Islam vs Christianity re Evils in OT

[promethean75]

Can i please just get a religion that's closed under logical consequence? Is that really too much to ask, people?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In terms of Tarski's semantic theory of truth, Christianity is a theory without a model. Christianity does not proceed by means of logical consequence -- it simply does not support that -- but by means of continuous re-axiomatization of inconsistent and outright contradictory tenets and pragmas leading to the accumulation of an increasing amount of nonsense.
No other religion does that.

It may not necessarily be possible to prove that the other religions are not one and the same abstract object. They actually might be. They could actually be one and the same thing, represented in different ways. Christianity, however, cannot possibly be the representation of that common abstract object. In that sense, Christianity is probably not even a religion.

Your thinking as usual is very immature [philosophically] narrow, shallow and dogmatically stuck with merely Formal Language which is a very crude mode of explaining reality's theory and practice.

Here's from AI:

VA to AI
X wrote the following:
[X]"In terms of Tarski's semantic theory of truth, Christianity is a theory without a model. Christianity does not proceed by means of logical consequence -- it simply does not support that -- but by means of continuous re-axiomatization of inconsistent and outright contradictory tenets and pragmas leading to the accumulation of an increasing amount of nonsense."

What is the intended point of the above?

As I see it, Christianity is framed within a model or a Framework and System.
The pivotal structure of Christianity is the New Covenant made binding upon the believer's acceptance of God's offer by grace via John 3:16 [& other verses]. The Constitution or terms of the covenant are within the Gospels of Christ.

ChatGPT;

ChatGPT said:
The statement by X seems to criticize Christianity from the perspective of formal logic and Tarski's semantic theory of truth. Let's break this down step by step:

X's Point:

"Christianity is a theory without a model":
In Tarski's semantic theory, truth is defined relative to a model (a set of objects, relations, and functions that satisfy the theory's axioms). By saying Christianity is a "theory without a model," X suggests that Christianity lacks a coherent, self-consistent framework where its tenets can be formally and logically evaluated.
X implies that Christianity's truth claims are not grounded in a fixed logical or empirical structure, making it incompatible with the model-based approach required by Tarski's semantic theory.

"Does not proceed by means of logical consequence":
X claims that Christianity does not operate within a system of formal logical deduction where conclusions follow necessarily from premises. Instead, it is portrayed as relying on faith and belief, which may not adhere to strict logical principles.

"Continuous re-axiomatization":
This refers to the perceived historical or doctrinal changes within Christianity, where inconsistencies or contradictions in its teachings are addressed not by resolving them logically, but by reinterpreting or recontextualizing them. X sees this as leading to an accumulation of contradictions or "nonsense."

Your Counterpoint:
Christianity as a Model or Framework-System (FS):
You argue that Christianity can indeed be understood as a model or framework-system, structured around the New Covenant as its "constitution."

The New Covenant forms the core binding relationship between God and believers, established by grace (e.g., John 3:16).
The terms or principles of this covenant are articulated through the teachings of Christ, especially as documented in the Gospels.

Interpretation and Application Within the FS:

Within this framework, the apparent contradictions or re-axiomatizations could be seen as interpretive flexibility or doctrinal evolution, aimed at preserving the covenant's core principles in changing cultural and historical contexts.
This adaptability could be viewed as a strength, allowing the faith to remain relevant while maintaining its foundational truths, rather than as an accumulation of "nonsense."

Broader Philosophical Context:

Tarski and Theological Truth:
Tarski's semantic theory of truth ("‘P’ is true if and only if P") applies to formal languages with clearly defined syntax, semantics, and models. However, religious truths are often not reducible to formal systems, as they are concerned with existential, moral, and spiritual dimensions.
Christianity's truth claims might operate within a different FS-objective system, where truth is not purely formal but relational, existential, and covenantal. This system does not reject logic but transcends it by including faith and revelation.

Relevance of Framework-Systems:
Viewing Christianity as a Framework-System aligns with the idea that its truths are meaningful within its own structure and terms, rather than as propositions to be evaluated in isolation or purely in formal logic.

