@Subteigh, I will get back later. Right now Jackal deserves a response after that mind-blowing among of typing.

@TheJackal you are a fount of information! Like an encyclopedia-head. Did anyone ever call you that? Your conclusions, though, are off. Its sort of like you cannot see the forest for the trees? Its actually possibly to make it through the forest without identifying all of the trees and vegetation on the way, you know. Plus you miss things with your head down to the ground like that...
... Like the firmament above you.

You have an active brain, Jackal. Scripture talks of how the people of the Church are a body, and all the parts need each other. Not one part is more important than another. All the parts are needed for the body to work well together. Yes, all the parts are important. None of us are complete in ourselves.

Your Bible knowledge seems extensive (I am assuming this is not the total of your Bible arguments). Your conclusions are unique. You do know people claim the Bible to support ALL KINDS OF THINGS, right? That comes of reading into it what one wants, instead of reading it to understand what it is trying to tell one. Also we need help from above clarifying its meaning, since a single verse can yield diverse interpretations. That's why Jesus, in those 40 days of Eastertide after His Resurrection and before his Ascension, established a Church for us. Not a Bible (which the Church later gave us), and entrusted to it the Holy Spirit, to be with it til the end of time, so that the Church would not fail in matters of faith and morals.

The Church won't tell a Catholic which branch of science to believe. though. A Catholic has to believe certain things, to call himself Catholic, like, for instance, that there is a Creator. However, you can believe pretty much how you want how He did it. Even if it makes no sense! You are allowed.

I don't know what type you are, Jackal (and you ARE a type), but I'm sure I could tell you a few that you are NOT, after that.... You are not INFj, not ENFp, not ISTp, not ISFj, not ESFp, not INFp, not ENFj, not ESTp, not ISFp, not ESFj ...

Well! That narrows it down a bit! 10 types of 16 that you are NOT. Now, you seem too much "in the head" to be ESTj, who is instead busy about his many activities. @Adam Strange would be a good one to say if there is any possibility you could be an ENTj. Though you sure don't sound like him, so I doubt it. @mu4 maybe could tell us if you could possibly be an ENTp. I doubt it though because you do not sound like him or my ENTp friend. Though I don't feel particularly well-schooled in that type..

That's three left! INTj - they are smart, those brains hold a lot. And there's is a lot of stuff in your brain. But, all the INTjs I know are markedly kinder than you. They know they are smarter than most people around them, and they use that smartness to adjust that stuff in their brain to the size and form of the brain of their interlocutor. I don't see you doing that at all. More importantly, INTj's are Holographic Panoramic thinkers, and I am sure you are not that or my thinking process would not drive you so crazy. You'd see a kinship with it, even if you completely disagreed with my conclusions. Yup. So I am eliminating INTj.

That's only two left!

I think I will continue on this line, since its so close now.

Hmm, ISTj, my conflictor. Or INTp. Hmm. Okay, so we have for you, after the 14 eliminations, these two:



ISTj(also called LSI): The Casual-Determinist thinker.

.................................................. ...Or

INTp(also called ILI): The Dialectical-Algorithmic Thinker



Jackal, you haven't studied this but I am thinking aloud. Both ILI and LSI are Cognitive types that are not found in my Dual pair, so I am not surprised I get so stuck discussing ideas with you.

But you might find this useful :

Here is a quick course in the Cognitive Styles thanks to @silke, posted low on this page, (above it is the longer course on Cognitive styles):

Causal-Determinist cognitive style: ILE, LSI, SEE, EII
This is a precise, single-course style of thinking, that is also called formal logic, deductive-axiomatic logic, or bureaucratic thinking. It is based on the four laws of formal logic. Most of the academic books are written according to the rules of this thinking style. This type of logic predominates in society.

Dialectical-Algorithmic cognitive style: SEI, EIE, ILI, LSE
This is precise style of thinking that branches out and runs along multiple parallel courses (multi-course style of thinking). It works according to principle "thesis-antithesis-synthesis." Types using this type of logic make for the best programmers.

Holographical-Panoramic cognitive style: LII, SLE, ESI, IEE
This is imprecise, multi-perspective thinking. It is mosaic-like. It works according to the principle of a hologram - the creation of three-dimensional representation of the object through the imposition of several of its sections. It is suitable for solving complex multifactor problems that have no clear-cut algorithms.

Vortical-Synergetic cognitive style: ESE, IEI, LIE, SLI
This is imprecise, but holistic, single-course style of thinking. It works according to principles of natural selection - method of trial and error. This style of thinking is the most natural one. It can successfully solve the problems of self-organization. It is stimulated by competition. The society it is often rejected due to its random, chaotic nature.

I'll quit now that I am down to two. I feel if I read very carefully and slowly and thoughtfully the longer versions of the explanations of the C-D and the D-A styles I might hit on which one you are. But I am out of time, and anyway maybe you want to figure it out yourself.


.
.