Socionics and Religion: Let's get serious

[Logos]

Why are you religious or something?

How is that relevant?

Woman can pee standing up, their bladder works the same as men. Its just in our society they don't

But some have an easier time peeing standing up than others.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

How is that relevant?

Because I think you are irrational. No sane person would believe in God. A sane person will not believe or disbelieve something until there is proof. But then maybe you are too dense to have figured this out.
[/QUOTE]

[Luke]

The logical contradiction consisted in machintruc's claim that God is every type. That is logically impossible.

Hmm. Actually in the Bible, God is listed as at least three separate persons. If we extended this to include 16, that would make it logically possible. Probably for symmetry there'd need to be 16 for each member of the trinity, so... 48 persons total.

If the whole 3 persons = 1 God bugs you, you're not alone.

[Logos]

Because I think you are irrational. No sane person would believe in God. A sane person will not believe or disbelieve something until there is proof. But then maybe you are too dense to have figured this out.

You do not seem to be following me at all. Why is asking me about my beliefs (or potential lack thereof) in any way relevant to the point that I made in criticizing the logical stupidity of your initial point? Why would God make it easier for some types to turn the other cheek? Really? What kind of question was that? Your question about whether or not I was religious was just entirely irrelevant. But where I have I said anything in this thread indicating my beliefs that would lead you to believe that I believe in God or am somehow irrational in my beliefs? So now then, who here is irrationally jumping the gun without proof? But, Mr. Stormtrooper, if you wish to further speculate as to whether or not I am irrational or dense, you are welcome to do so.

Hmm. Actually in the Bible, God is listed as at least three separate persons. If we extended this to include 16, that would make it logically possible. Probably for symmetry there'd need to be 16 for each member of the trinity, so... 48 persons total.

If the whole 3 persons = 1 God bugs you, you're not alone.

To the best of my knowledge, the Trinity is never explicit in the Bible, but was merely interpreted as such afterwards in the Early Proto-Orthodox Church as a means of combating heresies.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Only an irrational person would not consider the brain to be complex enough to support both rational function and irrational behaviour. One who believes that they are "above irrational tendencies" has either "evolved far beyond the normal human's capacity"; or is seriously deluded.

So you agree with me then. That believing in God is irrational.

[Luke]

To the best of my knowledge, the Trinity is never explicit in the Bible, but was merely interpreted as such afterwards in the Early Proto-Orthodox Church as a means of combating heresies.

Agreed. There's mention of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in one sentence however. (At the end of Matthew where Jesus tells us to evangelize and baptize.) Also, there's a place in one of the epistles where it says The Word, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all one God. (The Word is a translation of "Logos" as I'm sure you're aware. )

Seriously, I tend to think these are archetypes, not distinct sentient beings. But perhaps I'm not a "theist" in some of the stricter renderings of the word. I feel God as a person in reference to me, regardless of whether there's a sentient being out there watching my every move. If there was one of those, I'd wonder why intervention in worldly affairs (such as preventing suffering and educating us properly) was not more prominent on his agenda. But since I figure it's all in my head, I don't actually have to bother guilt-tripping him over every little stupid thing that happens in this universe.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

You do not seem to be following me at all. Why is asking me about my beliefs (or potential lack thereof) in any way relevant to the point that I made in criticizing the logical stupidity of your initial point? Why would God make it easier for some types to turn the other cheek? Really? What kind of question was that?

It had nothing to do with typing God-which is a concept of many faiths. However it does have to do with typing Jesus and his version of Christianity. Because Jesus's actions display many Fi qualities. Se had nothing to do with his life or teachings. So my point is that to be like him, its easier if you are also Fi, because he was. Is that really such a difficult concept for you or have you made the error of dismissing it out of hand.

This is a demonstration that God did not create everyone equal. Some people have it easier. Does this mean that he loves some people more than others? I find the concept of a 'father' loving one child more than the other to be rather gauling. What about you?

Your question about whether or not I was religious was just entirely irrelevant. But where I have I said anything in this thread indicating my beliefs that would lead you to believe that I believe in God

Because to believe in God is highly irrational and illogical. You demonstrate these traits. So it is therefore more likely you are the sort of person who would also believe in this highly irrational and illogical entity, or do you just study religion for fun. Because if you have studied it, you would have formed an opinion on it. If you are intentionally keeping your cards to your chest, but with so much to say, then you are being niave if you think that will not lead to speculation.

if you wish to further speculate as to whether or not I am irrational or dense, you are welcome to do so.

