical response when they realize that what they are worshiping is the ego of a Narcissist with delusions of grandeur for which derived from ancient Pagan Mythology and Pagan Polytheism.., and largely through the common practice of assimilation.. Even the fount of Knowledge is nothing more than an cherry picked and skewed abstract of that mythology.., this for which converts it into assimilated Panentheism.. Where in all this am I supposed to be impressed exactly?

    However, this doesn't mean you don't have the right to believe in it, or find comfort in it.. I understand that when someone confronts you on this, especially by an Atheist such as myself, it can appear to be without heart or emotion... That however couldn't be further from the truth..., and those that care most about others will be bluntly truthful and upfront with you even if it results in disagreement or conflict of beliefs. Hence, I respect you enough as a person to treat you as an adult and offer you my honest opinion and whatever knowledge I have on any given subject..
    Last edited by TheJackal; 01-29-2016 at 08:10 AM.

  20. #100
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    You INTp, you.
    How so, even based on your absurd theory? You don't type me "non-INTp" when I mention all the ways humans have achieved great progress, often without religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    For things that make no sense I consult the views trusted scholarly theologians.. because some things don't. Gods ways are not our ways...
    If you are in favour of a god that condoned genocide, slavery,and rape, you cannot just pass on the subject of the Old Testament god like this. Genocide, slavery, and rape, are unacceptable in any circumstance. Sorry if that is too INTp for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    We talked about this alleged "doctrine" of yours already...
    Of course Damnation is a doctrine of the Christian church historically, and still is considered as such by the Catholic Church. Not sure what you are intending to dispute here. There is nothing more evil to dream up than to eternally torture someone (I don't believe in evil myself, as I've said before, but as I've said before, because people believe that such a doctrine is just in effect means it is an "evil" doctrine (and the worst one), and there are people who have been fundamentally corrupted by their belief in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    My husband pointed the same sort of thing out - that the Church hasn't said so, and that this is pretty significant... But since the Church is not going to rule on the cell evolving into animal and then to man theory, then it unlikely they are going to rule on this one. Apparently, you can believe your uncle's a monkey and still be Catholic. Holy Mother Church will keep us straight on matters of faith and morals - the essentials - and tolerate all sorts of other nonsense.
    The Roman Catholic church official position is that evolution is consistent with Catholicism, and that the scientific evidence for evolution is persuasive.

    Making a joke about evolutionists believing (or capable of believing) that their uncles are monkeys possibly significantly misunderstands evolution and also makes a taxonomic error. Humans are apes, not monkeys (the split between monkeys and apes occurred well before the speciation event that led to hominids). Also, the creation of new species and new families has been observed not only in nature but also via selective breeding and laboratory experiments. (I refer to for example the development of a new species of multicellular yeast from a single-celled variant: a development arguably more profound than that between apes and monkeys.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Holy Mother Church will keep us straight on matters of faith and morals - the essentials - and tolerate all sorts of other nonsense.
    Considering the church's historic position on freedom of speech and religion, the excommunication of whole countries for the actions of one individual, the advocation of civil and inter-state war for similar reasons, the selling of indulgences, support for the feudal system, support for the the divine right of kings, support for imperialism, support for slavery, opposition to democracy, opposition to gender equality, support for heterosexual marriage between people who don't love each other, opposition to same-sex marriage between people who love each other and completely disproportionate opposition to divorce, I suggest that the Catholic Church is rather behind the times in regards morality.

    The majority of Catholics in Europe and the Americas believe gay marriage and birth control should both be permitted, and that women should be allowed to serve at all levels in the Church: completely contrary to the positions the Church has historically held.

  21. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see the children are still arguing about their middle class lives

    Let's look at what Mr Dawkins said, the anti-Christian,


    "“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings, I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.”"


    and,


    "“I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse,”"





    You have to give Mr. Dawkins credit, despite all the years of 'Godslaying' he has carried out, he does eventually acknowledge that the society that he has, the he values and that he treasures, is a Christian society.

    There are no people looking to commit acts against Mr. Dawkins, or Jackal, or Subteigh, because in our society which is indeed a Christian society, one is allowed to have such maneuvers of freedoms. I wonder if those individuals, Jackal and Subteigh, and individuals in their positions also, and indeed other individuals, appreciate this freedom that the religion for hundreds and hundreds of years, has woven into the fabric of morality, law and indeed how we live, and what they think will be left if indeed they did cause such anarchic destruction, if the world will still allow them the luxuries they currently posses to speak and do as they wish and to whom they wish, with as they put it, deserved impunity.

    On this, and it ties in rather well from the perspective of evolution, it could be said that Mr. Dawkins has evolved into the position that he currently finds himself in the possession of.

    I rest my case about how this conversation inevitably proceeded and indeed turned out, and also my case about how my right to choose to engage or not to engage in such a discussion with its tone and aggression, does not in any way mean I or another individual is wrong, or right, in whichever position they may hold in regards to FE.

  22. #102
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,642
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    There are no people looking to commit acts against Mr. Dawkins, or Jackal, or Subteigh, because in our society which is indeed a Christian society, one is allowed to have such maneuvers of freedoms. I wonder if those individuals, Jackal and Subteigh, and individuals in their positions also, and indeed other individuals, appreciate this freedom that the religion for hundreds and hundreds of years, has woven into the fabric of morality, law and indeed how we live, and what they think will be left if indeed they did cause such anarchic destruction, if the world will still allow them the luxuries they currently posses to speak and do as they wish and to whom they wish, with as they put it, deserved impunity.
    Our modern societies only grant us religious freedom and freedom of expression because of Christianity? A very bold statement. How do you support this claim? Saying that we still have these rights despite Christianity would be more appropriate.

    You are falsely awarding the social progress of Enlightenment to Christianity.

    Atheism is dominant in several European countries, but they are no less liberal compared to more Christian countries. If Christianity has indeed brought us these liberties, wouldn't they decline once the Atheists take over?
     

    Percentages of people in European countries who said in 2010 that they "believe there is a God"


    Dawkins simply said that Christianity might be the lesser evil compared to Islam. That's all.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  23. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pa3s View Post
    Our modern societies only grant us religious freedom and freedom of expression because of Christianity? A very bold statement. How do you support this claim? Saying that we still have these rights despite Christianity would be more appropriate.

    You are falsely awarding the social progress of Enlightenment to Christianity.

    Atheism is dominant in several European countries, but they are no less liberal compared to more Christian countries. If Christianity has indeed brought us these liberties, wouldn't they decline once the Atheists take over?
     

    Percentages of people in European countries who said in 2010 that they "believe there is a God"


    Dawkins simply said that Christianity might be the lesser evil compared to Islam. That's all.
    Wow, you really know very little about the history of Christianity and the civilization you live in.. The Parable of the Good Samaritan is among the most important notions for what is regarded as modern Human Rights. Out of all the cultures in the world, Christianity gave women the most protection, due to the concept of Mary, mother of Jesus and indeed in Catholicism, the mother of God, and from this, the concept of Chivalry. among other things, was born. Along with the concept of Chivalry, with Christianity, women gained powers that were never historically possible under Roman or Germanic societes, such as obtaining the position of Abbess. Christianity played a role in ending infanticide, human sacrifice and slavery. Universities were a continuation of place of learning called monastries. Christians preserved writing and history through the dark ages, the Irish Catholic missionaries taught Europe to be literate again and move out of the dark ages. Christians were the beginning of a welfare state commonly provided and seen as essential to Western governments. Indeed many scholars attribute the unique nature of Christianity to providing an environment were the society can work together to bring peace which enabled technological advances in agriculture, health, art, social progress and the sciences.

    I would like to be provided an example of a culture which provides the rights and benefits to its society such as Christianity has. You mention Islam, where a woman cannot even leave her house without permission of a man, China has been ruthless throughout history and, it pains me to write this, but sadly, infanticide is still not unheard of even recently because of the population control, with this and in historical terms, it was not unknown for female infants before Christianity to be killed because the family wanted a male child, which is another example of Christianity supporting womens rights, because it is usually the female infant that is murdered.

    I think that you do not understand or appreciate your history and how our society has advanced as far as it has, and Mr Dawkins is correct in my opinion, that the Christian society is the best.

  24. #104
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    251 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Let's talk INTp (and "not-EII")

    @Subteigh and Subteigh-Squared [aka Subteigh-on-Steroids or, @TheJackal], how wonderful to see your names in my notification box this morning. Good morning to you both.

    Its interesting to study your identical Socionics types in action, side by side, viciously and valiantly battling ignorance and stupidity.

    Commonalities in your argument style: aggressive and accusatory, no problem hurling insults, one after the other, no problem blaming. You both take the tact of piling one accusation on top of another on top of another (see how many you can cram in a paragraph - Subteigh-on-Steroids is even worse on this) making it hard to know where to begin (or why to begin) to respond.

    Yes, so, that's unpleasant. For me. You probably would not take it that way. But add to that, neither of you ever acknowledges a point I make, and never say anything along the lines of, "Interesting. I had not heard that/considered that before."

    I could go on but its bringing it all back to think about it. And I just ate breakfast.

    Ah ha! I just looked at our Model A's - INTp and ENFp. My main ego function is Ne, which I use extensively in these discussions and look - that's your IGNORING function. Yes. Your Ne is in your ignoring function. Well, that explains a lot. What I get on with in life is what you try to pretend does not exist. That makes a lot of sense here.

    Constructivist vs. Emotivist. Let's talk about one of those points for a minute.

    Constructivist (You two)
    - Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.


    Emotivist (me)
    - Tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction, with 'business' a secondary concern.


    Do you see any of that in our communications?



    Subteigh, you are questioning my INTp type for you. Yes, lets talk about that!

    ENFp is a Negativist (like you and Jackal's INTp also), and likewise I tend approach typing with the view of what one is not, first. The "not" is what grabs me first, usually. And after some communicating with you, it became quite clear you are not the soft, gentle, highly-tuned to interpersonal feelings, emphatic EII, who debate style is completely different from yours. EII holds it back (unless her feelings have been hurt - then she might bite back - once, and sharply), as EII's sensitive soul does not want to offend anyone, or risk bruising anyone's feelings, which they are highly attuned to. (Right, @Maritsa?)

    Look:

    Here is a first general descriptions of EII:
    - the two main distinguishing qualities are an interest in human values and a developed capacity for compassion.


    Human values. Feelings. Beliefs. That is EII's focus. You are not interested in my values except to try to debunk them. But EII perceives my values with little explanation from me and then treads carefully not to step on them in any way, shape or form.

    Also, Subteigh, your idea of humanitarianism is to make the world a better place by shooting down ignorance and creating complex new constructs for a better society. EII's idea of humanitarianism means going to the library faithfully every Saturday morning for Story Time to read a book to the 3 and 4 year olds. You two are on completely different pages as to your definitions of humanitarianism.

    Also, you don't care that your arguing style stresses me out. My complaint on that account is not going to soften your approach one bit. Not so with EII.

    Here are some top INTp descriptors:
    ♦ Excels in analytical thinking; presents his ideas with clarity and some measure of order; notices flaws, alternative options, and brings them up in a discussion.
    ♦ Mentally comprehends and models the entire system; captures a notion and then systematizes it, suggesting simplified explanations and schematics.
    ♦ Can distinguish what's important from what is secondary; however, often neglects details and specifics in presenting material, preferring to present a more general (vague) overview of the topic or the situation.


    Sound familiar to you Subteigh? And TheJackal? It should.


    Also your use of Fi [Introverted Feeling (or, ethics) falls into a completely different place on Model A, making you use Fi completely differently than EII.

    Here is EII's Fi, placed first and foremost in Model A:
    Introverted ethics in first function designate a person for whom the main orientation in life is making judgments about good and evil, morals and depravity, decency and dishonorableness. EII very acutely feels the general trends and standards of behavior which prevail in a society or a social group. She is usually mindful of these norms in order to not be insulting to other people.

    When encountering people who are disadvantaged, outcast, unhappy, or weak she experiences a desire to emotionally support them and console them. Thus others will frequently refer to her with their troubles, and she will listen to their grievances and confessions sometimes for hours. She tries to sympathize, to enter their personal position, to feel their emotional pain as if it is her own, to accept the person and give them moral support.


    Subteigh, would you say that one of the main things that characterizes your life is that it is populated with so many unhappy, outcast and disadvantaged people who come to you for consolation, as they can just see that you are a person who will listen with sweet empathy for hours to their grievances and confessions? While you feel their emotional pain, and give them moral support?

    This woudl be hard for the INTp, of whom this is said about their Fi placement:

    Super-Id Block
    Mobilizing - Introverted Ethics, Fi

    ILIs may display an insensitive attitude towards others and may have a hard time establishing amiable relationships. However, when the ILI has developed deep interpersonal bonds, they tend to hold on to such attachments very strongly. ILIs are almost always lacking in confidence concerning their own abilities to forge relationships, consequently, they rarely speak of their more positive sentiments with others with whom they share merely superficial acquaintanceships.


    Yes, so it would be quite a strain for the ILI to do what the EII does so well: comfort the afflicted, those whom she has only a superficial relationship with, people she has just encountered that have emotional burdens. But EII can and does - EII shines in this.

    My EII sis-in-law has told me more than once fascinating stories of the emotional lives of someone she JUST MET on the bus or in the park.

    I will never forget the story of the mom in the little city park that my EII sis-in-law met one day when she took her little ones there. This ordinary looking young mom, early in this first and only conversation with my EII friend revealed she had grown up in an extremely abusive household. When she was very young and her parents would yell, fight, and smash things, she would go to her room and an angel would come and play board games with her in her room until the fight was over, and then put her to bed. As she grew, her Guardian Angel would come sometimes and take her on sort-of "field trips" to heaven, where other other angels and children played, a wonderful place where you could ride the giraffes and run with the lions and zebras. Growing up she thought this was normal, and that all the other children did this too, until, much older, it gradually became clear her experience was unique...

    My EII sis-in-law told me this story (which has even more fascinating twists and turns to it) so clearly - remembering with her elephant's memory for conversations, all the details and emotions, so much so that if feels as if I was told the story first-hand, too.

    Because this emphatic listening is first and foremost for an EII. EII's empathy and listening is SO STRONG that they can and do receive such unique experiences when strangers open themselves to their highly attuned empathy.

    Stratiyevskaya says this as first and foremost of an EII:

    Fi Block of Ego, 1st position, Program Function: "Ethics of Relation"

    The EII attempts to create the most harmonious, most humane, in his opinion, form of ethical relations, which would exclude the suppression of one personality by another, conflicts, discord, lack of understanding, and mutual distrust.

    "Poor peace is better than a good quarrel" – this is the basic form of his ethical strategy.



    I think its obvious in this thread, especially since Jackal amplifies all of the INTp traits (but you exemplify them well here, too) that "Poor peace is better than a good quarrel" is not your motto. A good quarrel is perfectly fine with you INTp's.

    Yes, so, that's just the beginning, Subteigh, of why you are not an EII.

    Then you could look the Model A Fe placements for INTp (which should sound very familiar) and the Model A Fe placements for EII (which is quite foreign to you, Subteigh!).

    Consider that I might be good at this typing thing some of the times, Subteigh. I am IEE, ENFp, sometimes called "The Psychologist", and we use our NeFi to perceive these things quickly. And Holographical-Panoramic Cognition is used by IEE to "detect the possible hidden motivations of a person, as if building their psychological 'hologram'."

    Oh, BTW, your INTp type is sometimes called "The Critic". I can't imagine why!


    ___________

    Okay, I am back and now its afternoon. Yes, TheJackal, this is being turned away from Flat Earth Theory and particularly the Process you are trying to drag me through (my type is Result! Not Process!) and to Socionics, as that's the fascinating aspect of this discussion, to me.

    Quick primer on some Process/Result differences:
    Process
    - Do things sequentially, from the beginning to the end
    - Immersed to a process and tends to single-tasking.
    - Focus between the beginning and the end of processes
    - More inclined to read texts on books or computer from beginning to the end
    - "Of course the answer is right, since we followed the correct procedure."


    Result
    - Do things randomly, seemingly doing them from the end to the beginning.
    - Detached from processes and tends to multitasking.
    - Focus on the beginning and the end of processes
    - More inclined to read texts on books or computer randomly, maybe reading random paragraphs or chapters.
    - "Of course we followed the correct procedure, since we got the right answer."


    So you can see, since we hold such conflicting approaches, how we conflict in going about discussing this theory. What makes it a real drag for me is that your "Aggression in everyday life" style means you are very assertive in trying to drag me out of Result and through your precise Process, and I am not interested. That's added to our completely different Cognitive styles.


    Anyway, since Subteigh wonders why I think he is INTp/ILI, I have culled the writings of various authors of this site's archives concerning INTp/ILE. I picked these particular quotes both because they particularly remind me of you two in these discussions, and in other instances because these pieces of ILI type description I have seen so clearly in the lives of the very-different-yet-same unique ILI's I know IRL. So, I thought you might find some like-mindedness, too. These things are quite unlike the INFj/EII descriptions, I expect will sound familiar to you, Subteigh and TheJackal.

    by author Sara Csaky [INTp]
    ...[INTp] is an effective artist of the world, always looking for ways that he might change it to better to heed his needs. He is an intellectual dreamer so lost in his own world that when shaken from his mind me may at first appear lost and distant.

    An eloquent and effective speaker, he can make the most mundane things seem quite amazing with his extravagant verbal skills. The INTp is very often fluent in several languages and may have even made up his own as a child. He is very mathematically inclined due to his ability to understand structure and patterns. The INTp shows an intense interest in religion and is more often than not delving into his studies of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and any other religion ancient or modern that strikes his interest. He shows a mish-mash of beliefs and usually does not commit to one religion or the other. [this is SO YOU, Subteigh!]

    Socially he is charming and charismatic. When feeling sociable he will approach others with child like enthusiasm and a sardonic wit. However when not feeling social he is aloof and temperamental. The INTp puts up barriers and will rarely let them down. He is very guarded and worried that people are judging him because he himself is constantly quietly observing humans. The INTp is very skeptical about love, and though he wants more than anything to love, when he does he thinks himself foolish and quickly backs out of the relationship. As a rule he keeps a distance between himself and his friends. One of his biggest fears is to rely on someone emotionally.

    The INTp is self-confident to a fault. He loves a debate not only to prove his point to the person he is sparing with but also to confirm his own beliefs. The study of human behavior is very important to him. He can be blunt and insensitive to others simply to see their reaction. He can also be a kind sensitive listener, though he does not like to give advise due to his fear of doing more harm than good. He is calm, restrained and often unreadable.

    Perfect chaos is the only way to describe the choice living conditions for the INTp. He will leave the laundry and dishes undone, but the small important things to him are kept in perfect order. It is not uncommon for him to alphabetize and categorize his movie and book collections. The INTp will collect and study odd things such as, fossils, rocks, and old photographs. Things that most people might find boring are quite fascinating and important to him. He is bothered if he finds such small important things out of order and prone to fly into a rage if they are touched by one other than himself.

    The INTp is incredibly instinctive. He often knows what the out come of any given situation will be. He rarely gets himself into grave trouble for this reason. He is aware of this ability but is often unwilling to share it if he has not been taken seriously in this aspect in the past.



    Gulenko on INTp:

    "Has a good eye for noticing contradictions and omissions in actions and words. Skeptical about the prospects of hasty initiatives. "

    "Takes up only those tasks that ensure reliable returns. Thrifty with money. Does the job scrupulously, slowly, attentively examines details. Calculates everything in his mind. Tries to control the process
    .[] Able to capitalize on information that he or she has accumulated."

    "He likes to discuss and argue on a variety of topics, but growing hot-tempered he can spoil the mood for himself and others. Poorly control his emotions: his states range from melancholic depression to outbreaks of discontentment and frustration. His problem lies in finding inner balance."

    "Due to associatively organized memory and love of learning is often erudite. Clearly discerns contradictions and inaccuracies in the positions and opinions of others. Possessing a thoughtful mind can make an impression of a clever and far-sighted man. Cautious when making decisions. His position is that you need to run a little ahead of the game. Always chooses the safest course of action."

    "Resents that knowledge and intellectual skill rarely lead to the desired results. He knows a lot, but to come up with something himself is difficult for him. Skeptical about the prospects of new initiations and adventurous ideas. Envisions and presents things as more complicated than they really are. Although, he can instill hope into those who have been demoralized. Keen to try his hand at different activities in order to gain confidence in his abilities. However, he rarely attains multifaceted development. With pleasure he studies all the novelties and innovations in his spheres of interest. Able to find uses for things that otherwise seem outdated and worn out.

    Does his work is accord with the established methods, slowly and scrupulously, going into all the specifications. Can be rigorous with details and meticulous to the point of pedantry. Professional activity and diligence are characteristic of him only within a formal system, where there is structure and regulation. Tries to have a set of necessary tools at his workplace and at home. Does not like to take anything on credit. In business activity, he is independent, self-sufficient and effective."

    " A skeptic by nature. Notices all the contradictions, oppositions, and deficiencies in the surrounding world. "

    "Critic is a self-contained type with a predilection for theoretical reasoning. Most of all he is interested in problems of informational and general theoretical nature. The "hustle and bustle" of worldly life is of little value to him. Optimal regimen for him is independent work, which does not require great physical effort and urgency, and which provides the opportunity to exercise the mind. His career development is gradual, his advancement proceeds step-by-step. When interacting with his colleagues, ILI must always be aware that in spite of his knowing, he is usually only outlining the problem without offering anything in return. In addition, his ideas can be unrealistic and too complicated for implementation. He is better than anyone in evaluating existing trends, however, implementation of fundamental reforms to avoid impending dangers you will have to do by yourself—do not count on his involvement here. As with all intuitive types, "Critic" prefers that all problems of domestic and workplace set-up, supply and maintenance are resolved by somebody else instead of him. So if you take care of him in these matters, this will free him to do more creative work."



    INTp profile by Stratiyevskaya

    ILI does not glorify and "sing odes" to the brave. To the contrary, he will consider it to be his responsibility to timely warn others against rash decisions and actions, to counsel them about all the possible lacks and dangers, to point out all the unfavorable courses of events. He, as no one another, sees the original hopelessness of many enterprises and the foolishness of poorly timed undertakings. Nevertheless, even with all these expectations of the worst, the ILI, in contrast to some other intuitive types, does not foretell of an imminent end of the world; he is generally against causing public hysteria by means of bleak predictions.

