Well actually what bugs me is people who actually try to use MBTI to explain or dismiss religious claims(example: I can't believe in your god because I use Ti). That's actually stepping outside the legitimate realms of Typology(or rather psychology in general) - as Martin Buber noted in his critique of Carl Jung.I am sure you are very tired of hearing Ti users debunk the logical inconsistencies of faith, so here is an Ne perspective that you may find interesting:
Your conclusion is wrong, and misses the entire point of religion. Doesn't make a darn difference if you use Ne, Ti, Ni, whatever function to come to this conclusion - you're still wrong. Religion deals ultimately with metaphysical realities; which goes beyond mere ethics - although many like to try reduce it to that. It's common practice among those who adhere to the "Christ of Culture" perspective as Reinhold Niebuhr termed it. In fact your whole argument here seems to rest upon that perspective; and many peoples' perspectives on religion falls under that category. That or occassionally the "Christ Against Culture" perspective.And so this leads me to my previously stated conclusion: that the value of religion is largely philosophic in nature, and great for some people because it's precisely what they need to hear to stay motivated. I do recognize that freely admitting this may ruin the value in faith for some, but I also know religious people who openly admit that their holy stories are probably not literally true, but that participating in religion fulfills external world goals to the extent that its internal consistency (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.
Now on taking holy scriptures literally. Non-literal interpretations of scriptures have a very long history - dating to at least to the woks of the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria in the first century BC. Now concerning Christianity specifically, I have to once again note that it evolved from the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism. One first century Christian text, the Epistle of Barnabas, actually condemns those who take scriptures literally as dupes of the Devil.
Fundamentalism or scriptural literalism as we know it today didn't really develop until the 18th-19th century. Similar situation to Islamic fundamentalism actually, particularly in the form of Wahhabism. So ironically the form of religion that gets condemned the most for supposedly being "primitive" or "out of date" etc. etc. is in actuality a product of modernity itself.
At this point I must insist: When in a hole, stop digging.
Yes of course it does.So the question is: Does it matter if you're wrong?