Summary:
X's point criticizes Christianity as incompatible with the rigid requirements of Tarski's semantic theory of truth and logical deduction, labeling it inconsistent and nonsensical due to doctrinal changes.
In contrast, your argument reframes Christianity as a coherent FS-model, with the New Covenant and the Gospels providing its foundational structure.
Within this framework, truth is not defined by formal logic but by relational and covenantal coherence, which allows for interpretive flexibility without devolving into "nonsense."

My view is, the Christianity model [in essence] as present [not the future >50 to 100 years] is the most optimal 'spiritual-religious' model for the well-being of the majority of people within its existing psychological state in relation to the inherent existential crisis.

The Christianity model [fundamentally] is a foolproof model at least in principle that promote peace i.e. no killing of humans [instead love all, even enemies].

The Islamic model on the other hand facilitates terror and disharmony in condoning the killing of non-believers upon the slightest threat [Fasad]. Q5:33.
The majority of believers are good humans and will not comply with Q5:33 but a mere 0.1% i.e. 15 million who are extremely evil-prone will definitely posed a potential real serious threat to humanity when WMDs are easily and cheaply available.

[godelian]

The Christianity model [fundamentally] is a foolproof model

As Luther has pointed out, Christian theology is a theory that is inconsistent. Therefore, it does not have a model. In what sense can an inconsistent and contradictory theory be foolproof?

The Islamic model on the other hand facilitates terror and disharmony in condoning the killing of non-believers upon the slightest threat [Fasad].

Islam is disliked by people with bad intentions because it strikes them with fear. That is not a bug. That is a feature. Reining in misbehavior requires the use of threats of retaliation, because all respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals. We will never remove the threat of retaliation. That will not happen. Ever. If you don't want to get beaten up, then don't misbehave. Isn't that a very simple principle?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Christianity model [fundamentally] is a foolproof model

As Luther has pointed out, Christian theology is a theory that is inconsistent. Therefore, it does not have a model. In what sense can an inconsistent and contradictory theory be foolproof?

I qualified 'fundamentally' i.e. "The Christianity model [fundamentally] is a foolproof model .. that can facilitate peace"

You strawman the main issue to its forms which of course come in loads of variations which are heavily disputed between different denominations of Christianity.
There is no way any proper denominations [i.e. not cults] of Christianity can change the fundamentals of Christianity via Christ's words within the Gospels.

The Islamic model on the other hand facilitates terror and disharmony in condoning the killing of non-believers upon the slightest threat [Fasad].

Islam is disliked by people with bad intentions because it strikes them with fear. That is not a bug. That is a feature. Reining in misbehavior requires the use of threats of retaliation, because all respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals. We will never remove the threat of retaliation. That will not happen. Ever. If you don't want to get beaten up, then don't misbehave. Isn't that a very simple principle?

Theism in general is leveraged on fear, very deep and terrible fears from the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

The Islamic theistic model [as represented in the 6236 verses of the Quran] is leveraged on terrible fear of existential terror, from fear to God to fear to non-believers threatening the religion.
It is very poisonous to the well-being of individual[s] and humanity to leverage too much on the primary emotions of fear; this generate stress which poison the body.

Constructive Criticisms are not with 'bad' intentions.
Muslims will interpret all forms of criticisms of Islam as a threat, i.e. blasphemy and the 0.1% or 15 millions of extremely evil-prone will carry out Q5:33 to the 'T'.

Your stance above as extending to the slightest threats is very evil, barbaric and abominable.

The ideal and effective approach to theology for soteriological reason is not to kill non-believers even for any fears of threat from non-believers; this is the fundamental basis of Christianity, Buddhism and the like.

[godelian]

There is no way any proper denominations [i.e. not cults] of Christianity can change the fundamentals of Christianity via Christ's words within the Gospels.

Christianity is a clerical religion that gets invented along the way by its clergy. I am not interested in that kind of theologies. I consider that kind of doctrines to be worthless.

Your stance above as extending to the slightest threats is very evil, barbaric and abominable.

The religion is the definition for good and evil for its believers. Judging such definition according to an alternative definition is not supported. Furthermore, if you are afraid of consequences, then the threat of retaliation it clearly working. This is exactly what it is meant to do. We do not care if you find that abominable. We only care that you fear reprisals. Since you do, you thereby confirm that the strategy is successful.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no way any proper denominations [i.e. not cults] of Christianity can change the fundamentals of Christianity via Christ's words within the Gospels.

Christianity is a clerical religion that gets invented along the way by its clergy. I am not interested in that kind of theologies. I consider that kind of doctrines to be worthless.

Your stance above as extending to the slightest threats is very evil, barbaric and abominable.

The religion is the definition for good and evil for its believers. Judging such definition according to an alternative definition is not supported. Furthermore, if you are afraid of consequences, then the threat of retaliation it clearly working. This is exactly what it is meant to do. We do not care if you find that abominable. We only care that you fear reprisals. Since you do, you thereby confirm that the strategy is successful.

To kill non-believers for the slightest threat [e.g. blasphemy, drawing of cartoon, even disbelief] is the most barbaric form of a doctrine and religion.

[godelian]

To kill non-believers for the slightest threat [e.g. blasphemy, drawing of cartoon, even disbelief] is the most barbaric form of a doctrine and religion.

Your personal opinion is obviously irrelevant. The threat of retaliation seems to work. That is exactly what it was meant to do. Hence, we can certainly not deny its fitness for purpose.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To kill non-believers for the slightest threat [e.g. blasphemy, drawing of cartoon, even disbelief] is the most barbaric form of a doctrine and religion.

Your personal opinion is obviously irrelevant. The threat of retaliation seems to work. That is exactly what it was meant to do. Hence, we can certainly not deny its fitness for purpose.

see:
viewtopic.php?p=751463#p751463

[LuckyR]

But the logical takeaway from the fact that which religion the vast majority of believers subscribe to (excluding you, by your own description) has nothing to do with the particulars of said religion, rather it's random luck as to the particular religion of their parents.

We have to distinguish between the textual representation of a religion and its deeper nature as an abstract object.

First of all, there is no single textual representation possible of an abstract object. This issue is also known as Benacerraf's identification problem. Therefore, it is not necessarily the particulars of a religion that truly matter. These can be different, but in the end, these particulars may still belong to the same abstract object, up to isomorphism.

In my opinion, all religions that are closed under logical consequence are largely equivalent.

In structuralist terms, Christianity is different from all other religions, however, and in a very negative way, because it has a centralized church that actively prevents its doctrine from being closed under logical consequence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

The magisterium of the Catholic Church is the church's authority or office to give authentic interpretation of the word of God, "whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition".[1][2][3] According to the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the task of interpretation is vested uniquely in the Pope and the bishops,[4] though the concept has a complex history of development.

The other Christian churches inherited the unsound structure of Christian doctrine as an abstract object from the Catholic Church. The construction of Christian doctrine, i.e. its interpretation, has always been fundamentally unsound. Over time, Christianity has accumulated so much unsound material that its doctrine has become unusable beyond repair:

Martin Luther, 1521: I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other.

In terms of Tarski's semantic theory of truth, Christianity is a theory without a model. Christianity does not proceed by means of logical consequence -- it simply does not support that -- but by means of continuous re-axiomatization of inconsistent and outright contradictory tenets and pragmas leading to the accumulation of an increasing amount of nonsense.

No other religion does that.

It may not necessarily be possible to prove that the other religions are not one and the same abstract object. They actually might be. They could actually be one and the same thing, represented in different ways. Christianity, however, cannot possibly be the representation of that common abstract object. In that sense, Christianity is probably not even a religion.

It's a little hilarious that you correctly point out most folks don't care a whit about any of the details about religions, since they just end up believing what their parents do, but when asked about your thoughts on that topic, you try to bring up the very details that you just implied that few care about.

[godelian]

It's a little hilarious that you correctly point out most folks don't care a whit about any of the details about religions, since they just end up believing what their parents do, but when asked about your thoughts on that topic, you try to bring up the very details that you just implied that few care about.

Most people do not reason about religion. They are indeed not interested in the philosophy of religion. However, some people are.

[LuckyR]

It's a little hilarious that you correctly point out most folks don't care a whit about any of the details about religions, since they just end up believing what their parents do, but when asked about your thoughts on that topic, you try to bring up the very details that you just implied that few care about.

Most people do not reason about religion. They are indeed not interested in the philosophy of religion. However, some people are.