    Balzac [this is a Socionics nickname for INTp/ILI] likes to look at everything that is occurring around him philosophically; therefore he finds "comfort" in sayings of the kind: "everything passes", "we'll all be there", "tomorrow is not the end of the world", "this, too, shall pass"...

    He considers that everything will come in time to a person who knows how to wait. And Balzac knows how to await. He also knows how to fill this waiting time such that it can last his entire life, and still not have any negative impact on his plans.

    He usually knows how to manage and "own" his time – this enables him to feel independent. He does not subordinate himself to the circumstances, rather he utilizes them to his benefit. He is not in a habit of harboring any flattering delusions concerning himself and thus capable of realistically estimating his own possibilities under the specific circumstances at some stage in time.

    A drawback of Balzac's warnings and admonishments is the absence of positive alternatives within them, in consequence of which they frequently have the effect of "freezing" or "stopping" some activity.


    [That later is an annoyance of mine in this thread. I started this thread saying that I was enjoying learning about the Flat Earth Theory, and it seems TheJackal is bent on stopping me from enjoying it. As a Delta ENFp, I don't like someone trying to encroach on my freedom. Trying to "stop" my mind.]

    TheJackal, this was not your intention coming here to 16types, but you need to know you have stumbled on a great tool for your life here at 16types. You are not that great at reading people and finding the best girl for you. However, I've got it narrowed down for you quite a bit now that I know you are INTp. You need a nice ESFp/SEE girl - your perfect Dual. They are not hard to find in a social situation; they are very attractive and noticeable. They are socially adept, and are happy to run that department for you. You will be very happy all your life with her, and you are EXACTLY what she needs, just the way you are.

    For Subteigh, who mistakenly considers himself to be the sweet and empathetic hothouse flower, INFj/EII, I will conclude with excerpts from writings of author Leandro Javier Sepp, INFj, on INFj:

    Often believed to be a martyr for the sake of their own attitudes, INFjs are actually highly sensitive, neurotic slave of their own skills. Since they have awareness of the many meanings behind the various gestures, words, and breaths, the INFj has no difficulty in understanding the moods of people and the situations they are in; they can discern and dissect the motives of any viewpoint, even independently of principle.

    Despite her shyness, she carefully word her sentences in a way in which she can answer with the most effectiveness and in a way that appeals to the expectations of others. However, she remains closed and distant to the world; only after she has made sure of her surroundings will she seek to open herself to any experiences remotely resembling extroversion.

    ...INFjs have difficulty refusing the needs and demands of others, and usually comply without taking much thought to their own needs. However, they may bottle up those emotions until some breaking point, where an INFj may flee from a pressuring situation leaving others bewildered. They have difficulty breaking unwanted relations, and may comply with the desires of those by which they have no personal interest; over people may not be truly made aware to their feelings in result.

    INFjs may often lack awareness of their surroundings, and have a poor concept of time; usually they are not very inclined to participate in sporting or outdoor activities.

    As lovers of routine, INFjs love orderly surroundings; they find peace in structured environments, and seek to keep their lives well on track. But, they may have difficulty realizing their dreams and desires.

    Oversensitive and self-conscious, they are vulnerable to physical discomforts, small headaches, messy hair, and unclean clothes mostly resulting from the immense pressure they place upon themselves to live a happy life in a nice comfortable atmosphere. However much time they spend to provide these things for themselves and others, they are not always very good at achieving them, but they depend on it for their own survival and well-being.

    INFjs are secretive and reactionary, they rarely reveal their own true opinions and secrets and seek not to be placed in any position upon which they must express themselves: public speaking, reading loudly, or any sort of public exposure does not suit any INFj well.

    INFjs fall into two different categories according to appearance and values.

    One type of INFj would be considered rather outgoing, braver, and could lead some sort of active social life, often working as translators, psychotherapists, teachers, or any other type of job that would allow them to improvise their ready-made skills. These are the ethical subtypes.

    Another type of INFj follows a different path, appearing more reserved and immersed in an imaginary world; often chasing after fantasy tales, scattered, selfish, and dreamy. These are the intuitive subtypes.

    INFjs may be of the opinion that the best way to handle most situations is to feign their own demise. Because of these self-defeating tendencies, their eyes may have a sorrowful look to them, even when they are happy they could have a martyr like appearance.


    .................................................. .....Attachment 7006
    Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 01-29-2016 at 07:17 PM.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  25. #105
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    251 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default About Faith

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Of course Damnation is a doctrine of the Christian church historically, and still is considered as such by the Catholic Church. Not sure what you are intending to dispute here. There is nothing more evil to dream up than to eternally torture someone (I don't believe in evil myself, as I've said before, but as I've said before, because people believe that such a doctrine is just in effect means it is an "evil" doctrine (and the worst one), and there are people who have been fundamentally corrupted by their belief in it.
    .
    Damnation -- yes, its a reality. We have talked about this already though, remember. We can revisit that on that thread if you want clarification on something already said. Also i will let Jesus address it to you below.



    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    ...If you are talking about theologians, most all of them are crank and use apologetics...
    Aye yai yai. Guess what? There are actually are scholarly and accomplished theologians. Who are way smarter than you. And always have been. I don't know why this should be news to you. You may know a little bit about a lot of things, but you don't know everything about everything. Really. Actually truly.



    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    Most of them can't even read Hebrew, and more than half of them can't even understand the basic principles of Hebrew Grammar.. First party theologians have too much invested interest in a particular narrative ..., and there is a reason why you rarely ever reference them in the academic arena.. , and anyone can note this, when for example, we look at mainstream secular archaeology and anthropology vs Mormon theologians.. .
    You just don't know enough about actual theologians, Jackal.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    ...Citation is required.. What doctrine of hers are you talking about? Or are you trying to be clever and say that the Bible doesn't condemn non-believers? If that is the case, I would be more than happy to educate you further on that "Doctrine". .
    I am going to broadly address these "points" below. But you should know that your Socionics Identical, Subteigh, is a he, not she. Understandable mistake.



    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    ...I beg to wonder if you realize the human body is made up of mostly bacteria and other non-human cells...,.
    But I work hard to keep the bad bacteria population as low as possible...

    What do you think a soul is made of?




    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    ...
    this and that human living cells are Eukaryota cells to which are genetically related to single celled Eukaryota.. It is further notable that those non-human cells do much of the work that not only keeps you alive, but help regulate the chemical balance and functioning of your brain..We are multi-cellular organisms.. . We know who your parents and ancestors are through genetics alone, and through the same forensic science we can convict murderers and rapists for their crimes, or exonerate them for that matter.. The Church isn't going to rule on evolution? What church are you specifically talking about as there are tens of thousands of them? The Catholic Church not only contributed to modern evolutionary synthesis, but directly teaches it.. They don't hold to the errors of the Bible even though they cherry pick from it what they want to believe and adhere to as others do.. But we can at least say they aren't ignorant of evolutionary theory. And if you can worship a deity you believe has committed mass genocide, you're in no position to be arguing about how your "Church" will keep your morals straight.. Hell, you can't even manage intellectual fortitude and integrity here.., and I didn't realize lying was a moral value... .





    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    ...Again you need to learn proper etiquette...
    Sigh.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    ...... Ad nauseam. ....
    Right!



    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    Nobody here has spread lies about your faith.. , and if anything they have presented you a much deeper understanding of your religion and its origin. .





    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    ... You are free however to choose to ignore it and everything else.. You can convince yourself that infanticide isn't real and that Moses didn't Conspire with Yahweh to kill every first born in Egypt ....
    Legion have mined scripture to provide proof of their own ideas doctrines and conclusions, just like you. This tact of yours is nothing new. As wise King Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun".

    (Above it, maybe! Like, a firmament!)

    Jackal, those religious people that you have no respect for whatsoever, that the average person sees as "salt of the earth" types, are the ones who are simply and honestly reading it to understand what its trying to tell us. You should try that sometime.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    ..."Worship thy abuser out of fear there of..".. .
    You are mistaken in your understanding of the meaning of the word "fear" in "fear of God". As in the statement, "The fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom". [That statement is time-tested wisdom. Truly ther is nothign new under the sun.]. You need to educate yourself in original languages, and then you won't make that mistake.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    I am not at all impressed with your "Church" or "Religion", and this was one of many reasons why I left the Church..
    Let's talk about that.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    . I am not much into worshiping Narcissistic constructs or Egos with delusions of grandeur...
    Thats good! Better to worship Who IS Grandeur.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    Someone once asked me ; "What is greater than GOD?"...
    No one.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    . My answer was simple: "Existence itself".. .
    Well, I am glad you did not say "Me!".



    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    ... So when I ask a theist and my fellow former Christian brothers "What is god without existence", I get condemnation as a typical response when they realize that what they are worshiping is the ego of a Narcissist with delusions of grandeur for which derived from ancient Pagan Mythology and Pagan Polytheism.., and largely through the common practice of assimilation.. .
    They realize that? I kind of doubt it. C'mon, Jackal. Get real. I believe that's your accusation, though.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheJackal View Post
    ..However, this doesn't mean you don't have the right to believe in it, or find comfort in it.. I understand that when someone confronts you on this, especially by an Atheist such as myself, it can appear to be without heart or emotion... That however couldn't be further from the truth..., and those that care most about others will be bluntly truthful and upfront with you even if it results in disagreement or conflict of beliefs. Hence, I respect you enough as a person to treat you as an adult and offer you my honest opinion and whatever knowledge I have on any given subject..
    Aw, the softer side comes out ever so slightly. I appreciate that. You are not a complete bully with a bat.

    Well, I will say a little bit about religion/ faith. Then I have some words of Jesus, for you, to share with you that you haven't seen before.

    You, Jackal and Subteigh, are both INTp's and as demonstrated just in a few posts in this thread, you take an INTp approach to religious discussion (and not AT ALL an EII approach, Subteigh. Quite, quite different!).

    Here, this is you two: The INTp shows an intense interest in religion and is more often than not delving into his studies of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and any other religion ancient or modern that strikes his interest. He shows a mish-mash of beliefs and usually does not commit to one religion or the other.
    That's you exactly.

    So you will be straining against type to commit to belief in or religion. Yes. I know three INTps that are Christians, so its not impossible for an INTp to commit. As we know of INTp's, they can wait and wait forever to commit. Its a weakness (and a strength). Rather than commit, you prefer to delve into studying beliefs and ways and loads of pedantry about all different religions - and never consider it as faith.


    Subteigh, I the link I am linking in this paragraph I have linked to you before - these words of Jesus written to those who reject God. You did not comment on it, but I understand. Its profound. And powerful. So this link is particularly for Jackal's sake, this link of the words of Jesus to Atheists of our times, here.


    I think I am realizing that the problem with you both is that you like observing and talking about religion, but not God. Jesus, God is real. Its a relationship. You have to be willing to have a relationship. Is that the problem? Unwillingness? There has to be at least some willingness to believe that its a reality, if it is. Yes, you have to be willing to be willing to believe, at least. Or willing to be made willing to be willing to believe. At least. You have to be willing to say, "God, if you are real, speak to me. I am listening. Show me." God respects your free will. If you DO NOT WANT to know Him, and do NOT WANT Him to show you He is real, He is NOT going to force himself on you. He respects your free will. He wants you to be whole and free and not His slave or puppet. So He waits for you to be willing. He stands at the door and knocks, waiting for you to let Him in, so He can sit and sup with you.

    Maybe you don't want to know that He is real, because then you have to believe, and you are more comfortable being an island, a Critic, alone. And you might have to follow Him and He might expect things of you. Don't worry, He is a loving father and does not expect you to be everything at once and He knows some things are just too hard to do. He helps you when you are ready to have His help.

    Its just that simple. That simple step you don't want to take. But this prayer works for anyone: "Lord, if you exist, please save my soul if it exists". Now, you can pray that, right?


    Here, below, is what Jesus says to you, Subteigh and Jackal. Consider this:


    [Jesus says]...You will spend
    eternity in one of two places, dear little soul.
    You must give this serious thought and
    determine where you would like to reside.
    You say you do not believe in God or you do
    not believe that God would send people to
    hell forever. I tell you today that it is not I,
    the only God there is, who condemns souls to
    hell. It is the soul himself who chooses to
    reside in hell. Do you know why the soul
    chooses hell? Because there are like-minded
    souls there. A soul who aligns himself with
    darkness does not choose heaven because
    that soul would not be comfortable in
    heaven. You must understand that you can
    be angry with God but God is not at fault.
    You can blame God for all that is wrong
    with your world and perhaps this will work
    for youonearth. I assure youthough, onthis
    day, that this will cease to work for you at
    the moment of your death. At that time there
    will be only yourself to blame as the truth is
    inescapable. You will be facing the one, the
    only,and the true God and attempting to tell
    Him that He does not exist. How do you
    think this will go for you? It will not go well,
    dear soul, and that is why I am speaking to
    you now. I want you to divert from this path
    that leads to damnation. You are choosing
    against Me now and I am asking you to stop.
    I love you. There are many Christians in this
    world who love you and My love will flow
    through them to you. I want you for My
    Kingdom. I need you to serve Me. You are
    capable of the highest goodness. You are
    capable of bringing many souls to heaven
    for Me. Some of My greatest friends were far
    worse sinners than you. Please come back to
    Me. I love you and I can heal you and cure
    you. My forgiveness is yours. That hardly
    needs to be said. The greater difficulty will
    be in persuading you to forgive yourself but
    I am God and that would be only a small
    miracle for Me to perform. I will do that for
    you. I will make of you another Jesus,
    walking the earth in love. Do you want this?
    Can you picture it? Now, do not wait any
    longer. I shower you with graces. Lift your
    precious face to the heavens and feel My love
    as I beseech you to turn away from sin and
    follow Me.

    There is more. You can read the whole booklet of Jesus' words to you, here.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  26. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    Wow, you really know very little about the history of Christianity and the civilization you live in.. The Parable of the Good Samaritan is among the most important notions for what is regarded as modern Human Rights. Out of all the cultures in the world, Christianity gave women the most protection, due to the concept of Mary, mother of Jesus and indeed in Catholicism, the mother of God, and from this, the concept of Chivalry. among other things, was born. Along with the concept of Chivalry, with Christianity, women gained powers that were never historically possible under Roman or Germanic societes, such as obtaining the position of Abbess. Christianity played a role in ending infanticide, human sacrifice and slavery. Universities were a continuation of place of learning called monastries. Christians preserved writing and history through the dark ages, the Irish Catholic missionaries taught Europe to be literate again and move out of the dark ages. Christians were the beginning of a welfare state commonly provided and seen as essential to Western governments. Indeed many scholars attribute the unique nature of Christianity to providing an environment were the society can work together to bring peace which enabled technological advances in agriculture, health, art, social progress and the sciences.

    I would like to be provided an example of a culture which provides the rights and benefits to its society such as Christianity has. You mention Islam, where a woman cannot even leave her house without permission of a man, China has been ruthless throughout history and, it pains me to write this, but sadly, infanticide is still not unheard of even recently because of the population control, with this and in historical terms, it was not unknown for female infants before Christianity to be killed because the family wanted a male child, which is another example of Christianity supporting womens rights, because it is usually the female infant that is murdered.

    I think that you do not understand or appreciate your history and how our society has advanced as far as it has, and Mr Dawkins is correct in my opinion, that the Christian society is the best.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pa3s View Post
    Our modern societies only grant us religious freedom and freedom of expression because of Christianity? A very bold statement. How do you support this claim? Saying that we still have these rights despite Christianity would be more appropriate.

    You are falsely awarding the social progress of Enlightenment to Christianity.

    Atheism is dominant in several European countries, but they are no less liberal compared to more Christian countries. If Christianity has indeed brought us these liberties, wouldn't they decline once the Atheists take over?
     

    Percentages of people in European countries who said in 2010 that they "believe there is a God"


    Dawkins simply said that Christianity might be the lesser evil compared to Islam. That's all.
    I thought some more about this, about how you do not understand the history and the impact of Christianity on Western civilization, and I started to think about what you are saying about atheism becoming the new norm. I do not know if one should trust that survey, because, one must first look at whom it was conducted on and who conducted it, but lets say that you are right.

    When I first heard about the sex attacks on your women in your country, Germany, on NYE, hundreds and hundreds of them, I thought to myself, where are all your men? What were they doing? Why were they not defending these women? But, now, you mention atheism is taking over, so the fine art linked into Western civilization due to Christianity, the art of Chivalry, perhaps therefore is dying out. It is preposterous to think that young men would not defend the honor of a lady, but, perhaps it is happening.

    I then thought about how I mentioned the role of Christianity in removing the practice of infanticide, and how this supports womens rights, because in most cases (and still is in those non-Christian places where it is practiced) it is the female infant which is murdered, but then it occurred to me, abortion. Abortion is legalized infanticide. I started to think about that little baby, it's hopes, it's dreams, the life that baby would or should have had, taken away from him or her, and I got so sad and I cried. Who is there to defend the children?

    I do not want a part of your atheistic life, and I think you are all so so so heartless and selfish to talk about this with all stats and all this and that, and how 'horrible' Christians are, and I don't want to talk about this anymore, it's too sad.

  27. #107
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    I see the children are still arguing about their middle class lives

    Let's look at what Mr Dawkins said, the anti-Christian,


    "“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings, I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.”"


    and,


    "“I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse,”"





    You have to give Mr. Dawkins credit, despite all the years of 'Godslaying' he has carried out, he does eventually acknowledge that the society that he has, the he values and that he treasures, is a Christian society.

    There are no people looking to commit acts against Mr. Dawkins, or Jackal, or Subteigh, because in our society which is indeed a Christian society, one is allowed to have such maneuvers of freedoms. I wonder if those individuals, Jackal and Subteigh, and individuals in their positions also, and indeed other individuals, appreciate this freedom that the religion for hundreds and hundreds of years, has woven into the fabric of morality, law and indeed how we live, and what they think will be left if indeed they did cause such anarchic destruction, if the world will still allow them the luxuries they currently posses to speak and do as they wish and to whom they wish, with as they put it, deserved impunity.

    On this, and it ties in rather well from the perspective of evolution, it could be said that Mr. Dawkins has evolved into the position that he currently finds himself in the possession of.

    I rest my case about how this conversation inevitably proceeded and indeed turned out, and also my case about how my right to choose to engage or not to engage in such a discussion with its tone and aggression, does not in any way mean I or another individual is wrong, or right, in whichever position they may hold in regards to FE.
    As @Pa3s suggests that Christianity in its 21st century form is less evil than Islam is hardly support for Christianity. I don't know what freedoms you speak of that Christianity has historically provided to someone of my kind, considering that I would have been killed by Christians for the positions I hold for most of Christianity's history, and would be considered deserving of damnation merely for not believing in there god.

  28. #108
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    Wow, you really know very little about the history of Christianity and the civilization you live in.. The Parable of the Good Samaritan is among the most important notions for what is regarded as modern Human Rights. Out of all the cultures in the world, Christianity gave women the most protection, due to the concept of Mary, mother of Jesus and indeed in Catholicism, the mother of God, and from this, the concept of Chivalry. among other things, was born. Along with the concept of Chivalry, with Christianity, women gained powers that were never historically possible under Roman or Germanic societes, such as obtaining the position of Abbess. Christianity played a role in ending infanticide, human sacrifice and slavery. Universities were a continuation of place of learning called monastries. Christians preserved writing and history through the dark ages, the Irish Catholic missionaries taught Europe to be literate again and move out of the dark ages. Christians were the beginning of a welfare state commonly provided and seen as essential to Western governments. Indeed many scholars attribute the unique nature of Christianity to providing an environment were the society can work together to bring peace which enabled technological advances in agriculture, health, art, social progress and the sciences.

    I would like to be provided an example of a culture which provides the rights and benefits to its society such as Christianity has. You mention Islam, where a woman cannot even leave her house without permission of a man, China has been ruthless throughout history and, it pains me to write this, but sadly, infanticide is still not unheard of even recently because of the population control, with this and in historical terms, it was not unknown for female infants before Christianity to be killed because the family wanted a male child, which is another example of Christianity supporting womens rights, because it is usually the female infant that is murdered.

    I think that you do not understand or appreciate your history and how our society has advanced as far as it has, and Mr Dawkins is correct in my opinion, that the Christian society is the best.
    The maxim of treating everybody equally existed many centuries at the very least before the rise of Christianity. As it is, God (who Jesus believed himself to be) discriminated heavily in the Old Testament against foreigners, women, slaves etc. Jesus in the New Testament furthers his discrimination on several occasions, most significantly in his support for Damnation. He also called a Canaanite woman a dog for not being an Israelite, and he rather that his feet washed with expensive oil then the hungry be satiated, and scorned the idea of attempting to eradicate poverty.

    In regards infanticide...the bible is full of instances where children are slain by god, directly or indirectly: the famous instance when he killed David's unborn child for David's transgression. For most of European history, infanticide was common (even though the Church at times strongly discouraged it) and not even rigorously prosecuted (particularly in cases involving the child's mother), nevermind induced abortion. It was only with the Enlightenment that Christian countries systematically prosecuted cases of infanticide.

    Dawkins never said that Christian society was the best, he said that Christianity in its modern, watered down form was preferable to the religious fundamentalism frequently seen in Islam. He would far prefer a secular society. You should note that Dawkins lives in a country where the state religion (Anglicanism) is typically seen as benign and rather toothless, even if it is still backward in many of its stances.

  29. #109

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    I see the children are still arguing about their middle class lives

    Let's look at what Mr Dawkins said, the anti-Christian,


    "“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings, I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.”"
    Oklahoma Bombing.... , and though such bombings aren't frequent among Christians, we can still cite that Christians still witch hunt in Africa and burn people alive... However, your religion does say that he who does not believe shall be cast into the lake of fire... Furthermore, Christians have been known to beat and kill those who have threatened to leave the church.. All Dawkins is really saying is that Christian fundamentalism isn't at this time as profound as is what we see in Islam. But with that said, that religious is morally bankrupt by doctrine alone.. Even Jesus was a Narcissist:

    * In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."
    * Mark 16:15-16 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned to hell.
    * Matthew 10:35-37 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
    * Luke 14:26 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
    * Matthew 10:34 34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
    That is straight up cult leader Narcissism .. Your religion was spread by the sword, and the horrific things done by through and by it is well documented to which includes how Christianity converted the Native Hawaiians ..., often sending those who would not conform to the smaller Islands to starve to death.


    "“I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse,”"





    You have to give Mr. Dawkins credit, despite all the years of 'Godslaying' he has carried out, he does eventually acknowledge that the society that he has, the he values and that he treasures, is a Christian society.
    Umm no it's not..., It is a secular society.. Your ability to quote mine Dawkins and then spoon feed something he never said is not impressive.. You might want to learn something about integrity as you continue to display none what-so-ever.



    There are no people looking to commit acts against Mr. Dawkins, or Jackal, or Subteigh, because in our society which is indeed a Christian society, one is allowed to have such maneuvers of freedoms. I wonder if those individuals, Jackal and Subteigh, and individuals in their positions also, and indeed other individuals, appreciate this freedom that the religion for hundreds and hundreds of years, has woven into the fabric of morality, law and indeed how we live, and what they think will be left if indeed they did cause such anarchic destruction, if the world will still allow them the luxuries they currently posses to speak and do as they wish and to whom they wish, with as they put it, deserved impunity.


    I've been threatened and so has Obama by white fascist Christians here... , and no it is not a "Christian Society"..., and you are trying to attribute our freedoms to "Christianity" to which is a load of shit.. I don't think you know very much about American History or Constitution for that matter. Our laws are not based on Mosaic law Job, they are based on British common law and 18 law givers of the Near East. Never has this nation ever been a "Christian society", it has always been a secular society.. However, Christians here in the US seek to install a Christian Totalitarian Theocracy ruled by dominion theology:

    https://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/dominion-theology-on-the-rise-in-america/

    They are as dangerous as they come...

    On this, and it ties in rather well from the perspective of evolution, it could be said that Mr. Dawkins has evolved into the position that he currently finds himself in the possession of.
    I rest my case about how this conversation inevitably proceeded and indeed turned out, and also my case about how my right to choose to engage or not to engage in such a discussion with its tone and aggression, does not in any way mean I or another individual is wrong, or right, in whichever position they may hold in regards to FE.


    This conversation ended as expected ..., that being your ongoing ad nauseam and intellectually dishonest arguments which have no real value or substance... You're intentionally trying to play the role of professional victim, and you and your ilk on the Flat Earth forums debate exactly like this while never establishing your ideas and beliefs as anything less than crank.. You play the same game of Question Dodging, evidence dodging, and all the other long list of fallacious crap.. At some point people aren't going to respect you, and you wonder why you feel the discussions are "aggressive".. In fact, you seem to find pretty much any conflicting evidence to your position as an attack, or as aggression..., and when you find yourself outmatch in a debate, this is what you rely on and resort to.. Creationists like Ken Ham do exactly the same damn thing.. You came here to phish, you didn't come here to debate, and that is obvious to the common observer.

  30. #110

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post

    I then thought about how I mentioned the role of Christianity in removing the practice of infanticide
    Umm, Christianity is not doing anything to remove the practice of infanticide.. There is no infanticide taking place here to remove..


    , and how this supports womens rights,
    Christianity hardly supports women's rights.. They see women as subservient to males..., and throughout Christian history have they been so subjugated .. Catholicism remains one of the worst offenders.. And to just reference the Bible, we can cite the following:

    Ephesians 5:21-24:
    “Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.”
    1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
    “…the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
    1 Timothy 2:11-15:
    Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
    Corinthians 11:2-10:
    “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God…. any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head …For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair …For a man ought not to cover his head; since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)”

    Colossians 3:18:
    Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.”
    The word we are looking at here is ὑποτάσσω or “hypotasso” – to which of course also appears in Titus 2:9 regarding that slaves ought to be submissive to their masters.
    This Greek word hypotasso means (Strong’s G5293):
    1) to arrange under, to subordinate
    2) to subject, put in subjection
    3) to subject one’s self, obey
    4) to submit to one’s control5) to yield to one’s admonition or advice6) to obey, be subject
    Christians in America are among the worst when it comes to women's rights. They actively seek to subjugate them..


    because in most cases (and still is in those non-Christian places where it is practiced) it is the female infant which is murdered, but then it occurred to me, abortion. Abortion is legalized infanticide. I started to think about that little baby, it's hopes, it's dreams, the life that baby would or should have had, taken away from him or her, and I got so sad and I cried. Who is there to defend the children?
    You need to learn some science and the definitions of the words you are using.. A Fetus is not an "Infant", and abortions cannot possibly be argued as legalized "infanticide".. Hell, if you even knew anything about your religion, you would know that a baby wasn't regarded as having been born until it took its first breath of life.. A fetus isn't a child, isn't a baby, and certainly isn't an infant. Those are things the fetus develops into should it come to full term.., and at no stage is viability guaranteed. . Worse still, you people seem completely ignorant of the real world..., hence you would literally run the human species into extinction by overpopulation.. The world population is already in excess of sustainability with 7.4 billion while having a birthrate greater than the death rate.. That will lead to nothing but ecological collapse, and you want to speed that up by banning abortions and forcing everyone to have children to which many of which cannot provide for, or should never have children at all? Furthermore, I don't think you grasp the concept of "Quality of Life", or how if you forced women to have children you would in fact increase poverty, crime, and the collapse of society. You really have no clue how the real world works do you? . You seem entirely clueless to the real world around you. I am in this for the continued existence of our species... what about you? At what point do you consider recanting your stance in order to save our species from extinction because you thought it religiously important to force everyone to give birth? And btw, by your logic we could call clapping your hands or male masturbation infanticide ..... Especially when the cells in your hands and even the sperm cells can all be used to make a human embryo..Hell, you can use two egg cells to make a human embryo. Remember that the next time you have an itch.. You're committing infanticide!

    I do not want a part of your atheistic life, and I think you are all so so so heartless and selfish to talk about this with all stats and all this and that, and how 'horrible' Christians are, and I don't want to talk about this anymore, it's too sad.
    Umm, you are using a generalization fallacy.. I don't know very many Atheists that think all Christians are horrible people.. There are a lot of horrible Christians, but not all of them are.. Furthermore, Christianity (the Religion) is horrible by doctrine.. Like I said, I am not really fond of Narcissists (Yahweh / Jesus) ... The fact you even worship a being you believe committed infanticide is horrible enough, if not ironic giving your arguments on "abortion".. But hey, world abortion isn't a problem for you when you praise Yahweh.... We call this Ironic hypocrisy.. But hey, those moral values when your children sing about the flood..., and how their lord was sorry for ever having made them. I am willing to bet you are really good at the game of double standards..
    Last edited by TheJackal; 01-30-2016 at 08:28 AM.

  31. #111
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Yes, so, that's unpleasant. For me. You probably would not take it that way. But add to that, neither of you ever acknowledges a point I make, and never say anything along the lines of, "Interesting. I had not heard that/considered that before."
    This is possibly because it isn't true, or if new, is minor to my general knowledge on the subject and not getting the grips with the main issue at stake. I am knowledgeable about religions and subsets of religions to varying degrees, as well as some degree of philosophy. I think also that you live in a world where the supernatural is possible, whereas I do not: I do not even consider arguments invoking the supernatural, because they are fundamentally without substance. They are not even interesting to talk about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Ah ha! I just looked at our Model A's - INTp and ENFp. My main ego function is Ne, which I use extensively in these discussions and look - that's your IGNORING function. Yes. Your Ne is in your ignoring function. Well, that explains a lot. What I get on with in life is what you try to pretend does not exist. That makes a lot of sense here.
    Maybe you are IEE, but I've always considered my more readily apparent than yours. Maybe it is, in my view, my creative function and this manifests in a certain way, or maybe being -dominant doesn't manifest as might be expected in individuals who are heavily tied to a conservative religion and seek to reinforce their own beliefs rather than having a wide range of interests outside that religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Constructivist vs. Emotivist. Let's talk about one of those points for a minute.

    Constructivist (You two)
    - Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.


    Emotivist (me)
    - Tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction, with 'business' a secondary concern.


    Do you see any of that in our communications?
    I resonate strongly with the Construvist description (it is about one of the strongest Reinin traits I do identify with), but I do not consider the Reinins useful for typing purposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason;1119517Subteigh, you are questioning my INTp type for you. Yes, lets talk about that!

    ENFp is a Negativist (like you and Jackal's INTp also), and likewise I tend approach typing with the view of [I
    what one is not[/I], first. The "not" is what grabs me first, usually. And after some communicating with you, it became quite clear you are not the soft, gentle, highly-tuned to interpersonal feelings, emphatic EII, who debate style is completely different from yours. EII holds it back (unless her feelings have been hurt - then she might bite back - once, and sharply), as EII's sensitive soul does not want to offend anyone, or risk bruising anyone's feelings, which they are highly attuned to. (Right, @Maritsa?)
    This is is an outrageous argument to make about my personality considering the circumstances. If I said Islam was fundamentally evil and you agreed with me, would that mean you lack the traits you described me as lacking? My counter would be that, in my view, we are discussing a fundamentally evil doctrine, as Damnation is, and if anything, it is YOU who lacks these traits by your approval of the doctrine of Damnation. I really think you still fail to have any clue about how outrageously offensive I find it: it is only because I believe that humans are fundamentally good they I am arguing with a person who holds such views in the first place. You are the one here who is failing to be "humane" and all that guff. But I do not believe this is necessarily a matter relevant to our respective personalities.

    Also, I do not feel I need Maritsa to continue her act in her thread (which after all, has included many instances where she has deleted loud, angry, and vitriolic posts, perhaps out of shame or embarrassment, which is fair enough, or in order to act with her idealised view of how EIIs supposedly are. I don't believe many of the several self-typed EIIs would readily agree with her analysis, although they will be far less loud and energetic about their views of what EIIs can be.

    This discussion in regards religion is also very depersonal to me: your comments here suggest that you take my criticism of Christianity personally, as a reflection on you. I have no interest in causing you upset. I don't intend to be inconsiderate of your feelings...indeed, I wish the best for you, and hope you move to a better ideology. Don't you think you are being very one-directional? It is your feelings that I have apparently upset, but I consider you to hold an ideology that doesn't even recognise my intrinsic human worth: what about my feelings? It is not nice or helpful to have such values normalised in our society (in my opinion of course, but I think it is a reasonable opinion, of couse).

    I have been on this forum for more than ten years, even been admin and a moderator once or twice. I think I have been generally consistent in my behaviour, and I doubt few people would consider me as somewhat lacking in empathy and not being soft, gentle etc. I think while I was admin, it was more typical for my style to be considered overly focused on being "correct", not allowing people to insult other, and endlessly debating and justifying the nuances of my moderating philosophy even for minor infractions. I was somewhat neurotic at times, but even when I was being repeatedly insulted and provoked by a forum owner (while I remained an admin), I remained and continued to do the core non-technical duties while not responding in kind (if indeed I responded publicly at all): i.e. if you believe my behaviour in this thread is harsh, you fundamentally misunderstand me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Look:

    Here is a first general descriptions of EII:
    - the two main distinguishing qualities are an interest in human values and a developed capacity for compassion.


    Human values. Feelings. Beliefs. That is EII's focus. You are not interested in my values except to try to debunk them. But EII perceives my values with little explanation from me and then treads carefully not to step on them in any way, shape or form.

