Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Socionics and God: hear the truth

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    169
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Socionics and God: hear the truth.

    .
    Last edited by Dee; 12-08-2009 at 06:37 PM.

  2. #2
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dee View Post
    Even though socionics exists, there is also God, and His commandments, even thenew word of Jesus. And we must learn to control ourselves, in relation to certain things, different challenges todifferent types. God knows the struggle of everyone and acts and judges in accordance. We must remember that our souls, after our ancient father Adam sinned, are leaning to lusts of the earth and sinful things. We must not let ourselves go because socionics says so, otherwise we get the mark of law of socionics on our hand and forehead and not of God. See exodus 13:9 for why the mark, also mentioned in Revelation, is the mark of law. See more in themarkoflaw.blogspot.com for how the mark of the "beast" is the mark of the laws of the earth that contain abominable laws and trap you with many things into doing the entore law, even though you are not aware of it. This marks with the mark of the beast (not socionics). However the idea with socionics is the same. See the blog, the reaper is already here.
    While Socionics needs no introduction, I do want to state that Socionics has overstated its case against me by alluding to an illusory past. Unless you share my view that Socionics's perorations reek like rotten eggs, there's no need for you to hear me further. Socionics's true goal is to get on my nerves. All the statements that its toadies make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to do something good for others. I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. However, if Socionics were to trick them into fixing their compass on the wrong star they'd soon be so off-course that they'd actually be willing to help it plant the seeds of resistentialism into the tabulae rasae of children's minds.

    When it comes to Socionics's precepts, I maintain that we have drifted along for too long in a state of blissful denial and outright complacency. It's time to yank up yellow-bellied, libidinous wastrels from the dark rocks under which they hide and flaunt them before the bright sunshine of public exposure. The sooner we do that the better because Socionics's claim that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully requires a willing suspension of disbelief, an ability to set logic aside and accept any preposterous notion that Socionics throws at us. Socionics has, shall we say, questionable priorities, and everyone with half a brain understands that. Okay, I admit that the people with the smallest minds always have the biggest mouths. But it is important to realize that given the public appetite for more accountability, the ultra-blasphemous tone used by Socionics in its announcements shows what kind of organization it really is . Let me recap that for you because it really is extraordinarily important: You may be wondering why the most yawping firebrands you'll ever see latch onto Socionics's contrivances. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why if Socionics had done its homework, it'd know that if anything will free us from the shackles of its maledicent fibs, it's knowledge of the world as it really is. It's knowledge that I find that some of Socionics's choices of words in its values would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "shabby" for "antiprestidigitation" and "indecent" for "incontrovertibleness."

    In point of fact, I can unequivocally suggest how Socionics ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Socionics itself. Socionics's primary goal is to smear and defame me. All of its other objectives are secondary to this one supreme purpose. That's why you must always remember that I've repeatedly pointed out to Socionics that it knows nothing about the real world. That apparently didn't register with it, though. Oh, well; I guess even Socionics's bedfellows are afraid that Socionics will fuel inquisitions eventually. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that Socionics's plan is to make it virtually impossible to fire incompetent workers. Socionics's functionaries are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda, which includes breaking down our communities. It may be helpful to take a step back and examine the warp and woof of Socionics's anecdotes. And that's why I say to you: Have courage. Be honest. And give you some background information about Socionics. That's the patriotic thing to do, and that's the right thing to do.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  3. #3
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dee View Post
    Even though socionics exists, there is also God, and His commandments, even thenew word of Jesus. And we must learn to control ourselves, in relation to certain things, different challenges todifferent types. God knows the struggle of everyone and acts and judges in accordance. We must remember that our souls, after our ancient father Adam sinned, are leaning to lusts of the earth and sinful things. We must not let ourselves go because socionics says so, otherwise we get the mark of law of socionics on our hand and forehead and not of God. See exodus 13:9 for why the mark, also mentioned in Revelation, is the mark of law. See more in themarkoflaw.blogspot.com for how the mark of the "beast" is the mark of the laws of the earth that contain abominable laws and trap you with many things into doing the entore law, even though you are not aware of it. This marks with the mark of the beast (not socionics). However the idea with socionics is the same. See the blog, the reaper is already here.
    Adam did not sin. The Hebrew word for sin is not used until YHWH is talking with Cain. I just wanted to correct at least that much of your crazy talk.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  4. #4
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    Adam did not sin. The Hebrew word for sin is not used until YHWH is talking with Cain. I just wanted to correct at least that much of your crazy talk.
    While it isn't explicitly labeled sin, by most definitions of "sin," it's in the category. Also, Paul refers to Adam as having sinned ("through Adam all sinned"), which suggests that the usual definitions are reasonably old.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  5. #5
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    Adam did not sin. The Hebrew word for sin is not used until YHWH is talking with Cain. I just wanted to correct at least that much of your crazy talk.
    Unless you consider the New Testament to be reliable, in which it's stated more clearly that he did. If I describe how someone walked into a 7-11, pointed a gun at the clerk, and made him hand over all the money in the cash register, I don't have to explicitly explain that what he did was "crime" in order for it to be understood.


    Also, this assertion that mark of the beast is "the mark of the laws of the earth" is textually unsupported, and certainly not standard Xian exegesis. As described in the book of Revelation, the mark of the beast seems to be more like the personal seal of the beast (what with the numbers being the "number of his name"), rather than some abstract symbol of "law".

    From my brief glance at it, that "mark of the law" blog is filled with the poorly substantiated ramblings of someone who has only a passing familiarity with reality.
    Quaero Veritas.

  6. #6
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    While it isn't explicitly labeled sin, by most definitions of "sin," it's in the category. Also, Paul refers to Adam as having sinned ("through Adam all sinned"), which suggests that the usual definitions are reasonably old.
    Yes, but that's an interpretation found in the later development in the tradition that falls outside of traditional Jewish understandings. Paul is arguing for an Original Sin that carries itself throughout all humanity - thereby requiring for Paul a savior to conquer death for all - but such a reading is not supported by the text. (But the position of Original Sin becomes especially prominent in Christianity following St. Augustine of Hippo.)
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  7. #7
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    Yes, but that's an interpretation found in the later development in the tradition that falls outside of traditional Jewish understandings. Paul is arguing for an Original Sin that carries itself throughout all humanity - thereby requiring for Paul a savior to conquer death for all - but such a reading is not supported by the text. (But the position of Original Sin becomes especially prominent in Christianity following St. Augustine of Hippo.)
    What Jewish tradition denies is the idea of an inherited "Original Sin", not that Adam's actions were sinful. I think even the most esoteric scholars would have a hard time arguing that disobeying a direct command of God was not sin of some kind.

    Also, one has to be careful when talking about "Jewish tradition", since much of it is post-Christian. We do know that both views of Original Sin were known among the Jews before Christ, but my Google searches have been unable to turn up anything on whether there's any evidence as to which belief is older.

    But you're right that the text of Genesis does not explicitly state such a doctrine, although it doesn't explicitly deny it either.
    Quaero Veritas.

  8. #8
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    What Jewish tradition denies is the idea of an inherited "Original Sin", not that Adam's actions were sinful. I think even the most esoteric scholars would have a hard time arguing that disobeying a direct command of God was not sin of some kind.
    I concede my point.

    Also, one has to be careful when talking about "Jewish tradition", since much of it is post-Christian. We do know that both views of Original Sin were known among the Jews before Christ, but my Google searches have been unable to turn up anything on whether there's any evidence as to which belief is older.
    Judaism emerged in the Second Temple Period, and the Rabbinic tradition (out of which modern Judaism emerged) formed later prior to and after Jesus of Nazareth.

    But you're right that the text of Genesis does not explicitly state such a doctrine, although it doesn't explicitly deny it either.
    Be careful of committing the grevious error of eisegesis.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  9. #9
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    Be careful of committing the grevious error of eisegesis.
    Right, and that's what I'm saying: since the Genesis account neither explicitly confirms nor denies the doctrine of inherited Original Sin, saying that it supports either position could be considered eisegesis. All we can say is that it does not contradict either position.

    And really, we shouldn't expect to find those kinds of doctrinal statements in Genesis anyway, since it's written as a historical record, not a theological treatise.
    Quaero Veritas.

  10. #10
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    Right, and that's what I'm saying: since the Genesis account neither explicitly confirms nor denies the doctrine of inherited Original Sin, saying that it supports either position could be considered eisegesis. All we can say is that it does not contradict either position.
    I do not agree with that, as one position clearly reads more into the text than the other.

    And really, we shouldn't expect to find those kinds of doctrinal statements in Genesis anyway, since it's written as a historical record, not a theological treatise.
    It is not written as systematic theology, but it is still a theological treatise in mythic narrative form.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  11. #11
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The Valar had attempted to fashion the world for Elves and Men, but Melkor continually destroyed their handiwork. The Valar therefore removed to Aman, a continent to the west of Middle-earth, where they established their home called Valinor where the Two Trees of Valinor were situated. When the Elves awoke, the Valar determined to fight Melkor to keep the Elves safe. They found Melkor's fortress of Utumno where Tulkas defeated him and the Valar captured Melkor, and then invited the Elves to live in Aman. Many Elves came to Aman; but some did not attempt the journey, and others stopped along the way. Of the three tribes that set out, all of the Vanyar and Noldor, and many of the Teleri reached Aman.

    In Aman, a Noldorin elf named Fëanor, son of Finwe created the Silmarils, jewels which glowed with the light of the Two Trees of Valinor that illuminated Aman before the Sun and Moon were created. Melkor, released after feigning repentance, destroyed the Two Trees with the help of Ungoliant, killed Fëanor's father Finwe, stole the Silmarils, and fled to Middle-earth. Fëanor and his sons swore an oath of vengeance against Melkor — and against anyone who withheld the Silmarils from them. Defying the counsel of the Valar, they raised an Elvish host to pursue Melkor into Middle-earth. To make the voyage, they seized ships from the Teleri, attacking and killing many of them.

