Spiritual Personality Types

[Tau]

OK, this really isn't difficult. It would be better for you to not attack people at least until you understand what they're saying. All approaches fit into the descriptions. You might fit into more than one category, as Storm and others have said they do, but the four categories encompass pretty much all the approaches to religion, even if you mix and match.

You're right, I don't know a lot about what you believe, but this is not about what you believe but how you believe.

Storm can speak for herself, and I'm sure she will. That doesn't mean I can't agree with her, and try to at least get you to stop attacking her unnecessarily.

My first post on this thread stated how I agreed with Storm on her interpretation of how certain beliefs take on a theme and identifiable philosophy.

How ironic that now I am 'attacking' her, after I said that there are PROBABLY more ways of approaching religion and she did not like it, how pathetic you people are, you make me laugh with the derision you so richly deserve...

It's cool because I will never respond to another Storm thread again (well not for ages anyway ), everyones happy right?

I tried to disengage from the argument I could sense coming with a concillatory post made on page 4 or 5, to no avail.

So regardless of who is right or wrong I will not accept that I am being unfair or combatative...

Incredible...

 

[Tau]

OK, this really isn't difficult. It would be better for you to not attack people at least until you understand what they're saying. All approaches fit into the descriptions. You might fit into more than one category, as Storm and others have said they do, but the four categories encompass pretty much all the approaches to religion, even if you mix and match.

You're right, I don't know a lot about what you believe, but this is not about what you believe but how you believe.

Storm can speak for herself, and I'm sure she will. That doesn't mean I can't agree with her, and try to at least get you to stop attacking her unnecessarily.

You don't know how I believe either...and you never will.

 

[Magic Man]

My first post on this thread stated how I agreed with Storm on her interpretation of how certain beliefs take on a theme and identifiable philosophy.

How ironic that now I am 'attacking' her, after I said that there are PROBABLY more ways of approaching religion and she did not like it, how pathetic you people are, you make me laugh with the derision you so richly deserve...

The problem was that you said there were more philosophies than the four listed. You're right, there are many different religions and philosophies. But they are all approached in one of the ways spelled out in the OP. When she tried to explain that to you, you became defensive and frustrated immediately. You might disagree with her premise, but you weren't responding to the right premise. Ancestor worship, for instance, is different than Catholicism, that's true. But, it can still be approached in one of the ways listed in the OP, just like Catholicism can.

It's cool because I will never respond to another Storm thread again, everyones happy right?

No. No one wants you to leave. The point of these threads is debate or discussion. I'd rather have you stick around and participate. I'd just like you not to get so defensive, and try to understand what someone is saying to you before responding in an abrasive way. It's a lot more productive.

 

[Magic Man]

You don't know how I believe either...and you never will.

I'm sure I could, if you'd talk about it. The point of this thread is to talk about how one believes, though, not what one believes. I would love to hear how your method of approaching religion, or lack thereof, differs from those described in the OP.

 

[Tau]

The problem was that you said there were more philosophies than the four listed. You're right, there are many different religions and philosophies. But they are all approached in one of the ways spelled out in the OP. When she tried to explain that to you, you became defensive and frustrated immediately. You might disagree with her premise, but you weren't responding to the right premise. Ancestor worship, for instance, is different than Catholicism, that's true. But, it can still be approached in one of the ways listed in the OP, just like Catholicism can.

How can you approach Ancestor worship as an atheist, if you dont really believe it you are not really an Ancestor Worshipper...thus the term Ancestor Worshipper is not applicable.

I do not understand I admit, the whole notion is illogical and bizzare, how can a thing be a thing and yet not a thing?

How can one approach Ancestor Worship monotheistically, makes utterly no sense whatsoever.

You cant bend words around like that, you may as well be talking gibberish.

 

[Halcyon]

It reminds me of the old Gnostic groupings of Hylic, Psychic and Pneumatic.

It's interesting as a psychological analysis but ultimately flawed since most, if not all, people straddle the line between two or more of those categories. I can see aspects of my personal viewpoint expressed in both categories 1 and 4.

 

[Tau]

I'm sure I could, if you'd talk about it. The point of this thread is to talk about how one believes, though, not what one believes. I would love to hear how your method of approaching religion, or lack thereof, differs from those described in the OP.

I havent a clue what the OP means.

Sorry, its far far too alien.

 

[Tau]

It reminds me of the old Gnostic groupings of Hylic, Psychic and Pneumatic.

It's interesting as a psychological analysis but ultimately flawed since most, if not all, people straddle the line between two or more of those categories. I can see aspects of my personal viewpoint expressed in both categories 1 and 4.

You are all insane!

Laters.

 

[Halcyon]

You are all insane!

Laters.

We can't all be insane old bean, it must be ye who hath misplaced his mind.

 

[Tau]

We can't all be insane old bean, it must be ye who hath misplaced his mind.

Its ok I going to defrag the brain clusters and see if we can understand this fearfully alien theory.

 

[Magic Man]

How can you approach Ancestor worship as an atheist, if you dont really believe it you are not really an Ancestor Worshipper...thus the term Ancestor Worshipper is not applicable.

I do not understand I admit, the whole notion is illogical and bizzare, how can a thing be a thing and yet not a thing?

How can one approach Ancestor Worship monotheistically, makes utterly no sense whatsoever.

You cant bend words around like that, you may as well be talking gibberish.

Maybe the best thing would be either for Storm to explain it in more detail, or for you to read the book. I fear I can't do much better then Storm did in the OP, at least not right now. I guess the best thing is to think of the term "atheist" in this case as more of an arbitrary label attached to a way of looking at something, and forget for now it's connotation of "not believing in God". It can be confusing, and I had to re-read it myself to get a good grip on it, but I can see it being useful.

 

[Storm]

How can you approach Ancestor worship as an atheist, if you dont really believe it you are not really an Ancestor Worshipper...thus the term Ancestor Worshipper is not applicable.

I do not understand I admit, the whole notion is illogical and bizzare, how can a thing be a thing and yet not a thing?

How can one approach Ancestor Worship monotheistically, makes utterly no sense whatsoever.

You cant bend words around like that, you may as well be talking gibberish.

You obviously have yet to understand the concept, then. Funny how nobody else seems to be having trouble. I would try to explain it again, but you obviously have no interest in it, either. So, why are you here again?

 

[Tau]

Maybe the best thing would be either for Storm to explain it in more detail, or for you to read the book. I fear I can't do much better then Storm did in the OP, at least not right now. I guess the best thing is to think of the term "atheist" in this case as more of an arbitrary label attached to a way of looking at something, and forget for now it's connotation of "not believing in God". It can be confusing, and I had to re-read it myself to get a good grip on it, but I can see it being useful.

Well...I will read this book.

Then I will reply on this thread.

 

[Storm]

It reminds me of the old Gnostic groupings of Hylic, Psychic and Pneumatic.

It's interesting as a psychological analysis but ultimately flawed since most, if not all, people straddle the line between two or more of those categories. I can see aspects of my personal viewpoint expressed in both categories 1 and 4.

Can you think of any remedies for the flaw?

 

[Tau]

You obviously have yet to understand the concept, then. Funny how nobody else seems to be having trouble. I would try to explain it again, but you obviously have no interest in it, either. So, why are you here again?

Whatever Storm Il get back to you when I read the book.

I by the way do not require your approval to post anywhere...lol..nor do I need to explain myself.

Honestly...how rude.

 

[Tau]

Can you think of any remedies for the flaw?

Dismiss the theory?

LOL

 

[Halcyon]

Can you think of any remedies for the flaw?

An infinite number of categories, which would unfortunately just be silly - some flaws we just have to accept as the inevitable limitations of language.

 

[Storm]

Tau, I've asked you before, please stop spamming up my thread.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

***MOD ADVISORY***

Please stay on topic and refrain from personal comments. Several such comments have been removed.

Thanks,
A_E