Socionics and Religion: Let's get serious

[Exodus]

Well to keep it simple (this isn't a reference to you! I just don't like overcomplicating things)

Ti analyses and Te produces. They both do this by analysing the facts, being more concerned with what they see as the truth or whats the right thing. It makes its decisions on objects more than values.

Ti will look at a piece of information and disect it. It will look for the flaws in a meticulous fashion. A product isn't necessarilty its primary goal.

Te will look to produce decisions, opinions - outputs based on an analysis of the avialable data. It will summon forth the available knowledge, tie it together and produce from this.

Hmm, I suppose this makes sense based on extro/introversion. However, decisions and opinions can just as easily be related to Ti.

I might not have provided the facts to back up some things that I wrote, but does that mean that my claims were not based on facts?

If this is true, it's exactly the kind of thing that would point to Te id.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

You're right, not everyone always gets their facts right all the time, but I've noticed and it's been commented by other people that Te dominants have a tendency toward trying to make sure what they're saying is accurate. It's important to them, and to their duals.

Do you mean Te dominance or Te dominant? We're looking at Te creative here, just asking.

However, here are a couple of obvious specific things you said that would probably be different if you had really studied the subject:

I'll try and answer your quotes:

'The catholic church has done a lot of conquering. This is aspect of Se. You don't see this territorial Se in Jesus'

There's a few things I could say here, but lets keep it to one example.

The first thing that comes to mind is the Americas. In 1493 the then Pope (Alexander VI) issued something called a Papal Bull. This is a decree straight from the Pope. The one in question (Infact I believe there were 3 of them here) is I'm fairly sure is known as the Inter Caetera.

What this did was to give Papal authority, to mainly Spain, to commence European colonisation of the Americas, *as long* as it is tied in with the forced spreading of Christianity in this 'new world'. This Papal authority specifically authorised, by any means required, the seizing of non Christian lands, and also *actively* encouraged that non Christian people in the Americas be made into slaves.

So I ask you, what would you do, if given the choice between converting to Catholicism or having your land and property seized from you, and then for you to be made into a slave?

Effectively what was taking place here was forcibly conquering peoples territory and minds. From a socionic point of view, one of the aspects of Se is accumulating territory, gaining power and bending people to its will. Of course their are other aspects of Se, but when looking to describe what the Catholic church did here, it is definately Se which fits the best.

I don't recall reading examples of Jesus throwing people out of their house and keeping them as slaves if they didn't listen and do what he said.

'His ethos is one of Fi. Gentle compassion, warm fuzzy feelings'

If it is not, I would like you to explain why this is not the case.

'Well Jesus says he loves us all'

Are you sure he did not say this? Perhaps I should have used a capital H for He.

I should say, as a qualifier, that I've seen other supposedly Te dominants make similar mistakes. Or, rather, from my perspective, what they've done is take a few specific facts, ones that support their viewpoint, and build their idea around that.

That describes how I make decisions.

... What does "cheers" mean, exactly? Guessing from context, it means something relatively pleasant, maybe "thank you" or something like that?

Its a good thing. You should be feeling honoured Cracka summed it up well.

[Logos]

'The catholic church has done a lot of conquering. This is aspect of Se. You don't see this territorial Se in Jesus'

It is much easier to conquer when you are a powerful political institution than when you are prophet with groupies in an occupied territory.

I don't recall reading examples of Jesus throwing people out of their house and keeping them as slaves if they didn't listen and do what he said.

No, but the whole "the first shall be last and the last shall be first," was not just a spiritual statement but also a political one.

'His ethos is one of Fi. Gentle compassion, warm fuzzy feelings'

Because A) Fi is not necessarily "gentle compassion, warm fuzzy feelings," and B) such a view of Jesus does not hold up on analysis, especially when you put what he said in context of his social background and the current political context of Judea.

If it is not, I would like you to explain why this is not the case.

That would take a long time.

'Well Jesus says he loves us all'

Are you sure he did not say this? Perhaps I should have used a capital H for He.

Are you sure that he said that?

[Minde]

Yeah, everything Logos said. But I'll add my own, too:

Do you mean Te dominance or Te dominant? We're looking at Te creative here, just asking.

Te in the ego block, first or second positions. When I said that, I was thinking of both ExTjs and IxTps.

I'll try and answer your quotes:

'The catholic church has done a lot of conquering. This is aspect of Se. You don't see this territorial Se in Jesus'

There's a few things I could say here, but lets keep it to one example.

The first thing that comes to mind is the Americas. In 1493 the then Pope (Alexander VI) issued something called a Papal Bull. This is a decree straight from the Pope. The one in question (Infact I believe there were 3 of them here) is I'm fairly sure is known as the Inter Caetera.

What this did was to give Papal authority, to mainly Spain, to commence European colonisation of the Americas, *as long* as it is tied in with the forced spreading of Christianity in this 'new world'. This Papal authority specifically authorised, by any means required, the seizing of non Christian lands, and also *actively* encouraged that non Christian people in the Americas be made into slaves.

So I ask you, what would you do, if given the choice between converting to Catholicism or having your land and property seized from you, and then for you to be made into a slave?

Effectively what was taking place here was forcibly conquering peoples territory and minds. From a socionic point of view, one of the aspects of Se is accumulating territory, gaining power and bending people to its will. Of course their are other aspects of Se, but when looking to describe what the Catholic church did here, it is definately Se which fits the best.

I don't recall reading examples of Jesus throwing people out of their house and keeping them as slaves if they didn't listen and do what he said.

'His ethos is one of Fi. Gentle compassion, warm fuzzy feelings'

If it is not, I would like you to explain why this is not the case.

'Well Jesus says he loves us all'

Are you sure he did not say this? Perhaps I should have used a capital H for He.

For all of this, the question remains - are you sure he did say that or is like that? You were the one who first made those claims. Do you have something to back them up?

And, as nice as all that info about the Catholic church is, it doesn't really have much to do, imo, with whether or not Jesus is like that. I would suggest looking at him, not the church, to get your idea of who he was and what he was like (sad as that is, considering what the church should be).


...If you build your concept on unstable information, you can't expect your concept to be able to hold up to much. Then again, if you value your concept above its accuracy...

That describes how I make decisions.

That's interesting...

So that is as opposed to researching the subject then building a tentative structure that could shift if new information presented itself?

Its a good thing. You should be feeling honoured Cracka summed it up well.

*feels honored*

So, it's like a "goodbye"?

It is much easier to conquer when you are a powerful political institution than when you are prophet with groupies in an occupied territory.

No, but the whole "the first shall be last and the last shall be first," was not just a spiritual statement but also a political one.

Because A) Fi is not necessarily "gentle compassion, warm fuzzy feelings," and B) such a view of Jesus does not hold up on analysis, especially when you put what he said in context of his social background and the current political context of Judea.

To add a little to that - the life Jesus asked his followers to live was not one of "warm, fuzzy feelings." Sure there are rewards at the end of the road and even sometimes while on it, but a follower of Jesus can expect to have a rather rough life. I mean, think about it - how fun is it to let someone get away with stealing something from you? Or, how warm and fuzzy do you feel while people are laughing at and insulting you? Or even throwing large rocks at you or burning you at the stake? "Take up your cross and follow me," he says. Crosses, despite what various cultures have turned them into symbolically, are not warm and fuzzy.

[Logos]

To add a little to that - the life Jesus asked his followers to live was not one of "warm, fuzzy feelings." Sure there are rewards at the end of the road and even sometimes while on it, but a follower of Jesus can expect to have a rather rough life. I mean, think about it - how fun is it to let someone get away with stealing something from you? Or, how warm and fuzzy do you feel while people are laughing at and insulting you? Or even throwing large rocks at you or burning you at the stake? "Take up your cross and follow me," he says. Crosses, despite what various cultures have turned them into symbolically, are not warm and fuzzy.

Yeah, that really has about the same sort gruesome imagery as if one were to say, "Take up your electric chairs and follow me."

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Yeah, everything Logos said. But I'll add my own, too:

I wish Logos didn't post at that moment..I'm fairly sure he'll lazer me on this thread (and not just because I'm wrong, cause i'm not sure I am.. Possibly mistaken but we'll find out...I just think I'm out of luck debating something like this with an INTj..well with Logos more so on this type of environment..but then maybe not. (compliment maybe?))

Te in the ego block, first or second positions. When I said that, I was thinking of both ExTjs and IxTps.

Funky..never doubted it

For all of this, the question remains - are you sure he did say that or is like that? You were the one who first made those claims. Do you have something to back them up?

I think he did. I would need to check. Not very T I suppose which is a pain when I don't have something to back it up. In saying that, if it's not true, then people of stature in the religious community that I've spoke to certainly believe it is. It is possible I have taken their apparently informed information on board on that and filtered it in. I'll see if I can do some mental sifting tho. I'm confident enough at the moment that it's there tho.

And, as nice as all that info about the Catholic church is, it doesn't really have much to do, imo, with whether or not Jesus is like that. I would suggest looking at him, not the church, to get your idea of who he was and what he was like (sad as that is, considering what the church should be).

I was comparing this particular church to a socionic function. Can you see my rationale in the function I chose?

Tho to try and be optimistic and see a light at the end of the tunnel (sorry for the pun)

I think christianity initially changed when it was adopted by the Roman Empire as their official religion, which had a radical change that some may argue was negative.

However apparent pluses: I think the church might not do now what it did during the Americas colonisation. This might have came about due to whats known as 'The Second Vatican Council', what do you think?

And what do you think Jesus was like?

*feels honored*

So, it's like a "goodbye"?

It means so many things. Infact it can even mean a "hello" It's all good stuff tho. It's quite cool that way.

To add a little to that - the life Jesus asked his followers to live was not one of "warm, fuzzy feelings." Sure there are rewards at the end of the road and even sometimes while on it, but a follower of Jesus can expect to have a rather rough life. I mean, think about it - how fun is it to let someone get away with stealing something from you? Or, how warm and fuzzy do you feel while people are laughing at and insulting you? Or even throwing large rocks at you or burning you at the stake? "Take up your cross and follow me," he says. Crosses, despite what various cultures have turned them into symbolically, are not warm and fuzzy.

Not nice things happen. But apparently turning the other cheek, meekness, gentle self sacrifice (for the greater good it would seem) could all be said to be aspects of Fi. In order to be the sort of person to be like this and to pacifally endure this) I think it would help to have warm fuzzy feelings, and that saint..whats his name..the one who was roasted alive, said something like, 'turn me over, I'm not done yet' seems to me like he must have been in some sort of Fi state more than other functions to be like that . Fi seems to be the best function to describe all this. Which one would you choose?

[marooned]

I didn't get the impression that Jesus was particulary gentle. I'm not saying that he was a hardass, but I don't think he was a gentle person who softly reasoned with others and then generously and sweetly volunteered to be hung on the cross, all the while throwing bread crumbs to the birds, kissing babies, and helping the soldiers nail his hands in. (Edit) And I really don't think he was meak.

[Minde]

I wish Logos didn't post at that moment..I'm fairly sure he'll lazer me on this thread (and not just because I'm wrong, cause i'm not sure I am.. Possibly mistaken but we'll find out...I just think I'm out of luck debating something like this with an INTj..well with Logos more so on this type of environment..but then maybe not. (compliment maybe?))

Yes, Logos is doing a particularly excellent job here...

Funky..never doubted it

"Funky"... another positive word?

I think he did. I would need to check. Not very T I suppose which is a pain when I don't have something to back it up. In saying that, if it's not true, then people of stature in the religious community that I've spoke to certainly believe it is. It is possible I have taken their apparently informed information on board on that and filtered it in. I'll see if I can do some mental sifting tho. I'm confident enough at the moment that it's there tho.

Someone's position in a community does not immune them from fallacy and error. So, yes, I'd suggest you do your own research and thinking, in this matter, at least.

I was comparing this particular church to a socionic function. Can you see my rationale in the function I chose?

Sure, but I don't really care what functions the Catholic church uses or prefers. It doesn't have much to do with whether or not you use or prefer Te - except it is a good excerpt demonstrating how you reason and think. Neither does it have much to do with what Jesus was like.

Tho to try and be optimistic and see a light at the end of the tunnel (sorry for the pun)

I think christianity initially changed when it was adopted by the Roman Empire as their official religion, which had a radical change that some may argue was negative.

However apparent pluses: I think the church might not do now what it did during the Americas colonisation. This might have came about due to whats known as 'The Second Vatican Council', what do you think?

I think it's interesting, but irrelevant to this particular discussion - or at least my part in it.

And what do you think Jesus was like?

I look at the Bible to get more info about Jesus' life and what he was like. It's the most direct source I know of. I also look at what the history books say about his time period so I can get a better idea of the context of what he said and did.

As a result, I could write whole series of books on what I think Jesus was like. That would be impractical, though, I think, and much more work than I feel like doing at the moment. So, instead, if you want to know what I think of Jesus, you might start by reading the books of Matthew or John in the Bible. Or, I could answer specific questions.

Not nice things happen. But apparently turning the other cheek, meekness, gentle self sacrifice (for the greater good it would seem) could all be said to be aspects of Fi. In order to be the sort of person to be like this and to pacifally endure this) I think it would help to have warm fuzzy feelings, and that saint..whats his name..the one who was roasted alive, said something like, 'turn me over, I'm not done yet' seems to me like he must have been in some sort of Fi state more than other functions to be like that . Fi seems to be the best function to describe all this. Which one would you choose?

I wouldn't choose any. I think being a good person is separate from personality type.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It is much easier to conquer when you are a powerful political institution than when you are prophet with groupies in an occupied territory.

I agree.

No, but the whole "the first shall be last and the last shall be first," was not just a spiritual statement but also a political one.

Maybe. But that is only one statement, and I'm unable to see how this means someone will be thrown out there house and made a slave. Or did you mean something else?

Because A) Fi is not necessarily "gentle compassion, warm fuzzy feelings," and B) such a view of Jesus does not hold up on analysis, especially when you put what he said in context of his social background and the current political context of Judea.

In regards to this, I would be interested in what you thought in my post to Minde. I am looking to put a socionic function on Jesus. Infact if I was to give the game away I would type him perhaps as ISFj, although I don't think I'm looking to leave bait

Are you sure that he said that?

Possibly, my post to Minde's should clarify my position on that.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

"Funky"... another positive word?

You must know that one!

Hehe..are ISTp's allowed to be positive?

Sure, but I don't really care what functions the Catholic church uses or prefers. It doesn't have much to do with whether or not you use or prefer Te - except it is a good excerpt demonstrating how you reason and think. Neither does it have much to do with what Jesus was like.

I didn't realise that. Still suprises me that people take an interest in such things in the posters. I hope you are gleaning your required information then

I look at the Bible to get more info about Jesus' life and what he was like. It's the most direct source I know of. I also look at what the history books say about his time period so I can get a better idea of the context of what he said and did.

As a result, I could write whole series of books on what I think Jesus was like. That would be impractical, though, I think, and much more work than I feel like doing at the moment. So, instead, if you want to know what I think of Jesus, you might start by reading the books of Matthew or John in the Bible. Or, I could answer specific questions.

Then you must know a lot about him. If you could summarise, perhaps you describe for me how you see him in you own words?

I wouldn't choose any. I think being a good person is separate from personality type.

I think it is seperate also. But out of curiosity, why would that stop you from choosing a function?

[Minde]

You must know that one!

Hehe..are ISTp's allowed to be positive?

Of course. You are positivists, after all. (haha)

Then you must know a lot about him. If you could summarise, perhaps you describe for me how you see him in you own words?

Ok, this is what I can think of off the top of my head, as per how the Bible describes him ...

Nope, can't do it. I tried. Most of what I came up with had to do with what he is (e.g. fully God, fully human, Messiah, ect.), which felt wrong because I get the idea that you're not interested in that aspect. You'll have to be more specific about what exactly you want me to describe.

I think it is seperate also. But out of curiosity, why would that stop you from choosing a function?

Choosing a function for what again?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Of course. You are positivists, after all. (haha)

Mr. Reinin Dichotomies swoops in (Is it a bird Is it a plane? No..Its Dichotomies man!) Random transgression for some reason

Ok, this is what I can think of off the top of my head, as per how the Bible describes him ...

Nope, can't do it. I tried. Most of what I came up with had to do with what he is (e.g. fully God, fully human, Messiah, ect.), which felt wrong because I get the idea that you're not interested in that aspect. You'll have to be more specific about what exactly you want me to describe.

I'm not quite sure. Anything you want to say. Or if you can't really think of anything in particular you would like to say then no need to say anything

Choosing a function for what again?

I'm not entirely sure I can remember either

[Minde]

I'm not quite sure. Anything you want to say. Or if you can't really think of anything in particular you would like to say then no need to say anything

Like I said, I think you'd need to be more specific. There are way too many possibilities cropping up in my head to turn into any sort of coherent summary.


FWIW, I'd be willing to agree with IP for you, at least.

[Logos]

I wish Logos didn't post at that moment..I'm fairly sure he'll lazer me on this thread (and not just because I'm wrong, cause i'm not sure I am.. Possibly mistaken but we'll find out...I just think I'm out of luck debating something like this with an INTj..well with Logos more so on this type of environment..but then maybe not. (compliment maybe?))

Sorry.

And what do you think Jesus was like?

Tough question. Part of the problem is that each of the Gospels are presenting a different image of Jesus with their own theological agendas with little regard for an objective biography of Jesus, so this makes it incredibly problematic in trying to discern what the historical Jesus was truly like. While we can try and piece together through biblical criticism of the texts, in the end it amounts to pure speculation, especially since we have practically no historical references to Jesus by other contemporary sources. Really the only thing that has been multiply attested is that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate. One theory I have heard is that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who was foretelling the coming of a Kingdom of God that would be a return to a Roman-free and independent Judah/Israel and the House of David. There is a great deal of symbolism within the Gospels that have clear political and religious undertones. For example, the Book of Joshua is about Joshua (the successor of Moses) and the Israelites conquering the lands of Canaan. The Book of Joshua begins on the banks of the Jordan and with the 12 Tribes of Israel. Jesus is the Aramaic version of the name Yeshua (Joshua). Jesus's ministry begins on the banks of the river Jordan and he then assembles 12 apostles in his ministry. I could go on, but I think I'll stop here. We do not know what Jesus was like, but it is worth mentioning that the Gospel of Mark is believed to be the oldest of the Gospels (and believed to have been incorporated by the writers of Matthew and Luke), and you do get a rather different view of Jesus in Mark that seems to be somewhat more human than Matthew/Luke and much more so than John.

[Rubicon]

I don't recall reading examples of Jesus throwing people out of their house and keeping them as slaves if they didn't listen and do what he said.

'His ethos is one of Fi. Gentle compassion, warm fuzzy feelings'

Well there's the story of Jesus making a whip and driving people out of the temple with it, overturning tables and throwing their money at them. How's that for Se?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Well there's the story of Jesus making a whip and driving people out of the temple with it, overturning tables and throwing their money at them. How's that for Se?

Why do you think he did this?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Tough question. Part of the problem is that each of the Gospels are presenting a different image of Jesus with their own theological agendas with little regard for an objective biography of Jesus, so this makes it incredibly problematic in trying to discern what the historical Jesus was truly like. While we can try and piece together through biblical criticism of the texts, in the end it amounts to pure speculation, especially since we have practically no historical references to Jesus by other contemporary sources. Really the only thing that has been multiply attested is that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate. One theory I have heard is that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who was foretelling the coming of a Kingdom of God that would be a return to a Roman-free and independent Judah/Israel and the House of David. There is a great deal of symbolism within the Gospels that have clear political and religious undertones. For example, the Book of Joshua is about Joshua (the successor of Moses) and the Israelites conquering the lands of Canaan. The Book of Joshua begins on the banks of the Jordan and with the 12 Tribes of Israel. Jesus is the Aramaic version of the name Yeshua (Joshua). Jesus's ministry begins on the banks of the river Jordan and he then assembles 12 apostles in his ministry. I could go on, but I think I'll stop here. We do not know what Jesus was like, but it is worth mentioning that the Gospel of Mark is believed to be the oldest of the Gospels (and believed to have been incorporated by the writers of Matthew and Luke), and you do get a rather different view of Jesus in Mark that seems to be somewhat more human than Matthew/Luke and much more so than John.

It is a tough question. I too have heard and read about the political overtones. I've got mixed views on this at the moment which are probably too unformed to put down just now. It would be more like bouncing ideas. FWIW, I do believe that fairly recently the gospel of Judas was discovered. I have heard one or two things about it (if indeed it is the gospel of Judas.. Apparently it was put together with some of his writings and his teachings and those of his followers. Later it became banned, in favour of the gospels we have today) The part I read about was concerning events that took place at the last supper. It appears that it gives a more, 'human' perspective on things, although it may still be under restoration. It may be nothing but if you were inclined for another input from an historical text you could look into this.

[Rubicon]

Why do you think he did this?

Are you thinking he had Fi motives? That could be true, though I think an Fi would have handled it differently. Though I guess shock tactics can be employed by any type if that is the only thing that's going to get people's attention.

Those two statements sort of cancel each other out don't they ... so I've made no point whatsoever. Pathetic ...

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Are you thinking he had Fi motives? That could be true, though I think an Fi would have handled it differently. Though I guess shock tactics can be employed by any type if that is the only thing that's going to get people's attention.

Those two statements sort of cancel each other out don't they ... so I've made no point whatsoever. Pathetic ...

For what it's worth I think your on to something. Don't write off what your saying so easily. I think if you analyse what Jesus said, and taking into account the recorded ideas of why he did this, it could be said to show aspects of Fi blocked with Se.

Also, just to clarify, the whip Jesus made was to drive the cattle out, not the people.

Sigh, tho I do feel I should not have entered this discussion, or at least did so from a different way. I have a lot of respect for Jesus, and peoples beliefs in general, so although it's just a theoretical discussion about it, I can't quite work out if I'm comfortable being in this discussion, at least in this format.

[Logos]

It is a tough question. I too have heard and read about the political overtones. I've got mixed views on this at the moment which are probably too unformed to put down just now. It would be more like bouncing ideas. FWIW, I do believe that fairly recently the gospel of Judas was discovered. I have heard one or two things about it (if indeed it is the gospel of Judas.. Apparently it was put together with some of his writings and his teachings and those of his followers. Later it became banned, in favour of the gospels we have today) The part I read about was concerning events that took place at the last supper. It appears that it gives a more, 'human' perspective on things, although it may still be under restoration. It may be nothing but if you were inclined for another input from an historical text you could look into this.

People are making a big deal about the Book of Judas, but it is just one book among many other apocrypha books.

In regards to the "Fi teachings of Jesus," the burden of proof is placed upon the one making the assertion.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

In regards to the "Fi teachings of Jesus," the burden of proof is placed upon the one making the assertion.

I'm not sure if something like that can be proved 100%, just like many other typings of other people. What would it take to prove that to a reasonable level, because when it comes to interpreting and therefore speculating someones reasons for their actions (and therefore type), is it not just that in the end-speculation?? (and I'm starting to feel to what end, really?)

[Rubicon]

For what it's worth I think your on to something. Don't write off what your saying so easily. I think if you analyse what Jesus said, and taking into account the recorded ideas of why he did this, it could be said to show aspects of Fi blocked with Se.

Also, just to clarify, the whip Jesus made was to drive the cattle out, not the people.

Sigh, tho I do feel I should not have entered this discussion, or at least did so from a different way. I have a lot of respect for Jesus, and peoples beliefs in general, so although it's just a theoretical discussion about it, I can't quite work out if I'm comfortable being in this discussion, at least in this format.

I know what you mean. I have my own beliefs which I feel pretty strongly about and my own reasons for believing them - but I can't really prove them so it would be pointless to discuss them in this sort of setting.

By the way, what do you mean when you say Fi blocked with Se?

[tcaudilllg]

Jesus didn't admonish people for their flaws... he admonished them for not accepting others' flaws and compensating for them.

Freud had a theory that there were two Moses, each living to 60 years of age.

On the topic of the prophets, I've concluded that they had unusually tumultuous psyches. I think the hypothesis of a "contested dominance" phenomenon between two contrary functions could account for their conviction. I'm not sure if this would account for all of them though, or only some. Jesus in particular seems to have had a peculiar relationship with his Te anima.

Here's a question for you: what function is the Holy Ghost?

Some biblical figures are difficult to type due to a lack of attributable statements. For example, we hear much about Joshua's deeds, but where are his words?

[Logos]

Freud had a theory that there were two Moses, each living to 60 years of age.

Freud is no biblical scholar.

Here's a question for you: what function is the Holy Ghost?

Usually it is taken to mean something along the lines of the living aspect of god that is permeated and experienced (indirectly) through creation and the continued presence of god in the lives of people.

Some biblical figures are difficult to type due to a lack of attributable statements. For example, we hear much about Joshua's deeds, but where are his words?

From just a casual perusing: Jsh 1:10-15, 2:1, 3:5-6, 3:9-13, and I could go on. But there are words and spoken dialogue from Joshua. He also speaks (albeit in unison with Caleb) in Numbers 14. There is some extended dialogue in Joshua 23 and 24, especially Jsh 24:14-15, which is believed to indicate a purposefully drawn parallel with the Exilic period to suggest that what the author of the book is trying to say is that once the Exiles return to Judah, they will have to decide which gods to serve: "the gods that [their] ancestors served beyond the River [Mesopotamia] and in Egypt" or the god of Israel.

[tcaudilllg]

Well with regard to a god or gods, we can firstly only experience them as ideas. They are too incomprehensible to be experienced concretely or directly. For this reason I attribute them to the 6th function, which we tend to see as inconcrete and ultimately unfathomable. (for example, can you name all the different Si interrelations going on around you right now? Can you distinguish them? They are geometric: every particle is interrelating with every other particle at every moment, is interrelating with every group of particles, etc.) There is a strong fixation in the Mosiac books with God's "temporal" qualities: he is "longsuffering"; condemning the "guilty" across generations; forcing Israel to wander the wilderness for "forty years"; promising "milk and honey" for Israel into the indefinite future. Anything that actually begins to describe God must be attributed to a 6th function representation, simply because he is infinite and the 6th function is never fully satisfied: you can always be a bit healthier; a bit more powerful; thought of more highly, etc. However like the 6th function, God does have limits, even if they are subtle: like lightspeed C, you can never quite get to it, although it remains there. God is ultimately controlled by his own nature and those who serve him: if he is served well, he will compensate because he is just; if he is not served well, then he will retaliate. Thus by serving God well, he is indirectly controlled. (I say "indirectly" because one cannot serve God with intent to control him, because this would be disservice to him.)

God has a 4th function substance too, however, because it is on basis of iniquity (vulnerable function activities that bring one into conflict with superego normatives) that his judgment is wrought. One is judged by God because he has transgressed the laws of civility which God has put in place. Also meaningful is the role of the trickster as Satan: in Job, Satan persuades God to take away Job's vitality: his possessions first, then his health. Only when Job's health is taken does Job question God.

Which brings up a good question, "what type is Job?"