    Upon arriving in Middle-earth, Melkor attacked the Elvish kingdom of Doriath but was repulsed. This battle was the first of five battles (later known as the War of the Jewels) between Melkor and the Elves, the latter increasingly aided by Men and Dwarves. The Noldor under Fëanor arrived in Middle-earth soon afterward and attacked Melkor; and though Fëanor was slain by Balrogs, the Noldor were victorious. Melkor secretly barricaded himself in his northern fortress of Angband. After a period of peace, Melkor attacked the Noldor but was again defeated and besieged. Nearly four hundred years later, he broke the siege and drove the Noldor back.

    A man named Beren survived this battle and wandered to Doriath, where he fell in love with the elf Lúthien, the king's daughter. The king sought to prevent their marriage by imposing what he believed an impossible task: retrieving one of the Silmarils from Melkor. But together, Beren and Lúthien embarked on this quest. Sauron, a powerful servant of Melkor, imprisoned them along the way; but they escaped, crept into Melkor's fortress, and stole a Silmaril from Melkor's crown. Beren brought this to the king, and so the first union of man and elf came to pass.

    The Noldor, seeing that a mortal and an elf-woman could infiltrate Angband, perceived that Melkor was not invincible. They attacked again with a great army of Elves, Dwarves and Men. But they were deceived by Melkor, who had secretly darkened the hearts of many of the men. Thus it was that the Elvish host were utterly defeated, due in part to the treachery of Men; though many men remained true to the Noldor and were honoured thereafter.

    None received more honour than the brothers Húrin and Huor. Melkor captured Húrin, and cursed him to watch the downfall of his kingdom, his wife and his children. Húrin's son, Túrin Turambar, was sent to Doriath, leaving his mother and unborn sister behind in his father's kingdom (which had been overrun by the enemy). Túrin achieved many great deeds of valour, the greatest being the defeat of the dragon Glaurung (the foremost of all Melkor's servants). But Túrin was always plagued by the curse of Melkor, which led him unwittingly to murder his friend Beleg Strongbow and to marry and impregnate his sister Nienor Níniel, whom he had never met, and who had lost her memory through Glaurung's enchantment. But before their child was born, the bewitchment was lifted as the dragon lay dying. Nienor, realising what grew within her, took her own life. Túrin upon learning the truth, threw himself on his sword.

    Huor's son, Tuor became involved in the fate of the hidden Noldorin kingdom of Gondolin. He married the elf Idril Celebrindal, daughter of Turgon, Lord of Gondolin (the second union between Elves and Men). When Gondolin fell, betrayed from within by Maeglin, Tuor saved many of its inhabitants from destruction. All of the Elvish kingdoms in Beleriand eventually fell, and the refugees fled to a haven by the sea created by Tuor. The son of Tuor and Idril, Eärendil the half-Elven, was betrothed to Elwing, herself descended from Beren and Lúthien. Elwing brought Eärendil the Silmaril of Beren and Lúthien, and using its light Eärendil travelled across the sea to Aman to seek help from the Valar. The Valar obliged; they attacked and defeated Melkor, completely destroying his fortress Angband and sinking the land of Beleriand; and they expelled Melkor from Arda. This ended the First Age of Middle-earth.

    The children of Eärendil and Elwing were Elrond and Elros. As descendants of immortal elves and mortal men, they were given the choice of which lineage to belong to: Elrond chose to belong to the Elves, his brother to Men. Elros became the first king of Númenor.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  12. #12
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol @ this. listen man, there is no reaper. if there's a god then he's not gonna punish me for existing. that's just an idea morons came up with to scare people. morons like you see everywhere you look. they made it up. it's a lie. god, if he exists, isn't going to burn you for infinity. what did you do to deserve burning for infinity? nothing. now please shut up
    Last edited by crazedrat; 10-16-2009 at 11:31 AM.
    INTp

  13. #13
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have a hard time imagining myself hearing the truth when God is mentioned anywhere on this forum. Especially when compared to Socionics. Hearing the truth about God is not something a 16types thread will provide me with.

  14. #14
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    Be careful of committing the grevious error of eisegesis.
    I'd have a hard time spelling it, nevermind anything else!

  15. #15
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dee View Post
    Even though socionics exists, there is also God, and His commandments, even thenew word of Jesus. And we must learn to control ourselves, in relation to certain things, different challenges todifferent types. God knows the struggle of everyone and acts and judges in accordance. We must remember that our souls, after our ancient father Adam sinned, are leaning to lusts of the earth and sinful things. We must not let ourselves go because socionics says so, otherwise we get the mark of law of socionics on our hand and forehead and not of God. See exodus 13:9 for why the mark, also mentioned in Revelation, is the mark of law. See more in themarkoflaw.blogspot.com for how the mark of the "beast" is the mark of the laws of the earth that contain abominable laws and trap you with many things into doing the entore law, even though you are not aware of it. This marks with the mark of the beast (not socionics). However the idea with socionics is the same. See the blog, the reaper is already here.
    Is this a joke?

    Please someone call a shrink.

  16. #16
    I had words here once, but I didn't feed them Khola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    3,535
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This came to mind.

    Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •