# Are there any Religious NT's?



## HamsterSamurai (Jun 28, 2012)

Poetic_Anarchy said:


> You are right, just as not all hamsters are samurai. However, it would be somewhat hypocritical for a Christian to defend all religion equally. But this is really more of a discussion than a debate, so if you have a religion you want to mention, go for it.



Why does my totally awesome name lend itself to so many jokes*grumble grumble* No really that was a pretty civil response to my little rant. :happy: It's a subject dear to my heart. I don't see how a Christian defending the idea of all religion is necessarily hypocritical. The point of this thread, as I see it, is to explore the idea of how an intuitive thinker could become religious and believe in some sort of God/higher power. It's beyond he question of "Does Christianity make sense?" There are so many, almost an uncountable number, of Christian religions that the idea of defending Christianity as a whole actually seems silly to me. But the concept of a higher power itself is pretty broad, so people that attack the whole idea of being spiritual based on the fallacies of mainstream Christendom seems petty.


----------



## Poetic_Anarchy (Aug 13, 2012)

Maximum.ENTP said:


> Heh, yeah, you're not the first to object to my self-classification as a non-denominational Christian, and I won't fight you on it. I only use that term because it tends to be the easiest way to describe my general Judeo-Christian ethic and belief in the major symbolic tenets of the Bible to people I talk to.
> 
> I don't put too much stock in labels, so I have no issue with other people classifying my belief system differently. I am just as happy with "Bible reading non-churchgoing non-fundamentalist alternate religion apologist" as any other description.


Alright, I'm not agreeing with your beliefs, but I accept that you probably won't be changed by me.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Religious ENTP, at your service. I claim Christianity. What say you? (Also, am considered a non-denominational)


----------



## Katriona1992 (Jun 25, 2012)

I am Christian and go to church sometimes but I am definitely not what you will call 'hardcore'. 

Religion to me is more of a tool to better develop spirituality and develop myself rather than simply 'following the rules'. I generally bring into context the contents of the bible and try to interrupt passages myself rather than accept everything that was said on Sunday mornings


----------



## Poetic_Anarchy (Aug 13, 2012)

HamsterSamurai said:


> Why does my totally awesome name lend itself to so many jokes*grumble grumble* No really that was a pretty civil response to my little rant. :happy: It's a subject dear to my heart. I don't see how a Christian defending the idea of all religion is necessarily hypocritical. The point of this thread, as I see it, is to explore the idea of how an intuitive thinker could become religious and believe in some sort of God/higher power. It's beyond he question of "Does Christianity make sense?" There are so many, almost an uncountable number, of Christian religions that the idea of defending Christianity as a whole actually seems silly to me. But the concept of a higher power itself is pretty broad, so people that attack the whole idea of being spiritual based on the fallacies of mainstream Christendom seems petty.


I'm right, I should clarify. When I defend Christianity, I'm not defending Christendom; I'm defending the people who take a literal interpretation of the Bible, believe it, and follow it. "Hypocritical" really isn't the proper word choice for if I defended all religions, so you were right on that. But it would be misleading, since a literal translation of the Bible states that only Christianity is true. 


Signify said:


> Religious ENTP, at your service. I claim Christianity. What say you? (Also, am considered a non-denominational)


I say do you agree with my above statements?


Also Hamurai has a point. The thread has been slightly derailed. For this, I apologize.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Poetic_Anarchy said:


> I say do you agree with my above statements?
> .


The post you mentioned about which party you are defending? That is your choice whom you defend. As for if there were previous posts (which you and I both know I may or may not have actually read), which ones exactly do you mean?


----------



## Poetic_Anarchy (Aug 13, 2012)

Signify said:


> The post you mentioned about which party you are defending? That is your choice whom you defend. As for if there were previous posts (which you and I both know I may or may not have actually read), which ones exactly do you mean?


And which I may or may not have actually posted. So let's go with this: Do you believe the Bible is true in a literal translation? And do you follow (try to follow) what Jesus taught?

I'd say those are the two most basic principles.


----------



## Bobby Jones (Aug 16, 2012)

I've never said anything about believing in God(s), being into theology, metaphysics, etc. I was talking about being a part of a religion. 
How can you call yourself Christian if you choose not to believe in certain parts of Bible and try to interpret it your own way?
Sunnis and Shiites have been going to wars over different interpretations of their holy book.
I'm sorry, you're right about me making statements about NT's. 
Sarafina, you're wrongly presuming I'm not educated or acquainted with philosophy, I actually adore philosophy. I'm not slamming here being spiritual or believing in something, I'm slamming religion because it's rigid and limited and you have your opinion already chosen for you, I don't see why, if you have a connection with your creator, do you need to belong to a group etc.
I have nothing against Jesus, I actually agree about a lot with him, I have a problem with his followers and people that let their religion define them. 
Okay, to sum it up, RELIGION IS DANGEROUS, GOD ISN'T. BELIEVE IN WHATEVER YOU WANT, DON'T CARE ABOUT RELIGION.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Poetic_Anarchy said:


> And which I may or may not have actually posted. So let's go with this: Do you believe the Bible is true in a literal translation? And do you follow (try to follow) what Jesus taught?
> 
> I'd say those are the two most basic principles.


I believe most of the Bible in a literal translation. It has a few things which are still up for grabs if they were meant as literal or metaphorical (ex. Revelations), and yes, I do try to follow what Jesus taught.


----------



## Poetic_Anarchy (Aug 13, 2012)

Signify said:


> I believe most of the Bible in a literal translation. It has a few things which are still up for grabs if they were meant as literal or metaphorical (ex. Revelations), and yes, I do try to follow what Jesus taught.


Then I'm very glad to meet you. My previous statement was slightly off, I haven't decided if all the apocalypse prophecies are literal, and until they happen, I won't know.


----------



## Pr0metheus (Jun 23, 2012)

Gnosticism sounds pretty cool, it comes off as a religion that's actually for smart people. Basically, it states that the true god is within each and every one of us and it is up to the individual to find their higher, divine self. Gnostics believe that the creator deity of the bible, torah, koran, ect. is actually Satan since many of the things attributed to him in the bible are easily seen as being downright sadistic, petty and narcissistic. Why would any "all knowing, all loving" god be jealous of anything or insecure in any way?? It just doesn't add up. As mentioned above eternal threats of hellfire and damnation is a quick and easy way of keeping a submissive flock in line. The passages in the New Testament that promote slavery pretty much spell out the fact that Christianity is a slave-herding ideology of unquestioning obedience and robot-like submission to authoritarian power structures.


----------



## Poetic_Anarchy (Aug 13, 2012)

Pr0metheus said:


> The passages in the New Testament that promote slavery pretty much spell out the fact that Christianity is a slave-herding ideology of unquestioning obedience and robot-like submission to authoritarian power structures.


You do realize those verses don't actually support slavery, right? They state that Christians who are slaves should still obey their masters, so that the masters would see their good conduct and devotion. The "robot-like" submission to authority has to be considered in the context of their situation. The church was often persecuted by the governments of that age, so the verses were speaking to the people who wanted to go on the offense. To understand that Christianity was not started as a tool for controlling the masses, you have to understand it's beginning. It was started by some poor guys all but one of whom ended up dying very painfully for their beliefs. They never held power or popularity because of what they told people. So why would they stick with it to the death? Now, the Roman Catholic Church is a different story. They took control (with good intent) during the Dark Ages. As they grew in power, they became more corrupt, only teaching parts of the Bible as a very successful method to control people. So if you start with the modern church and look back, it probably does look like a tool for control; but if you start at it's origin and look forward, it clearly was not meant to go that way. I mean, I could preach a sermon for killing everyone you see, or I could preach a sermon against sugar (Olsteen did), but only if I take things out of context and/or ignore the actual meaning.


----------



## Cyphyr (Jun 6, 2012)

I'm on of Jehovah's witnesses, as is my husband... (INTJ)
I have been raised in the religion, although I have also learned about various other religions. I almost hate other "Christian" religions because of how they have represented my God... I can respect people for their faith but only because I know that they are mostly blinded and close minded. I do strongly believe that all of us have q need for spirituality and that need will be fill one way or another. Even atheists have made that there religion ( and I've met as many fanatical atheists as I have those of conventionally religious people...)
Anyway... Yeah I'm one.


----------



## Avian (Aug 4, 2012)

Pr0metheus said:


> Gnosticism sounds pretty cool, it comes off as a religion that's actually for smart people. Basically, it states that the true god is within each and every one of us and it is up to the individual to find their higher, divine self. Gnostics believe that the creator deity of the bible, torah, koran, ect. is actually Satan since many of the things attributed to him in the bible are easily seen as being downright sadistic, petty and narcissistic. Why would any "all knowing, all loving" god be jealous of anything or insecure in any way?? It just doesn't add up. As mentioned above eternal threats of hellfire and damnation is a quick and easy way of keeping a submissive flock in line. The passages in the New Testament that promote slavery pretty much spell out the fact that Christianity is a slave-herding ideology of unquestioning obedience and robot-like submission to authoritarian power structures.


Great post. The only thing I would change is that it's more of a philosophy or principle of life. I'm not religious in anyway but I am highly interested in philosophy of theology, mysticism, occult, metaphysics and esoterics/exoterics. 

Ever read the Book of John through a metaphysical lense? Since there was no letter "J" at the time and the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, J would be I > Book of Io(h)n > Book of Ion. From there things like "the word" is actually your voice and the frequency at which you speak.


----------



## RaidenPrime (Aug 4, 2012)

Buddhism and Taoism resonates in my mind as a good philosophy, but I wouldn't call it religion. I can identify with certain aspects of Buddhism and Taoism.


----------



## Pr0metheus (Jun 23, 2012)

Poetic_Anarchy said:


> It was started by some poor guys all but one of whom ended up dying very painfully for their beliefs.


Yeah and several centuries later it was hijacked by a gang of Roman aristocrats who thought it would be pretty advantageous (to them) to turn it into the Empire's state religion. Said aristocrats created the new testament we all know today. They edited out all the scandalous parts that might encourage people to act autonomous and think for themselves. The elites wanted to promote a consistent narrative for the masses to obey. In a genius move, they created one centralized, universal (Catholic) church. Having one collection tray is a hellva lot more of a shrewd plan (for those who run the church) than having people tithe to like 40 different deities at different temples scattered about. They basically took the Roman Imperial model (all roads lead to Rome) and superimposed it over religion to create the ultimate mind-control leviathan. 

You do realize that before Christianity became a state religion there were a ton of wildly-varying Christian groups that emphasized different gospels and interpreted them in very different ways, right? The Roman state church basically sanitized the religion and hunted down anyone or any group who didn't adhere to their exact sanitized version and branded them as heretics and subsequently killed them off. See: Gnostics, Arians, Cathars, ect. The version that you and every other "correct" Christian follow today is the sanitized version. You follow a set of beliefs that were authorized by a small clique of very elite Greek and Roman men many many centuries ago. The differences in dogma between Catholicism and Protestantism are pretty miniscule when we examine the early history of the religion. 

Organized religion is really a history of political intrigue. "Spirituality" is just the sprinkles on top.


----------



## Jojo354 (Feb 8, 2012)

Can never remember being even the slightest bit religious or even thinking there was a god. Personal opinion is we are part of an eco system, what we are made of turns into worm food and who we are is the genetic information we pass on to our off spring. Simples. Why does there need to be a god, just because we don't know something people make up "god" to fill in the gaps? 

In answer to the original question, all the NT's I know are not religious at all. My fathers side have a lot of strong NT's and not religious. On my mothers side there are a lot of ISFP's, ESFP's and ENFP's, they in contrast to my dads side all feel the need for religion in their lives and actively seek it.

Maybe it is an "F" thing.


----------



## Avian (Aug 4, 2012)

The three largest organized religions - Christianity/Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam - seem to be external truths of ourselves cleverly orchestrated by ancient "psychologists", or the elite if you will. Being an introvert, everything I read is analyzed to see if it's something you can find in yourself, and I can't find a sky daddy archetype inside of me. It's all a master-slave dialectic.

Just examining some of the dogma and general beliefs is funny. They say God knows everything you're thinking, I just thought of something so who knows about it? Yupp just me. God knows everything you see, well apparently I'm the only one who can see through my own two eyes. 

Yea I could expand but I think it's time that parasitic ideologies and theologies leave the concious atmosphere.


----------



## Poetic_Anarchy (Aug 13, 2012)

Pr0metheus said:


> Yeah and several centuries later it was hijacked by a gang of Roman aristocrats who thought it would be pretty advantageous (to them) to turn it into the Empire's state religion. Said aristocrats created the new testament we all know today. They edited out all the scandalous parts that might encourage people to act autonomous and think for themselves. The elites wanted to promote a consistent narrative for the masses to obey. In a genius move, they created one centralized, universal (Catholic) church. Having one collection tray is a hellva lot more of a shrewd plan (for those who run the church) than having people tithe to like 40 different deities at different temples scattered about. They basically took the Roman Imperial model (all roads lead to Rome) and superimposed it over religion to create the ultimate mind-control leviathan.
> 
> You do realize that before Christianity became a state religion there were a ton of wildly-varying Christian groups that emphasized different gospels and interpreted them in very different ways, right? The Roman state church basically sanitized the religion and hunted down anyone or any group who didn't adhere to their exact sanitized version and branded them as heretics and subsequently killed them off. See: Gnostics, Arians, Cathars, ect. The version that you and every other "correct" Christian follow today is the sanitized version. You follow a set of beliefs that were authorized by a small clique of very elite Greek and Roman men many many centuries ago. The differences in dogma between Catholicism and Protestantism are pretty miniscule when we examine the early history of the religion.
> 
> Organized religion is really a history of political intrigue. "Spirituality" is just the sprinkles on top.


I realize that history is all conjecture. I think we're both smart enough to know that to believe any historical account requires faith; I'm choosing the one that says God controls what the Bible has in it. It possible that someone put that in there to trick people? Totally. Is it possible God used that person anyway? I believe so. Also, the Bible in it's current form doesn't encourage a model citizen. Communism does a better job of that. Besides, if they'd actually modified the Bible, why would they have censored certain parts of the Bible from the public? They could have just deleted them; if they'd done that, there would have been nothing for Martin Luther to find. I believe what you are referring to is what Christians call the Canonization, and while I certainly can't prove the editors' intentions, neither can you. However, I'm glad to see that you're making very thought out points; it shows you've given thought to the matter. Obviously I'd rather you came to the same conclusion as me, but I can at least respect your research level.


----------



## Pr0metheus (Jun 23, 2012)

Avian said:


> Ever read the Book of John through a metaphysical lense? Since there was no letter "J" at the time and the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, J would be I > Book of Io(h)n > Book of Ion. From there things like "the word" is actually your voice and the frequency at which you speak.


I haven't delved into it yet. Sounds pretty fascinating though. IIRC, John derives from the Hebrew name Yohannan and the English pronunciation of the name comes from the French "Jean."



> It's all a master-slave dialectic.


Exactly! It sounds like we may have been reading some of the same enlightened writings recently


----------



## west (Sep 16, 2012)

runnerveran said:


> :frustrating::frustrating::frustrating::frustrating:
> 
> Einstein did _not _think that there was a sentient, omniscient, omnipotent, person-like being who created the universe. To call him religious is _quite _a stretch. "Spiritual" would be more apt, because of the awe and wonder the universe inspired within him.
> 
> There _is_ some debate as to whether or not he should be considered a pantheist and how close his conception of God was to Spinoza's.


Right. Einstein did not believe in a personal God.


----------



## silk15 (Sep 14, 2012)

I know an INTJ Christian and he is actually the smartest person I know. He always has a reasoned answer for everything and just makes me feel dumb sometimes, not that that's his intention- he just really likes knowledge. He teaches maths and physics, studying astrophysics.

A lot of us can't believe he believes in God when he's such a 'see it, believe it type' and the biggest advocate of science. Yet he is an authentic type Christian unlike others who once he's reasoned something, he actually lives it.


----------

