Regarding Ignosticism

[EloquentBohemian]

Well, aside from God alone, there is a societal push towards belief in a deity in almost all cultures, which would also provoke responses in S types. For each type, there is some sort of reason to be involved in some sort of spiritual or religious pursuit, although that's not true for individuals. In other words, there's some aspect of it that is appealing to different types in different ways.

Hmmm... I wouldn't have guessed S types. I would have thought that a personal perception of God would have to be an Intuitive act or involve the Feelings. Again, I'm just beginning to get a grasp on MBTI. In what way S types?

And discussion is never doomed to failure Proof might be -- it'd be hard to prove God, just like it's hard to prove the spirit. But that doesn't mean it'd be impossible to discuss it. Indeed, like I said, if someone doesn't allow the perception of another -- in other words, if someone who doesn't believe approaches a discussion with the idea that it is then not possible for anyone -- then discussion becomes much more difficult.

The discussion degrading into an argument which is what I would hope to resolve by finding a common definition, but this seems unlikely.

But this is why I don't really like talking religion; most religions believe that there is a single God in a single way and that it is different than the God of another. And yet, one can argue that all those Gods of different religions may actually be one and the same, only symbolized or perceived in different forms. Even though God might be "different" to each religion, He is still universally there -- just in different forms. So in other words, even though everyone perceives something different, there is a much bigger picture that brings all that together to a single entity.

Or, that is what I believe. This is not a generally accepted thing or anything -- it's what I've come to theorize through personal meditation, research, and thought on the subject.

This is the view I conceive as the best out of all possible ones, though all conceptions are probable.

That's true, but that's one of the things that I think is a matter of perception. I understand that those religions worship more than one God, but how I define God is not as being a single or multiple entity.

Whether or not "God" is a single deity or a group of deity makes no difference in how I define God....it's hard to explain, but I think that God is more than something that can be physically defined as "one" or "many," but rather that He (I say he as a singular mostly for lack of a better pronoun) is something a bit more all-encompassing and a bit less solid. In a way, I believe the different types of Gods are all avatars for a single, universal entity, but that we all perceive that entity in different ways and in ways through which we can be personally fulfilled, since it's difficult to perceive his as all....

This is conceptually coherent, as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with this.

For you, is God immanent, extant or both?

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Hmmm... I wouldn't have guessed S types. I would have thought that a personal perception of God would have to be an Intuitive act or involve the Feelings. Again, I'm just beginning to get a grasp on MBTI. In what way S types?

Well, S-types aren't so much with finding a personal definition with God, but they are likely to follow an established, organized religion. SJ types, especially, can find a place with organized religion because it's a sort of conforming institution; for a huge part of history, the church played a big part of society, and most of society conformed to some type of religion. This doesn't have the intuitive "quest for the soul" necessarily, and I don't believe it's as fruitful on a personal level, but it is a relationship of sorts with God(s) and I'm not one to judge whether or not it's "correct."

I actually think the NT types would be the least likely to conform to an organized religion because of their knack for completely analyzing the worth of a conforming institution. They would more likely be less drawn to it because of their logical nature.

But also note that I make a distinction between organized religion and spirituality. There's different ways to approach "God" -- a societal level and a personal level. I think there's different methods of defining God for different types. S-types then are more drawn to organized, wide-scale and rigid religious beliefs, while N-types would be more likely to define spirituality on a personalized basis. These are, of course, generalizations.

The discussion degrading into an argument which is what I would hope to resolve by finding a common definition, but this seems unlikely.

Well, when you think of it, a common definition of God would be like trying to find a common definition to truth or good or evil or art -- there's a lot of room for interpretation, culture variety, personal perception, etc. You can come up with a general framework, but there's still going to be a lot of people disagreeing on things.

For you, is God immanent, extant or both?

I'm not quite sure I understand; do you mean is it universal or individualistic? If that is your question, then I'd have to say both -- it is essentially universal, but it as a whole is too large and too complex for any single person to grasp, kind of like the concepts of forever or the grandness of the universe. I think people experience it only a fragmented part of the whole, and in that sense it is individualistic in that each person might experience a different fragment. And I think enlightenment, "nirvana," is the point where you fully begin to understand "everything" and the "whole" in a way that you realize that you cannot understand it, and that you are content with the knowledge that there is something greater than you that you cannot grasp, but are also at one with both the "universal" and the "individualistic" -- I can't describe that, really, without it being contradictory...but then again, if you could describe enlightenment or nirvana, then life would be that much easier, huh? But I think I've seen a little piece of it...I'm not there yet, but I've had a taste. Contentment, spiritual calmness, full mental, emotional, worldy control -- that's what I think nirvana has to offer

 

[acd]

As prelude, I am Ignostic, which basically asserts that there is no comprehensive definition of God and therefore, there can be no discussion of whether God exists or not, nor can there be any discussion of the validity of any sacred texts grounded in monotheism, until a coherent, comprehensive and universally agreed-upon definition of God is arrived at. So...

What is your definition of God?

What do you define as the purpose of God?

I don't have a definition.

I just know that atheists conclude there is no God based on scientific evidence they have that is consequential-- "Someday, science will have proof that there is no God."
On the other hand, Christians are waitin' for the same thing.. "Someday, Christ is going to come from the Eastern sky and prove to us that God exists."

I'm not perfectly comfortable with any of the choices offered. But Ignosticism sounds interesting... I am going to look into that and give it a think.