    Also, Subteigh, your idea of humanitarianism is to make the world a better place by shooting down ignorance and creating complex new constructs for a better society. EII's idea of humanitarianism means going to the library faithfully every Saturday morning for Story Time to read a book to the 3 and 4 year olds. You two are on completely different pages as to your definitions of humanitarianism.
    You mentioned Maritsa before for some reason, but do you know that I once went to great length to defend Maritsa when no one else would? When a forum owner deleted Maritsa's account out of pure spite (which at the very least meant the lost of all her Private Messages: her posts could at least be later restored to a new account, as did happen) I argued extensively about it in Site Discussion and also privately in the Mod section and through PMs, even though I was an admin at the time. There were a fair number of individuals, even normally reasonable individuals, who found it funny and/or supported the action (a fair number of individuals at the time thought it legitimate for Maritsa to be banned altogether, at the very least)

    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...aritsa-s-posts

    Can you refer to examples on this forum where Maritsa has done anything comparable? In most part, I've witnessed her provoking arguments with most of the rest of the forum, in particular self-typed Deltas.

    In regards my view on humanitarianism...and not "I'm a Humanitarian because I'm EII", they're not actually complicated. I'm more interested in the world being improved through cost-effective measures, taking much inspiration from projects such as: http://ourworldindata.org/

    Attempting to improve myself and others through discussing practical, ethical values as I like to do would be a good manifestation of a EII role, I would have thought. I don't know why you don't think I'm interested in what you think: I feel you confuse the monolith of a religious group's values as one and the same with your own thoughts, and that further, you don't seem at all interested in what I think except to state that I have been malignantly influenced by anti-Catholic forces.

    Maritsa's style of "humanitarianism" according to you is to be interested in an unpopular "pop" psychology and battletyping others as a means of "improvement" and/or self-actualization. Her range of interests (in terms of the various humanities) also seems limited, at least from the point of view of an introvert.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Also, you don't care that your arguing style stresses me out. My complaint on that account is not going to soften your approach one bit. Not so with EII.
    That is completely unfair (it's not true that I don't care). I believe you are likely to find the mere appearance of my username stressful, but I do not intend it so: You really ought not feel pressured or harried, it's only me. I do think however, that you are pleading special exceptionalilty: You believe I'm the one at fault, and that I am not stressed out by what I consider your hateful doctrine (of damnation), your uncalled for character assessment of me (not that I necessarily object to you doing so per se), and your attempt to draw someone else into the debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Subteigh, would you say that one of the main things that characterizes your life is that it is populated with so many unhappy, outcast and disadvantaged people who come to you for consolation, as they can just see that you are a person who will listen with sweet empathy for hours to their grievances and confessions? While you feel their emotional pain, and give them moral support?
    I feel it is a little unfair to put me on the spot in this way, and induce me to divulge my private life when I have typically been reticent in giving out details and very much a slow-burner in that regard over a decade on this forum. It seems like you are asking me to do what someone like Maritsa does, and made a parade of being a Humanitarian. You evidently do not know enough about me to get a sense of my history, my life situation, and my experiences and thoughts on various matters. I do not tend to make a public record of such things, at least not one that is permanent (I don't believe I have encountered you in the chatbox, and via PMs, and to a lesser degree, in offline chat and Real Life). You seem to be pushing me to say "Yes, I'm a Humanitarian, I do all these great things" or "No, I don't care about anything, not even myself". What I've said in this paragraph is why many have doubted the typing of EII for Maritsa...it is all very much a performance for her, a public show...whereas for other self-typed EIIs, this is anathema to their way of living, and further, a prolonged counter to a confrontation with the highly energetic and combative Maritsa is also contrary to their nature. Being required to "testify" their EII-ness as you are asking here is very much pushing them to wear their hearts on their sleeves while at the same time necessitating they act contrary to their personality. Speaking personally (but an impersonally observation), I reveal myself utterly to a very few number of people, and speak in varying degrees of generalities depending on interpersonal closeness. I do not set the powder keg alight and reveal myself all at once and continuously to absolutely everybody who wishes to hear/read it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    "Poor peace is better than a good quarrel" – this is the basic form of his ethical strategy.
    You seem to think that the state of fundamentalist religion in the world today is equivalent to a "Poor peace": this is not my view at all. I also do not consider the doctrine of Damnation something which is resolvable by a "good quarrel": the doctrine is fundamentally evil, I cannot argue with anyone who says otherwise. Finally, a good peace is even better than a poor peace: I work from the assumption that we want the same things: i.e. recognizing the inherent value of every individual, say, and attempt to move to an even better version of what we already have by remaining true to my own standards (via actions and words). I think you perhaps have a limited reading of what is meant by that phrase, or you misunderstand the focus of my actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Oh, BTW, your INTp type is sometimes called "The Critic". I can't imagine why!
    Considering the doctrine of Damnation fundamentally evil and the Flat Earth model lacking in evidence doesn't especially make me a Critical person.
    Last edited by Subteigh; 01-30-2016 at 09:28 AM.

  32. #112
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    For Subteigh, who mistakenly considers himself to be the sweet and empathetic hothouse flower, INFj/EII, I will conclude with excerpts from writings of author Leandro Javier Sepp, INFj, on INFj:

    Often believed to be a martyr for the sake of their own attitudes, INFjs are actually highly sensitive, neurotic slave of their own skills. Since they have awareness of the many meanings behind the various gestures, words, and breaths, the INFj has no difficulty in understanding the moods of people and the situations they are in; they can discern and dissect the motives of any viewpoint, even independently of principle.

    Despite her shyness, she carefully word her sentences in a way in which she can answer with the most effectiveness and in a way that appeals to the expectations of others. However, she remains closed and distant to the world; only after she has made sure of her surroundings will she seek to open herself to any experiences remotely resembling extroversion.

    ...INFjs have difficulty refusing the needs and demands of others, and usually comply without taking much thought to their own needs. However, they may bottle up those emotions until some breaking point, where an INFj may flee from a pressuring situation leaving others bewildered. They have difficulty breaking unwanted relations, and may comply with the desires of those by which they have no personal interest; over people may not be truly made aware to their feelings in result.

    INFjs may often lack awareness of their surroundings, and have a poor concept of time; usually they are not very inclined to participate in sporting or outdoor activities.

    As lovers of routine, INFjs love orderly surroundings; they find peace in structured environments, and seek to keep their lives well on track. But, they may have difficulty realizing their dreams and desires.

    Oversensitive and self-conscious, they are vulnerable to physical discomforts, small headaches, messy hair, and unclean clothes mostly resulting from the immense pressure they place upon themselves to live a happy life in a nice comfortable atmosphere. However much time they spend to provide these things for themselves and others, they are not always very good at achieving them, but they depend on it for their own survival and well-being.

    INFjs are secretive and reactionary, they rarely reveal their own true opinions and secrets and seek not to be placed in any position upon which they must express themselves: public speaking, reading loudly, or any sort of public exposure does not suit any INFj well.

    INFjs fall into two different categories according to appearance and values.

    One type of INFj would be considered rather outgoing, braver, and could lead some sort of active social life, often working as translators, psychotherapists, teachers, or any other type of job that would allow them to improvise their ready-made skills. These are the ethical subtypes.

    Another type of INFj follows a different path, appearing more reserved and immersed in an imaginary world; often chasing after fantasy tales, scattered, selfish, and dreamy. These are the intuitive subtypes.

    INFjs may be of the opinion that the best way to handle most situations is to feign their own demise. Because of these self-defeating tendencies, their eyes may have a sorrowful look to them, even when they are happy they could have a martyr like appearance.


    .................................................. .....Attachment 7006
    even people on the forum who have been here a short while would generally find it difficult to see how this is not a fairly accurate description of me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Often believed to be a martyr for the sake of their own attitudes, INFjs are actually highly sensitive, neurotic slave of their own skills. Since they have awareness of the many meanings behind the various gestures, words, and breaths, the INFj has no difficulty in understanding the moods of people and the situations they are in; they can discern and dissect the motives of any viewpoint, even independently of principle.
    How is this not applicable to me, compared to say, Maritsa, who you consider an/the archetypal EII? I consider myself quite good at finding multiple meanings in words and verses and tone where applicable (this cannot be relevant to fundamental and/or conservative doctrines though). I and others have, by contrast, have said that Maritsa fails to pickup on such nuances, especially noticably in written form (because supposed introverts should be naturally better at assessing the written form, and because we are somewhat limited to the medium of this forum).

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    ...INFjs have difficulty refusing the needs and demands of others, and usually comply without taking much thought to their own needs. However, they may bottle up those emotions until some breaking point, where an INFj may flee from a pressuring situation leaving others bewildered. They have difficulty breaking unwanted relations, and may comply with the desires of those by which they have no personal interest; over people may not be truly made aware to their feelings in result.
    You only know me via this forum, but your bold-ing of these passages suggests you only have a superficial knowledge of my time on it (in regards time and resources spent on various projects over the years).

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Oversensitive and self-conscious, they are vulnerable to physical discomforts, small headaches, messy hair, and unclean clothes mostly resulting from the immense pressure they place upon themselves to live a happy life in a nice comfortable atmosphere. However much time they spend to provide these things for themselves and others, they are not always very good at achieving them, but they depend on it for their own survival and well-being.
    There are parts of this that are probably problematic as a type description, but why do you think the bolded bits are not applicable to me? Every single part is true, especially compared to an average person: even the bit about the small headaches (I actually have minor headaches and an aura most of the time, moderate headaches frequently, and migraines often brought on being in stressed situations. Somewhat rarely, or more accurately, infrequently unpredictably I have had seizures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    INFjs are secretive and reactionary, they rarely reveal their own true opinions and secrets and seek not to be placed in any position upon which they must express themselves: public speaking, reading loudly, or any sort of public exposure does not suit any INFj well.

    I find it completely paradoxical that you reveal stuff revealed to you from someone you know well that you have typed EII as representative of EII traits, and talk about how Maritsa regular divulges her itinerary online to anyone who cares to read it...and then you ask for me to "open up" about my private life, and start bolded descriptions about how EIIs are secretive and reactionary and rarely reveal their true opinions and secrets.

    My response to what you bolded is that I am secretive and introspective actually: it has often been commented that despite my years here, people do not really feel like they know me at all. I think partly because of a natural reticent about revealing "personal details" and not wanting to feel like I can be summed up exactly, in few words, a snapshot forever fixed in time (because in reality, my personality is rather stable and predictable, and more often, my interests are who I am instead, and this means I feel more difficult to pidgeonhole, which I probably desire (probably this is partly E4 behaviour). I also consider my opposition to an ideology I find fundamentally evil...and one that has significantly affected my life especially when growing up is a core part of what defines me as a person, in terms of values. If I rarely express my true opinions, this is precisely at the heart of what I would speak out about. If someone posts another thread attempting to explain Catholicism to non-Catholics as though it is actually all Tea and Crumpets, or if they post a thread that misrepresents or grossly undervalues the scientific method, I am liable to express my opinion. Finally, even this assertion of my opinions that reveal nothing inherently personal about me is under an assumed name, and is of course far removed from meatspace.
    Last edited by Subteigh; 01-30-2016 at 10:22 AM.

  33. #113

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Aye yai yai. Guess what? There are actually are scholarly and accomplished theologians. Who are way smarter than you. And always have been. I don't know why this should be news to you. You may know a little bit about a lot of things, but you don't know everything about everything. Really. Actually truly.
    Reading comprehension is generally something you should work on.. The argument wasn't that there aren't scholarly and accomplished theologians.., it was that most are crank... I can name a few who aren't, and of those that exist..., 99% of them are secular. Now are there theologians smarter than me? I would imagine so..., however I am quite well studied here..., and I know when a theologian is talking BS most of the time. Those that use apologetic arguments are all cranks..., apologetic arguments are not academic and are almost always made up..