Absolutely right! What does the attitude of "most people" tell you about the functional role of religion worldwide?

[godelian]

Absolutely right! What does the attitude of "most people" tell you about the functional role of religion worldwide?

In my opinion, it does not allow us to conclude anything. Most people are busy trying to survive. They don't even have time to think of anything else.

[Veritas Aequitas]

posted wrong thread

[LuckyR]

Absolutely right! What does the attitude of "most people" tell you about the functional role of religion worldwide?

In my opinion, it does not allow us to conclude anything. Most people are busy trying to survive. They don't even have time to think of anything else.

Alas, trying to survive and pondering the "significance" of religion are not mutually exclusive, essentially everyone can do both, yet most, as you observed correctly, don't.

[Belinda]

Whenever Christians accused Islam of promoting evil from their holy texts, the counter from Muslims is the God of the NT is the same monotheist God of the OT which has loads of evil element which are likely to influence Christians to commit evil as well.
see this: Youtube Discussion

https://youtu.be/xfCr8W1TJp0?t=451

the crucial point it's that Jesus according to the Christian belief Jesus is the god of the old Testament and he's the one who's commanding Moses for example to ethnically cleanse the Canaanites or the amalekites or all of these other tribes and to conduct conquests and War to take girls as slaves to take virgins as slaves this is in the Old Testament
so Christians have to deal with that moral problem a lot of Christians Unfortunately they just throw the Bible under the bus and you know how is that justified but it's not just the Old Testament it's also the New Testament the New Testament also has endorses slavery

Christian will response: we've changed but Muslim are not willing to change
I say yeah Muslims are willing to stand by Revelation
the problem with a lot of Christians not all Christians a lot of Christians Jews Hindus they all have these practices in their books Buddhists they all have these practices and their pressure to change and update

Christians will give all sort of explanations re contexts, new covenant, etc.
But this is not effective.

The serious charge is,
if God is omnipotent, why must the one and only eternal God create so much evil and sufferings. If there is to be a test, why not the omnipotent God create something that is much less evil and sufferings to the humans he created himself?

To this, Christians do not have an effective answers to the moral discrepancies between the same God of the OT and the NT.

If Christians were to believe in the Theory of Evolution, they could explain the evolution of morality within humanity in time from the OT to the NT. But Christians do not believe in Evolution Theory.



I believe the most effective answers for Christians to deal with the discrepancies between the morality between the OT and NT is this;

Christian could argued based on empirical evidences from anthropology, history and sociology based upon the past time acceptable to Christianity that the evil acts in the OT are real historically and the NT is the solution for humanity to overcome past and present evil towards the future.
So, whatever God's plan which cannot be confirmed directly [humans are fallible], what Christians can justify the OT and NT is based on real empirical evidences from History, Anthropology, sociology and human nature as known in the present.

Here's AI[wR] comments on the proposal:

This approach is a reasonable and potentially effective way for Christians to frame the relationship between the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT) in light of empirical evidence from anthropology, history, sociology, and human nature. Here’s how Christians might justify such an approach:

1. Historical Context of the Old Testament
Anthropological and Sociological Evidence: Ancient Near Eastern societies, including the Israelites, lived in a harsh and often violent world. Survival required strict laws, territorial defense, and practices that modern readers may find troubling but were common in that era. These include practices like warfare, slavery, and harsh punishments.
God’s Accommodation: Christians might argue that God worked within the cultural and moral framework of the time to guide humanity step by step. The OT laws and actions are viewed as reflective of their historical context and a divine effort to establish justice and order in a chaotic world.
Historical Realism: The OT's depiction of conquest, violence, and tribalism aligns with what historians and anthropologists know about the era. Rather than rejecting the OT as myth or exaggeration, Christians can argue it accurately represents humanity’s moral struggles in the ancient world.

2. The New Testament as a Moral and Spiritual Revolution
Sociological Impact of the NT: The NT introduces radical moral teachings, such as loving one’s enemies, forgiving others, and valuing all individuals equally. These teachings are widely recognized as revolutionary in their historical context.
Empirical Evidence of Moral Progress: Sociologists and historians note that Christianity’s emphasis on love, forgiveness, and charity has profoundly shaped Western civilization and global ethics. Movements such as the abolition of slavery, universal human rights, and the value of individual dignity are often traced back to NT principles.
Human Nature and the NT Solution: Christians can argue that the NT’s emphasis on internal transformation (e.g., the Holy Spirit) addresses human nature's tendency toward selfishness, violence, and division, offering a path toward greater harmony and moral progress.

3. Evolution of Morality
Empirical Evidence for Moral Development: Anthropological studies suggest that moral systems evolve as societies grow more complex. For example:
Tribal societies often emphasize loyalty and retribution (similar to OT themes).
Larger, more interconnected societies require broader moral principles, such as universal love and forgiveness (NT teachings).
Christianity’s teachings in the NT align with this trajectory, suggesting that they represent a response to humanity’s increasing moral and social sophistication.
The NT as a Fulfillment of the OT: Christians might argue that the NT builds on the OT’s moral foundation, moving from a justice-oriented framework (e.g., “eye for an eye”) to a love-oriented framework (“turn the other cheek”), reflecting a natural progression in humanity’s moral understanding.

4. The Problem of Evil and Historical Empathy
OT as a Reflection of Human Evil: Christians could argue that the OT does not shy away from portraying human evil in its rawest forms. This realism underscores the need for divine intervention and redemption.
Empirical Parallels: Historical records from various ancient civilizations reveal similar acts of violence, conquest, and tribalism. The OT, therefore, reflects not only Israel’s history but humanity’s broader moral struggles.
God’s Plan as the NT Solution: The NT presents a solution to these struggles by focusing on love, forgiveness, and reconciliation, which can be empirically observed in the transformative effects of Christian teachings on individuals and societies.

5. Justifying God’s Plan Through Empirical Evidence
Human Moral Growth: Christians can argue that God’s plan unfolds in alignment with humanity’s capacity for moral growth. The OT era represents humanity’s moral infancy, while the NT represents a more mature moral understanding.
Historical and Sociological Validation: The historical impact of Christianity—its role in inspiring movements for social justice, compassion, and peace—can be cited as evidence that the NT’s teachings are effective solutions to humanity’s moral failings.
Human Nature as Known Today: Modern psychology and sociology recognize the dual nature of humanity—capable of great evil but also profound goodness. Christians can point to the NT’s teachings as addressing this duality, offering hope and a path to overcome evil.

6. A Theistic Framework Grounded in Empirical Reality
The Role of God in History: Christians who adopt this approach might argue that God’s presence is seen not in miraculous interventions but in the gradual moral and spiritual evolution of humanity. This aligns with empirical observations of historical and societal development.
Faith and Evidence: While God’s plan cannot be directly proven, Christians can argue that the OT and NT narratives make sense when viewed through the lens of human history and moral progress.

7. Practical Implications of This Approach
Resonance with Modern Thinkers: This approach bridges faith and reason, appealing to those who value empirical evidence while maintaining a theistic worldview.
Unity of the Bible: By framing the OT and NT as different stages of a unified moral narrative, Christians can demonstrate the coherence of their faith in light of history, anthropology, and sociology.
Addressing Criticisms: This perspective helps address criticisms of the OT by contextualizing its harshness and highlighting the NT as the culmination of God’s redemptive work.

Conclusion
Using empirical evidence from anthropology, history, and sociology to justify the OT and NT as part of a unified moral narrative is a reasonable approach. It allows Christians to reconcile the apparent tension between the OT and NT, presenting the Bible as a record of humanity’s moral and spiritual journey under divine guidance. This approach emphasizes God’s role in guiding humanity through its historical context while pointing to the transformative power of the NT’s teachings as a solution to human evil, both past and present.

Evils in the Bible are to be seen ,not as exhortations of how to live a life, but as themes within the history of God.
The human sciences ,as your conclusion notes, are reasonable guides to interpretation of the Biblical narrative as a whole history of God. Indeed without a modern historical approach to the Biblical miracle of the Wedding at Cana(water to wine) we should still think of this a scientific No-no , whereas the miracle actually was that the influential Rabbi at the wedding showed the master of ceremonies that the medium, wine, did not matter and what did matter was the marriage itself.