[Arrow]

A:

This is blasphemous because Jesus was without sin...meaning He would never curse, but I get the point...

B:

That's definitely an important distinction, it's unfortunate that the wording does not show better respect to the Christ figure in this text. At the same time I worry and am more offended by those who use the Christ figure to justify, fuel and vindicate their misanthropic hatred towards those human beings who are different from them. Especially when those individuals prove that they don't understand the basic principals of Jesus Christ's work. They use his name only to veil their own prejudices and do it in his name as righteousness with no regards to the pain it inflicts. They in effect are failing to see the irony of their claims - which is something I believe this text tries to offer, even if it's blunt and unrefined. The ideal that we should as people love all people regardless of their flaws is completely neglected simply because the person doesn't like aspects about the individual. Instead these individuals in question use this text to harm rather then love. Which was Christ's greatest achievement and offer of salvation. He gives threw both love and forgiveness of mankind. That use of his name to justify the great malice in those individuals heart to me is harder to swallow then a particular word usage that means only what we as people wish it to mean.

Takers?

 

[Narrator]

A - Ti? Seems more focused on definition than moral judgement. But that's a judgement with little information/context.

B: An F function, the person expresses that they are 'offended'. Fi I guess towards the end? Feels more 'technical' than Fe. But that's about all I can suggest for a distinction between them, which is pretty vague.

 

[electricky]

A seems like it's coming from Ti/Fe, and the last line of B along with the overall tone may be an Fi sort of rejection of Ti/Fe. It's not that clear yet though....

 

[LiquidLight]

I actually think the first one is probably Fe. There is clear objective reference here and the person doesn't really back up the claim with any thinking of their own (why is this blasphemous? How do you know Jesus was without sin? How do we define sin?)

The second is probably someone tripping on Ti.

 

[Arrow]

The second is probably someone tripping on Ti.

Interesting, how would you imagine a Fi response to contrast from the one above? How can Ti/Fi differ threw text on something like this?

 

[psynite]

I would say the first is an ESFJ, and the second an ENFP. Sticking to cognitive functions, first seems Fe and Si charged, and the second either a Te with a strong Fi, or an Fi with a strong Te, with a hint of Si.

 

[MuChApArAdOx]

I didn't see a clear correlation with any function in A.
The first part of B, almost to the middle appeared very Ti- Fe to me. The second half appeared Fi-Te