    You just don't know enough about actual theologians, Jackal.
    I know quite a few, and most certainly the more prominent.. However, you can always surprise...

    You are mistaken in your understanding of the meaning of the word "fear" in "fear of God". As in the statement, "
    The fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom". [That statement is time-tested wisdom. Truly ther is nothign new under the sun.]. You need to educate yourself in original languages, and then you won't make that mistake.
    Incorrect.. You are further espousing stockholm syndrome, and you might want to look up the definition of "fear" and the Hebrew word (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3374.htm) ... The context is the same... And I don't think you are well read on your bible to be telling me that I am not understanding what that means.. Btw, Hebrew is not an original language as Hebrew belongs to the Canaanite languages, these languages are a branch of the Northwest Semitic languages. Hebrew is no more "Original" than modern English is. See also: Ross, Allen P. Introducing Biblical Hebrew, Baker Academic, 2001 if you need any further help..

    And on that Proverbs citation:

    "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

    This is "Wisdom's Rebuke".. And you really ought to read Proverbs in it's entirety before you quote mine from it..., and to make matters worse for you, "wisdom" was largely associated to female Goddesses such as Athena and Asherah, and in Proverbs Wisdom is personified as a female. You may even know Asherah as “Hockmah”, or as “Wisdom” in proverbs. Proverbs is Wisdom’s rebuke and an epithet of Asherah assimilated into the persona of Yahweh:

    “Wisdom
    has built her house; she has hewn out its seven pillars. She has prepared her meat and mixed her wine; she has also set her table” (Proverbs 9:1-2)

    “In his house El gave a feast of game, the produce of the hunt in the midst of his palace, he cried: ‘To the carving, gods, eat, O gods, and drink! Drink wine until satiety, foaming wine until intoxication!’ Yarih arched his back like a dog; he gathered up crumbs beneath the tables. Any god who recognized him threw him meat from the joint” (KTU 1.114 R 1-7)
    “Why has the Great Lady who Tramples Yam come? Why has the Mother of the gods arrived? Are you very hungry? Then eat! Are you very thirsty? Then drink! Eat and drink! Eat food from the table, from goblets drink wine, from cups of gold the juice of grapes” (KTU 1.4 IV 32-37).


    The connection with Wisdom and Asherah is clearly noted in Proverbs 3:13-18 . name Asherah (‘ashrh) and the word “happy” (‘ashre), which is paired in direct conjunction with the “tree of life” :
    Happy (‘ashre) is the one who finds wisdom …. She is a tree of life (‘ts chyym) to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast are made happy (m’sshr).” (Proverbs 3:13, 18; cf. 11:30; 15:4)

    Proverbs 3:13-18 contains some paronomasia between the name Asherah (‘ashrh) and the word “happy” (‘ashre), which is paired with the “tree of life” in a chiasm.
    Hokmah is thus likely either Asherah, or an Epithet of Asherah as “wisdom”. Furthermore, you can note Asherah, the Tree of Life and the Menorah., She is in some literature suggested as Yahweh’s daughter., but when we examine the evidence, we find that Hockmah is the wisdom of Asherah. She was the wife of EL, the God head of the Canaanite religion. She’s a fertility mountain God, Mother of the Gods, wife of the GOD of the Mountains, and Mother of all life on Earth. We further know that they Yahwistic cult assimilated El's wife to be that of Yahweh's:

    http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm


    Inscriptions found at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (dated between 850 and 750 BCE) say:
    I bless you through Yahweh of Samaria,
    and through his Asherah!

    And at ‘El Qom (from the same period) this inscription:


    Uriyahu, the king, has written this.

    Blessed be Uriyahu through Yahweh,
    and his enemies have been conquered
    through Yahweh’s Asherah.

    Further evidence of this can be found in “Hosea 14:9 to which focuses on the image of the tree. This again is mostly likely the usurping of Asherah into not only the Yahwistic symbol of life” (EARLY HISTORY OF GOD, p. 136), but also into the very persona of Yahweh. Her epithets get absorbed into the Yahwistic religion as a subjugated role subservient to the male supremacy of Yahweh. She becomes not only the symbol of life, but the forbidden fruits of his knowledge. You can also note in Psalm 1:3 :

    1 Blessed is the man[a]
    who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
    nor stands in the way of sinners,
    nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
    2 but his delight is in the law[b] of the Lord,
    and on his law he meditates day and night.

    3 He is like a tree
    planted by streams of water
    that yields its fruit in its season,
    and its leaf does not wither.
    In all that he does, he prospers.
    4 The wicked are not so,
    but are like chaff that the wind drives away.

    5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
    nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous;
    6 for the Lord knows the way of the righteous,
    but the way of the wicked will perish.

    And to highlight further:

    Throughout the OT, there is an association of Asherah with trees. In most instances, the representation of Asherah is what is meant in reference, usually made of wood and found “under trees” and in groves (1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10; Jeremiah 2:20, 3:6; Isaiah 57:5). Furthermore, the Hebrew word ‘elah”, to which means oak in English, derives from Elat (Ugaritic‘lt).

    This was an epithet of Asherah as noted in here in the following Source: (cf. KTU 1.4 iv 50; 1.6 i 41; 1.14 iv 35, where “Athirat of Tyre” is called the “Elat of Sidon”, etc.).

    Thus to make sense of Proverbs, it was El's wife Asherah warning of the wrath she will bring upon them..., and to fear God's wrath was to be wise..
    Last edited by TheJackal; 01-31-2016 at 08:14 AM.

  34. #114
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Legion have mined scripture to provide proof of their own ideas doctrines and conclusions, just like you. This tact of yours is nothing new. As wise King Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun".

    (Above it, maybe! Like, a firmament!)

    Jackal, those religious people that you have no respect for whatsoever, that the average person sees as "salt of the earth" types, are the ones who are simply and honestly reading it to understand what its trying to tell us. You should try that sometime.
    King Solomon is credited with fewer homicides than his predecessors and is remembered instead for building the Temple in Jerusalem and for writing the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (though with a harem of seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines, he clearly didn’t spend all his time writing). Most of all he is remembered for his eponymous virtue, “the wisdom of Solomon.” Two prostitutes sharing a room give birth a few days apart. One of the babies dies, and each woman claims that the surviving boy is hers. The wise king adjudicates the dispute by pulling out a sword and threatening to butcher the baby and hand each woman a piece of the bloody corpse. One woman withdraws her claim, and Solomon awards the baby to her. “When all Israel heard of the verdict that the king had rendered, they stood in awe of the king, because they saw that he had divine wisdom in carrying out justice.”

    The distancing effect of a good story can make us forget the brutality of the world in which it was set. Just imagine a judge in family court today adjudicating a maternity dispute by pulling out a chain saw and threatening to butcher the baby before the disputants’ eyes. Solomon was confident that the more humane woman (we are never told that she was the mother) would reveal herself, and that the other woman was so spiteful that she would allow a baby to be slaughtered in front of her—and he was right! And he must have been prepared, in the event he was wrong, to carry out the butchery or else forfeit all credibility. The women, for their part, must have believed that their wise king was capable of carrying out this grisly murder.

    The Bible depicts a world that, seen through modern eyes, is staggering in its savagery. People enslave, rape, and murder members of their immediate families. Warlords slaughter civilians indiscriminately, including the children. Women are bought, sold, and plundered like sex toys. And Yahweh tortures and massacres people by the hundreds of thousands for trivial disobedience or for no reason at all. These atrocities are neither isolated nor obscure. They implicate all the major characters of the Old Testament, the ones that Sunday-school children draw with crayons. And they fall into a continuous plotline that stretches for millennia, from Adam and Eve through Noah, the patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, the judges, Saul, David, Solomon, and beyond. According to the biblical scholar Raymund Schwager, the Hebrew Bible “contains over six hundred passages that explicitly talk about nations, kings, or individuals attacking, destroying, and killing others. . . . Aside from the approximately one thousand verses in which Yahweh himself appears as the direct executioner of violent punishments, and the many texts in which the Lord delivers the criminal to the punisher’s sword, in over one hundred other passages Yahweh expressly gives the command to kill people.” Matthew White, a self-described atrocitologist who keeps a database with the estimated death tolls of history’s major wars, massacres, and genocides, counts about 1.2 million deaths from mass killing that are specifically enumerated in the Bible. (He excludes the half million casualties in the war between Judah and Israel described in 2 Chronicles 13 because he considers the body count historically implausible.) The victims of the Noachian flood would add another 20 million or so to the total.

    The good news, of course, is that most of it never happened. Not only is there no evidence that Yahweh inundated the planet and incinerated its cities, but the patriarchs, exodus, conquest, and Jewish empire are almost certainly fictions. Historians have found no mention in Egyptian writings of the departure of a million slaves (which could hardly have escaped the Egyptians’ notice); nor have archaeologists found evidence in the ruins of Jericho or neighboring cities of a sacking around 1200 BCE. And if there was a Davidic empire stretching from the Euphrates to the Red Sea around the turn of the 1st millennium BCE, no one else at the time seemed to have noticed it.

    Modern biblical scholars have established that the Bible is a wiki. It was compiled over half a millennium from writers with different styles, dialects, character names, and conceptions of God, and it was subjected to haphazard editing that left it with many contradictions, duplications, and non sequiturs.

    The oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible probably originated in the 10th century BCE. They included origin myths for the local tribes and ruins, and legal codes adapted from neighboring civilizations in the Near East. The texts probably served as a code of frontier justice for the Iron Age tribes that herded livestock and farmed hillsides in the southeastern periphery of Canaan. The tribes began to encroach on the valleys and cities, engaged in some marauding every now and again, and may even have destroyed a city or two. Eventually their myths were adopted by the entire population of Canaan, unifying them with a shared genealogy, a glorious history, a set of taboos to keep them from defecting to foreigners, and an invisible enforcer to keep them from each other’s throats. A first draft was rounded out with a continuous historical narrative around the late 7th to mid-6th century BCE, when the Babylonians conquered the Kingdom of Judah and forced its inhabitants into exile. The final edit was completed after their return to Judah in the 5th century BCE.

    Though the historical accounts in the Old Testament are fictitious (or at best artistic reconstructions, like Shakespeare’s historical dramas), they offer a window into the lives and values of Near Eastern civilizations in the mid-1st millennium BCE. Whether or not the Israelites actually engaged in genocide, they certainly thought it was a good idea. The possibility that a woman had a legitimate interest in not being raped or acquired as sexual property did not seem to register in anyone’s mind. The writers of the Bible saw nothing wrong with slavery or with cruel punishments like blinding, stoning, and hacking someone to pieces. Human life held no value in comparison with unthinking obedience to custom and authority.

    If you think that by reviewing the literal content of the Hebrew Bible I am trying to impugn the billions of people who revere it today, then you are missing the point. The overwhelming majority of observant Jews and Christians are, needless to say, thoroughly decent people who do not sanction genocide, rape, slavery, or stoning people for frivolous infractions. Their reverence for the Bible is purely talismanic. In recent millennia and centuries the Bible has been spin-doctored, allegorized, superseded by less violent texts (the Talmud among Jews and the New Testament among Christians), or discreetly ignored. And that is the point. Sensibilities toward violence have changed so much that religious people today compartmentalize their attitude to the Bible. They pay it lip service as a symbol of morality, while getting their actual morality from more modern principles.
    ~ Steven Pinker, from The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

  35. #115
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    By the way @Eliza Thomason, there are elements of your posts that I would like to give a "Constructive" and/or a "Like", but I have felt unable to do so because it would misrepresent my position in regards the entirety of the post in question.

  36. #116
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    251 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    When I first heard about the sex attacks on your women in your country, Germany, on NYE, hundreds and hundreds of them, I thought to myself, where are all your men? What were they doing? Why were they not defending these women? But, now, you mention atheism is taking over, so the fine art linked into Western civilization due to Christianity, the art of Chivalry, perhaps therefore is dying out. It is preposterous to think that young men would not defend the honor of a lady, but, perhaps it is happening...
    I ran these thoughts by my husband, as I wanted his viewpoint. He says,

    My husband says another reason for that is that we have a culture where there is a strong effect to level out the differences between the sexes, which tends to lower the respect for women, so the whole idea of chivalry is being discouraged... There is a large number of women who do not want to be treated any differently from men. Men are not encouraged to see each other as protectors anymore. So it dissolves away... Also it encourages men to see women as direct competitors in all ways, which changes the playing field, too. He says I am not saying it is all bad, but if you are looking at cultural changes that encourage violence against women, that change is one of them. He also adds that there is the idea of woman wanting to be men, that can express itself in many ways, that can cause resentment among men. Males feel themselves losing respect, not having any real role.

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    I then thought about how I mentioned the role of Christianity in removing the practice of infanticide, and how this supports women's rights, because in most cases (and still is in those non-Christian places where it is practiced) it is the female infant which is murdered, but then it occurred to me, abortion. Abortion is legalized infanticide. I started to think about that little baby, it's hopes, it's dreams, the life that baby would or should have had, taken away from him or her, and I got so sad and I cried. Who is there to defend the children?
    ..The undefended life...

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    I do not want a part of your atheistic life, and I think you are all so so so heartless and selfish to talk about this with all stats and all this and that, and how 'horrible' Christians are, and I don't want to talk about this anymore, it's too sad.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  37. #117
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    ..The undefended life...
    What the Bible says about Abortion

    Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.

    "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life." -- Exodus 21:22-23

    The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

    "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver." -- Leviticus 27:6

    Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

    "Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD." -- Numbers 3:15-16

    God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

    "And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him." -- Numbers 31:15-17 (Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)

    "Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts." -- Hosea 9:14

    "Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." -- Hosea 9:16

    "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." -- Hosea 13:16

    God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

    "Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." -- 2 Samuel 12:14

    God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

    "The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
    And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed." -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

    God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

    "Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." -- Genesis 38:24
    http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co.../abortion.html

  38. #118
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    251 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    LOL, How come I am not surprised you are quoting a website that has "skeptics" in it?

    [Are you a Snopes fan??].

    I can't really delve into the Old testament right now with you. Partly because its Jan.30 and there is one day left to the month and I see I am nowhere near what I wanted to accomplish in January and now I need to get busy working hard on things. And to discuss Old Testament would be especially time consuming for me. In part because you are either ILI Dialectical-Algorithmic, or EII Causal-Determinist (I think its the former for many reasons but including because you tend to be multi-course rather than single course in thinking, as in D-A's "precise style of thinking that branches out and runs along multiple parallel courses" seems like you in your posts) - and either way you are a Process person (and I think you take an ILI Aggressive approach to the Process vs. EII's retiring meek approach to Process - where you are clear that this is the right Process to think a thing through and we should follow this thinking path that you are leading us on) and I am Result. I can follow your method, of course, as we all have to follow different peoples methods especially in higher education, and I have gone along for the ride on your method, as you know, but since its not my preferred, comfortable mosaic approach, and it tires me, a lot. And I have protests about the process while I am in it, so its very hard. So that's one reason why I am tabling Old Testament debate. The other reason is I really live in the New Testament. The Old Testament points to the new and for that it is interesting. Also Old Testament interests me for the question of how did God prepare a through whom He would come to earth? Its interesting. And as I told Jackal, I consult trusted scholarly theologians when I am stuck. Wm Carroll., Father Most, are easy to find, or just Catholic Encyclopedia online will give the opinion of various theologians on a subject. Also I love Psalms and Proverbs of Old Testament. @TheJackal quoted Psalm 1 here, and that's one of the ones I love and have committed to memory. Also he mentioned Proverbs and that is a wonderful place to pick up and read, and yes, I have read them through more than once.

    I just have to step back a bit and get things in order and on the right path here at home. Lent is here already before two weeks is up. And so much to do, starting now. I need to get ahead on things before I spend more time reading and thinking and typing.

    So I am just saying I am going to take some time before i get back to this, at least I won't be answering back as quick as I have been. When I do type again I will start with your responses to what I said your INTp type. But i just want to address this now:

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I feel it is a little unfair to put me on the spot in this way, and induce me to divulge my private life when I have typically been reticent in giving out details and very much a slow-burner in that regard over a decade on this forum.
    In no way! I just have to correct this. I deeply respect people's privacy. If anyone so much as gives a hint they want to keep this or that part of their life private, I will take a wide berth around it. I am very interested in personal details people want to share about their lives, but the key part of this is "want to share". If someone doesn't' want to share something with the general public or with me, I don't want to know. If someone tells me something private and personal about another person and I suspect that the person did not want me or people in general knowing that, then I immediately feel a huge burden of guilt. I certainly would not seek to know something someone did not want me to know. I don't want to know anything about a person that that person does not feel inclined to divulge, for any reason. I am really strong on that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    It seems like you are asking me to do what someone like Maritsa does, and made a parade of being a Humanitarian.
    No, I am just noticing how completely different you are, and how jarring it woudl be to see Maritsa to debate issues like you do, or for you to make a report of the types of things she woudl report. It woudl just seem so out of character, for both of you.


    You evidently do not know enough about me to get a sense of my history, my life situation, and my experiences and thoughts on various matters. I do not tend to make a public record of such things, [/QUOTE] you don't type a lot of that here and I woudl never ask it. There are things I don't type aobut here (in spite of being someone who likes sharing personal stories) and just as I expect people to respect that, I respect their choice of realm of what to share. So, there is a part of you that you want to share here. (And as to fodder for choosing a Socionics type, it should be plenty, what's here. Occasionally, I can type on a first meeting and first conversation with someone IRL).. I do not seek anything beyond that, you can be sure. Its just that what you share is more NT things, and what Martisa shares is more NF things....

    But the contrast between you and Maritsa is big at times, like those things we both mentioned, and the points you brought up I do want to discuss. So I will get back to this soon, and will start with your responses on ILI/EII here.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  39. #119
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    LOL, How come I am not surprised you are quoting a website that has "skeptics" in it?

    [Are you a Snopes fan??].
    Most of the source material was from the bible and should speak for itself. It is naturally unlikely that you will find a pro-Christianity website easily compiling such a collection of awful verses on the subject\s we are discussing, and it did not make sense for me to cover the issue in my own terms when it has been comprehensively and succinctly compiled and commented on.

    (I do think it is somewhat important when quoting such resources to do so as concisely as seems reasonable without losing clarity, as otherwise those reading (especially those in extreme opposition to the position being represented) are highly liable to gloss over it and\or not take it seriously, for various reasons.)

    In regards Snopes, although I value its research, I find it too dry in style, and inclined to negation rather than putting forward "new" perspectives or research that utilises many conclusions and observations in various fields.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    you don't type a lot of that here and I woudl never ask it. There are things I don't type aobut here (in spite of being someone who likes sharing personal stories) and just as I expect people to respect that, I respect their choice of realm of what to share. So, there is a part of you that you want to share here. (And as to fodder for choosing a Socionics type, it should be plenty, what's here. Occasionally, I can type on a first meeting and first conversation with someone IRL).. I do not seek anything beyond that, you can be sure. Its just that what you share is more NT things, and what Martisa shares is more NF things....

    But the contrast between you and Maritsa is big at times, like those things we both mentioned, and the points you brought up I do want to discuss. So I will get back to this soon, and will start with your responses on ILI/EII here.
    I find that I have a widespread in all the various humanities in comparison to most people, including Maritsa, and that subjects that have no "human" element or humanitarian utility bore me fairly quickly: I think this is true to the extent that even in Psychology, if it is too detached from personality traits, I just have no interest in it. I'm not sure what interests Maritsa can have that are "more NF things", other than her interest in proselyting Socionics and to a lesser extent involvement in psychology, and being actively involved in social projects and socialising (which I have always been far less inclined to do, other than amongst a small circle of people I know: I do not count online social projects oddly enough, but perhaps this is a representation of the scale of my introversion in comparison to Maritsa's).
    Last edited by Subteigh; 01-31-2016 at 07:33 AM.

  40. #120
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I will say one or perhaps two more things about this.

    The idea that Christianity promotes killing and such things is very strange. There have been references made to the Old Testament with this discourse, and indeed, the Old Testament could be said to have some acts or discussions that were appropriate for the type of culture and barbaric difficulties that were faced at that time. The New Testament is indeed that, a New Covenant, which Jesus came to die for our sins and to establish this New Covenant, the New Testament, and first and foremost as Christians, followers of Christ, the New Testament is what Christians adhere too. Is Christianity a violent religion? Does Christianity condone killing?

    Anyone who has read the bible will know that the Christian message is a message of peace and love, and simple Google searches of Christianity can confirm this.

    Of course, there have been people who have used Christianity, the name of being Christian, who have carried out large scale acts in history which are not Christian in their ethos. This is of course not Christianity, but people who do this. Christianity does not cause wars, people cause these wars and many tools have been used as an excuse to start a war in history.

    Now, to put the shoes on the other foot, let us use the logic being applied by particular individuals in this thread. I will ask, does science cause wars? Is science evil? Let us consider the biggest war and in our recent history, World War 2. World War 2, in particular Nazi Germany, was a war based in science, the science of what is called eugenics. Horrific and unspeakable things occurred and I do not even like to write about it. So is science evil? Science killed all these people and committed atrocities on people? Science is not evil, it is people who use tools for their own ends that can cause horrific things to happen, and that is the same with many things.

    Most people whom an individual knows who refers to themself as Christian, are people who like others, they attend places of employment, have relationships, various hobbies and interests. As Christians, they may attend a religious service, they may partake in charity work or helping people and are inspired to do this in part at least due to their Christian values. They are not monsters, they may live next door to you or somewhere that you meet them, and the discourse of this thread to say that these individuals, Christians, are evil, genocidal maniacs apparently, is so far removed from the message of Christianity and so far removed from the lives of the various individual Christians that I refer to, that the discourse of this thread is indeed strange and indeed far removed from what is really occurs, that it is very very bizarre.

    Perhaps we should say that an individual who watches television or operates an item of machinery in their kitchen, perhaps a microwave are evil, because that is science and science killed hundreds of thousands of people via many things and within that the nuclear bomb, one could say that science is the most dangerous thing in existence because these nuclear bombs could wipe out the planet hundreds of times over. Of course, right minded individuals would not accuse someone of such a thing, because they happen to believe in science, or perhaps have attended a science course at college, and therefore become instruments that pertain to science that they and science are genocidal supporters. Such is the same scenario with billions of individuals who identify with, have a belief in Jesus, the Holy Trinity, and are Christians and try to use the Christian ethos in their lives, they are rather clearly not what is being unfairly speculated towards them by particular individuals in this discourse.

Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •