The earth is round

[Eliza Thomason]

Hey Jackal, you don't have to waste your words with me. You don't read what I write, you have no respect, at all, for my deeply held beliefs, and clearly you are way too intelligent for me since you have not a single thing to learn from anything I might have to say to you. This is not a conversation with you, its a lecture. So, yes, this is pretty disagreeable. I know you are nice in some other part of your life, like petting your cat. But that is not enough for me to encourage me to write back and forth with you. Its just way too disagreeable* for me.

editing to add: And you JUST want to disagree with me. It ridiculous! You "thumbs up" Subteigh's Socionics relationship compatibility comment when you have NO IDEA what it means. But it SOUNDS to be disagreeing with me - Oo! So, you are behind it! Rah, rah! And Kim* breaks in here to complain to me about some other subject you know nothing about, and it sounds like she is disagreeing with me, so you click "like". Even though you have NO IDEA what she is talking about. That's not only disagreeable, its just plain childish ignorance.

But, please, Jackal, have the last word here. I don't want it.

_________________
*[However, you ought to like Kim herself. She is your (and Subteigh's) SEE Dual. You are in the same "family", Gamma Quadra, which includes you and three types you get on with well. So communicating will be easy-peasy. (As Kim is aware, I consider her self-type, IEE, a mistype. She just does not rabbit on about beliefs and morality like an IEE would, she is not likely to offer her moral opinion of a thing especially when not explicitly queried, she is not taken to writing long personal stories/experiences like an IEE, and she is too quick to strongly and un-reservedly like or dislike something BOLDLY and plainly outloud, as SOON as she thinks/feels it, whereas an IEE, instead, keeps her feeling-reaction firmly to herself, mulls it over, and only admits carefully so as not to offend anyone, and only if she really must. And Kim is an easy, friendly social person, and SEEs are. That's just some of the reasons. I also think she is more like Gamma Quadra values. Like its clear in the differences of Fi expression between those two Quadras, just for one instance.) See this page for Gamma Quadra social and romantic behaviors and more.]

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Ah, @Subteigh,the truth comes out. I have often wondered aloud to you in our overlong debates, that seem to go nowhere, if you like to argue just to argue. Which I have explained is NOT my thing.

You have taken the quote out of context. Saying that I enjoy engaging in philosophical debates does not mean I enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, nor does it say that is even the primary emphasis of engaging in this thread (if indeed what you quoted is applicable to how I see this thread).

Oh, dear. Well, I do not know what to make of that. I'll withhold judgement on his character. But to judge his action that's another matter. All I know is, when someone PMs you, you do not divulge the contents of the PM without asking that person permission. Never. It was my FIRST PM to Subteigh, ever. I told him that I was writing to him because I was UPSET over that thread. I asked for his help, because I thought in him there was a basic sense of justice (despite our differing religious views) and believing that, I had confidence to PM him when I had trouble, when I felt bad. That was my first PM to him, I will add again, since that matters to me. But divulging to others in private or public conversation what has been shared with one privately - that's not good. That's just wrong. Its something that I would NOT to to him or anyone else, and it rather smarts right now to see it done to me. Disappointed.

Trust is earned, but sometimes it seems generous to take a leap with that. But thats not always prudent.

Over the last ten years on this forum, and on other forums, I have often been requested to comment on a thread, engage in a forum activity or project, or otherwise get involved. In such cases, it is natural to acknowledge this: especially in cases where my involvement might otherwise imply that I take full credit for an idea, or a spur to action. In this particular instance, I was proud to comment on the matter on your behalf (and in general), because the comments I made were very much my own and I felt needed to be said, regardless of whether I was asked to post my opinion or not. The main reason I did not mention in the thread that you had asked me to intervene was that I felt it would only add oil to the flames.

Considering you asked me to provide my opinion, I do not see what your problem is. I was proud to post on your behalf as I did, but you are ashamed that I did so?

When I saw your later posts in that thread, along with your @ mentions (particularly of @Maritsa), I felt like I had been used by you as a means to win an argument by "force of numbers", rather than through the soundness of your case. This was partly because of your past @mentions in previous discussions between us, and other threads not involving me: particularly in regards @Maritsa, at times in cases where the thread had already been heavily diverted, and also because of the extreme differences in views in terms of ethics between us: it seemed especially peculiar that you would start PM-ing asking me to comment on the matter (Was I a last resort? One of many? Was it some sort of test of my quietly self-proclaimed EII-ness?)

Your later posts were not interested in peacefully ending the your conflict with @metaphoriac, but with escalating and prolonging things, and bringing in older disputes with other people. It made it seem like I was part of some bloc with you and @Maritsa, and others who had commented in your favour (although curiously not @Kim), against not only metaphoriac, but also @Kim.

I was actually going to mention that I thought that a line should be drawn under the dispute, with nothing more said, but I thought my intervention would have seemed oxymoronic to this intent, and would have required mentioning that I was asked to provide my opinion on the matter...which as I say, I did not wish to do, as I felt it would have potentially disproportionately inflated a comparatively minor dispute.

Your comments in the time I have known you have always painted me as undesirable in some way, whether because of immorality due to not being a Christian, or being an ILI because I disagree with you, or because of your insinuations that atheists and scientists are sociopaths. I really do not think you can take any high ground here, even if you were partly correct (which you are not).

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Subteigh, I am truly doubting you are a person of good will. I do't mind arguing, but I need integrity in the argument.

I don't want to argue with Jackal, either. But he made a lengthy and quite unique an unique case for Christianity being the cause of sociopaths! Such a case as his implies that without Christians, sociopaths would not be a problem. That's pretty ignorant, but just supposing this was true. There are many atheists and atheist-scientists in the world, and if there are no sociopaths among them, then there are less sociopaths in the world than one would think. And that's a good thing.

Its always good to find a point of agreement with people. That's something you and Jackal should consider sometime.

Subteigh, your quote. You are not a person of good will, are you? You don't care to know what is true, you just want to be the one to stomp our Christianity. Right? But I am willing to bet you have been blessed by some kind and charitable acts towards you in your life by Christians. Because IRL, that's how Christians are.

Actually, TheJackal and myself were very clear that people of any religion can be good: we especially highlighted that point. We said the IDEOLOGY was sociopathic.

You by contrast believe that TheJackal and myself will burn in hell, and you insinuated that atheists and scientists are sociopathic, rather than making any actual sound argument.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Really. Wow.

If this is polite, I really don't want to know what your rude looks like!

And "deserve". Yes, that's your special word. That's your religion. That's why you accuse me of believing in a God who think some people deserve eternal damnation, even thought I CONTINUALLY correct you EVERY time you say it, and even provide EVIDENCE of what I believe are the actual words of Jesus explaining that people CHOOSE eternal damnation. They are not condemned to it, they have a choice, and they CHOOSE it. And no matter HOW MANY TIMES you, the Great Accuser, accuse that I believe SOME OTHER doctrine that I have never subscribed to, you will NEVER change what I believe.


Subteigh, gee, I really wanted to believe that are a person of good will. But you are not, are you?

See, you quoted me as saying:

It would be far easier to recognise that this is a matter of vast differences of opinion on the matters of ethics and the concept of empiricism. I believe both myself and TheJackal have been far politer towards than you deserve,

but my full quote was:

You still seem to have the opinion that if someone challenges what you see as the status quo...that Chsritainity is the fundamental starting point of ethics in our society, that they are being an "ILI Critic". You seem utterly unable to comprehend that is YOU who is being "Critical"...you believe everyone must be damned if they do not follow your religion, that your religion is the only way.

Briefly, in regards Socionics theory, the level of comprehension between a IEE and a ILI should be very good, so you attempts to type people who have fundamental differences of opinion with you as ILI are completely misguided. It would be far easier to recognise that this is a matter of vast differences of opinion on the matters of ethics and the concept of empiricism. I believe both myself and TheJackal have been far politer towards than you deserve, considering that you believe we will burn in hell unless we start considering god worthy of worship: if anyone has been "impolite", it has been you.

You really should not take things out of context. This is a clear example of dishonesty, to cut off a crucial part of my quote after a comma.

[Eliza Thomason]

Aw. Job got banned. I like Job. Job was awesome here. He was even willing to go back and forth with Jackal and Subteigh's avalanche of ILI-brand logic, which he seriously ought to be given some serious credit for. He actually responded to what they said, which is more than you can say for Jackal and Subteigh who are just here to pontificate.

Wow, it was awesome, totally awesome to have someone stick up for me. That was rare, and very much appreciated, and I won't ever forget that. God bless you Job. I want to answer your PM. I will look you up through the website you and Jackal mentioned or referred to somewhere in this thread. I'll root through here and find it. And get back to you before Lent.

Now, how Job got banned and Jackal did not - that does not make sense. But I do not think it was a decision of logic, made by anyone who read thought this thread. Definitely not. Because it obviously had nothing to do with how people debated in this thread. It must have had something to do with perhaps someone visiting the thread who felt entitled to be deferred to, and was not, and so, that was that.

Plainspoken-ness and common sense are just not things of value in these times, Job, and you have an ample supply of both.

Now, @TheJackal and @Subteigh, I don't want to talk to you. I don't like how you argue. Its all wrong in my book. So talk to someone else. Job is gone. And if you are suffering withdrawal symptoms from this mod action, then take it your loss up with the mod that banned him. I can't help you with that.

I miss Job.

_____________
Subteigh, I will comment on your recent posts, particularly about Socionics and about ethics, minus much if anything about religion (where we are unlikely ever to have a meeting of the minds) at a later time.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Aw. Job got banned. I like Job. Job was awesome here. He was even willing to go back an forth with Jackal and Subteigh's avalanche of ILI-brand logic, which he seriously ought to be given some serious credit for. He actually responded to what they said, which is more than you can say for Jackal and Subteigh who are just here to pontificate.

The literal meaning of 'pontificate' is one who builds bridges, as you should know.

[Eliza Thomason]

@End -End, you self-type ILI-Ni. I accept that, as haven't seen anything to make me think its not true. And besides, I find you easy to like/respect, as I do with ILIs in real life. However, I am having a hard time seeing a correlation between you and Jackal and Subteigh in this thread, which I don't know if you have noticed. I am convinced that these two are ILIs, though I have no guess at this time of their subtype. So I am asking you, do you see own type at all in they way they argue here, or, is it just all colored with a sociopathic-athesist way of arguing? (I'm sort-of joking with the "sociopath" word here). I mean, perhaps the complete wall I have communicating with them is not so much due to type and conflicting cognitive styles, but instead, that I am quite saturated and firm in my Christian worldview, and they are quite saturated and firm in their Anti-Christian worldview, and that's that. What do you think? I am asking because if find it quite easy to identify my Identicals. For example, I immediately recognized applejacks as an identical, though, I knew also immediately we were differing subtypes (even though I usually feel I am both subtypes, I lean slightly Ne). Also, when someone self-types as my type, I quickly identify what is IMO a mistype. That's my experience. I wonder if you also can recognize an ILI, or if you consider yourself any good at typing others?

[Kim]

*[However, you ought to like Kim herself. She is your (and Subteigh's) SEE Dual. You are in the same "family", Gamma Quadra, which includes you and three types you get on with well. So communicating will be easy-peasy. (As Kim is aware, I consider her self-type, IEE, a mistype. She just does not rabbit on about beliefs and morality like an IEE would, she is not likely to offer her moral opinion of a thing especially when not explicitly queried, she is not taken to writing long personal stories/experiences like an IEE, and she is too quick to strongly and un-reservedly like or dislike something BOLDLY and plainly outloud, as SOON as she thinks/feels it, whereas an IEE, instead, keeps her feeling-reaction firmly to herself, mulls it over, and only admits carefully so as not to offend anyone, and only if she really must. And Kim is an easy, friendly social person, and SEEs are. That's just some of the reasons. I also think she is more like Gamma Quadra values. Like its clear in the differences of Fi expression between those two Quadras, just for one instance.) See this page for Gamma Quadra social and romantic behaviors and more.]

And you call others childish for their behavior? This is childish - passive aggressively retyping me because we disagree on something and aligning your "enemies" into a camp "other" from yours?

No IEE but you types long stories about herself and ONLY herself around here. No IEE around here is as unconcerned with larger social issues as you are (besides religion). I don't "rabbit on" about beliefs and morality? I have "rabbited" on so much that I was called the forum moralizer at one point, except that I don't "rabbit on" about religion because I happen to care about things outside of my bubble. IEEs often quickly and plainly disagree (check Slacker Mom's post - succinct and to the point with not much concern about how she comes across because that would be Fe valuing).

All that aside, because you can type me groundhog for all I care, don't talk about me, please. Your manipulative sugary sweet "I am so innocent and so well-intentioned and if you are offended by what I say it's your own problem" act is just insufferable. Leave me out of it. And maybe practice some humility.

[Eliza Thomason]

And you call others childish for their behavior? This is childish - passive aggressively retyping me because we disagree on something and aligning your "enemies" into a camp "other" from yours? .

What? This is not a sudden new typing in reaction to some recent action of yours. You and I have discussed this before. It goes way back, my idea of your type. You have long known that I see you as SEE. And you have always considered it inconsequential that I see it that way, and that's your prerogative.

(and Quadra's aren't camps, or enemy camps, either. They are groups of like values and ways, that's all. Its where people tend to "get" each other, rather than misunderstand. I don't do "enemy camps". Its not the kind of "camping" I'm into.)

No IEE but you types long stories about herself and ONLY herself around here. No IEE around here is as unconcerned with larger social issues as you are (besides religion). I don't "rabbit on" about beliefs and morality? I have "rabbited" on so much that I was called the forum moralizer at one point, except that I don't "rabbit on" about religion because I happen to care about things outside of my bubble..

I never saw you being called that! Interesting. Must have been before my time.

IEEs often quickly and plainly disagree (check Slacker Mom's post - succinct and to the point with not much concern about how she comes across because that would be Fe valuing). .

I have not noticed anything particular about Slacker's Moms typing. However I can also be quite quick and blunt and uncaring as to what anyone thinks of me if I see something that I think is plain wrong, immoral, hurtful to others particularly, or unjust. Then I am quick and I don't care what anyone thinks of me. But this is a rare instance, and not habitual.

All that aside, because you can type me groundhog for all I care, don't talk about me, please. Your manipulative sugary sweet "I am so innocent and so well-intentioned and if you are offended by what I say it's your own problem" act is just insufferable. Leave me out of it. And maybe practice some humility.

7464a08b81342ce64ab658e12df63a68.jpg cde03cf8dc4e60f39ec2613d97f9b36b.jpg

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I guess I am just not very bright.

No doubt you don't believe that the Earth is flat, either?

I believe that many people would be far ruder in their responses to self-declared Flat Earthers than has allegedly been evidenced in this thread.

[Kim]

No doubt you don't believe that the Earth is flat, either?

I believe that many people would be far ruder in their responses to self-declared Flat Earthers than has allegedly been evidenced in this thread.

I believe the earth is round and I don't believe in a god who sends people into eternal damnation. But everyone is free to believe what they want. Of course, I am also not very bright.

[Eliza Thomason]

No doubt you don't believe that the Earth is flat, either?

Intelligence Litmus Test.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Intelligence Litmus Test.

I did not say that, but I did think it was wrong for @job to start making such attacks towards @Kim and others, particularly when he disputes undeniable facts of nature and has no model of assessing validity.

[Eliza Thomason]

I did not say that, but I did think it was wrong for @job to start making such attacks towards @Kim

Feeling attacked and actually being attacked can be completely different things, as I see them here to be. So what exactly did Job say that you deem to be an "attack" on Kim?? (I don't see any such thing).

Just because Job isn't allowed to be here to defend himself does not mean he should now be considered fair game for false accusations.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Feeling attacked and actually being attacked can be completely different things, as I see them here to be. So what did Job say that you deem to be an "attack" on Kim?? (I don't see any such thing).

In this latest instance, job said that @Kim "did not seem very bright". Not at all constructive. Not even true!

[Eliza Thomason]

In this latest instance, job said that @Kim "did not seem very bright". Not at all constructive. Not even true!

Ah, yes, a terrible thing to say to someone! People should never say such things as that! Very bad!

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Ah, yes, a terrible thing to say to someone! People should never say such things as that! Very bad!

Ideally not, but it would still be preferable to saying that someone will be Eternally Damned unless they agree with you.

[TheJackal]

Hey Jackal, you don't have to waste your words with me. You don't read what I write, you have no respect, at all, for my deeply held beliefs, and clearly you are way too intelligent for me since you have not a single thing to learn from anything I might have to say to you. This is not a conversation with you, its a lecture. So, yes, this is pretty disagreeable. I know you are nice in some other part of your life, like petting your cat. But that is not enough for me to encourage me to write back and forth with you. Its just way too disagreeable* for me.

Firstly, I am not merely addressing you as I am your arguments..., what makes you think this is all about you? Furthermore, I do read what you write, I even literally quoted it and responded to what you wrote on a point by point basis. Now am I too intelligent for you?, I seriously doubt that.. I may perhaps be more knowledgeable than you on these subjects, but that wouldn't make me more intelligent or better than you... This isn't an ego competition..., this is a debate / discussion that you have thus far avoided by taking a personal defensive posture rather than engaging in honest discourse.. Look, I will afford you the respect of me being honestly upfront and direct with you, and if you find that rude or upsetting, I will have no apology as my conscience heavily weighs on me not to be the latter or allow me to be inherently dishonest. You may not like me, but at least I am honest with you here.

And you JUST want to disagree with me.

No, no I don't want to just disagree with you..., the problem is that I cannot agree with you.. I address your arguments on their merits, and if I disagree with them it is because I find something inherently wrong with those arguments and statements. I would love to agree with you, but that will be subjective, or depending on whether or not I find what you say agreeable. I am not going to dishonestly just nod my head yes, I will also address what you say here as you are responsible for the statements you make on a open forum...This just as much as I am responsible for my own. If you are complaining that I and others are addressing your arguments critically, you already know you are losing the discussion. Humility goes a long way, and it is tough to refrain from dishonest discourse when a subject you deeply care about is being put under the microscope of valid and reasonable criticism. So I offer you this:

A: A belief in God doesn't require disbelief in evolution, and neither does the agreement of evolution invalidate your belief in a God..
B: The Earth isn't flat, and nor would that invalidate you belief in GOD
C: Science doesn't address "God", and nor does it invalidate or validate "God" ..
D: Science is a methodology not an ideology..., it is like the pencil and it can either be used for good or evil (That use responsibility falls on the user of the tool, not the tool itself)
E: You don't require the Bible to have a belief in GOD, or are you required to believe in the vile deity and scripture there in of the Bible.
F: You don't need fear of damnation to be a good person, you need empathy and a healthy and sensible conscience.. Stockholm Syndrome is never healthy.., I recommend letting that go..
G: You don't have to believe that Jesus was a Narcissist either, the Bible has been the product of geo-political editing and distortion since it's conception... This includes by the Church.. If you want to believe in a peace and loving Jesus and God, and willingly reject the ugly and evil versions in the Bible, I would much rather see you and Christianity take that route even if I disagree to that of their existence..

https://youtu.be/ApvYidLr0fE

You "thumbs up" Subteigh's Socionics relationship compatibility comment when you have NO IDEA what it means.

I thumbed it up because it calls into question the obtuse nature of socionics.. Far to often do I see it used here in obscure generalizations of people's Character..

But it SOUNDS to be disagreeing with me - Oo!

I didn't realize I was required to agree with you. :/ I don't agree with Sionics anymore than I agree with scientology or Flat Earth theory.. And to be fair, I had taken the time to try out various tests on it and they have me all over the place.., especially when a lot of it can depend on my mood for the day. Peoples personalities are not fixed, they can drastically shift , evolve, and change... Like I said, this is like trying to type someone as a liberal or conservative when in reality that is dependent on the matter of subject, situation, mood, and perception.. Furthermore, I would never consider you qualified to make any such assessments on people.. This meaning your opinion has little merit to me on the matter. Lastly, my main beef with you on this issue is that you seem to be using it to avoid the subjects discussed and as a means to reject opposing arguments to your position..

So, you are behind it! Rah, rah! And Kim* breaks in here to complain to me about some other subject you know nothing about, and it sounds like she is disagreeing with me, so you click "like". Even though you have NO IDEA what she is talking about. That's not only disagreeable, its just plain childish ignorance.

You have no idea what I know and don't know..., but I can tell you that this isn't any better than Astrology.

But, please, Jackal, have the last word here. I don't want it.

I am not looking for a last word, I am looking for a reasonable discussion

[Eliza Thomason]

Firstly, I am not merely addressing you as I am your arguments..., what makes you think this is all about you? Furthermore, I do read what you write, I even literally quoted it and responded to what you wrote on a point by point basis. Now am I too intelligent for you?, I seriously doubt that.. I may perhaps be more knowledgeable than you on these subjects, but that wouldn't make me more intelligent or better than you... This isn't an ego competition..., this is a debate / discussion that you have thus far avoided by taking a personal defensive posture rather than engaging in honest discourse.. Look, I will afford you the respect of me being honestly upfront and direct with you, and if you find that rude or upsetting, I will have no apology as my conscience heavily weighs on me not to be the latter or allow me to be inherently dishonest. You may not like me, but at least I am honest with you here.



No, no I don't want to just disagree with you..., the problem is that I cannot agree with you.. I address your arguments on their merits, and if I disagree with them it is because I find something inherently wrong with those arguments and statements. I would love to agree with you, but that will be subjective, or depending on whether or not I find what you say agreeable. I am not going to dishonestly just nod my head yes, I will also address what you say here as you are responsible for the statements you make on a open forum...This just as much as I am responsible for my own. If you are complaining that I and others are addressing your arguments critically, you already know you are losing the discussion. Humility goes a long way, and it is tough to refrain from dishonest discourse when a subject you deeply care about is being put under the microscope of valid and reasonable criticism. So I offer you this:

A: A belief in God doesn't require disbelief in evolution, and neither does the agreement of evolution invalidate your belief in a God..
B: The Earth isn't flat, and nor would that invalidate you belief in GOD
C: Science doesn't address "God", and nor does it invalidate or validate "God" ..
D: Science is a methodology not an ideology..., it is like the pencil and it can either be used for good or evil (That use responsibility falls on the user of the tool, not the tool itself)
E: You don't require the Bible to have a belief in GOD, or are you required to believe in the vile deity and scripture there in of the Bible.
F: You don't need fear of damnation to be a good person, you need empathy and a healthy and sensible conscience.. Stockholm Syndrome is never healthy.., I recommend letting that go..
G: You don't have to believe that Jesus was a Narcissist either, the Bible has been the product of geo-political editing and distortion since it's conception... This includes by the Church.. If you want to believe in a peace and loving Jesus and God, and willingly reject the ugly and evil versions in the Bible, I would much rather see you and Christianity take that route even if I disagree to that of their existence..

https://youtu.be/ApvYidLr0fE





I thumbed it up because it calls into question the obtuse nature of socionics.. Far to often do I see it used here in obscure generalizations of people's Character..



I didn't realize I was required to agree with you. :/ I don't agree with Sionics anymore than I agree with scientology or Flat Earth theory.. And to be fair, I had taken the time to try out various tests on it and they have me all over the place.., especially when a lot of it can depend on my mood for the day. Peoples personalities are not fixed, they can drastically shift , evolve, and change... Like I said, this is like trying to type someone as a liberal or conservative when in reality that is dependent on the matter of subject, situation, mood, and perception.. Furthermore, I would never consider you qualified to make any such assessments on people.. This meaning your opinion has little merit to me on the matter. Lastly, my main beef with you on this issue is that you seem to be using it to avoid the subjects discussed and as a means to reject opposing arguments to your position..




You have no idea what I know and don't know..., but I can tell you that this isn't any better than Astrology.



I am not looking for a last word, I am looking for a reasonable discussion

Thanks for explaining yourself. Its an improvement, definitely.

I want to say I have increasing respect for astrology. Its an ages-old kind of science, Generally pooh-poohed by modern Astronomy. And, I am not one to think we are so amazingly smarter today compared to previous ages. I don't think people evolve quite that way. Sometimes, instead, we de-volve. Yes. Because when cultures turn to vice (this seems to happen in waves, when cultures grow and decline in that cyclical manner) and as a rule begin to say that good is bad and bad is good, the cultures loses in wisdom, and, they "devolve". And accordingly, the culture accelerates into rapid decline.

As to astrology, the Wise Men found Jesus through study of Astrology, and they were wise - so wise in fact to be known til the end of time as "The Wise Men." Wouldn't that be something, after you die, to be known for all ages as a "Wise Man"? I have been contemplating the fact that they used astrology and the meaning of the stars to find the Messiah and have increased respect for the idea that stars have meaning and that Astrology could be an efficacious discipline.

And to me, wisdom is better than knowledge. Not mutually exclusive, however. But if you have to pick, the former is greater than the latter, and the former will lead you to the latter. Not necessarily the other way around. That's my thought.

However as to modern astrology, I think there is a lot of hooey added to it today, and I am unaware of where I would find the straight stuff. But I am not particularly interested in delving into it at this time anyway.

In spite of your explaining yourself quite well in this post, I am not going to respond to too much of it, if any at all. Please don't take that personally as, in spite of all appearances to the contrary, I have actually been in the process in the last week or so of trying to finish up conversations so that I can get out of here for Lent, which looms ahead. Ash Wednesday is next week. However, as I have endeavored to "finish up conversations" here I have increased them to such a degree as I am remembering Paul's lament in book of Romans, which I will paraphrase here roughly to fit my circumstance:

I don’t understand why I act the way I do. I don’t do the good I want to do, and I do the opposite. ..I want to do what is good, but I don’t do good thing that I want to do. I do the other thing, that I don’t want to do.

Yes, the Bible is full of age-old wisdom and we all do this at times. For whatever reason what I endeavored to do is the opposite of what I actually did. In other words I was trying to spend less time, in preparation for Lent, and I spent more. Part of it is my E-1 trying to do things "right" and "thoroughly" which takes time. But also, I did not expect to get caught up in an upsetting thread elsewhere, that I felt I had to address for my own reasons, and I did not expect to stick with this thread any longer, but Job was making it interesting, and so I kept following it. Now Job is gone, apparently due to some misunderstanding about his identity as well as his shocking and unacceptable use of politically incorrect terminology in a poll he posted here. Of all things! Just terrible!

I felt I had a like-minded soul here, which was rare and really nice. You have Subteigh to agree with all your posts. It kind of evened the score. I don't even like arguing and his presence made it a little easier on me. But now he is gone. May he rest in peace. But all things work together for the good. Perhaps he practices Lent too and wants cuts back on indulgences, or perhaps his wife would like more attention from him. My husband very much likes more attention from me.

So, Jackal, while I have not enjoyed this argument with you, and while your post here is somewhat more inviting and certainly less offensive than many of your others, besides not wanting to take a plunge and try to hang on here, as certain things on 16T have made me wary to take a plunges of trust, the primary reason I am running away from this argument is Lent approaches. That the biggest thing. The other reason is this does not seem a safe, pleasant or productive place to discuss religion anyway. But, tempest fugit.

[TheJackal]

Aw. Job got banned. I like Job. Job was awesome here.

I wouldn't consider trolling and phishing "awesome".. The ban, if true, would have been well deserved.

He was even willing to go back and forth with Jackal and Subteigh's avalanche of ILI-brand logic,

Incorrect, he was more interested in trolling and making things personal while playing victim.. He never made one attempt to honestly engage in any actual discussion

He actually responded to what they said, which is more than you can say for Jackal and Subteigh who are just here to pontificate.

Are you seriously now going to start trolling yourself? At this rate you might end up getting banned yourself O.o ... I didn't come here to pontificate (to be pompous) .. You're inability to have an honest adult conversation, debate, or discussion is becoming clearly obvious at this point. The smugness is must take to suggest that anyone that doesn't agree with your nonsense are only there to "pontificate".. The ironic hypocrisy of your commentary here is a classic example of someone losing an argument. I think I will leave this here:

Wow, it was awesome, totally awesome to have someone stick up for me.

No offense, but job sounded more like a sock puppet than anyone actually sticking up for you.. Furthermore, sticking up for dishonesty is nothing to be proud about.. If you want to continue this poor me game, feel free to do so as no rational person on this forum is actually going to care.. You need to grow up .. Sorry, I can't stand for someone so dishonest, thus I guess my morals standards are set a bit higher since they prevent me from doing so..

Now, how Job got banned and Jackal did not - that does not make sense.

O.o

But I do not think it was a decision of logic, made by anyone who read thought this thread. Definitely not. Because it obviously had nothing to do with how people debated in this thread. It must have had something to do with perhaps someone visiting the thread who felt entitled to be deferred to, and was not, and so, that was that.

O.o

Plainspoken-ness and common sense are just not things of value in these times, Job, and you have an ample supply of both.

Irony

Now, @TheJackal and @Subteigh, I don't want to talk to you. I don't like how you argue. Its all wrong in my book. So talk to someone else. Job is gone. And if you are suffering withdrawal symptoms from this mod action, then take it your loss up with the mod that banned him. I can't help you with that.

You don't like how we debate because we don't let you get away with anything.. I am not afraid to call you out, or to address arguments you present to which I find inherently wrong, misguided, ignorant, or dishonest. It's not personal, It's not to be pompous, it is to be standing up for some meaningful value of intellectual and moral integrity. Hence, do you seriously think a professor at MIT is going to take your intellectually dishonest discourse, arguments, and fallacies seriously on any real academic level? Uhh NO!... Not any more than I would take in regards to so called "theologians" like William Lane Craig, or arguments from a Flat Earther like Job.. They present themselves as cranks by definition, and they place no value on intellectual integrity or moral fortitude. Why should I respect them when they use ignorance as a commodity for their cult, religion, or profession?

Worst still, you seem to argue as if such respect ought to be blindly given rather than earned..

[TheJackal]

I want to say I have increasing respect for astrology. Its an ages-old kind of science, Generally pooh-poohed by modern Astronomy.

Astrology is not science, and nor is it a field under the umbrella of science.. I could literally give people other people's horoscopes and they wouldn't even know the difference.. There is literally no science behind it....at all! You won't find any peer reviewed publications in any accredited journal establishing anything in regards to astrology being considered anything other than nonsense. Don't get me wrong, it's fun, sort of like opening up a fortune cookie, but it is inherently nonsense.

And, I am not one to think we are so amazingly smarter today compared to previous ages. I don't think people evolve quite that way. Sometimes, instead, we de-volve. Yes. Because when cultures turn to vice (this seems to happen in waves, when cultures grow and decline in that cyclical manner) and as a rule begin to say that good is bad and bad is good, the cultures loses in wisdom, and, they "devolve". And accordingly, the culture accelerates into rapid decline.

There is a difference between being smarter and having acquired more knowledge.. Are we smarter ( more intelligent) / (the ability to apply knowledge)? Probably not..., but are we more knowledgeable? YES!.. BTW, there has never been a culture without their Vices... However, and regardless of the turmoil of today, we live in the most peaceful age since recorded history.. We have a long way to go, but if we are to have any hope of going much further we need to hope secularism rises more around the world along with the fall of ignorance... People who spread woeful ignorance and treat it like a commodity are not helping to achieve a better tomorrow.

As to astrology, the Wise Men found Jesus through study of Astrology, and they were wise - so wise in fact to be known til the end of time as "The Wise Men." Wouldn't that be something, after you die, to be known for all ages as a "Wise Man"? I have been contemplating the fact that they used astrology and the meaning of the stars to find the Messiah and have increased respect for the idea that stars have meaning and that Astrology could be an efficacious discipline.

Nowhere in the bible does it say "The wise men found Jesus through the study of astrology". Seriously, you are trying to pass this argument on to someone who's well studied in the very book you pander about in ignorance there of?

jesus_facepalm.jpg

And to me, wisdom is better than knowledge. Not mutually exclusive, however. But if you have to pick, the former is greater than the latter, and the former will lead you to the latter. Not necessarily the other way around. That's my thought.

You didn't seriously say that did you? You cannot be wise on a subject you have absolutely no knowledge of.. Nor would wisdom invalidate "Knowledge". You are attempting an argument here to invalidate and devalue knowledge, as if that were even a wise thing to do.. I am further not sure if you understand what wisdom means as it is the soundness of one's actions in regards to the application of knowledge (This to which includes experience) with good judgement.

However as to modern astrology, I think there is a lot of hooey added to it today, and I am unaware of where I would find the straight stuff. But I am not particularly interested in delving into it at this time anyway.

It is all nonsense.., it's all honey and it doesn't matter who's batch you are buying it from.

In spite of your explaining yourself quite well in this post, I am not going to respond to too much of it, if any at all. Please don't take that personally as, in spite of all appearances to the contrary, I have actually been in the process in the last week or so of trying to finish up conversations so that I can get out of here for Lent, which looms ahead.

This has been your common theme, no need to repeat yourself as you are free to do what you wish in that regard.

I don’t understand why I act the way I do. I don’t do the good I want to do, and I do the opposite. ..I want to do what is good, but I don’t do good thing that I want to do. I do the other thing, that I don’t want to do.

I would recommend reflecting on this in regards to your debate tactics.

Yes, the Bible is full of age-old wisdom and we all do this at times.

So were the Egyptians:

– There are two kinds of error: blind credulity and piecemeal criticism. Never believe a word without putting its truth to the test; discernment does not grow in laziness; and this faculty of discernment is indispensable to the Seeker. Sound skepticism is the necessary condition for good discernment; but piecemeal criticism is an error.

– If the Master teaches what is error, the disciple’s submission is slavery ; if he teaches truth, this submission is ennoblement

Hell, the writers of the OT stole a bit of supposed wisdom from the Egyptians:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1195210?...n_tab_contents

One Example of Many:

The first concerning the 'secrets': all cognition comes from inside; we are therefore initiated only by ourselves, but the Master gives the keys.The second concerning the 'way': the seeker has need of a Master to guide him and lift him up when he falls, to lead him back to the right way when he strays.
Understanding develops by degrees.
As to deserving, know that the gift of Heaven is free; this gift of Knowledge is so great that no effort whatever could hope to 'deserve' it.
If the Master teaches what is error, the disciple's submission is slavery; if he teaches truth, this submission is ennoblement.

Can you tell me where this is in your Bible concerning the Master giving the keys to Heaven? I can:

Matthew 16:19:
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven."

What many people, especially many Christians don't understand is that much of Christianity developed in Egypt among the Coptics. These are Pagan philosophies you are reading in your bible, and they are borrowed (more like assimilated) into the iconography of Jesus, Yahweh, and your religion at its very heart in general. This includes baptism, Coptic cross, to the all seeing eye.. Again this isn't stuff they teach you on Sunday at church.. Your religion isn't what you were taught it was.., not even close.

Part of it is my E-1 trying to do things "right" and "thoroughly" which takes time.

I can't say you have spent much time doing things "right"..., you appear to be trying to take the shortcut.

politically incorrect terminology in a poll he posted here. Of all things! Just terrible!

It was incorrect context , not "politically incorrect".. Everyone has known for a while that most people weren't "pro-abortion" and that it was "Pro-choice vs anti-abortion".. There is an inherent difference, and the common political dogma is to make it "pro-abortion vs anti-abortion" when it is not. Regardless of this, he made a post I didn't disagree with under that discussion to which I haven't yet gone back to for an update yet.

You have Subteigh to agree with all your posts. It kind of evened the score.

We don't agree based on "like mindedness", it's based on the merits of the arguments and posts.. You seem to not understand this...., or understand that if I should find any of yours deserving a thumbs up that I would in turn give it.. I am not here to mindlessly play a game of mob..

So, Jackal, while I have not enjoyed this argument with you, and while your post here is somewhat more inviting and certainly less offensive than many of your others, besides not wanting to take a plunge and try to hang on here, as certain things on 16T have made me wary to take a plunges of trust, the primary reason I am running away from this argument is Lent approaches. That the biggest thing. The other reason is this does not seem a safe, pleasant or productive place to discuss religion anyway. But, tempest fugit.

You brought your religion into this, I didn't... The butterfly effect from your post on evolution and god had spawned more than you had hoped for.. Don't try and put that blame on me, I would never even have addressed the issue otherwise..

[Contra]

I figured it out people.

[Eliza Thomason]

I figured it out people.

Are the elephants the pillars?

[TheJackal]

Yes, the elephants are the Pillars even though in the Bronze age it was the mountains. But all those sea serpent stories are about the elephant on the right of course..

[Eliza Thomason]

Very funny, @TheJackal. Jokes are fun. Lets tell jokes. I have a clean jokes thread I just started in "Anything Goes" section that no one has contributed to yet. Maybe you know some good ones! But truly I really don't want to argue with you. I need to stop. Even if I had all the time in the world, and nothing else to do, I would not want to argue any issues with you. The way you argue makes me SO UNCOMFORTABLE that I cannot read what you say. In real life you are probably much nicer than you seem to be when you debate here, and we would probably get along great. And God thinks you are WONDERFUL and He takes great delight in you and His heart throbs with love contemplating you. So you must be great. But these conversations make me not see that reality so I really have to stop. Seriously. I am actually not kidding here.

[TheJackal]

Here in Minnesota it gets very cold, and on the first snow I caught and wondered why Frosty was in the produce section of my local market.. I threw a snow ball at him, he turned, and to my horror I find that he was picking his nose! The nephew and niece always loved that joke as they giggled and would say "EWWWWWWWWW! Frosty snot!" It was not a wonder why they wouldn't eat their carrots from that point forward.

Though when they have kids I might tell them the tall tale of how a Flat Earther almost threw me over the Earth's edge, and when they ask how I survived, I would tell them that it was at that point we realized Earth was round

[TheJackal]

Very funny, @TheJackal. The way you argue makes me SO UNCOMFORTABLE that I cannot read what you say. In real life you are probably much nicer than you seem to be when you debate here, and we would probably get along great. And God thinks you are WONDERFUL and He takes great delight in you and His heart throbs with love contemplating you. So you must be great. But these conversations make me not see that reality so I really have to stop. Seriously. I am actually not kidding here.

I think part of the problem here is that my tolerance for things I know are crank has decreased over the years. I tend to be more brutal in my responses when I see it bubble up in a discussion, especially if it appears to be woeful. Could I be more gentle and take a more friendly approach? Yes, and perhaps I should reconsider my approach a bit..., and think of how I can better address people I feel are being inherently dishonest with me and others. Your initial post came off as a curiosity, but then it delved into pandering to dishonesty... I am sorry if I seemed harsh, but at the same time I would expect you to rely less on dishonest discourse as it is very difficult for others to afford you respect in discourse when you don't engage with them honestly. This is some friendly advice, and I am not trying to be mean to you..., I am being hard on you because I think you are smarter than that. I see a desire in you to know more, but I fear you see no wonder in the real world, and therefore attach yourself to fantastical concepts such as the Flat Earth... There is a lot of darkness in the world, but when you look deeper and past the shades of grey, you will find beauty here.., and there might yet have been a creator of some kind.., but I highly doubt it is anything like what you find in the bible. You want to know my sort of philosophy and perspective of the world is like, these few videos express much how I see things:

This Remarkable Thing:


Dust That Sings:


The Real You by: Alan Watts:


It Starts Now by Alan Watts:


You could say that my spiritual connection with Existence is that I realize that I am literally not just a product of it, but a literal and un-removable part of it..., just as you are. My perspective, thanks to great philosophers before me, is much grander than I had imagined as a child... When I see a flower bloom, the sun rise, or my cat sleeping in my lap, I see much more than the simple relationships, I see the deep connection of all these things to which I am a part of.. One thing that bothered me most about religion, it taught me that I was worthless when I never was.. , and for them to ask me to believe I am not, or that you or anyone else is not worthy or does not have any purpose without getting on their knees to praise the ego of another is unacceptable. Nor was it ever healthy, it slowly tried to destroy any sense of me.., and so I left and reconnected with my life and all those I share this world with.. I get up, hold a pile of sand from the beach in my hand as the sun rises in the East..., I see so much more... Do not mistaken me for someone lost, even if in an infinite universe, I am correctly here.., I am home. The only time I had ever been lost is when I was tied to Christianity, and guilt tripped, coerced, and manipulated to be worthless unless I sought Jesus as my lord savior. Sorry, but that is something I can never go back to, or ever accept. And though the damage has been done to me, I have begun to heal as I let it all go.. That sun rise in the East is much more beautiful now.., and perhaps the dust that sings within me may carry on and give birth to a next generation of life giving Stars. Your idea of god very much differs from mine, and I would have no part in dealing with the Biblical God who jealously paints anything that doesn't praise and worship it as an ugly unworthy and worthless sinner. At this point I consider the concept of god nothing more than a Narcissistic title of opinion with delusions of grandeur that demands with threat of violence and tantrum that I get on my knees and praise it.. Seriously, this is why I can't take you seriously when you tell me "God thinks you are WONDERFUL and He takes great delight in you and His heart throbs with love contemplating you." ... If your god wanted to impress me, he would get off his butt and go make the starving a sandwich rather than worry about me.. It bugs me when I see people thank god for their favorite team winning the super bowl while people starve in Sudan.., it's disgusting... And that is how I see your appeal to me, and it comes off as begging that I accept and believe because you can say "god loves you", this generally after pushing "Fear of god is wisdom".. To this I apologize, but that by definition is asking me to submit to Stockholm Syndrome. I am no longer chained to Christianity or any religion for that matter. I even gave up Pantheism:

https://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.c...ok-of-origins/

So your appeal to me would be in futility, and if I have my "free will" as you would suggest, it would be free from religion, or anything that demands I kneel to it.. This unless of course "Ahimsa" as a moral were to become a religion in itself with no doctrine other than its definition.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Yes, the Bible is full of age-old wisdom and we all do this at times. For whatever reason what I endeavored to do is the opposite of what I actually did. In other words I was trying to spend less time, in preparation for Lent, and I spent more. Part of it is my E-1 trying to do things "right" and "thoroughly" which takes time. But also, I did not expect to get caught up in an upsetting thread elsewhere, that I felt I had to address for my own reasons, and I did not expect to stick with this thread any longer, but Job was making it interesting, and so I kept following it. Now Job is gone, apparently due to some misunderstanding about his identity as well as his shocking and unacceptable use of politically incorrect terminology in a poll he posted here. Of all things! Just terrible!

I felt I had a like-minded soul here, which was rare and really nice. You have Subteigh to agree with all your posts. It kind of evened the score. I don't even like arguing and his presence made it a little easier on me. But now he is gone. May he rest in peace. But all things work together for the good. Perhaps he practices Lent too and wants cuts back on indulgences, or perhaps his wife would like more attention from him. My husband very much likes more attention from me.

So, Jackal, while I have not enjoyed this argument with you, and while your post here is somewhat more inviting and certainly less offensive than many of your others, besides not wanting to take a plunge and try to hang on here, as certain things on 16T have made me wary to take a plunges of trust, the primary reason I am running away from this argument is Lent approaches. That the biggest thing. The other reason is this does not seem a safe, pleasant or productive place to discuss religion anyway. But, tempest fugit.

@job was probably a troll account of someone permabanned here who has an extensive history of abusive behaviour and misrepresenting everything he reads. He may believe that the Earth is flat and that hell is an acceptable doctrine, but he is not someone you should be associating with.

If a position is true, it doesn't matter how many people are on each side in a debate, as long as the facts are analysed. Something is not more or less true because of the number of people representing the position. I would have thought however that god was always on your side, and that you would literally have an unnatural advantage.

[Jeremy8419]

The Earth is flat. When you start thinking it is round, it leads to leaving your problems as refuse for others to clean as you continue to the New World to litter it with lazy filth as well.
@Eliza Thomason
What you're referring to isn't ILI (though a lot of people call themselves ILI that do similar). It's holographic/vortigal. Imagine trying to play chess when one person feels that turning the board around at their leisure is natural and should be allowed. It doesn't necessarily mean they are a certain type, but rather that they're behaving through a certain pair of IE's.

[Eliza Thomason]

The Earth is flat. When you start thinking it is round, it leads to leaving your problems as refuse for others to clean as you continue to the New World to litter it with lazy filth as well.
@Eliza Thomason
What you're referring to isn't ILI (though a lot of people call themselves ILI that do similar). It's holographic/vortigal. Imagine trying to play chess when one person feels that turning the board around at their leisure is natural and should be allowed. It doesn't necessarily mean they are a certain type, but rather that they're behaving through a certain pair of IE's.

Thanks for the excellent flat earth argument! That certainly should settle this whole boring challenge to the flat earth reality, and put the entire matter to rest now.

Your holographic/vortigal illustration makes sense. Yes, I am the one turning the board around because that's helps it all makes sense to me, right? And these grumpy vortigals have been ordering me to get my hands off the board and I'm annoyed.

[Jeremy8419]

Thanks for the excellent flat earth argument! That certainly should settle this whole boring challenge to the flat earth reality, and put the whole matter to rest now.

Your holographic/vortigal illustration makes sense. Yes, I am the one turning the board around because that's helps it all makes sense to me, right? And these grumpy vortigals have been ordering me to get my hands off the board and I'm annoyed.

They're holographic or vortigal in their current states. It depends on if they're consciously aware of their behavior or not. They're not logical by contemporary standards, nor intuitive.

You're most likely not IEE. Most likely Gamma.

[Eliza Thomason]

@job was probably a troll account of someone permabanned here who has an extensive history of abusive behavior and misrepresenting everything he reads. He may believe that the Earth is flat and that hell is an acceptable doctrine, but he is not someone you should be associating with.

No. "job" is not "Words". Think about it. Did Words ever get involved in defense of F.E.T. or Christianity? No. In fact I have never seen anyone else defend Christianity on 16T besides "job", at least to the extent he did here. If Words had defended Christianity or any unfair behavior by forum members I would have taken notice. That's only one distinction between the two. They are NOT the same person. However, I want to say that though I did not know Words, I liked him. I never saw him be abusive, or bothering me or anyone else, so no problems associating with Words either. I validate that you or others may have had a legitimate problem with Words - which I am not asking to discuss since I don't want to gossip especially when he is not here to defend himself - I am just saying I did not.

If a position is true, it doesn't matter how many people are on each side in a debate, as long as the facts are analysed. Something is not more or less true because of the number of people representing the position. I would have thought however that God was always on your side, and that you would literally have an unnatural advantage.

No, it must be you with the advantage. You are the lost sheep so He loves you more.

[End]

@End -End, you self-type ILI-Ni. I accept that, as haven't seen anything to make me think its not true. And besides, I find you easy to like/respect, as I do with ILIs in real life. However, I am having a hard time seeing a correlation between you and Jackal and Subteigh in this thread, which I don't know if you have noticed. I am convinced that these two are ILIs, though I have no guess at this time of their subtype. So I am asking you, do you see own type at all in they way they argue here, or, is it just all colored with a sociopathic-athesist way of arguing? (I'm sort-of joking with the "sociopath" word here). I mean, perhaps the complete wall I have communicating with them is not so much due to type and conflicting cognitive styles, but instead, that I am quite saturated and firm in my Christian worldview, and they are quite saturated and firm in their Anti-Christian worldview, and that's that. What do you think? I am asking because if find it quite easy to identify my Identicals. For example, I immediately recognized applejacks as an identical, though, I knew also immediately we were differing subtypes (even though I usually feel I am both subtypes, I lean slightly Ne). Also, when someone self-types as my type, I quickly identify what is IMO a mistype. That's my experience. I wonder if you also can recognize an ILI, or if you consider yourself any good at typing others?

Well, the first thing everyone has to come to terms with is that we *all* have a "God" to which we offer our prayers and are willing to sacrifice both comfort and indeed our very lives for. Whether it be ideology or deity, we all have an entity in which we place an irrational "faith" into and vehemently stand for. I also notice a strange correlation between Theism, Freedom, Statism, and Atheism. The more of a theist you are, the more likely you are to have faith in freedom (makes sense, Jesus supposedly "freed" us from sin if scripture holds true). The more atheist you are, the more you hate on freedom and insist that we need the State to regulate human behavior. An atheist philosopher I pay attention to frequently mentions his frustration about this fact, calling them "Statheists" as, while they sure has hell hate the notion of a "God" and see it as irrational like he does, they place full and true "faith" in the state instead thus defeating the very purpose and arguments behind their atheist principles (to his sincere frustration).

Ultimately it's not type related, belief structure is something more individualistic though there are, as always, trends one can't help but notice if they take the PC happy land goggles off. I frequently say that stereotypes need to have a grain of truth within them to become established. A good chunk of ILI's happen to be loudly and proudly atheistic, so we get the label and I accept it even though I don't fit in with it. Hell, we even have a fellow ILI Nietzsche to thank for the phrase "God is dead" though most misinterpret him here (he meant that "God" and the Christian faith's influence on Western behavior and popular culture was essentially done as far as he could tell and boy was he right sadly).

In regards to type identification I can't claim to be any good at it, though I am good at recognizing identicals in fiction. Not too good at identifying mistypes but I think I can tell my identicals apart from my quasi-identicals (e.g. pretty sure my cousin is an LII but we still get along very well) and my conflictors from my duals (at least I hope so, my romantic life's happiness pretty much rides on that).

[Socionics Is A Cult]

No. "job" is not "Words". Think about it. Did Words ever get involved in defense of F.E.T. or Christianity? No. In fact I have never seen anyone else defend Christianity on 16T besides "job", at least to the extent he did here. If Words had defended Christianity or any unfair behavior by forum members I would have taken notice. That's only one distinction between the two. They are NOT the same person. However, I want to say that though I did not know Words, I liked him. I never saw him be abusive, or bothering me or anyone else, so no problems associating with Words either. I validate that you or others may have had a legitimate problem with Words - which I am not asking to discuss since I don't want to gossip especially when he is not here to defend himself - I am just saying I did not.

Actually yes he has, whether through one of his main accounts, or via sockpuppet accounts after being permabanned. It is not so much what he chooses to defend (which is inconsistent): his style is more to cause discord by arguing in an insulting way and misrepresenting what others say with those he has caused conflict with before, even if it means contradicting himself or otherwise showing himself to a hypocrite.

I would say that I have 'defended' Christianity on this forum more than most, in that I have challenged for example Catholic/Orthodox modifications to Christian doctrine (as recorded in the bible), and have said that I consider it "less bad" than Islam.

No, it must be you with the advantage. You are the lost sheep so He loves you more.

Jesus was not a vegetarian, so I would not wish to be a sheep in his flock, unless I was lost.

[Kim]

No, it must be you with the advantage. You are the lost sheep so He loves you more.

Loves me enough to send me to eternal damnation? That gives "tough love" a whole new meaning...:shifty

[Jeremy8419]

Well, the first thing everyone has to come to terms with is that we *all* have a "God" to which we offer our prayers and are willing to sacrifice both comfort and indeed our very lives for. Whether it be ideology or deity, we all have an entity in which we place an irrational "faith" into and vehemently stand for. I also notice a strange correlation between Theism, Freedom, Statism, and Atheism. The more of a theist you are, the more likely you are to have faith in freedom (makes sense, Jesus supposedly "freed" us from sin if scripture holds true). The more atheist you are, the more you hate on freedom and insist that we need the State to regulate human behavior. An atheist philosopher I pay attention to frequently mentions his frustration about this fact, calling them "Statheists" as, while they sure has hell hate the notion of a "God" and see it as irrational like he does, they place full and true "faith" in the state instead thus defeating the very purpose and arguments behind their atheist principles (to his sincere frustration).

Ultimately it's not type related, belief structure is something more individualistic though there are, as always, trends one can't help but notice if they take the PC happy land goggles off. I frequently say that stereotypes need to have a grain of truth within them to become established. A good chunk of ILI's happen to be loudly and proudly atheistic, so we get the label and I accept it even though I don't fit in with it. Hell, we even have a fellow ILI Nietzsche to thank for the phrase "God is dead" though most misinterpret him here (he meant that "God" and the Christian faith's influence on Western behavior and popular culture was essentially done as far as he could tell and boy was he right sadly).

In regards to type identification I can't claim to be any good at it, though I am good at recognizing identicals in fiction. Not too good at identifying mistypes but I think I can tell my identicals apart from my quasi-identicals (e.g. pretty sure my cousin is an LII but we still get along very well) and my conflictors from my duals (at least I hope so, my romantic life's happiness pretty much rides on that).

A lot of issues with Religions, beliefs, and lack-thereof stem from people's choice to, or not to, place rigid natures to the term "God." Even in my religion, Catholicism, our notions of "God" are intended as placeholders for the incomprehensibility of God by man. I usually just challenge non-believers with, "do you believe people, the universe, etc. exist? Okay, well, that's God, so there ya go. Oh? Some nehilistic/existential/solipsistic thing? Yup, that's God too. I win. Neener neener."

[Socionics Is A Cult]

[Kim]

I usually just challenge non-believers with, "do you believe people, the universe, etc. exist? Okay, well, that's God, so there ya go. Oh? Some nehilistic/existential/solipsistic thing? Yup, that's God too. I win. Neener neener."

No you don't. There does not need to be a god for anything to exist. That's just your belief. All of it might exist because a giant turtle in an adjoining universe it drawing a picture that comes to life or because we live in the Matrix or because the universe just exists for sheer heck of it.

[Jeremy8419]

No you don't. There does not need to be a god for anything to exist. That's just your belief. All of it might exist because a giant turtle in an adjoining universe it drawing a picture that comes to life or because we live in the Matrix or because the universe just exists for sheer heck of it.

That's God too. Neener neener.

[Kim]

That's God too. Neener neener.

Must be nice to be so sure of something.