.
.
Last edited by Dee; 12-08-2009 at 05:37 PM.
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.
The end is nigh
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
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
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.)
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
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.
I concede my point.
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.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.
Be careful of committing the grevious error of eisegesis.But you're right that the text of Genesis does not explicitly state such a doctrine, although it doesn't explicitly deny it either.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
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.
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 10:31 AM.
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.
This came to mind.
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .