A clerical doctrine such as Christianity has no model

[Belinda]

I agree entirely. And it's why Christianity is a better religion than Islam. Nevertheless Muhammad created Islam, a species of Judaism, for his political purpose which at that time vastly increased the prosperity of Arabia and elsewhere. Islam was also true to Aristotle at a time when Christianity was repressive and superstitious. Reformed Islam has capabilities that can happily meld with modern Christianity , and modern Christianity has capabilitiies that can happily meld with reformed Islam.

Sure, the cultural aspect can significantly diverge from the doctrinal aspects. This is why contemporary re-interpretation matters so much.

But focusing on the doctrinal aspects alone, the power dynamic Islam is selling is not my cup of tea. And that requires significantly more mental/re-interpretative gymnastics for succesful reform.

I am just not a peaceful submission kind of guy.

Me too.
Might we hope that the common people will quite soon all be modern post-enlightenment independent thinkers? Or even post -moderns who are content that we are all alike perpetual seekers?

[godelian]

Reformed Islam has capabilities that can happily meld with modern Christianity , and modern Christianity has capabilitiies that can happily meld with reformed Islam.

There is no "reformed Islam" because there is no "church" in Islam. There is no need to reform something that does not even exist. Islam is a scriptural religion and not a clerical one.

A scriptural religion like Islam is what Luther tried and failed to reform Christianity into.

Reformed Christianity is a spectacular failure because it did not morph into a scriptural religion. Reformed Christianity is as clerical as ever.

[godelian]

And it's why Christianity is a better religion than Islam.

As long as Christianity revolves around clerical doctrines invented by its church, it will remain a worthless religion.

ChatGPT: What was the object of the reformation?

The object of the Reformation was to reform the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, which many saw as corrupt and inconsistent with biblical teachings.

The only way to get rid of the corruption of church and clergy, is not to have a church at all.

Reformed Christianity still has a church and is as clerical as ever. They did not solve the problem at all.

Islam has no church. That is why Islam is the better religion.

Repeat after me: A religion with a church is a bad religion.

[Skepdick]

There is no "reformed Islam" because there is no "church" in Islam. There is no need to reform something that does not even exist. Islam is a scriptural religion and not a clerical one.

A scriptural religion like Islam is what Luther tried and failed to reform Christianity into.

Reformed Christianity is a spectacular failure because it did not morph into a scriptural religion. Reformed Christianity is as clerical as ever.

Sooo. You are unfalimiar with Sola Scriptura and why any scriptural religion necessarily devolves into relativism?

As long as Christianity revolves around clerical doctrines invented by its church, it will remain a worthless religion.

Which denomination does that?

And if Islam is scriptural - why do you have all these religious authorities?

Islam has no church.

It has no body of Muslim followers?!? What a peculiar claim.

[godelian]

why any scriptural religion necessarily devolves into relativism

ChatGPT: Does a scriptural religion necessarily devolve into relativism?

Not necessarily. A scriptural religion—one that is based on a sacred text—does not inherently devolve into relativism.

And if Islam is scriptural - why do you have all these religious authorities?

ChatGPT: What are the religious authorities in Islam?

In Islam, religious authority is decentralized, but several key figures and institutions serve as sources of guidance, interpretation, and leadership. The nature of religious authority varies across different Islamic traditions. Sunni Islam has a decentralized network of scholars, while Shia Islam has a more hierarchical system with authoritative clerics.

In some ways, Islam is like a cryptocurrency. It has no central authority. That is exactly why it is scriptural and not clerical. It is its decentralization that makes Islam the better religion.

In Christianity, it is the corrupt centralized authority of the church that makes it the worse religion. Christianity cannot be scriptural because that would diminish the ability of the church to impose its inconsistent clerical corrupt non-scriptural views.

ChatGPT: What was the object of the reformation?

The object of the Reformation was to reform the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, which many saw as corrupt and inconsistent with biblical teachings.

Again, the Reformation is a failed attempt at making Christianity -- which is clerical -- be more like Islam -- which is scriptural.

[Skepdick]

why any scriptural religion necessarily devolves into relativism

ChatGPT: Does a scriptural religion necessarily devolve into relativism?

