Personality Cafe banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Monica Bellucci said the following regarding her beliefs .

I am an Agnostic, even though I respect and am interested in all religions. If there’s something I believe in, it’s a mysterious energy; the one that fills the oceans during tides, the one that unites nature and beings.2
I think if you are an ISFP no matter what your faith is , this statement somehow rings true .

its just each an every one of us has has own(specially when you are an Fi) beliefs or ways
of approaching those beliefs ...but we all feel this Mysterious energy what ever we call it .


I personally call this energy God .
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,801 Posts
I agree with this. I think ISFP is very holistic in their idea of God, and may be able to enjoy the symbolic religion of others. I've always liked Catholic church and I am not Catholic, I remember giving them a hundred bucks on Christmas ten years ago because I felt it was right to support their socialist institution. I now like what their pope is saying about the environment. I will go where serves the highest good. I don't care who sings the prettiest song, in the end I care what they get done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,279 Posts
Yes, I agree. I do believe in the "mysterious energy" but I call it just Nature. I don´t follow any religion or spiritual path, but my personal beliefs are very close to taoism (mixed with some rock and roll lol).

And lol, of course I respect everyone´s beliefs, but....Catholic Church a socialist institution?! They have more money than any state! They own half of Rome and live in luxurious houses, they don´t need anyone´s money really....A friend who is Italian just recently told me how a priest in Italy was talking about being modest and giving up on materialism on the TV while standing in front of a golden statue :laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
And that is called being human, regardless. I think it is religion that deprives humans from being human, to go as long as repress themselves by the idea of "sin" with some things that make no sense.
I'm an atheist therefore I find the idea of God simply bullshit until proven with evidence otherwise.
^ this and I am also an agnostic atheist. I do like the idea of the force. But it's just a fantasy from a sci fi movie. I do enjoy mythology of religions. I find them interesting and some times funny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
INFP here, but I do find that "spiritual" view to resonate with me as well. I've never heard of that quote, but it does describe how I see nature as a mysterious force that makes the world go round. I may had developed this type of thinking from a rather minor thing that happened in my childhood: I was outside shamelessly stripping bark from a tree and my mother caught me and said to be more respectful about the things around us.
I don't know if this also ties into the quote, but I also like to think the Butterfly Effect is a real phenomenon. Every tiny and major thing keeps this whole nature thing together. Like as if all of our "energies" is somehow invested into this cycle of action and reaction. That is the force that I think surrounds us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
And that is called being human, regardless. I think it is religion that deprives humans from being human, to go as long as repress themselves by the idea of "sin" with some things that make no sense.
I'm an atheist therefore I find the idea of God simply bullshit until proven with evidence otherwise.
Sathi-is a Pagan or Indian Tradition practiced in Certain parts of india .
what it means is a Man for instance dies and that man has a wife , that woman is doomed .
because according to Sathi she should be thrown into the burning Fire of her Husbands dead burning Corp
if she chickens out because its painful way to go , then she has the option of getting drowned
either way according to Sathi if you are a woman the biggest and most noble sacrifice you can make is that .
some do it voluntarily some are forced and many many escape .

2 systems built on religious Morals(specially Abrahamic ones ) fought that ugly tradition in India .

so I think we can conclude religion sometimes does Prevent Evil.

If I abstain from Killing people because my religion said so or I'll be punished for it
i think i wouldn't dare kill anyone , fearing that somehow its gonna bite me in the back in a major major way .

I think the biggest problem most people have with religion is that all religions put some kind of limitation
on us Humans , people hate to be limited...but the question we should be asking is whether these limitations
are really beneficial to human race its survival and well being ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Yes, I agree. I do believe in the "mysterious energy" but I call it just Nature. I don´t follow any religion or spiritual path, but my personal beliefs are very close to taoism (mixed with some rock and roll lol).

And lol, of course I respect everyone´s beliefs, but....Catholic Church a socialist institution?! They have more money than any state! They own half of Rome and live in luxurious houses, they don´t need anyone´s money really....A friend who is Italian just recently told me how a priest in Italy was talking about being modest and giving up on materialism on the TV while standing in front of a golden statue :laughing:


that Priest is so not serious .
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
My own spirituality or philosophy is an outcome of a lot of years of searching. I'm a mixture of pantheism, paganism, naturalism and humanism. I don't believe in anything supernatural, as I think that anything that we find is part of our world is natural. I worship the universe, various aspects of nature which I feel a connection towards and values which are dear to me. My gods have no name, as I've never found any connection to named deities. I believe in humanism, in the good we have inside and can do. I don't think morals need to come from any form of gods, though we may feel inspired by them.

It's very hard to explain, and maybe some people would say that which I worship is only semantics (calling the universe, the moon or compassion gods) but I believe that one constant definition of god is that which we deem worthy of worship. That which puts awe in me, which I feel is so much bigger and more powerful than me, that which inspires... They're my gods.

I can relate to the quote, there is something greater than myself, which I feel unites me to something greater. It doesn't need to be literal gods (as in beings).

I could go on about this subject (because heck, it took me many years to get to this point) but I'll stop. :laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
This is a very Interesting Post , thank you IllyKitty .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Sathi-is a Pagan or Indian Tradition practiced in Certain parts of india .
it is a pagan tradition and apparently continues to be practiced in certain remote areas.

what it means is a Man for instance dies and that man has a wife , that woman is doomed .
because according to Sathi she should be thrown into the burning Fire of her Husbands dead burning Corp
if she chickens out because its painful way to go , then she has the option of getting drowned
either way according to Sathi if you are a woman the biggest and most noble sacrifice you can make is that .
some do it voluntarily some are forced and many many escape .
this is true

2 systems built on religious Morals(specially Abrahamic ones ) fought that ugly tradition in India .
is this true? i thought it was lord william bentick who established the law outlawing suttee.

take a look at the law. in itself, the law uses a word called "purity". what that means, is that the woman cannot remarry or have sex. reflecting the prevailing English view on chastity. quite laughable when looked at 186 years later.
"A regulation for declaring the practice of suttee, or of burning or burying alive the widows of Hindus, illegal, and punishable by the criminal courts, passed by the governor-general in council on 4 December 1829, corresponding with the 20th Aughun 1236 Bengal era; the 23rd Aughun 1237 Fasli; the 21st Aughun 1237 Vilayati; the 8th Aughun 1886 Samavat; and the 6th Jamadi-us-Sani 1245 Hegira.

I. The practice of suttee, or of burning or burying alive the widows of Hindus, is revolting to the feelings of human nature; it is nowhere enjoined by the religion of the Hindus as an imperative duty; on the contrary a life of purity and retirement on the part of the widow is more especially and prefera-bly inculcated, and by a vast majority of that people throughout India the practice is not kept up, nor observed: in some extensive districts it does not exist: in those in which it has been most frequent it is notorious that in many instances acts of atrocity have been perpetrated which have been shocking to the Hindus themselves, and in their eyes unlawful and wicked. The measures hitherto adopted to discourage and prevent such acts have failed of success, and the governor-general in council is deeply impressed with the conviction that the abuses in question cannot be effectually put an end to without abolishing the practice altogether. Actuated by these considerations the governor-general in council, without intending to depart from one of the first and most important principles of the system of British government in India, that all classes of the people be secure in the observance of their religious usages so long as that system can be adhered to without violation of the paramount dictates of justice and humanity, has deemed it right to establish the following rules, which are hereby enacted to be in force from the time of their promulgation throughout the territories immediately subject to the presidency of Fort William.

II. The practice of suttee, or of burning or burying alive the widows of Hindus, is hereby declared illegal, and punishable by the criminal courts."

so I think we can conclude religion sometimes does Prevent Evil.
correct!

If I abstain from Killing people because my religion said so or I'll be punished for it
i think i wouldn't dare kill anyone , fearing that somehow its gonna bite me in the back in a major major way .
correct! however it begs the question - are we better humans because we love or because we fear or something else? actually this is a perfect question? what is it that makes us better human beings in your opinion?

I think the biggest problem most people have with religion is that all religions put some kind of limitation
on us Humans , people hate to be limited...but the question we should be asking is whether these limitations
are really beneficial to human race its survival and well being ...
The question is whether we can replace religious edicts with man made laws that equal or surpass religious edicts. It is not clear that one or the other is better. i can certainly agree that some limitations are necessary in order to live in a society.

for example, we are to date unable to define at what point life commences? neither are we in a position to confidently say that all killing is unlawful. mass killing through war remains perfectly valid and is not punishable provided it is an act of war. i am sorry, but there are many many thorny questions regarding relgion. it clouds the issue with references to religion versus a personal belief in a mysterious force or God or nature or the cosmos or something similar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
correct! however it begs the question - are we better humans because we love or because we fear or something else? actually this is a perfect question? what is it that makes us better human beings in your opinion?
I think we should both Love and Fear...if one prevails we have a dis balance , and this is not inline
with the rules of Nature....we cant just do something for the sake of Love , nor for the sake of fear .


is this true? i thought it was lord william bentick who established the law outlawing suttee.
I think Lord William was as much driven by his Christian Values as his intellect as a Human being .
when he fought it .and before Him , The Islamic Empires that Ruled India Condemned it and ruled it out as acts
of Barbarism .....

The question is whether we can replace religious edicts with man made laws that equal or surpass religious edicts. It is not clear that one or the other is better. i can certainly agree that some limitations are necessary in order to live in a society.
May be these religious Laws proved to be more superior than Man made ones , and stood the test of Time....
but since we all don't share the same Faith I think we need some kinda law .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
a law thats the same no matter ones accidental nature .

A law that will apply to the peasant in Laos as much as it applies to the Banker in New York .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,827 Posts
I am an atheist IXFP although I take an interest in other religions I do not feel any deep connection throughout the universe unites us. It's more I like to know why they think that way and how they feel about their beliefs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
I think Lord William was as much driven by his Christian Values as his intellect as a Human being .
This seems a rather big leap - to ascribe motives to an individual that is not substantiated. why not instead choose to ascribe genuine humanitarian motives to the individual? why not instead assume that an individual can be humanitarian simply on account of his thought process?

relevant sections from : The Bible, Christianity and Suttee in India
"
Christian Influences

Christianity has existed in India since very early times. The first reliable evidence is found in the Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes, a 6th century Alexandrian monk. In this account of his travels, he notes the existence of Nestorian churches in Kerala, in South India. According to tradition, the Church in Kerala was founded by St Thomas. Historians, however, have been unable to confirm this legend. What is clear, though, is that the influence of Christianity on reform movements dates from a much later period, and is linked to Hindu nationalism:

"The pioneers of [reformed] Indian theology were not Christians but enlightened Hindus who came under the strong influence of Western thought and Christianity. These enlightened nationalists [such as Ram Mohan Roy] wanted to reform Hinduism and Indian society, thereby counterbalancing Christian missionary activities." (Quoted from Hindu Christian Theology webpage)


Roy was not a Christian, nor did he seek to convert his fellow Indians to Christianity. He interpreted Jesus in the light of Hindu mystic traditions, and accommodated those elements of Christianity he considered appropriate under the broad umbrella of Hinduism, whose universalistic and absorptive characteristics lends itself to syncretism.

Indeed, Christianity was rejected by most Hindus because of its dogmatic insistence that it was the only 'True' religion. Furthermore, being the religion of their European masters, Christianity became associated in the minds of many Indians with colonial imperialism, and thus was seen as the "white man's" instrument of cultural subversiveness (a 2001 census revealed that only 2.3% of the Indian population are Christian).

The actions of indigenous reformers, such as Roy, proved effective – Lord William Bentinck, the Governor General of India, was encouraged by their opposition and banned the practice of sati. Bentinck, himself a reformer, was influenced by the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, which emphasised a scientific basis for philosophy and a humanist approach to politics and economics.

"Emboldened by support from Indians such as Ram Mohan Roy and influenced by the Utilitarian philosophy which sought the greatest good for the greatest number of people through legislation, Lord William Bentinck, governor-general of the [East India] Company's possessions in India from 1828 to 1835, promulgated legislation criminalizing sati in 1829. Controversy persisted during the 1830s because of continuing episodes of sati." (Quoted from Women in World History webpage).



Conclusion

To what extent was Christianity responsible for banning the practice of sati? In my opinion it played a role, but not one as great as apologists would have us believe. Christianity has existed in India since the 6th century at the very least, yet it made no discernible impact on the practice.

The extent that Christianity played in motivating indigenous reformers such as Roy also appears to be minor. This conclusion is based on the fact that he did not convert to the religion, but continued to study the religious writings of Hinduism, and used them in support of his views. Indeed, as previously mentioned, the primary factor that initiated his opposition to sati was witnessing his sister in law die as a result of the act.

Bentinck, who banned the practice, may have been nominally Christian, but seems to have been largely influenced and motivated by the ideas of utilitarianism. Furthermore, although outlawed the practice of sati continued, and it took large social reforms spearheaded by non Christians such as Ram Mohan Roy, Dayanand Saraswati and Mahatma Gandhi to eliminate the custom.

That Europeans were able to recognize the injustice and cruelty inflicted on Indian widows is due to them being foreigners. The outsider, not bound up in the cultural milieu of a society, is more apt to see social injustice than someone raised in that culture and indoctrinated from birth into the prevailing norms.

Finally, the reason why the ancient reformers, such as the Alvars did not succeed in eliminating the practice of sati is most likely due to the fact they were unable to gain the support of the ruling elite.
"
when he fought it .and before Him , The Islamic Empires that Ruled India Condemned it and ruled it out as acts
of Barbarism .....
that it is barbarism is undeniably true. that the Islamic empires condemned it is also true. There were many many humanitarians among the Islamic rulers. Akbar the Great being the most notable. However he and other rulers were unable to ban voluntary Sati. Instead they chose to ban involuntary Sati. I add this purely for completeness of your thesis that Religion can have good associated with it.

To be quite honest, while I cant say for sure, I predict that the great Mughal rulers were humanitarians rather than being pushed to abolish the barbaric practice of Sati because of Islamic doctrine.

unfortunately i can find nothing humorous about Sati, otherwise this would be a good time to reduec the seriousness of this discussion through humor poked at the various Religions of this world - there is no dearth of fun that can be had at their expense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
I feel that religion and spiritual stuff kills the religious and spiritual feelings, if that makes any sense. Words limit the actually experience. I feel that the human race would be better off being ignorant of concepts of god and spirituality, but that's just my own opinion. I guess I'll always be a daoist at heart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
The way I see it, when I was young I was obsessively religious. I was in an all-male Catholic School and I was repressing a lot of things inside. When I decided that way of life wasn't for me and it wouldn't make me happy I decided no longer to believe. Is it selfish?

The way I see it now, it doesn't matter if there's a God or not. It's out of my range of knowledge. But if we categorize as spiritual certain intimate moments with creation, then I guess I'm a very spiritual person. I guess I'm just a highly feeling person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
This seems a rather big leap - to ascribe motives to an individual that is not substantiated. why not instead choose to ascribe genuine humanitarian motives to the individual? why not instead assume that an individual can be humanitarian simply on account of his thought process?
These genuine motives can be inspired by religion as much as it can be inspired by any Humanitarian Civilized Thought .
therefor an Individual can be humanitarian simply on account of his Religion and faith commandments .

unfortunately i can find nothing humorous about Sati
Sati is painful .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,004 Posts
The description of Fi as written by Lenore Thomson alludes to Fi-doms natural inclination to the view the world in a rather pantheistic, or mystical light, as in seeing God in the way described by the OP. I've always seemed to have a view much like this of spirituality ever since I was a young child, despite being raised strictly Christian, and even being a strong Christian myself for years. Growing up in a Christian home, it seems that this view slowly deteriorated as I got older as other ideas of religion were imposed on me, but then as I started developing more and more, and started questioning what I was being told, due to some inherent intuitive sense that what I was being told was wrong, and then having the people I asked about it refuse to answer or just say that "Satan was leading my mind astray", I eventually left Christianity altogether, after a one-two year formation of a loosely Christian ideal that resembled more mystical spirituality than Orthodox Christianity, as I read Jesus's words and realized what he said didn't seem to fit with modern Christianity, and wanted to seek something much deeper than what I found in the church. Now, I am seeking understanding through mostly Western Esotericism, but also finding value in many religions and spiritual systems, such as Buddhism, spiritual systems like Druidism and such, and even Christianity. In short, it seems that this sense may be related to strong Fi, and as a born ISFP, I definitely can relate to the idea suggested by the OP and other posters in this thread.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top