True, but remember that his justice regarding the original sin is why the compassion of sending Jesus was needed.Right, I understand that. However, and ultimately, this is based on God's compassion for his creation, not justice.
True, but remember that his justice regarding the original sin is why the compassion of sending Jesus was needed.Right, I understand that. However, and ultimately, this is based on God's compassion for his creation, not justice.
I'm not following you here. Please elaborate.God is clearly an I judging by how much he likes to interact with other.....beings.
Great, Victor.Children are taught to love God and to fear God.
So children are taught to love someone they fear.
And this is precisely the psychology of abuse.
And it is this psychology that legitimates abuse.
So God lies at the heart of abuse.
I'm gonna go with ENFJ.
I'm not following you here. Please elaborate.
Great, Victor.
So then I guess the question to you is what is the standard type of an abuser?
He's saying that God is distant. I agree.I'm not following you here. Please elaborate.
I'd rather have him explain it just so we're sure.He's saying that God is distant. I agree.
Agree.ENFJ sounds most accurate if we're discussing a more idealized western form of God (such as the Judeo-Christian New Testament God). Jesus could likely be decribed as ENFJ.
Disagree.If you're talking Old Testament God, ESTJ. He runs the world based entirely on rigid tradition and vengefully vindicates anyone who doesn't fall in line.
I'd rather have him explain it just so we're sure.
Right, but as I stated, he can't talk or be physically accessible. It has nothing to do with whether or not he wants to. To do so would create a violation of our free will.Yes that's what I meant. Kinda. I read your post. Thing is God is supposed to be omnipresent. So he is everywhere. But he shows the kind of a behavior an I is likelier to show when among others - not very talkative, more passive.
You are wise.ENFJ
What type am I again?
In general, I'm thinking that an S would be impossible, for all religions that I'm aware of, since creating something from nothing seems like a non-sensory endeavor. In other words, there was nothing, he internally and intellectually envisioned something prior to its physically existence, then he/she/it brought it into existence.
An I.. no 'need' to be with 'others' to exist etc.
A judging I so leading with T/F and since Fe is the one of the two Fs that can apply, a weak or inferior Fe. Si applies more than Se
Of the two N or S, N seems more like it.
Functions wise, more likely an ENTP. Otherwise an INTP.