Not necessarily. A scriptural religion—one that is based on a sacred text—does not inherently devolve into relativism.

That's just false. Whose interpretation of scripture is the non-relativistic interpretation?

This is precisely why Christianity is not a scriptural religion. Sola Scriptura is unsistainable.
And it's not a clergical religion.
And it's not a traditional religion.

It's all of those things. And none of those things.

In some ways, Islam is like a cryptocurrency. It has no central authority.

So it's a consensus algorithm in a distributed system... so Allah is not the sole authority.

And in this decentralized network an organic hierarchy emerges. Some voices carry more weight than others. Like mining pools in cryptocurrency.

That is exactly why it is scriptural and not clerical. It is its decentralization that makes Islam the better religion.

Christianity has always been decentralized. Christianity was Christianity before scripture. The first Christians relayed The Word by word of mouth.

Scripture is just one way of capturing The Word.

In Christianity, it is the corrupt centralized authority of the church

The church is not centralized in Christianity. It's the body of Christians.

How historically ignorant are you?

You are perpetually confusing the Church for the social institutions that emerged within Christendom.

Christianity cannot be scriptural because that would diminish the ability of the church to impose its inconsistent clerical corrupt non-scriptural views.

Which Church, buddy? You know that there was no Church (as you conceptualize it) until the events of the book of Acts?

But there was Christendom way before the Bible.

[godelian]

This is precisely why Christianity is not a scriptural religion. Sola Scriptura is unsistainable.
And it's not a clergical religion.
And it's not a traditional religion.
It's all of those things. And none of those things.

ChatGPT: It's all of those things. And none of those things.

Mysterious. Intriguing. A paradox wrapped in a riddle? Or just the nature of things?

[Skepdick]

This is precisely why Christianity is not a scriptural religion. Sola Scriptura is unsistainable.
And it's not a clergical religion.
And it's not a traditional religion.
It's all of those things. And none of those things.

ChatGPT: It's all of those things. And none of those things.

Mysterious. Intriguing. A paradox wrapped in a riddle? Or just the nature of things?

Seems one thing's clear - you can ask ChatGPT to think for you.

But you can't seem to ask it to educate you.

The Orthodox Christian tradition is not averse to mystery. Or riddles. That's the whole point of Jesus's miracles. And his parables.
The mystery and paradox progresses and the Holy Spiirit's guidance is recognized in the process.

Engaging in the tradition is basically an exercise in learning discernment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discernme ... istianity)

This connects back to why Christianity can't be reduced to just scripture, clergy, or tradition. Each of these elements provides opportunities to encounter mystery and develop discernment, but none of them alone captures the full dynamic of spiritual growth through engaging with divine mystery.

If there was none of that to worry about, well - yeah. Then I guess you can peacefully surrender your discernment to others.

Engagement in the mystery drives Theosis.

[godelian]

This connects back to why Christianity can't be reduced to just scripture, clergy, or tradition.

The resulting Christian doctrine is not closed under logical consequence. That is enough reason for me to reject the doctrine.

[Skepdick]

This connects back to why Christianity can't be reduced to just scripture, clergy, or tradition.

The resulting Christian doctrine is not closed under logical consequence. That is enough reason for me to reject the doctrine.

Closed systems. Closed minds... not much difference.

You are an open system, bozo. You interact with an external environment.

You exemplify precisely the sort of intellectual rigidity that both Islam and Catholicism attracts and exploits.
The ofer-reliance on logical systematization. Scholastics comes at the cost of creation/creativity.

Ironically, the systematic approach actually moves us away from, rather than toward, divine nature.
Which is precisely the Godly quality you lack... creativity!

You are a rule-follower, not a rule-creator. Not much different to a computer.

When we insist that religious truth must be completely logical and systematic, we are actually closing ourselves off from the very quality - creativity - that makes us most like God.

"He is Allah, the Creator, the Inventor of all things, the Bestower of forms." (هُوَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلْخَـٰلِقُ ٱلْبَارِئُ ٱلْمُصَوِّرُ)
"Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion and He created all things?" (بَدِيعُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ ۖ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لَهُۥ وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ تَكُن لَّهُۥ صَـٰحِبَةٌ ۖ وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَىْءٍ)
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ)."

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים - "And God created"
אֶת־הָאָדָם - "the human"
בְּצַלְמוֹ - "in His image"
בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים - "in the image of God"
בָּרָא אֹתוֹ - "He created him"
זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה - "male and female"
בָּרָא אֹתָם - "He created them"

In Chinese traditions, particularly Daoism, creation is understood through the concept of "zaohua" (造化) - a term that combines "zao" (to make/create) with "hua" (to transform).

Japanese Shinto tradition speaks of creation through the concept of "musubi" (産霊) - a creative force that brings things into being and binds them together.

The reason Christian doctrine isn't closed under logical consequence; is because the formalization of logic is a reflexive activity.
God's primary characteristic, emphasized across Abrahamic traditions, is being a creator. And our ability to create - including creating systems of thought like logic - reflects our divine nature. Our own creations (formal systems) will always have a certain openness or incompleteness to them.

The irony that you are called a "godelian" is not lost on anyone. Incompleteness is openness to logical consequence.
You are rejecting Christianity for the very thing Gödel proved must be true of any sufficiently complex system!

[Belinda]

Reformed Islam has capabilities that can happily meld with modern Christianity , and modern Christianity has capabilitiies that can happily meld with reformed Islam.

There is no "reformed Islam" because there is no "church" in Islam. There is no need to reform something that does not even exist. Islam is a scriptural religion and not a clerical one.

A scriptural religion like Islam is what Luther tried and failed to reform Christianity into.

Reformed Christianity is a spectacular failure because it did not morph into a scriptural religion. Reformed Christianity is as clerical as ever.

But Islam is not so much a scriptural religion as it is a performative religion along the same lines as Judaism. Even reading the Koran is performative for most Muslims.
Islam 's continuing to survive in 2025 is caused by the ease with which Islam morphs into political Islamism. Islamic mysticism is saved from Islamism because mysticism is apolitical. That mysticism is apolitical applies to Christianity too. (No MAGA is a mystic).

Christianity after the Protestant Reformation takes two forms: Anglo -Catholic, and other Protestant denominations which lack the intrinsic colours, sounds and smells that induce feelings of awe in the participants.

[godelian]

Islam 's continuing to survive in 2025 is caused by the ease with which Islam morphs into political Islamism.

Islam thrives in 2025 because the alternatives in the Abrahamic realm are unappealing. Christian doctrine is an inconsistent cocktail of clerical inventions that are manipulative and deceptive while atheism is not even a doctrine.

[Gary Childress]

Islam 's continuing to survive in 2025 is caused by the ease with which Islam morphs into political Islamism.

Islam thrives in 2025 because the alternatives in the Abrahamic realm are unappealing. Christian doctrine is an inconsistent cocktail of clerical inventions that are manipulative and deceptive while atheism is not even a doctrine.

What about Islam is appealing to you? Or to put it another way, what do you find draws you to Islam? Or why do you find it more appealing than any other religion?

[godelian]

What about Islam is appealing to you? Or to put it another way, what do you find draws you to Islam? Or why do you find it more appealing than any other religion?

Islam is a fantastically useful counterargument to the fake moralizations of the godless vermin. Most western people have no idea of how incredibly imbecile their views are on right and wrong. It is not even a legitimate system in a mathematical sense. Whether it is Christian doctrine or atheism, their views are not even closed under logical consequence.

I needed a tool to slag off their bullshit, and Islam turned out to be incredibly useful for that purpose. I was looking for a hammer to hit a nail, and after the search, I found one. If Islam did not exist, we would have to invent it. Islam is incredibly fit for purpose.

In the end, my core argument remains mathematical. Islam clearly has a model. Christianity has no model. Atheism does not even attempt to have a model. So, according to Tarski's semantic theory of truth, Christianity and atheism are complete bullshit. Their views are stupid. They do not satisfy the requirements of a legitimate theory. It does not work and it will never work.

[Impenitent]

"The Price is Right" has always had nice models

clerics assume denomination

there are only a few flavors of Islam but dozens of flavors of Christianity

-Imp