Socionics and Religion: Let's get serious

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Really? Where? How?

You'd think that it'd be the other way around if Cyclops was strong in Te.

Care to elaborate why 'you' would think this?

[Minde]

Care to elaborate why 'you' would think this?

It just seems strange to me that a Ti type is making more sense to me (an INFj) than someone who is supposedly a Te type. If anything, I see what seems to be a devaluing of Te (factual accuracy, in this case) in you.

It seems to go against the theory, hence the "you."

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It just seems strange to me that a Ti type is making more sense to me (an INFj) than someone who is supposedly a Te type.

Why would it be strange that a Ti type would make more sense to an INFp that at Te type?

If anything, I see what seems to be a devaluing of Te (factual accuracy, in this case) in you.

Then you do not understand the functions.

[implied]

cyclops makes oodles of sense to me. generally, logos does as well.

[Minde]

Why would it be strange that a Ti type would make more sense to an INFp that at Te type?

Who said anything about INFps?

Then you do not understand the functions.

Oh, of course, that must be it.


Anyway, I'd still appreciate it if anyone could show me where Cyclops is using or preferring Te.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Who said anything about INFps?

Sorry, I misread your post there.

Oh, of course, that must be it.

I agree

Anyway, I'd still appreciate it if anyone could show me where Cyclops is using or preferring Te.

I'd be interested if you could say what function you think I'm using and why, please?

[Minde]

I agree

I'd be interested if you could say what function you think I'm using and why, please?

I asked first.

And, no, I'm not evading. I'm putting off my opinion until I've got more information, like why people think you're Te. They could be correct and I could be mistaken in my impressions.

Anyway, if you think I misunderstand socionics, why would you want my opinion?

[implied]

I asked first.

And, no, I'm not evading. I'm putting off my opinion until I've got more information, like why people think you're Te. They could be correct and I could be mistaken in my impressions.

Anyway, if you think I misunderstand socionics, why would you want my opinion?

... you might have some new insight? why ask anyone for their opinion?

[Minde]

... you might have some new insight? why ask anyone for their opinion?

Then why start off with "You don't know what you're talking about"? Is an insult supposed to loosen my tongue or something?

If he thinks I'm wrong, then any insights, new or not, are going to be just as wrong. So why ask for them? Again, doesn't make sense.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I asked first.

You are joking, aren't you? .. You *are* a meanie

And, no, I'm not evading. I'm putting off my opinion until I've got more information, like why people think you're Te. They could be correct and I could be mistaken in my impressions.

To be honest I think it can be tricky to get a proper basis to decide on a forum interaction.

Anyway, if you think I misunderstand socionics, why would you want my opinion?

I was curious to hear how your thought processes worked in regards to it.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

yeah logos is IMO one of the most reasonable people on the entire forum.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

You are joking, aren't you? .. You *are* a meanie
To be honest I think it can be tricky to get a proper basis to decide on a forum interaction.

I was curious to hear how your thought processes worked in regards to it.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

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

[Socionics Is A Cult]

cyclops makes oodles of sense to me. generally, logos does as well.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Your Te ego is distinct.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Then why start off with "You don't know what you're talking about"? Is an insult supposed to loosen my tongue or something?

I said if you can't see Te in my posts then you don't understand the functions. If you can say stuff why can't I?

If he thinks I'm wrong, then any insights, new or not, are going to be just as wrong. So why ask for them? Again, doesn't make sense.

No I wouldn't. Maybe you would show I was wrong.

[Minde]

You are joking, aren't you? .. You *are* a meanie

No, I was not joking. I really would prefer it if someone, particularly those who claimed to see it, would first point out where they see the Te preference in you.

As far as me being a meanie... I don't know where that came from, but ok...

To be honest I think it can be tricky to get a proper basis to decide on a forum interaction.

And yet it has been done. I don't know what that has to do with this circumstance, though.

I was curious to hear how your thought processes worked in regards to it.

That's legitimate in and of itself. I also am curious about what others are seeing and thinking. In fact, that's why I interjected in the first place.

I said if you can't see Te in my posts then you don't understand the functions. If you can say stuff why can't I?

Your opinion/accusation that I don't understand socionics is different in nature than my puzzlement over not seeing what others are seeing. Therefore, to compare them doesn't make sense.

No I wouldn't. Maybe you would show I was wrong.

That would be pointless for me to attempt if your mind was already closed.

So, I ask, why should I attempt to explain what I think (which, by the way, I don't yet) if you will have already decided that what I think is wrong?

[Exodus]

This sounds like a Ti/Fi conflict to me.

[Minde]

What does?

[Exodus]

What does?

Between you and Cyclops.

[Minde]

I'll do my best to explain how I see it, Minde.

Thank you, Carla.

From Wikisocion:

"Ti (static) perceives logical interrelations between objects, which by definition belong to a certain class or location, unless the point of reference is changed. Perception of reality is more like 8 frames per second (Talanov)."

"Te (dynamic) perceives what those objects are doing and what is being done with them. One and the same object can be used effectively or ineffectively. Perception of reality is more like 64 frames per second (Talanov)."

So coming from my own Ti viewpoint, Logos' posts consist of asking "why" and making sense within a static frame of reality. I'd say that Logos' posts make sense to you because, once having a "system" in place, reasoning and developing arguments from this system can "appear" concise, confident and foolproof. This suits the format of the forum given that an INTj has time to think about his/her posts; the product of that thought can be posted in a concise manner. Similar to your Fi. In reality, INTjs aren't confident at thinking on their feet and making speculations if they haven't had time to study and construct their system. Anyway, his style seems completely different to Cyclops. Cyclops makes many points that appear in post context to jump from one to another. He is "verbalizing things from a dynamic standpoint" (Wikisocion). Reminds me of Smilingeyes. Two completely different styles.

That's interesting that you say he reminds you of Smilingeyes especially considering some people's views on his type. For myself, Cyclops doesn't remind me of him at all. For one thing, I feel less like I need a translator with Smilingeyes. Instead, Cyclops gives me the impression of a weird combination of LokiV and dee. Minus LokiV's occasional helpfulness.

And, yes, Logos' post are on average very well structured, with a proficient use of both Ti and Te, even if he has a preference for Ti. That does make it easy to read.

And what you say about Cyclops' point jumping around seemingly without much connection - I agree with that observation and it is what confuses me mostly. I don't think Te dominants necessarily do that, at least not in this way. Generally there's a little more coherency to it, at least. Perhaps it's a temperament thing, IP vs. EJ...

[Creepy-Cyclops]

No, I was not joking. I really would prefer it if someone, particularly those who claimed to see it, would first point out where they see the Te preference in you.

I could explain it to you.
[/QUOTE=Minde;303655]
As far as me being a meanie... I don't know where that came from, but ok...
[/QUOTE]

It was a joke. Some humour. I'm in Scotland don't know where you are but maybe the humour doesn't transfer or something (your probably in UK haha) Or maybe something else.

And yet it has been done. I don't know what that has to do with this circumstance, though.

Maybe. But I only joined on Monday and this is now the third time my type is being examined. The other two attempts were incorrect. There's so many people coming out with types for everyone that I'm beginning to become skeptical about it all. Personality is a very personal thing and IMO and I think all this different typing can confuse a person. You don't know them (well I don't yet) so you don't know what their intentions are or how skilled they are. (I sometimes seem to use the word you when I mean me. I should probably stop that.)

That's legitimate in and of itself. I also am curious about what others are seeing and thinking. In fact, that's why I interjected in the first place.

The same. Thats why I'm still here.

Your opinion/accusation that I don't understand socionics is different in nature than my puzzlement over not seeing what others are seeing.

When I read your post for some reason or other I initially took it that you were basically implying I was yet another type, I think I see what you mean now. My mistake.

That would be pointless for me to attempt if your mind was already closed.

So, I ask, why should I attempt to explain what I think (which, by the way, I don't yet) if you will have already decided that what I think is wrong?

I've already answered that. But if you don't know yet then its the same as knowing and not saying-ie there's still nothing to tell me. Or maybe there is. It just seems like a big deal over nothing.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Logos]

I'll do my best to explain how I see it, Minde.

From Wikisocion:

"Ti (static) perceives logical interrelations between objects, which by definition belong to a certain class or location, unless the point of reference is changed. Perception of reality is more like 8 frames per second (Talanov)."

"Te (dynamic) perceives what those objects are doing and what is being done with them. One and the same object can be used effectively or ineffectively. Perception of reality is more like 64 frames per second (Talanov)."

So coming from my own Ti viewpoint, Logos' posts consist of asking "why" and making sense within a static frame of reality. I'd say that Logos' posts make sense to you because, once having a "system" in place, reasoning and developing arguments from this system can "appear" concise, confident and foolproof. This suits the format of the forum given that an INTj has time to think about his/her posts. The product of that thought can then be posted in a concise manner. Similar to your Fi. In reality, INTjs aren't confident at thinking on their feet and making speculations if they haven't had time to study and construct their system. Anyway, his style seems completely different to Cyclops. Cyclops makes many points that appear in post context to jump from one to another. He is "verbalizing things form a dynamic standpoint" (Wikisocion). Reminds me of Smilingeyes. Two completely different styles.

Pretty much. It felt like a clash in terms of Ti/Te in our writing styles. He also seemed more of a declarer than asker. I am not so sure that this makes him Te-dominant, but at least Te-valuing.

[Minde]

I could explain it to you.

Explain away.

It was a joke. Some humour. I'm in Scotland don't know where you are but maybe the humour doesn't transfer or something (your probably in UK haha) Or maybe something else.

No, it's probably just me. Some types of jokes I don't get very easily (as some here can attest to).

Maybe. But I only joined on Monday and this is now the third time my type is being examined. The other two attempts were incorrect. There's so many people coming out with types for everyone that I'm beginning to become skeptical about it all. Personality is a very personal thing and IMO and I think all this different typing can confuse a person. You don't know them (well I don't yet) so you don't know what their intentions are or how skilled they are. (I sometimes seem to use the word you when I mean me. I should probably stop that.)

Cyclops, you should take it as a compliment that people are (re)typing you. It means that you mean something to them (even if it's only passing entertainment). This is an environment where people question each other all the time. Nothing is really sure. I, personally, am fine with that because I think it fosters intellectual sharpness - it keeps people on their toes. So, please, do not take it as a personal insult when your type is questioned. Instead, use it as an opportunity to learn more.

I've already answered that. But if you don't know yet then its the same as knowing and not saying-ie there's still nothing to tell me. Or maybe there is. It just seems like a big deal over nothing.

I just didn't appreciate being told I'm ignorant when it comes to socionics. Saying something like that is a inhibitor, not an encouragement to further communication.

The nature of dynamics are more a path, things ARE connected. When the wiki says 64 frames per second, viewed from the outside this makes things appear to flow together. Imagine a video played at 8 frames a second or 64 frames a second - which one looks more fluid? Which one looks jumpier? His jumping around with loosely connected points is not a good argument for Te.

Also, it's not like Smilingeyes. Smilingeyes starts with a concept and elaborates on it. I see Cyclops as just jumping to conclusions and not really thinking things out very well. He is using incorrect information, speaking of something he really doesn't seem to know much about, and making statements like believing in God means someone is insane. None of which point to Te, just points to not knowing what he's talking about.

Yes, exactly. Although, I'd add that not knowing what he's talking about is an indication away from Te dominance.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It's useful to remember that you can't draw a correct conclusion from a couple of posts on one thread, if at all.

It's also useful to remember that how a person interacts on a forum is different from real life. Even there writing could be worse than real life. (you have no idea how bad this keyboard is I'm using just now)

Also how a function manifests is different if its dominant or creative.

Its much more complex than looking at it from a single theoretical function.

[marooned]

It's useful to remember that you can't draw a correct conclusion from a couple of posts on one thread, if at all.

It's also useful to remember that how a person interacts on a forum is different from real life. Even there writing could be worse than real life. (you have no idea how bad this keyboard is I'm using just now)

Also how a function manifests is different if its dominant or creative.

Its much more complex than looking at it from a single theoretical function.

Pardon me for interjecting, but I strongly suspect most of us are aware of all those things, with the exception of this thing:

you have no idea how bad this keyboard is I'm using just now

In my long while here I've noticed we tend to spend a lot of time informing each other about things we already know... because we can't tell and aren't certain that we do all know all of these things. Of course, sometimes, others don't know the things we are informing them of. And no one intends to tell someone things they already know, but sometimes it seems that others do not know the things that they do in fact know. But, if we shyed (sp?) away from informing each other of things, then we wouldn't learn as much as we would otherwise. <Why is there not an emoticon that matches my expression?>

Yeah, that's all fair. I'm not good at imagining/describing Te in terms of the ego block yet. That's why my analysis of Cyclops' style was so limited.

I thought it was pretty good actually, mainly because I hadn't quite looked at Ti vs. Te that way before (in people's posts)... or perhaps I had but was unable to word it to myself so succinctly.

Still, this does confuse me about Cyclops' type thus far. I believe he will simply have to post more.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

@Everyone

It appears there been a little bit of interest generated in the function I am using in my posts. I've had a few observations so far such as its Te, its not Ti, its probably neither Te or Ti, and also that its a Ti/Te conflict.

It seems the general prognosis for folks is that more posting is required.

I started to think of any discussions I had which may help in this, and I remembered earlier on in the week having a discussion at the following thread;

'Where sub-types (initial/terminal) comes from' in the alternative theory section.

Its not very long and my posts on the thread pretty much start from the beginning. I would be interested if anyone could spare 5 mins or so and let me have their thoughts on the approach used, thanks.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Explain away.

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.

My posts where looking to produce a practical input. To say I didn't know what I was talking about is incorrect. I've actually posted on Ricks site some of my views on religion and socionic functions in religion, and he's understood where I'm coming from. I'm confident that if Rick understood what I meant (I do not know his personal opinion on religion of course, they are his own) then I think its fair for me to say at least I know something on the subject. I was jumping from topic but that was because I was answering each point being raised with a producing statement. I also raised some various points of my own that I thought at the time would be interesting to discuss.

So you can see the Te preference, but I wouldn't say its as strong as a dominant Te like ESTj, so therefore second place.. Ie it's a creative Te.

With the Te being fed from a practical input, then it would be even more apparent IRL in my opinion. The fact that it is not as apparent here on this particular discussion suggests to me it isn't being fee from Ni dominance (Ni will handle a theoretical conversation in the surreal world of the internet better than S will) This is a subtle little way of seeing a difference in my postings from NiTe and SiTe (remember Logos thought it was NiTe) Mm..am I giving some of my typing secrets here?

Cyclops, you should take it as a compliment that people are (re)typing you. It means that you mean something to them (even if it's only passing entertainment). This is an environment where people question each other all the time. Nothing is really sure. I, personally, am fine with that because I think it fosters intellectual sharpness - it keeps people on their toes. So, please, do not take it as a personal insult when your type is questioned. Instead, use it as an opportunity to learn more.

Ok. I've known about socionics for three or four years but been involved in a different type of community to this one. So this sort of thing comes as a bit of a shock but if I hang around hopefully i'll adapt.

I just didn't appreciate being told I'm ignorant when it comes to socionics. Saying something like that is a inhibitor, not an encouragement to further communication.

I said you didn't understand the functions. There are levels of not understanding something. In hindsight I would not have said this I knew it would have bothered you. Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with not understanding something so I didn't expect it to cause offence. Everyone hopefully learns and understands more stuff all the time and I know I wasn't born knowing everything! So please don't take it personally.

[Logos]

With the Te being fed from a practical input, then it would be even more apparent IRL in my opinion. The fact that it is not as apparent here on this particular discussion suggests to me it isn't being fee from Ni dominance (Ni will handle a theoretical conversation in the surreal world of the internet better than S will) This is a subtle little way of seeing a difference in my postings from NiTe and SiTe (remember Logos thought it was NiTe) Mm..am I giving some of my typing secrets here?

I hate to appear as if I am possibly covering some potential error of my typing, but just to note, I was guessing what you self-typed yourself as and not necessarily what I thought your type is, which happens to be largely unformed, though some stylistic qualities point to -valuing. Not to defend his conclusion, but Diana, disjointed conclusion-jumping and "not thinking things through" could possibly be seen as weak and you seem to associate more with blocked with , which does come across differently than blocked with . Of course his self-typing may very well be wrong, but I am not sure how indicative this thread is of that possibility. I would prefer it if Cyclops did create a thread in What's My Type, if he has not already done so.

[Minde]

I would prefer it if Cyclops did create a thread in What's My Type, if he has not already done so.

Actually, perhaps a moderator can split this portion of this thread off and move it to What's My Type?

[cracka]

Can someone change the topic of this thread to - "Socionics, religion, and Cyclops: Let's get serious and forget what the topic started off as"

[Minde]

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.

My posts where looking to produce a practical input. To say I didn't know what I was talking about is incorrect. I've actually posted on Ricks site some of my views on religion and socionic functions in religion, and he's understood where I'm coming from. I'm confident that if Rick understood what I meant (I do not know his personal opinion on religion of course, they are his own) then I think its fair for me to say at least I know something on the subject. I was jumping from topic but that was because I was answering each point being raised with a producing statement. I also raised some various points of my own that I thought at the time would be interesting to discuss.

Just because someone else understands where you're coming from doesn't make you right. Also, having a decent understanding of the relationship between socionics and religion in general is different from having an accurate understanding of a specific religion. For example, when you started talking about what Jesus was like in the Bible, it seemed much more based on your own personal opinion than what the Bible actually said. You made claims that had no real basis in fact. So I'll stand by what I said about you not knowing entirely what you were talking about.

So you can see the Te preference, but I wouldn't say its as strong as a dominant Te like ESTj, so therefore second place.. Ie it's a creative Te.

With the Te being fed from a practical input, then it would be even more apparent IRL in my opinion. The fact that it is not as apparent here on this particular discussion suggests to me it isn't being fee from Ni dominance (Ni will handle a theoretical conversation in the surreal world of the internet better than S will) This is a subtle little way of seeing a difference in my postings from NiTe and SiTe (remember Logos thought it was NiTe) Mm..am I giving some of my typing secrets here?

Typing "secrets"? Are you a socionics Gnostic?

Anyway, some of your terminology is a little unfamiliar - for example, your idea of "producing" sounds a little bit like Ne, on the surface at least - but that might just be from the difference in where we've done our learning. I do think you should have a typing thread of your own, if only so we can learn a bit more about our respective views and understandings of socionics.

Ok. I've known about socionics for three or four years but been involved in a different type of community to this one. So this sort of thing comes as a bit of a shock but if I hang around hopefully i'll adapt.

I'd be interested to hear more about your experiences in socionics including the other community you've been involved in, if you feel comfortable talking about it.

I said you didn't understand the functions. There are levels of not understanding something. In hindsight I would not have said this I knew it would have bothered you. Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with not understanding something so I didn't expect it to cause offence. Everyone hopefully learns and understands more stuff all the time and I know I wasn't born knowing everything! So please don't take it personally.

Ok, I'll try not to. It just sounded like you were dismissing what I had to say simply because I "didn't understand it" - i.e. didn't have the same understanding as you. Which can be a little annoying.


I should add that I really don't consider myself a proficient typist yet and have in this thread been using "feelings" and "seemings" which are, of course, very subjective, more than likely flawed, and not a good way to be really sure of things. So I'm perfectly ok with the idea that my initial reaction about your preferred functions is wrong.

[Elro]

Fwiw, my initial impression of Cyclops was SEI, actually, but it was mostly just an impression.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Just because someone else understands where you're coming from doesn't make you right.

I agree. fwiw, he seemed to think I could more right than wrong.

Also, having a decent understanding of the relationship between socionics and religion in general is different from having an accurate understanding of a specific religion. For example, when you started talking about what Jesus was like in the Bible, it seemed much more based on your own personal opinion than what the Bible actually said. You made claims that had no real basis in fact. So I'll stand by what I said about you not knowing entirely what you were talking about.

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?

Anyway, some of your terminology is a little unfamiliar - for example, your idea of "producing" sounds a little bit like Ne, on the surface at least - but that might just be from the difference in where we've done our learning. I do think you should have a typing thread of your own, if only so we can learn a bit more about our respective views and understandings of socionics.

I see what you mean. To my understanding, Ne is also a producer in that sense. It just produces different things. To generalise it produces new things, new ideas. It's also attracted to new things. In contrast Te produces organisation, events , conclusions, I guess you could say its more interested in what already exists. Te is more practical in that sense and Ne is more innovative.

Maybe 'producing' is an indicator of the external aspect of them?

Along the lines of what you said, maybe I should sit down and right out how I see the functions, and then see what everyone thinks?

Ok, I'll try not to. It just sounded like you were dismissing what I had to say simply because I "didn't understand it" - i.e. didn't have the same understanding as you. Which can be a little annoying.

Good. But then I guess your not the only one being told they don't know entirely what there talking about. This is what you said about some of the things I've wrote on this thread? I dunno, different circumstances maybe.

I should add that I really don't consider myself a proficient typist yet and have in this thread been using "feelings" and "seemings" which are, of course, very subjective, more than likely flawed, and not a good way to be really sure of things. So I'm perfectly ok with the idea that my initial reaction about your preferred functions is wrong.

To be honest I think its altogether possible we are all in the same boat here.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Fwiw, my initial impression of Cyclops was SEI, actually, but it was mostly just an impression.

I quite liked that one, seeker

[Minde]

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?

You're right, not providing facts is not the same as not having them right. But in this case many of your facts were wrong - or, rather, some of your assumptions were based on inaccurate facts. To not at least try to be sure of the facts just seems... not-Te-ish to me, even if you're IP and not EJ.

I see what you mean. To my understanding, Ne is also a producer in that sense. It just produces different things. To generalise it produces new things, new ideas. It's also attracted to new things. In contrast Te produces organisation, events , conclusions, I guess you could say its more interested in what already exists. Te is more practical in that sense and Ne is more innovative.

Maybe 'producing' is an indicator of the external aspect of them?

Along the lines of what you said, maybe I should sit down and right out how I see the functions, and then see what everyone thinks?

That sounds like a good idea.

Good. But then I guess your not the only one being told they don't know entirely what there talking about. This is what you said about some of the things I've wrote on this thread? I dunno, different circumstances maybe.

Well, you may have got me there.

I'll try to be gentle with you when disagreeing, if you like.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

You're right, not providing facts is not the same as not having them right. But in this case many of your facts were wrong - or, rather, some of your assumptions were based on inaccurate facts. To not at least try to be sure of the facts just seems... not-Te-ish to me, even if you're IP and not EJ.

If you can be bothered you can say which ones you thought were the inacurate facts. Sometimes the facts are wrong though..I don't think everyone gets their facts correct all the time wether they are T or something else.

Well, you may have got me there.

I thought that earlier on but I couldn't be bothered saying

I'll try to be gentle with you when disagreeing, if you like.

Cheers, but say what you like though, within reason

[Minde]

If you can be bothered you can say which ones you thought were the inacurate facts. Sometimes the facts are wrong though..I don't think everyone gets their facts correct all the time wether they are T or something else.

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.

As for the inaccurate facts - there's some minor stuff on what functions Jesus valued/used that I would question, but that's mostly more a case of opinion and how one understands functions than a direct question of fact.

And there are other instances where you seem to have... really questionable logic. That might be more a devaluing of Ti, though some of it could be rectified if you'd taken into account that some of your assumptions could be wrong. But, I'll leave that alone, too. And, anyway, Logos did a pretty good job of covering most of that.

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

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

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

Well Jesus says he loves us all.

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. Although, their specific facts are always irrefutable - they're careful of that. Yours don't seem to be, in above mentioned cases; they're assumptions.

I thought that earlier on but I couldn't be bothered saying

*decides to leave well enough alone*

Cheers, but say what you like though, within reason

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

[cracka]

Cheers is a good thing.

"Cheers mate"

"Cheers to that!"

i sometimes use it how he did at the end of a conversation...

Think of it like cheers = have a good day... that would work.