The Son is God. The Father is God. However, the Son is not the Father.

[godelian]

This doctrine comes straight from the imbecilization factory. It is indeed some other imbecile doctrine in which the imbecilatii believe.

With X=Son, Y=God, Z=Father:

X = Y
Z = Y
However, X is not Z.

You can substitute X for Y and Z for Y in "X is not Z". Therefore:

Y is not Z
Y is not X

This means that:

God is not the Father
God is not the Son

With equality being symmetrical, we end up with:

The Father is not God
The Son is not God

This is exactly the opposite of the starting point. Hence, this doctrine proves exactly its own opposite. Therefore, this doctrine amounts to the belief in a contradiction.

In other words, this belief is imbecile.

ChatGPT: The Son is God. The Father is God. However, the Son is not the Father.

Yes, this reflects the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. According to orthodox Christian theology, God is one in essence but three in persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Each person of the Trinity is fully God, yet they are distinct from one another.

Your statement aligns with this doctrine:

The Son (Jesus) is fully God.

The Father is fully God.

However, the Son is not the Father—they are distinct persons within the Godhead.

This is a mystery that has been a central part of Christian belief for centuries, affirming both the oneness of God and the distinct persons within the Trinity.

There is nothing "mysterious" about sheer stupidity. If it does not add up, then it is plain stupid.

[Skepdick]

There is nothing "mysterious" about sheer stupidity. If it does not add up, then it is plain stupid.

The whole point is that it's not supposed to add up, you silly sod - you can't construct a closure!

It's supposed to blow up all of your silly thought-frameworks.

Especially the one which asserts a priori that ¬(P ∧ ¬P) is a tautology.
P ∧ ¬P is sometimes-decidable; and not always false.

Logic was never part of Christian theology until the scholastics. In fact, using logic for theology is really bad theology.
There's a reason Jesus spoke in parables and not syllogisms.

Baby steps... read a book before you take off the training wheels of non-contradiction.

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Limits-Th ... 0199244219

[godelian]

In fact, using logic for theology is really bad theology.

That depends on the religion:

Google AI

"Mantiq" in the context of "al-fiqh" refers to the science of logic, which is considered a crucial tool for understanding and applying Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) by allowing scholars to construct sound arguments, analyze evidence, and avoid contradictions when deriving rulings based on religious texts; essentially, it is the application of logical reasoning within the study of Islamic law.

Key points about Mantiq in Fiqh:

Importance:

Mastering logic is seen as essential for any serious student of Fiqh, as it helps to ensure the validity and coherence of legal reasoning.

Application:

Scholars use logical principles to evaluate different interpretations of Quranic verses and Hadiths, identify inconsistencies, and reach well-founded conclusions.

Relationship with Usul al-Fiqh:

"Usul al-Fiqh" (the principles of Islamic jurisprudence) heavily relies on Mantiq to establish the methodology for deriving legal rulings.

Famous scholars:

Islamic philosophers like Imam al-Ghazali emphasized the importance of Mantiq and contributed significantly to its development within the Islamic tradition.

In general, there is no need for theology to be contradictory.

There's a reason Jesus spoke in parables and not syllogisms.

The parables could possibly be contradictory -- I have never looked into the matter -- but certainly not as obviously as Christian doctrine.

[Skepdick]

That depends on the religion:

No. It depends on the delusion.

In general, there is no need for theology to be contradictory.

That's the delusion. That non-contradictory theology is possible.

Can't do theology without paradoxes of self-reference.

The parables could possibly be contradictory

Doesn't matter to a person who values completeness over the delusion of consistency.

[godelian]

That's the delusion. That non-contradictory theology is possible.

I see no reason why theology would need to be contradictory.

[Skepdick]

I see no reason why theology would need to be contradictory.

Because it's self-referential; and dialectical.

A self-organizing adaptive system is necessarily negating/contradicting its former self.

A system that self-corrects is necessarily implying that it was previously wrong. So is the self-correction erroneous too?

In the most reductionist sense change is contradiction. A implies non-A; or non-A implies A. It's simply self-negation, but on classical logic that amounts to a contradiction.

[godelian]

A self-organizing adaptive system is necessarily negating/contradicting its former self.

A doctrine is a theory. It is not a living creature. I don't see why exactly a theory would need to be contradictory. I am perfectly fine with theories that are not contradictory.

[Skepdick]

A doctrine is a theory. It is not a living creature.

There's your problem. Doctrines are living creatures within the broader living system of society.

Whatever theory you indoctrinate anyone with - they are sure to re-interpret or mis-interpret; apply or mis-apply it as they see fit when left to their own devices.

I don't see why exactly a theory would need to be contradictory. I am perfectly fine with theories that are not contradictory.

So why do we evolve new theories and discard old ones?

Why do we negate laws which can be viewed as theories of justice within a narrow set of circumstances/interactions?

[attofishpi]

**********************

The way I contemplate it is this:

GOD is everything. Pantheism but with the caveat of a willing intelligent personable BEING.

CHRIST formed from GOD, the incarnation in human form - fully entwined/interfaced consciously to GOD
-- thus derived from - SON of. *but IS GOD in human form.

Does that make sense godelian?

[godelian]

**********************

The way I contemplate it is this:

GOD is everything. Pantheism but with the caveat of a willing intelligent personable BEING.

CHRIST formed from GOD, the incarnation in human form - fully entwined/interfaced consciously to GOD
-- thus derived from - SON of. *but IS GOD in human form.

Does that make sense godelian?

What you believe, does not sound exactly like the doctrine of the Trinity. I don't think that you would have survived the Spanish Inquisition:

ChatGPT: What happened to Christians who openly denied the doctrine of the Trinity?

Throughout Christian history, those who openly denied the doctrine of the Trinity were often considered heretics, and their views were condemned by various Church councils and authorities. The doctrine of the Trinity, which teaches that God exists as three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in one essence, became a central tenet of Christian orthodoxy, especially after the Nicene Creed was established in 325 AD.

1. Early Church: In the early centuries of Christianity, various groups that denied the Trinity, like the Arians (who believed that Jesus was subordinate to the Father), were labeled heretics. The Arian controversy led to the First Council of Nicaea in 325, which condemned Arianism and affirmed the Nicene Creed. Those who continued to hold anti-Trinitarian beliefs often faced excommunication, exile, or even execution, depending on the time and place.

2. Medieval Period: During the Middle Ages, any heresy against core doctrines like the Trinity was often met with persecution by both the Church and the state. People who denied the Trinity were sometimes burned at the stake or executed, especially during periods of intense religious enforcement, like the Inquisition.

3. Reformation Era: During the Protestant Reformation, differing views on the Trinity also became a point of contention. Some radical reformers, such as Socinians, rejected the Trinity, and their views were condemned by both Catholic and Protestant authorities. Followers of these views were often persecuted, sometimes executed, or forced into exile.

4. Modern Period: In more recent times, outright denial of the Trinity, while still controversial in some Christian communities, does not usually result in the same extreme forms of persecution. However, groups or individuals who hold anti-Trinitarian beliefs, such as Unitarians or Jehovah's Witnesses, may be marginalized or excluded from mainstream Christian denominations.

In summary, throughout history, those who denied the doctrine of the Trinity were often subject to severe punishment, including excommunication, persecution, and sometimes death, especially in the early and medieval periods. However, in modern times, while still regarded as heretical by many traditional Christians, such views generally do not carry the same legal or social penalties.

This absurd doctrine of the Trinity is not optional in Christianity: The Son is God. The Father is God. However, the Son is not the Father. It may be a completely contradictory belief, but that would not prevent Christians from burning at the stake anybody who dares to point that out. We are clearly talking about a bunch of violent idiots hellbent on imposing their stupidity onto others.

[attofishpi]

**********************

The way I contemplate it is this:

GOD is everything. Pantheism but with the caveat of a willing intelligent personable BEING.

CHRIST formed from GOD, the incarnation in human form - fully entwined/interfaced consciously to GOD
-- thus derived from - SON of. *but IS GOD in human form.

Does that make sense godelian?

What you believe, does not sound exactly like the doctrine of the Trinity. I don't think that you would have survived the Spanish Inquisition:

Well, it's a good thing we're not dealing with the intelligence level of those of the middle ages.

..ah, hang on - seems even in the present day, many of those that believe in Islamic doctrine are still driven to kill, massacre etc in the name of Allah, EVERY DAY.

This absurd doctrine of the Trinity is not optional in Christianity: The Son is God. The Father is God. However, the Son is not the Father. It may be a completely contradictory belief

NO CONTRADICTION:

GOD - everything - the FATHER of ALL
SON - the incarnation of GOD in human form from Mary. SON who is of the FATHER

I find the concept of the HOLY SPIRIT the most intrigueing - mmm, perhaps that's the switching system of GOD that permits the sub-atomic fields that sustain our reality..

My occasional prayer start (*as a Catholic)
In the name of the FATHER
and of the SON
and the HOLY SPIRIT
AMEN.

...but that would not prevent Christians from burning at the stake anybody who dares to point that out. We are clearly talking about a bunch of violent idiots hellbent on imposing their stupidity onto others.

Mmm, back to the intelligence level of those way back in the Middle Ages.

Now, Muslims on the other hand nowadays..

[godelian]

NO CONTRADICTION:

GOD - everything - the FATHER of ALL
SON - the incarnation of GOD in human form from Mary. SON who is of the FATHER

ChatGPT: Is the pattern X=Y, Z=Y, Z≠X satisfiable?

Let's analyze the pattern logically:

1. X=Y
2. Z=Y
3. Z≠X

From (1) and (2), we conclude that both X and Y are equal to Z, meaning:

X = Y = Z

Since this leads to a contradiction, the pattern is not satisfiable—there are no values for X,Y and Z that can satisfy all three conditions simultaneously.

As long as the Christians had enough political power, they kept burning people at the stake for pointing out what ChatGPT has said above.

Therefore, we should be grateful to the French and Russian Revolutionaries for having destroyed the political power of Christianity.

Do you know how many churches they had to burn and how many Christian clergy they had to mass execute to liberate humanity from the Christian bullshit?

The French and Russian revolutions have truly done the work of the Lord!

[attofishpi]

NO CONTRADICTION:

GOD - everything - the FATHER of ALL
SON - the incarnation of GOD in human form from Mary. SON who is of the FATHER

ChatGPT: Is the pattern X=Y, Z=Y, Z≠X satisfiable?

Let's analyze the pattern logically:

1. X=Y
2. Z=Y
3. Z≠X

From (1) and (2), we conclude that both X and Y are equal to Z, meaning:

X = Y = Z

Since this leads to a contradiction, the pattern is not satisfiable—there are no values for X,Y and Z that can satisfy all three conditions simultaneously.

You are failing to provide ChatGPT with any accurate representation to that which is the ineffable, so not much point attempting it really.

As long as the Christians had enough political power, they kept burning people at the stake for pointing out what ChatGPT has said above.

Therefore, we should be grateful to the French and Russian Revolutionaries for having destroyed the political power of Christianity.

Do you know how many churches they had to burn and how many Christian clergy they had to mass execute to liberate humanity from the Christian bullshit?

The French and Russian revolutions have truly done the work of the Lord!

So you keep insisting on clergy that arn't in any way representative of the teachings of Christ - that they distorted in many dialectic offshorts all forms of stupidity, to insist that being an actual Chrisian - me - is not worthy of anyone having faith in Christ?

That you keep going back into history where ALL humans were barbaric towards each other is rather daft.

Clearly not even nowadays, ISLAM has clearly not instructed within Mosques to preach acceptance and peace among all, something an actual Divine being insisted (GOD\Christ).

I am making travel plans to Philipines and just last night I searched for Travel Warnings on youtube. I came across a native Filipino talking about the trouble spots where there are bombings and kidnapping of tourists for ransom, etc..
GUESS who the culprits are?? Many sects of ISLAMIC groups - extorting money out of innocent people, raping and killing them - for FINANCIAL GAIN.

Do you honestly think a Divine being condones his best creation, humans, to act in such a manner towards each other?

The vast majority of violence around the world from a RELIGIOUS driven aspect, is from ISLAM.

[Age]

If ANY one wants to just refute, or just confirm some thing, then just write 'it' out in words.

Using symbols, such as are ATTEMPTING TO BE USED, here, will NOT SUFFICE.

[attofishpi]

GROW A BRAIN THAT CAN ANAYLYSE WHAT IS BEING SAID AND ACCURATELY REPLY TO IT, OR, FUCK OFF WASTING EVERYONES TIME.