I thank you for your kind offer, but there is there is no longer any need for that.

[munenori2]

Because I think you are irrational. No sane person would believe in God. A sane person will not believe or disbelieve something until there is proof. But then maybe you are too dense to have figured this out.

/sigh

[MysticSonic]

Cyclops, at least TRY to make sense and understand other people's reasons for believing things rather than simply tossing the idea out of the window. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, others possess a sort of gut feeling about religion that you just don't possess? That they possess some sort of intuitive experience that just tells them such an entity exists? Is that not a good enough reason to believe in a god?

[Logos]

It had nothing to do with typing God-which is a concept of many faiths.

True, but TC did narrow it down quite a bit, as he wanted to look at the type of YHWH based on either the overall depiction in the OT/NT or by specific books of the Bible. So how God is presented in many faiths is not really that relevant as is how God is depicted in these certain literary contexts.

However it does have to do with typing Jesus and his version of Christianity.

His version of Christianity? What on earth does that mean?

Because Jesus's actions display many Fi qualities.

Really?

Se had nothing to do with his life or teachings.

Really?

What type do you think Jesus is? And for that matter, what type do you think you are? You appear to be a new face so I have yet to learn that much about you.

So my point is that to be like him, its easier if you are also Fi, because he was. Is that really such a difficult concept for you or have you made the error of dismissing it out of hand.

I have made no error in this regard because even after your explanation, it is still quite a trivial point. Obviously laws of all varieties are easier for the inclinations of some over others, and so it was easy to dismiss the triviality of your point with a with an equally trivial "Why did God make it easier for some to pee standing up than others?" or how about "Why doesn't God heal the amputees?"

This is a demonstration that God did not create everyone equal. Some people have it easier. Does this mean that he loves some people more than others? I find the concept of a 'father' loving one child more than the other to be rather gauling. What about you?

Do some people not have it easier in life than others? Why would God create anything at all? Why weren't all human beings created as saints? Why were human beings created at all? Do parents not have a preference in children? Are human beings truly equal to begin with? Are the differences in equality really all that great? Must God love everyone equally? Must God love anyone at all? Is it loving one child over another or is it loving one toy over the next?

Because to believe in God is highly irrational and illogical.

Your posts are also irrational and illogical in places, but I do not pass judgment on your belief or lack thereof in God if it is not relevant to discussion. So as to why you brought to question my beliefs still escapes my mind. I pointed out what I perceived as a trivial point and question, which neither requires me to believe or disbelieve in religious subjects.

You demonstrate these traits.

Really? What traits? And how so?

So it is therefore more likely you are the sort of person who would also believe in this highly irrational and illogical entity,

Why?

or do you just study religion for fun.

Are these the only two alternatives provided for me from which to choose?

Because if you have studied it, you would have formed an opinion on it.

You do not have to study a subject to have formed an opinion about it, be it rational or otherwise.

If you are intentionally keeping your cards to your chest, but with so much to say, then you are being niave if you think that will not lead to speculation.

And if you speak without forethought, then you are naïve to think that it will not lead to proof of foolishness.

I thank you for your kind offer, but there is there is no longer any need for that.

I hope you have passed judgment using sufficient evidence.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Cyclops, at least TRY to make sense and understand other people's reasons for believing things rather than simply tossing the idea out of the window. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, others possess a sort of gut feeling about religion that you just don't possess? That they possess some sort of intuitive experience that just tells them such an entity exists? Is that not a good enough reason to believe in a god?

There was an earlier post to do with a part of the brain being related to various types of mental 'abnormalities' which is also related to ones succeptability to religiousness.

I felt I made a reasonably innocuous comment about some types finding it easier to be Christian than others which Logos responded with some immature comment about doing the toilet. Can't see how he or she wouldn't have expected a tart reply.

I haven't tossed the idea out the window. My mind is open either way. I've actually taken a very wide view of religion, but the opportunity to discuss it was not there.

[marooned]

^Are people's spiritual intuitions or inclinations then all "mental abnormalities" to you?

[Logos]

There was an earlier post to do with a part of the brain being related to various types of mental 'abnormalities' which is also related to ones succeptability to religiousness.

I felt I made a reasonably innocuous comment about some types finding it easier to be Christian than others which Logos responded with some immature comment about doing the toilet. Can't see how he or she wouldn't have expected a tart reply.

I haven't tossed the idea out the window. My mind is open either way. I've actually taken a very wide view of religion, but the opportunity to discuss it was not there.

A tart reply, yes, but not an irrelevant question regarding a disclosure on my beliefs.

[munenori2]

You are all irrational and not deserving of my condescension! In fact, maybe I should govern over you guys just to make sure you don't cookoo over your cocoapuffs!

[Creepy-Cyclops]

True, but TC did narrow it down quite a bit, as he wanted to look at the type of YHWH based on either the overall depiction in the OT/NT or by specific books of the Bible. So how God is presented in many faiths is not really that relevant as is how God is depicted in these certain literary contexts.

Ok.

His version of Christianity? What on earth does that mean?

It means that there are many versions of Christianity in society. I don't think all of them are the same as what Jesus taught. For instance there is a case to be made lots of things that have done by the Catholic (a version) church does not tie in with what Jesus taught or wanted from us. The catholic church has done a lot of conquering. This is aspect of Se. You don't see this territorial Se in Jesus.

Really?

Yes

Really?

Yes

What type do you think Jesus is?

His ethos is one of Fi. Gentle compassion, warm fuzzy feelings. I could go on but I hope you get the picture. I'm not too keen on typing him, because of where we've arrived, the ethos he produces seems more relevant rather than the specifics of his type.

And for that matter, what type do you think you are?

I don't think..I know my type

You appear to be a new face so I have yet to learn that much about you.

I don't know anything about you. Are you a nice person, for instance?

I have made no error in this regard because even after your explanation, it is still quite a trivial point. Obviously laws of all varieties are easier for the inclinations of some over others, and so it was easy to dismiss the triviality of your point with a with an equally trivial "Why did God make it easier for some to pee standing up than others?" or how about "Why doesn't God heal the amputees?"

You only thought or perhaps think it is trivial. I could tell that. Are you hasty?

Do some people not have it easier in life than others? Why would God create anything at all? Why weren't all human beings created as saints? Why were human beings created at all? Do parents not have a preference in children? Are human beings truly equal to begin with? Are the differences in equality really all that great? Must God love everyone equally? Must God love anyone at all? Is it loving one child over another or is it loving one toy over the next?

Well Jesus says he loves us all. Do you believe him? Because if he does love some people less than others, then I wonder what his views on those he sees at the bottom of his pile.

Are these the only two alternatives provided for me from which to choose?

If you feel the need to put down more then you can.

You do not have to study a subject to have formed an opinion about it, be it rational or otherwise.

And if you speak without forethought, then you are naïve to think that it will not lead to proof of foolishness.

Sometimes it does.

I never expected my comment to go down this sort of path.

You seem like your quite arrogant, but I could be wrong about that. Am I wrong about that?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

^Are people's spiritual intuitions or inclinations then all "mental abnormalities" to you?

No. Only for some people.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

You are all irrational and not deserving of my condescension! In fact, maybe I should govern over you guys just to make sure you don't cookoo over your cocoapuffs!

Lol. Hopefully we won't need a referee

[Logos]

It means that there are many versions of Christianity in society. I don't think all of them are the same as what Jesus taught.

But my question was more in regards to the fact that Jesus was not a Christian, so to say "his version of Christianity" is something of an oxymoronic statement.

For instance there is a case to be made lots of things that have done by the Catholic (a version) church does not tie in with what Jesus taught or wanted from us. The catholic church has done a lot of conquering. This is aspect of Se. You don't see this territorial Se in Jesus.

Jesus has more Se in what he says than you give him credit for, and Se amounts to more than being territorial or aggressive.

His ethos is one of Fi. Gentle compassion, warm fuzzy feelings. I could go on but I hope you get the picture. I'm not too keen on typing him, because of where we've arrived, the ethos he produces seems more relevant rather than the specifics of his type.

This is both a popular misconception of Fi and Jesus.

I don't think..I know my type

And what do you know your type to be?

I don't know anything about you. Are you a nice person, for instance?

Generally, yes, but as Discojoe will be quick to attest, I am terrible with people (at least online, but in real life the problems of my social skills merely shift to other areas).

You only thought or perhaps think it is trivial. I could tell that. Are you hasty?

Not to my knowledge, but I suppose my hastiness is somewhat relative. You could always ask others as to their opinion in this matter.

Well Jesus says he loves us all. Do you believe him? Because if he does love some people less than others, then I wonder what his views on those he sees at the bottom of his pile.

Can a parent not love a disobedient child? (By the way, where does Jesus say that he loves us all? I'm not trying to be cute here, but I am just wondering where the references in this regard can be found.)

If you feel the need to put down more then you can.

No need, as I was merely dodging the question since I try to not disclose my own beliefs out of respect for those who do not believe I do, which is essentially everyone. I prefer to be judged for what I say and not for where I stand when I say it. And that is also my preference in relation to Socionics.

Sometimes it does.

Of course, but whether or not I study a subject should not necessarily determine the rational capacity of myself or that of anyone else here.

I never expected my comment to go down this sort of path.

And I did not expect to be questioned about my beliefs out of thin air when it is not particularly relevant.

You seem like your quite arrogant, but I could be wrong about that. Am I wrong about that?

I would like to think that I am not, and that is not really something for me to decide, but I can see why I would appear as such.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

But my question was more in regards to the fact that Jesus was not a Christian, so to say "his version of Christianity" is something of an oxymoronic statement.

Jesus has more Se in what he says than you give him credit for, and Se amounts to more than being territorial or aggressive.

This is both a popular misconception of Fi and Jesus.

And what do you know your type to be?

Generally, yes, but as Discojoe will be quick to attest, I am terrible with people (at least online, but in real life the problems of my social skills merely shift to other areas).

Not to my knowledge, but I suppose my hastiness is somewhat relative. You could always ask others as to their opinion in this matter.

Can a parent not love a disobedient child? (By the way, where does Jesus say that he loves us all? I'm not trying to be cute here, but I am just wondering where the references in this regard can be found.)

No need, as I was merely dodging the question since I try to not disclose my own beliefs out of respect for those who do not believe I do, which is essentially everyone. I prefer to be judged for what I say and not for where I stand when I say it. And that is also my preference in relation to Socionics.

Of course, but whether or not I study a subject should not necessarily determine the rational capacity of myself or that of anyone else here.

And I did not expect to be questioned about my beliefs out of thin air when it is not particularly relevant.

I would like to think that I am not, and that is not really something for me to decide, but I can see why I would appear as such.

Yeah my Jesus and Christianity sentence is an oxymoron. But at least I knew what I mean't, and I think others would understand it in the context it appeared. Are you trying to make a point? Or are you trying to give it a bit of Ti analysis?

Yeah. There is other aspects of Se. I know its not just about pushing other people about.

IMO disclosing beliefs should in theory not offend someone. After all is everyone not entitled to them?

Do you mean you never reveal your views or am I taking what you say out of context? I haven't read many of your posts, but it says next to your name avatar bit that you've posted thousands. Is it really possible to post so much without divulging at least some of your opinions? I'm intruiged.

Does that mean you wouldn't disclose your type?

[Logos]

Yeah my Jesus and Christianity sentence is an oxymoron. But at least I knew what I mean't, and I think others would understand it in the context it appeared. Are you trying to make a point? Or are you trying to give it a bit of Ti analysis?

I wasn't really trying to make a point, but when people talk about Jesus and "his version of Christianity" it just kind of irks me.

IMO disclosing beliefs should in theory not offend someone. After all is everyone not entitled to them?

Yes, but sometimes it can be alienating for those who possess certain beliefs to either disclose them or for those who find their own beliefs somehow increasingly threatened by the disclosed beliefs of others. And while everyone is perhaps entitled to their beliefs, not all disclosed beliefs are equally respected. And sometimes the opinions to which we are all entitled, when disclosed cannot help but offensive to others.

Do you mean you never reveal your views or am I taking what you say out of context?

Somewhat out of context, as I do reveal my views but not nearly as much when it is in regards to me as the subject about particularly divisive topics. So I prefer to just correct what I perceive as factual, logical, or interpretive errors, present alternative view points, and to delve into the arguments of others through analytical questioning.

I haven't read many of your posts, but it says next to your name avatar bit that you've posted thousands. Is it really possible to post so much without divulging at least some of your opinions? I'm intruiged.

I have divulged my opinion up and down this forum, but over time I decided that it would be wiser not to do so.

Does that mean you wouldn't disclose your type?

My suspected type is rather widely known and mention of it arises in passing from time to time in conversation. But I prefer to abstain from "I" language when talking about my type and do not like for what I say to be dismissed or held as authoritative purely on the basis of what I claim my type to be, so I do not include it in my signature. Again, I prefer to be judged for what I say and not for where I stand when I say it.

[Logos]

remember you said that you can trace functional elements in physics?

Are you talking to me, because I do not recall saying this.

well didn't God create universe?

According to the Bible.

and He, as the Bible says, also created human and to reflect Him - like one of them precious and antique Holy icon paintings of Holy people (Oriental Christianity).

And? What about it?

you are right. God has created us to His image and the purpose we are fulfilling is to consciously choose the Holy ways of His. the sin has rotten our functional fillings and we are not natural. God's way is. just listen to your consiousness, He enscribed the commandments (Orthodox Christianity quite fully contains all of the God ways that we need to take up in order to fulfil our purpose as God chooses His ways all the time and that's how we must be too in order to fulfil our purpose. anyone will never understand love until they realize their soul is full of snakes that strike the heart that makes us do bad things, things that we regret later, and humble... and then see people like yourself, also infected and consisting of only temporary earth constructions...) there and do, do ask for forgiveness and do, do believe you will immediately be forgiven. say i repent, i do realize i've sinned and i do want to return to the shower of your blessing and the peace of heart - an inkling of an oncoming reunion with the Creator...

I'm not sure what to say about this, really.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I wasn't really trying to make a point, but when people talk about Jesus and "his version of Christianity" it just kind of irks me.

Is that like a bible belt thing? I'm not from the states so I can only go by what I see on the TV and some other sources, but religion seems more fanatical, and I dunno.. eccentric there than what it is in Europe.

Yes, but sometimes it can be alienating for those who possess certain beliefs to either disclose them or for those who find their own beliefs somehow increasingly threatened by the disclosed beliefs of others. And while everyone is perhaps entitled to their beliefs, not all disclosed beliefs are equally respected. And sometimes the opinions to which we are all entitled, when disclosed cannot help but offensive to others.

Yeah I see that happen sometimes. In general RL and internet I would tend not to say because of this, but there comes a time etc. I'm still not sure what to make of the forum in this respect, because people can behave however they want..it could be like a society with no rules. Sometimes I think its like some bizarre place talking about stuff which eventually has no connection to the outside. It's like a universe in the multiverse..somewhere else entirely!

Somewhat out of context, as I do reveal my views but not nearly as much when it is in regards to me as the subject about particularly divisive topics. So I prefer to just correct what I perceive as factual, logical, or interpretive errors, present alternative view points, and to delve into the arguments of others through analytical questioning.

There's such a mixture of
approaches. Sometimes though that can reach the stage of being critical for the sake of it, which probably wasn't what it set out to do. What do you think?

I have divulged my opinion up and down this forum, but over time I decided that it would be wiser not to do so.

I can understand this.

My suspected type is rather widely known and mention of it arises in passing from time to time in conversation. But I prefer to abstain from "I" language when talking about my type and do not like for what I say to be dismissed or held as authoritative purely on the basis of what I claim my type to be, so I do not include it in my signature. Again, I prefer to be judged for what I say and not for where I stand when I say it.

Because it can detract from your argument?

And yet you were so keen to ask about mine Where do you think the conversation could be if I had went down that path?

[Logos]

Is that like a bible belt thing? I'm not from the states so I can only go by what I see on the TV and some other sources, but religion seems more fanatical, and I dunno.. eccentric there than what it is in Europe.

No. More of a factual and semantic thing. Though some of the Bible Belt would probably insist that Jesus was Christian, that he was white with blue eyes, spoke and wrote English, and was responsible for writing the "inerrant" King James Bible.

There's such a mixture of approaches. Sometimes though that can reach the stage of being critical for the sake of it, which probably wasn't what it set out to do. What do you think?

True enough.

Because it can detract from your argument?

Pretty much.

And yet you were so keen to ask about mind Where do you think the conversation could be if I had went down that path?

Yeah, I was somewhat aware of that while I was typing that. I would like to think that the path would end up in the same place, but I doubt it. I was more curious about your type in regards to how it reflected your style of writing and not so much the content though.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

@Logos

For fun, what would you say it was?

[Logos]

@Logos

For fun, what would you say it was?

At the time I asked, I suspected ILI, but I am now unsure, especially since hearing "for fun" out of the mouth of an ILI seems like a rare occurrence.

[meatburger]

I think god's is ISFj. Strong moral compass, ready to punish those he sees is wrong. Rewards those he loves.

Im a bit shitty he created me though. Im sad that because i dont believe in him i have to spend an eternity in hell with demons. An eternity is a long time i think i would have rathered not to exist at all.

oh and god IS human. Haven't you ever heard of the saying. To err is human, to forgive is divine? Poor old god cant forgive me tho

[Creepy-Cyclops]

At the time I asked, I suspected ILI, but I am now unsure, especially since hearing "for fun" out of the mouth of an ILI seems like a rare occurrence.

Thats the second type I've been given and I only joined on Monday

I thought you were some sort of NT type. Ti anyhow. Probably ENTp. You could be INTj as well of course. Or maybe neither of course. Infact I'll go for INTj..but then..

FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN

[Khamelion]

I think god's is ISFj. Strong moral compass, ready to punish those he sees is wrong. Rewards those he loves.

Im a bit shitty he created me though. Im sad that because i dont believe in him i have to spend an eternity in hell with demons. An eternity is a long time i think i would have rathered not to exist at all.

oh and god IS human. Haven't you ever heard of the saying. To err is human, to forgive is divine? Poor old god cant forgive me tho

well said

[Khamelion]

Because I think you are irrational. No sane person would believe in God. A sane person will not believe or disbelieve something until there is proof.

He's/She's pretty much right, minus the adjective "sane"...at least put some quotations around it...

[Creepy-Cyclops]

huh?

gnu.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

what is this?

Haven't decided yet

I wasn't sure why you said huh, because my post was reasonably self explanatory. So then I figured you didn't mean it as a question, maybe you were just making a noise. So I thought I would join in the fun

Is that what you meant, or what part confused you?

[Logos]

Thats the second type I've been given and I only joined on Monday

What do you mean here? Do you mean that this is the second time that someone has told you ILI or that you have been told ILI in addition to some other type? And is my guess presumably correct?

I thought you were some sort of NT type. Ti anyhow. Probably ENTp. You could be INTj as well of course. Or maybe neither of course. Infact I'll go for INTj..but then..

FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN

That would seem to be the case.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

What do you mean here? Do you mean that this is the second time that someone has told you ILI or that you have been told ILI in addition to some other type? And is my guess presumably correct?

Your guess is wrong dude. I got a pm from someone else and it was nicely put, that one was different from yours and also incorrect.

Your not going to run through them all are you

I think your intruiged.

[Logos]

Your guess is wrong dude. I got a pm from someone else and it was nicely put, that one was different from yours and also incorrect.

Your not going to run through them all are you

I think your intruiged.

I'll pass. You will reveal your type when you are ready.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'll pass. You will reveal your type when you are ready.

It would be interesting to hear how you came to ILI tho, all the same.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

*you're

You've stated your thoughts. Where's the intrigue?

I've posted my type a few times.

The intrigue was that Logos didn't know that. I could have went through previous posts to see his type but I personally declined that option. I wanted to see how his typing methods worked. I had a pop at his and he had a pop at mine (apparently I was right- INTj) It's more fun that way.

[Joy]

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.

I would definitely agree if I still thought of God the personified manner which most people seem to.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

@Carla

Logos thought I was Te as well.

[Logos]

@Carla

Logos thought I was Te as well.

It stands out.

[Minde]

Your Te ego is distinct.

@Carla

Logos thought I was Te as well.

It stands out.

Really? Where? How?

Logos makes much more sense to me than Cyclops does even when I'm not in agreement. Logos seems more grounded in facts. You'd think that it'd be the other way around if Cyclops was strong in Te.