Lucifer

[ashlesha]

type satan, the devil, Lucifer, angel of light, antichrist, Beelzebub, father of lies, and so on.



@Director Abbie

[flames]

DADDY

[Persephone]

EIE... has got to be EIE, the perfect evil..
PS I like it how it's in famous people section

also

[ashlesha]

PS I like it how it's in famous people section

should i have put it in "whats my type?"

[Persephone]

should i have put it in "whats my type?"

UUUUUPPPPPsolutely not. Perfect thread.

[DirectorAbbie]

@Director Abbie

Lol. I like how you singled me out for this.
Typing angels, hm? Normally I'd give the same argument as my theory for Jesus: lacking a sin nature means lacking a PoLR and socionics as we know it doesn't apply.
But Lucy is certainly a sinner.
Extrovert, I'd say. Not shy about talking to strangers or being in the public eye (regarding Heaven; he's more subtle nowadays).
He likes to get in one's head and fiddle with ideas. Not really interested in anything physical (makes sense, considering he's not a physical being). I'd say intuitive and am more sure of that than I am of extroversion.
Also Ni seems more likely than Ne. I could be biased, but the philosophical mumbo-jumbo I see from Nis seems more like him than the clever absurdities I see from Nes.
For Reinin dichotomies, I'd say he's an asker. "Did God really say that?" I don't know of any time he's monologued (Jesus has). But I know that's not enough to go on.
Thinker vs feeler is hard to say. He's manipulative, but not really in an F way. I'm leaning toward thinker without having a good reason to.
For positivist vs negativist, I consider how Lucy works: to get people away from God, the idea is to add in lots of other stuff. Idols. Worries. Distractions. Seems like a positivistic approach to me.
What does this amount to? ...LIE? LIE for the master of lies is amusing.

[Aylen]

I watched the full season of Lucifer, which is how I imagine "Lucy" if he were to take human form and live among us. I could not get onboard with the image of an antichrist no matter how hard I tried. I leave the antichrist behavior, and images, in the realm of demons. hahah

I think he is a misunderstood, rebellious child, who doesn't want to live by Daddy's rules. He is the lightbringer after all. I think Lucy is the scapegoat for humanity. If they blame all evil on him then they don't have to take so much personal responsibility for their own actions. I am sure that "god" still loves him as much as he loves Jesus since a true benevolent, unconditional loving, god would would not have favorites among his creations. I can excuse the Gods that are perceived as having human qualities for showing favoritism.

Lucy just needs to wake up and remember who he really is. <3

I was not sure between LIE or EIE. I was leaning EIE though.





Typing a human concept of an evil being is pretty hard. In the purely abstract there can be no concrete type without form so I chose the form of Lucifer Morningstar. A very likable character.

[flames]

Given different interpretations, Beta anything or LIE.

[golden]

The ultimate villain means beta rational

[DirectorAbbie]

He is the lightbringer after all.

"Lightbearer." Not quite the same. He's the bringer of temptations, lies, pride, ect. but not of light. Light was what he was meant to hold, like a standard-bearer. Jesus is the light.

I think Lucy is the scapegoat for humanity. If they blame all evil on him then they don't have to take so much personal responsibility for their own actions.

Shame on them.

I am sure that "god" still loves him as much as he loves Jesus since a true benevolent, unconditional loving, god would would not have favorites among his creations.

Jesus was not a creature. Jesus is creator. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." -John 1:1-3

And God does have favorites, in the same way someone who adores all children loves their own children more than the neighbor's.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

EII or SEE.

[Chae]

He's a bit different in every mythology but the common element seems to be the fall from grace/rebellion, and that sounds Beta. Villains wikia list him as a "God Wannabe" , "master orator", "master manipulator", "Dark Messiah" and "charismatic" --> EIE

[Chae]

Talking about the Messiah, typing ideas for the Antichrist? Mr. A is part of the "Unholy Trinity" which also includes Satan, who apparently is in charge of him. And while we're at it, the archdemons? They are underappreciated not famous people but interesting nevertheless.

[Sol]

antichrist is a man and can be typed when will appear
satan is archangel, while only people have types

[Beautiful sky]

The ultimate villain means beta rational

Why do you keep saying this?

The real thoughts of evil come from people who put others in strict systems and don't appreciate humanity ESE ILE

[Aylen]

Why do you keep saying this?

The real thoughts of evil come from people who put others in strict systems and don't appreciate humanity ESE ILE

This is what I was talking about in your thread. I don't understand all the ESE hate here. My ESE sister appreciates humanity and is a humanitarian in her own way. I have never seen someone so dedicated to her chosen causes. She is kind and helpful when dealing with others. On her own time and dollar she would visit old people in the nursing home she used to work at and bring Christmas gifts to people who had no family. She would also go sit with old people when they were dying in the hospital. People love her and she is a people lover. She didn't seek recognition for this. She is a sensitive and loving person. ESE hate makes me .

[marooned]

Why do you keep saying this?

The real thoughts of evil come from people who put others in strict systems and don't appreciate humanity ESE ILE

like how you just put certain people in a strict socionics system and typed them as evil types: ESE, ILE ?

[golden]

Why do you keep saying this?

The real thoughts of evil come from people who put others in strict systems and don't appreciate humanity ESE ILE

I say it because the popular stereotype of the villain is consistent with Beta gone wrong, most often Beta rational.

[Beautiful sky]

This is what I was talking about in your thread. I don't understand all the ESE hate here. My ESE sister appreciates humanity and is a humanitarian in her own way. I have never seen someone so dedicated to her chosen causes. She is kind and helpful when dealing with others. On her own time and dollar she would visit old people in the nursing home she used to work at and bring Christmas gifts to people who had no family. She would also go sit with old people when they were dying in the hospital. People love her and she is a people lover. She didn't seek recognition for this. She is a sensitive and loving person. ESE hate makes me .

Not all ESE just someone evil enough with the right tools can destroy humanity by categories that are arbitrary and false like "I could kill all the stupid people " or "I think everyone in Africa should be killed" these are not how I approach humanity but ESE in their implementation of a functioning forest or wild life would. They would trust me I know an ESE who says this stuff everyday.

like how you just put certain people in a strict socionics system and typed them as evil types: ESE, ILE ?

You're taking what I'm saying out of context. I'm saying it would take one person who thinks that the state of affairs could be improved or optimal if people in certain categories were the only ones to survive ****** ILE and also ESE are perfect examples of people who think this way but it would take one of these people who obviously grew up in a circumstance where they were bitter to do the type of destruction.

My sister is ESE I wouldn't say that of her Aylen she cares about her family and such but I would say this about some very bitter ESE that I know of

[marooned]

You're taking what I'm saying out of context. I'm saying it would take one person who thinks that the state of affairs could be improved or optimal if people in certain categories were the only ones to survive ****** ILE and also ESE are perfect examples of people who think this way but it would take one of these people who obviously grew up in a circumstance where they were bitter to do the type of destruction.

My sister is ESE I wouldn't say that of her Aylen she cares about her family and such but I would say this about some very bitter ESE that I know of

so really ILE and ESE are only the most evil if they are raised in bad circumstances, whereas other types raised in bad circumstances are less evil and destructive? (you're still judging by a fixed system and pinpointing the "most evil" types. and if you look at people of these two types - as identified by you - as though they have this evil potential that other types don't have it is still very biased. i just really, deeply, disagree.)

[Beautiful sky]

so really ILE and ESE are only the most evil if they are raised in bad circumstances, whereas other types raised in bad circumstances are less evil and destructive? (you're still judging by a fixed system and pinpointing the "most evil" types. and if you look at people of these two types as though they have this evil potential that other types don't have it is still very biased. i just really, deeply, disagree.)

Not only the circumstances but ideals about things. If for instance an ESE is a nature lover and humans are destroying it they would use that ideal right against the humans, not considering that they are human. They just don't want other humans involved in the process of destruction.

I'm saying this standpoint of how things are categorized (Nature is good, people in nature are bad, those people should be killed if we are to have this kind of a nature SOCIETY)

Here's more Fi as a contrast (oh "I" can't believe that people are trashing this park there should be laws to stop them from doing this)

You can disagree all you want. I have seen trigger happy ESE who just don't care that much about people as individuals unless the come into personal relationship with them

[marooned]

Not only the circumstances but ideals about things. If for instance an ESE is a nature lover and humans are destroying it they wouldn't use that ideal right against the humans, not considering that they are human. They just don't want other humans involved in the process of destruction.

I'm saying this standpoint of how things are categorized (Nature is good, people in nature are bad, those people should be killed if we are to have this kind of a nature SOCIETY)

Here's more Fi as a contrast (oh "I" can't believe that people are trashing this park there should be laws to stop them from doing this)

you're just wrong, imo. you're basically saying all ESEs are stupid now because they can only think in these overly simplistic black & white terms? i shouldn't have responded as this will go nowhere.

[Beautiful sky]

you're just wrong, imo. you're basically saying all ESEs are stupid now because they can only think in these overly simplistic black & white terms? i shouldn't have responded as this will go nowhere.

One ESE ONE do you not read?

Okay which type do you think will be evil

[marooned]

Okay which type do you think will be evil

all of them. humans can be "evil." although i'm sure you can see their type manifesting in their evil, do not think their evil manifests *because* of their type. that to me is ridiculous. the same applies to being stupid, or breaking their promises, or lying, or stealing, or smiling, or liking ice cream.

[Pookie]

Wasn't old testament God typed as LSI. Are the two Duals? hmmmm.

[huiheiwufhawriuhg]

I watched the full season of Lucifer, which is how I imagine "Lucy" if he were to take human form and live among us. I could not get onboard with the image of an antichrist no matter how hard I tried. I leave the antichrist behavior, and images, in the realm of demons. hahah

I think he is a misunderstood, rebellious child, who doesn't want to live by Daddy's rules. He is the lightbringer after all. I think Lucy is the scapegoat for humanity. If they blame all evil on him then they don't have to take so much personal responsibility for their own actions. I am sure that "god" still loves him as much as he loves Jesus since a true benevolent, unconditional loving, god would would not have favorites among his creations. I can excuse the Gods that are perceived as having human qualities for showing favoritism.

Lucy just needs to wake up and remember who he really is. <3

I was not sure between LIE or EIE. I was leaning EIE though.






Typing a human concept of an evil being is pretty hard. In the purely abstract there can be no concrete type without form so I chose the form of Lucifer Morningstar. A very likable character.

I looooveee that TV show and I love his character! I thought LIE at first, but beta makes hell lot of sense for him.

[Chae]

antichrist is a man and can be typed when will appear
satan is archangel, while only people have types

Biblical and mythological figures were inspired by human archetypes. Greek gods are the best example, they have characteristics that make them terribly human. Divine things can only be filtered through our earthly brains, making deities human. Hence, I do think that they are typable to some extent. Now, I had some rather bizarre thoughts:

Nomen est omen. Antichrist is said to be the complete opposite of Jesus, whose RL existence is supported, but that is another debate. The fact is that the behaviour of Christ is obviously well-documented by several authors and can be analysed under the aspects of Socionics.

My first tentative thesis would be that they are conflictors. Jesus is commonly typed as NF, that would make Antichrist an ST. Given his description as the demagogue of the entire Christian community (!) during doomsday, we need an extrotim for Antichrist. Which equals: LSE or SLE. Beta - as I mentioned before - is the quadra of revolutionary change. Revolution originates from the Latin word "revolvere" which means turning something upside down. Doomsday is an 180° kind of thing, that is a pro-Argument. SLE Antichrist would render Jesus an INFj - not bad! LSE as the grand judge archetype, however, fits into the notion that Delta is the quadra of the finished civilization (currently, we live in the age of Gamma so we can already make guesses when Antichrist makes his fabulous entrance!). LSE Antichrist as the faux redeemer would technically fit into this reasoning. INFp Jesus seems acceptable as well, Jesus was a revolutionary himself.

Which leads to thesis No.2: could they be from the same quadra? Maybe they will dualize during the Last Judgement. Because I think that Jesus cannot exist without Antichrist! Christian beliefs basically define good and evil arbitrarily, that's why an axis of powers is needed. God - Satan is the most important one, they will merge as well. Side note: I typed Lucifer as EIE. God, therefore, is a divine version of an LSI! I always thought that God would be ILE, being the creator. But a conflicting ESI-Satan doesn't seem quite right.

Thesis 3 serves to clean up the mess: Both heaven and hell are Beta. Jesus, Satan, Antichrist, God, angels, demons - all of them are EIE archetypes.

[Beautiful sky]

all of them. humans can be "evil." all tough i'm sure you can see their type manifesting in their evil, do not think their evil manifests *because* of their type. that to me is ridiculous. the same applies to being stupid, or breaking their promises, or lying, or stealing, or smiling, or liking ice cream.

I disagree some types can't sustain the energy and will give up some types just want to pursue their own sensations some types just care about their own thing and some types collapse into themselves

With someone like Stalin who is typed LSI in Socionics it was about personal power, to be powerful and he killed people out of his Ne pole (suspicion and distrust of people) all he wanted to do was to consolidate power.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I disagree some types can't sustain the energy and will give up some types just want to pursue their own sensations some types just care about their own thing and some types collapse into themselves

With someone like Stalin who is typed LSI in Socionics it was about personal power, to be powerful and he killed people out of his Ne pole (suspicion and distrust of people) all he wanted to do was to consolidate power.

Stalin's paranoia especially in later years was probably caused a neurological condition.

In any case, I do not believe it is of any benefit to characterise all the individuals of a particular type as being evil or similar just because one individual with that type was not an ideal person. It is deeply harmful to put people into strict systems and not appreciate their humanity, nevermind completely ignoring their actual personality and character traits.

[Beautiful sky]

Stalin's paranoia especially in later years was probably caused a neurological condition.

In any case, I do not believe it is of any benefit to characterise all the individuals of a particular type as being evil or similar just because one individual with that type was not an ideal person. It is deeply harmful to put people into strict systems and not appreciate their humanity, nevermind completely ignoring their actual personality and character traits.

Probable doesn't mean shit to me and stop quoting me JUST FUCKING STOP WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM

[Beautiful sky]

Stalin's paranoia especially in later years was probably caused a neurological condition.

In any case, I do not believe it is of any benefit to characterise all the individuals of a particular type as being evil or similar just because one individual with that type was not an ideal person. It is deeply harmful to put people into strict systems and not appreciate their humanity, nevermind completely ignoring their actual personality and character traits.

I'm going to report every single one of the quotes you make yo me from now on. I've asked you several times to stay away from me you are stalking me @mu4

[marooned]

I disagree some types can't sustain the energy and will give up some types just want to pursue their own sensations some types just care about their own thing and some types collapse into themselves

there are so many ways to be evil though; enough ways for anyone of any type to manage it in a glorious and type-related way i'm sure. there's also wide variety in the manifestations of a single type (as we are all individual people with more non-type-related differences than type-related ones imo).

for instance, can a person be evil for being lazy and thus negligent, or for supporting/aiding someone who *can* take many more direct evil actions than that person can? sure. i guess all four IP types can be evil too then. *mind blown* but i didn't mean to imply that IP temperament can never take a more active role or be in leadership (*flogs self*), in which case an IP could take the business of evil into his or her own hands.

intuitive introverts might in general take a more hands off approach to their evil compared to others but don't mistake taking fewer evil actions due to foresight or guiding others to do the dirty work for them, for not being evil.

With someone like Stalin who is typed LSI in Socionics it was about personal power, to be powerful and he killed people out of his Ne pole (suspicion and distrust of people) all he wanted to do was to consolidate power.

so stalin is less evil than evil ESEs and evil ILEs? how are we evaluating evil? is it by the number of people killed due to his orders or policies during his rule? because if that's what evil is then ILE and ESE may be out of the running. i suspect most of the worst dictators have probably valued . perhaps is evil then. *waits with bated breath for an type to do something evil to me so i can bolster this position* after all it will only take about 10 occurrences for me to conclude: " types are evil. they're always hurting me. look what that one did to me."


i'm not sure how to settle the question of which type is most evil, but perhaps if you research all the killers in history and rate them on several categories,

 

- how many people did this evil person kill him or herself? (btw men are just more evil because they kill more people on average... sry)
- how many indirectly but arguably still intentionally (through passivity, policies, neglect, insidious manipulation)?
- how many through willful ignorance or denial (not willing to really look at how many people are dying due to his/her actions)?
- how brutal were the killings? was torture involved? rape? was it drawn out?
- were there crimes against children?
- how much largely non-lethal suffering was caused by this person?
- how many lies and deceptions did this person engage in? how much suppression of information?
- how evil are this person's intentions? do they believe they are doing the right thing in the end? now?
- how many people have been saved due to this person's actions? protected?
- what psychological conditions does this person have? psychologically healthy? ill?
- how much physical pain is this person in usually?
- does this person have a conscience? is s/he capable of feeling for others?
- how intelligent is this person? how well can s/he think independently? how much can s/he be swayed by the evil agendas of others?
- how hateful is this person? how sadistic? how cruel? how deliberately hurtful?
- does this person hurt those s/he doesn't personally know more or those s/he does personally know, and why?
- how destructive are this person's actions? what is the impact?
- how selfish is this person? does s/he consider the interests of others or only his/her own?
- how long did others have to endure this person's evil?
- how long do the evil things put in place by this person continue to generate evil even after s/he is finally gone?
- did this person suicide (because such self-destructiveness is considered evil by many)?
- how many people did this person corrupt or force to do evil? (how influential?)
- how many souls did this person eat? (in what ways are the spirit world involved anyway? like can we just add up karma?)
- did this person restrict his evil actions to earth or was he busy killing aliens too?
- etc.

but of course we need to find a way to rate and evaluate. like is hitl3r more evil than ted bundy? i guess i think so because he killed more people, but if i were to peer into both of their minds perhaps i would find bundy's the more chilling and evil in the sense of some pervasive darkness and hatred whereas hitl3r loved dogs, eva braun and architecture.

in fact, maybe the most evil person on earth hasn't killed anyone, but just sits on the internet trolling and spreading hate--his/her hatred unmatched by any who came before, or who will come after...

and then do a type tally... then we will finally know which type is the most evil.



asking which type is most evil is kind of like asking, which dog breed is the most adorable?

[uncivilized]

IEE, a logical type would know the futility of fighting God, but Satan just felt it wrong that he should be under God's boot and decided to fight a hopeless battle anyway.

[wacey]

Lol. I like how you singled me out for this.
Typing angels, hm? Normally I'd give the same argument as my theory for Jesus: lacking a sin nature means lacking a PoLR and socionics as we know it doesn't apply.
But Lucy is certainly a sinner.
Extrovert, I'd say. Not shy about talking to strangers or being in the public eye (regarding Heaven; he's more subtle nowadays).
He likes to get in one's head and fiddle with ideas. Not really interested in anything physical (makes sense, considering he's not a physical being). I'd say intuitive and am more sure of that than I am of extroversion.
Also Ni seems more likely than Ne. I could be biased, but the philosophical mumbo-jumbo I see from Nis seems more like him than the clever absurdities I see from Nes.
For Reinin dichotomies, I'd say he's an asker. "Did God really say that?" I don't know of any time he's monologued (Jesus has). But I know that's not enough to go on.
Thinker vs feeler is hard to say. He's manipulative, but not really in an F way. I'm leaning toward thinker without having a good reason to.
For positivist vs negativist, I consider how Lucy works: to get people away from God, the idea is to add in lots of other stuff. Idols. Worries. Distractions. Seems like a positivistic approach to me.
What does this amount to? ...LIE? LIE for the master of lies is amusing.

No he is a feeler, that is where the pettiness comes from. Lucifer also feels sorry for himself.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Probable doesn't mean shit to me and stop quoting me JUST FUCKING STOP WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM

You are making sweeping statements about all individuals of a certain type based on one of the worst representatives of a type. It seems to me you are utterly unable to gauge anything in anything other than black and white terms. When you make such "final and confirm" pronouncements, you are ignoring the unique traits of individuals (...other than their facial features) as well as ignoring the importance of psychological disorders in regards making assessments about how healthy individuals behave. In short, you seem to have a skin-deep understanding of personality (At best, you make absurd extrapolations based exclusively on what is said or done, without caring to understand motivation, intent, and internal thought processes. At worst, you rely exclusively on your inconsistent application of VI in a literally skin-deep fashion), and you have a highly superficial understanding of psychology as a whole.

[Beautiful sky]

You are making sweeping statements about all individuals of a certain type based on one of the worst representatives of a type. It seems to me you are utterly unable to gauge anything in anything other than black and white terms. When you make such "final and confirm" pronouncements, you are ignoring the unique traits of individuals (...other than their facial features) as well as ignoring the importance of psychological disorders in regards making assessments about how healthy individuals behave. In short, you seem to have a skin-deep understanding of personality (At best, you make absurd extrapolations based exclusively on what is said or done, without caring to understand motivation, intent, and internal thought processes. At worst, you rely exclusively on your inconsistent application of VI in a literally skin-deep fashion), and you have a highly superficial understanding of psychology as a whole.

@mu4

[Eliza Thomason]

You are making sweeping statements about all individuals of a certain type based on one of the worst representatives of a type. It seems to me you are utterly unable to gauge anything in anything other than black and white terms. When you make such "final and confirm" pronouncements, you are ignoring the unique traits of individuals (...other than their facial features) as well as ignoring the importance of psychological disorders in regards making assessments about how healthy individuals behave. In short, you seem to have a skin-deep understanding of personality (At best, you make absurd extrapolations based exclusively on what is said or done, without caring to understand motivation, intent, and internal thought processes. At worst, you rely exclusively on your inconsistent application of VI in a literally skin-deep fashion), and you have a highly superficial understanding of psychology as a whole.

My Mom used to say that if you don't have anything nice to say you should not say anything at all. Rather than use your good thinking and writing skills to make scathing and detailed explanations of what you don't like about Maritsa and how she communicates, which is really stupid because these comments bear only bad fruit which should be obvious by now - why not find a way to communicate yourself that presents your basic thought in a highly edited form padded with politeness and respect. And apply your brain to what is nice about Maritsa to you, and say that. It would be a worthy communication style to learn. Otherwise, you are just stimulating yourself in your expressions while making other readers miserable. Not just Maritsa; I also find this kind of unkindness painful to witness, and I am sure others do, too.

[Beautiful sky]

I'm trying to give Lucifer one out of 16 types and all he does is try to find something else to criticize me for. He does so much criticizing that I have called him a Critic ILI and he can't stand it. He NEVER pays the slightest bit of attention to all the good things that I do only when I try to type LUCIFER does he start taking the critic out

Also you can tell a critic by how often he uses the word "you" in a paragraph rather than "I "

[Pookie]

Its actually a sign of a psychologically healthier person to use you more than I in sentence structure.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

My Mom used to say that if you don't have anything nice to say you should not say anything at all. Rather than use your good thinking and writing skills to make scathing and detailed explanations of what you don't like about Maritsa and how she communicates, which is really stupid because these comments bear only bad fruit which should be obvious by now - why not find a way to communicate yourself that presents your basic thought in a highly edited form padded with politeness and respect. And apply your brain to what is nice about Maritsa to you, and say that. It would be a worthy communication style to learn. Otherwise, you are just stimulating yourself in your expressions while making other readers miserable. Not just Maritsa; I also find this kind of unkindness painful to witness, and I am sure others do, too.

I make my comments largely because Maritsa considers herself a professional Socionist. I thus believe it is especially reasonable to voice my concerns about her approach to Socionics. In addition, I believe that Maritsa is liable to cause a great deal of harm by making sweeping generalisations (e.g. considering all ILEs and ESEs evil, and considering all SEEs and SEIs husband-stealers). Telling Maritsa why this is wrong is surely a necessity in order to challenge her inability to say anything nice about whole groups of people who individually, she knows nothing about: my comments aren't about being "mean" to Maritsa (or "mean" to her School of Socionics: I'm not sure if it is possible to be mean to something abstract, but that is another matter). If you are saying that I should instead praise Maritsa for at least saying that all EIIs are Humanists and incapable of evil (as she has frequently done), then I disagree: that is a wholly unacceptable way to live. It is not how your Messiah would have lived. ("If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."

I believe that there will be some individuals, including well-meaning ones, who may truly be puzzled about why Maritsa is considered such a long-term problematic member of the forum. However, you should also recognise that many individuals have felt the need to limit their posting or even abandon the forum altogether because of her antics. It isn't just a matter of her ideology being so corrosive and detrimental, whether to individuals who are "new" to Socionics and are in the early stages of reading up on the theory in order to understand themselves and their relationships with others, but the way that she stifles discussion by her mere presence. Her rudeness towards members of the forum including myself (e.g. repeatedly telling me to "fuck off" recently) is a fairly regular occurrence that typically happens when challenged on her ideology - and often, towards individuals who have shown no rudeness towards her. I have certainly not spoken to her in that manner.

I hope that you, as a fundamentalist Christian, can appreciate that calling someone "evil" just because they have a certain type (or rather, because Maritsa thinks they are a certain type...or alternatively, thinking they are a certain type, because she thinks they are evil...the distinction is not important, as it is wrong whichever way) is, on paper at least, the worst thing you could say about a person. It is possible that when Maritsa calls all members of a type "evil" or all members of a type "husband-stealers" she speaks without thinking. I find this incredibly hard to believe however, especially considering her prolonged habit of engaging in such behaviour. Such slander is ingrained into her mindset.

Edit:
In regards bad fruit: don't forget that Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing any fruit (even though it was out of season!) so that it would never bear fruit ever again. Jesus could have said nothing at all, or he could have said something positive about the fig tree existing in the first place, or...he could have healed the fig tree with his "powers". But no, he damned it.