I'll bet that we can type God in each of the biblical books where He actually speaks; and, I'll bet that that we can discern some relational patterns between Him and the prophets type-wise.
Socionics and Religion: Let's get serious
I'll bet that we can type God in each of the biblical books where He actually speaks; and, I'll bet that that we can discern some relational patterns between Him and the prophets type-wise.
I will bet that each human being who contributed to any religious writing was writing to suit his own quadra values, so to speak...
So does socionics exisist because of religion, or the other way around?
I am being serious btw...thats all this thread is going to boil down to IMHO.
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
That is an extremely fascinating idea.Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
I can see it now, someday we'll be typing our own individual concepts of God. Then he'll change his (or her) type on us and we'll get all confused and lost. Then we'll change our type. Then we'll realize he (or she) never really changed at all. Then we'll find our dual and call the whole thing off.
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
Typing God means that God dualises only with 1/16 of people.
That contradicts the Omnipotence of God.
Therefore, God doesn't have a type.
Besides, a type is a set of strengths and weaknesses. God doesn't have weaknesses. Therefore, He doesn't have a type.
Those are safe bets. First up, Moses? What's his type?
We can type the Genesis portrayl of God by appraising His function preferences and IM order.
I highly suspect Moses was ISFj. Highly. It makes sense given the way he berated the Israelites for their lack of character. (in his view) He used popular sentiment over the unequal (if peaceful) relationship between the Israelites and the Egyptians to call for their release, which seems to me -Fe+Si id. He also used the plauges is change the Egyptians' mentality towards Israel. (but wait, that was God, and the Pharos' mind changed for the worst due to those terrible, terrible disharmonies of nature.)
Based on these observations, it would seem to me that God is variously shadow/negative contrary and anima/dual: an archetypal spin on Moses' personality, and the fullness of Moses' relationship to his own psyche. If the Old Testament is to be believed, Moses communicated with these figures and influenced the world around him on a supernatural level. When God had to be ruthless, Moses talked to the Shadow; when God's guidance was needed, he listened to the Wise Old Man; when salvation was needed, God was the Mother.
Almost makes you wonder if he was schizophrenic.
Here's a question: who REALLY wrote the Torah?
Good luck with that.
Who do you think wrote it?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Every person has a type.
Therefore, if God does not have a type, God is not a person.
That contradicts the meaning of the concept God.
Therefore, God does not exist.
God as described in the OT certainly had weaknesses. He's bad-tempered and quick to anger, for instance.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Anger may be legitimate. You can get angry legitimately if another person's behaviour is inappropriate, for example.
Moses got angry at golden calf's worshippers. That's legitimate.
Anger itself is no weakness. Wrath is. I'm myself quick to anger, and I don't think all my angry bursts were illegitimate.
I'm not referring on Zhirinovsky's (he's EIE -+0) angry bursts. These are mainly illegitimate.
I'm referring to this kind of anger : one day, I went to a conference on "should we establish a Catholic party ?". A dude who worked as an advocate (LSI --+) said something like "Traditional Catholics are divided even by the way to say 'dominus vobiscum'. BUT HOW THE WAY TO SAY 'DOMINUS VOBISCUM' COULD POSSIBLY MATTER ??!!!!". That was legitimate. (on uppercase, the "angry-passionate" part).
Bad-tempered, yes, but not so much quick to anger. While it may seem that way, there are just as many passages which indicate the reverse. But yes, since God is a very human character (since one cannot ignore God's anthropomorphic qualities), then it does seem that God has flaws. But it is not terribly hard for believers to explain these flaws away.
Numbers 14:18 - The LORD is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations.'
God is as much a character in the Tanakh as any other character with a personality, and therefore God is just as capable of being typed as any other. But if it helps you sleep at night, then you can say that you are not typing God (or bringing in the metaphysical theology), but merely the depiction of God as presented in the Old Testament. Do not bring your modern, Western, or Greco-Roman understandings of God to the world of ancient Israel.
No, but it is possible that certain functions are devalued.Besides, a type is a set of strengths and weaknesses. God doesn't have weaknesses. Therefore, He doesn't have a type.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
How is this devaluation expressed then ? And what are the devalued IM elements ?
I still can't imagine God as non-symmetrical.
Why are you looking at God from a metaphysical perspective and not an historio-critical and literary one?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I was expressing my opinion on typing God. Try to type Him with the aid of the historical context or such, if it may make you sleep better at night.
But you are not typing God per se, but the characterization of God within the texts.
Why are you so vehemently against this?Try to type Him with the aid of the historical context or such, if it may make you sleep better at night.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
machintruc:
God has "one voice, but many faces".
Because I have a logical feeling that God is symmetrical, and that He can't be typed. But try to. You may be surprised.
It is of course my easier to try to type the fictive character that is called "God" in the texts than to try to type a person who has never existed.
Person?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Then, in socionic terms, he has exactly 16 faces. He's LSI, as well as he can be ILE or SLE or whatever.machintruc:
God has "one voice, but many faces".
God is infinite, therefore, he's infinite on each of the 16 information aspects. All infinites are equal, because they're not finite.
You can describe socionic "faces" of God. But God doesn't have a type. Only finite things may be typed. Not infinite things.
I'm not so sure about typing the character God in the Bible, but I have noticed marked socionic differences between the Old Testament and New Testament. The New Testament has much more preaching, stuff about what people are supposed to do, but at the same time is really vague and abstract and creates an image of a mysterious Perfect God who is disconnected from the world. Suffering and self-sacrifice are heavily emphasized.
However, in the Old Testament God is much more involved, sending angels and miracles left and right, talking to many characters directly. Lots more concrete details and illustrative stories. I find the book of Genesis interesting in particular because it answers a lot of big questions: what separates people from animals? Why do so many languages exist? How was the universe created? Where do good and evil come from?
All of this indicates a clear difference between Se/Ni and Si/Ne quadra values, supporting the idea that Christianity is Beta and Judaism Alpha.
I just wrote a research paper on the themes of chaos and order in the priestly account of the Primeval History (sections of Gen. 1-11). It was definitely fun to get into that sort of stuff. And I really do find the Old Testament to be more interesting than the New Testament.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Yes, God is a person by definition. If you say that God is not a person, you are not a theist. Every theist believes that God is a person (that is a subject, not necessarily with a body or something like that, but still a person). But of course there is no such person, and there is no God.
That is a very clear example of a logical contradiction and another proof that God cannot exist if he is like you describe him.
Sheer nonsense. That is not even the resemblance of a clear thought. I curse every person who believes in God.
But rarely is God called a person as such.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Logic only works when you have clearly defined presuppositions...
Supposing that:
* Humans all have a specific type,
* God is a person,
* God is not human,
* God has no specific type,
* God exists.
We can conclude:
* Persons without a specific type can exist, provided they are not human.
On the other hand if:
* Jesus is human,
* Jesus had no specific type,
* Jesus exists.
We can conclude:
* Humans can exist without a specific type.
This removes the provision from the first argument. However, since Jesus was God, it could be modified to state that humans can exist without a specific type provided they are God. (This logic works for original sin, after all.)
Note how many of these presuppositions have no scientific way to test them. That's the hazard of religion. It relies on presuppositions that are not necessarily correct. Why do we presuppose God is a person? Because that's what theists presuppose, of course. And if God has no type, then theists suppose it's possible to be a person without a type, of course. Not necessarily a human. Or a finite being, for that matter. Perhaps all finite beings that are persons have a type, but God does not.
God is ALWAYS called a person. What texts have you read?
God in theism is indeed called a subject or being that can be known through personal relations, but it is rarely, if ever, called a person.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
From the latest edition of the American Heritage Dictionary:
No mention of "person" whatsoever.n.
1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
Classical socionics: (
Dual-type theory: INTp-ENTp
5w6 sp/sx
MBTI: INTJ
The logical contradiction consisted in machintruc's claim that God is every type. That is logically impossible.
You are quibbling. Based on what you say here, God is a person whether or not the word "person" is used to talk about him. And that's my point. To relate to God, to the "Father", and describing all the things God has done, etc. -- that implies that he is a person. You simply must believe that God is a person if you are a Christian.
Of course I am, and I understand what you are saying and largely agree with it, but the use of "person," it still seems like a poor choice of words. But it seems that this will most likely degenerate into the semantics of the meaning of "person," which is something I do not want to get into since I mostly agree what you are trying to say.
Last edited by Logos; 02-07-2008 at 09:55 PM.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Supposedly there's a part of the brain thats more emphasised in the mentally ill, and the same part also shows a strong correlation to peoples belief in religion.
I could believe it's true, when you see some people who are not classed as 'mentally normal', you often hear them talk about how their faith (which is unquestionable BTW) in Jesus and other religions got them through their whatevers. Personally I think it would be good to believe, but I find that sort of blind acceptance to be a little unsettling.
Okay. The concept person has been discussed a lot in philosophy, both in relation to God, and in general. My use of the word "person" is no different from how most philosophers and others understand it. And many books have been written on why God is a person and how all the relevant concepts (soul, person, God, free will, action, mind, etc.) are interrelated.
People....just admit that the existence of God does NOT make sense, and never will to the human mind. YES, you can be emotionally comfortable with the idea of his existence...that does not mean that it makes sense. It doesn't mean you KNOW anything.
The human brain just isn't capable of comprehending "what" "God" "IS". Think about it...can you comprehend how big the Universe may or mayNOT be? If you can, can you comprehend what "form" God is in? If you can, can you comprehend the space he takes up, and where, and how much? Right...so...our physical senses are useless in trying understand God really...except for the fact that we have them.
You're left with the "why". Why do we have them? Lets hope it's because of something awesome that loves us but we are incapable of understand, I guess we'll figure that out when we die...or we won't, right? I'm pretty sure this is what I hear people speak of as faith?
Just saying...
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
Two Swedish psychiatrists have found a strong correlation between the number of serotonine receptors and an openness to supernatural (ESP) and spiritual experiences. They found that persons with a high level of serotonine receptors were skeptical towards mystical experiences and had an accentuated empiricist, scientific attitude -- so the prediction would be that my level of serotine receptors is relatively high.
In the study, which was published in 2003, they interviewed 16 men, who had to answer 150-200 test questions including questions about spirituality and philosophy of life, and their brains were scanned with a PET-camera. Later this year we will get the results from studies made on a much larger group of both men and women.
How can it be good to believe, if what you believe is not true? It could perhaps make you slightly happier (some studies indicate that) but for a scientist or a philosopher who seeks the objective truth, it is bad to believe.
What a... frustrating thread. For many reasons, including - I wonder how many who so confidently express their opinions and (often unsteady, imo) logic have read through the whole Bible? Or, more than that, studied it? Logos is pretty much the only person posting in this thread who I can so far respect in that matter.
It's probably wasted here, but here's my pared down $0.02: I do not believe that attempting to place a type around God - as per Iconoclast's definition - is particularly smart or wise. However, I will agree that one could possibly type perceptions of God.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
Its ridiculous to type whatever God should be by something like socionics IMO.
But we can type us humans. So as a for instance if we are taught to turn the other cheek, why did God make it easier for some types rather than others. As a for instance, a dominant Se is going to find that a lot more difficult than a dominant Fi.
That's about as useful of a question as: "If God intended humanity to pee standing up, why did God make it easier for some humans than others?"
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
my point is that it doesn't matter what some human males wrote and put into a book, and how many other human males reinterpreted it and at what insignificant second they did so.
alright that's not completely true...the bible can be useful for some things...like forming people into "good" people. however, they shouldn't need it in order to know how IMHO.
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
Why are you religious or something?
Woman can pee standing up, their bladder works the same as men. Its just in our society they don't
So you think it's fair to give someone a life of trying to be nice when they are ESTp when they aren't nice, and someone else an ISFj natural martyr personality type. Thats something that affects everything you do-always. How can that compare with taking a piss, or is that what you are doing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote