Socionics and Religion: Let's get serious

[tcaudilllg]

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.

[Khamelion]

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.

[tcaudilllg]

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.

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?

[bibliophile8]

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.

That is an extremely fascinating idea.

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.

[machintruc]

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.

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.

[Phaedrus]

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.

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.

[Expat]

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.

God as described in the OT certainly had weaknesses. He's bad-tempered and quick to anger, for instance.

[machintruc]

God as described in the OT certainly had weaknesses. He's bad-tempered and quick to anger, for instance.

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).

[Logos]

God as described in the OT certainly had weaknesses. He's bad-tempered and quick to anger, for instance.

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.'

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.

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.

Besides, a type is a set of strengths and weaknesses. God doesn't have weaknesses. Therefore, He doesn't have a type.

No, but it is possible that certain functions are devalued.

[machintruc]

No, but it is possible that certain functions are devalued.

How is this devaluation expressed then ? And what are the devalued IM elements ?

I still can't imagine God as non-symmetrical.

[Logos]

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?

[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.

[Logos]

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.

Good luck with that.

Here's a question: who REALLY wrote the Torah?

Who do you think wrote 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.