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

[godelian]

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?

You have actually answered the question by yourself.

It is not about Christ or his ministry.

It is about the violent stupidity invented by the Christian clergy.

In fact, the French and Russian Revolutionaries never criticized Christ or his ministry. They did not do that. Same for the Muslims, who have also never criticized Christ or his ministry.

So, the criticism is not about Christ or his ministry. It has never been about that.

The ministry of Christ is a metaphysical and transcendental series of events. It is perfectly fine to believe in the ministry of Christ and to acknowledge its metaphysical and transcendental nature.

It is, however, not possible to invent doctrines on top of it. These inventions won't add up, because the people doing the inventing are simply not of the same level as Christ.

[Age]

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

What is being SAID is that by USING symbols the one who started this thread BELIEVES that it can REFUTE the "christian" version of God.

And, 'this one' is 'TRYING' SO HARD TO DO 'this' BECAUSE it BELIEVES and/or has FAITH IN ANOTHER just as RIDICULOUS a version of God.

What do you BELIEVE IS BEING SAID, EXACTLY?

And, the fact that you will NEVER ANSWER and CLARIFY, further PROVES that it is you who has NOT YET BEEN ABLE TO ANALYZE what IS BEING SAID, and MEANT, Accurately and Correctly.

Also, let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'the ONLY one' who ACTUALLY KNOWS what IS BEING SAID, and MEANT, and also even the INTENTION BEHIND, the opening post. So, 'you' and 'I', "attofishpi", HAVE some one that 'we' can CHECK and CLARIFY WITH.

[attofishpi]

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?

You have actually answered the question by yourself.

It is not about Christ or his ministry.

It is about the violent stupidity invented by the Christian clergy.

Yes. The stupidity of the equivalent of the clergy - Imams preaching hate and violence in Mosques continues to this day.

Christian doctrine according to a Christian as myself is contained in the Gospels, not what men after the life of Christ start to apply words to paper with. This has been my argument with you on occasion. You are claiming that Christianity and its doctrine is what clergy write - no its not. Of course ALL clergy would be in agreement with you, but they are all wrong.
Also, if we were to agree with you and the clergy pertaining to what defines "Christianity", then we would have to question which denomination with its doctrine within that denomination is the most accurate to what Christ stated within his life.

I was surprised when someone recently educated me as to the origins of the denomination that I was born into Catholocism, that it goes all the way back to when Christ was still alive - its origins. Catholic meaning universal - I had contested this, but on further research found it to be accurate.

Last week when GOD or sage via GOD system interacted with me in the early hours prior to climbing out of bed confirmed to me the Catholisim is THE church that represents Christ. I asked the question whilst laid in bed, and 3 taps on my right knee confirmed the answer (* this has been a strange method for communication since about 2000) right knee being RIGHT - if I get tapped on the left knew i discount that as wrong! Strange way for communication I know.
All of that of course brings us to question the history of this Catholic Church - all the vile atrocities committed under Papal instruction and certain current Catholic cannons. For I think most certainly Christ would not be happy or have condoned all the manipulation, distorting and blatant contradictions of his message.

In fact, the French and Russian Revolutionaries never criticized Christ or his ministry. They did not do that. Same for the Muslims, who have also never criticized Christ or his ministry.

I did basic studies of both revolutions in high school and can't say there was any significance to either with regards to Christianity, beyond the Church and the ruling class have some allegiance to remain a status quo. To be honest I see no point in addressing such historical matters because the secular nature of that in the West has barely any influence stemming from opinions of Church, what you call "doctrine". I not Putin likes to align himself with the Russian orthodox church to get their flock on board, the entire relationship being a fraud.

So, the criticism is not about Christ or his ministry. It has never been about that.

The ministry of Christ is a metaphysical and transcendental series of events. It is perfectly fine to believe in the ministry of Christ and to acknowledge its metaphysical and transcendental nature.

It is, however, not possible to invent doctrines on top of it.

These inventions won't add up, because the people doing the inventing are simply not of the same level as Christ.

I agree. The same can be said in areas of Islam - Hadiths.

The main contention I have with you is that you reject consideration of claiming to be a Christian because you feel that means submitting to one of the denominations of Christianity.

Christianity to me is believing in the teachings of Christ, living according to those teachings and believing in his sacrifice, death and resurrection. However, on that note Islam denies such things.

MorHamMad comes along around 666 years later - reads (* or someone else informs him) of what is in the Gospels and attempts to distort pretty much ALL of it to suit his own agenda. He contradicts all aspects of Christs teachings, but realises that to also be considered having been interacted with Divinity, that he still needs to keep Christ talk within the Quran - but lessen the truth about Christ - MorHamMads ego had to trump this man. How could he do that the best? By distorting the facts of the Gospel, in particular the death and resurrection account

[puto]

Abelare, CE 1079 - 1142, was a philosopher and theologian of the twelfth century. In philosophy, the Trinity makes sense rationally and a coherent doctrine. The first treatise, circa CE 1120, was condemned in, CE 1121 by the Council of Soissons. The pagan philosophers were praised in the second treatise was abandoned and unfinished. Condemning, the third treatise was the Council of Sens, CE 1141. Reason of the doctrine is that God is beyond human comprehension and not a mystery claim. Pagan writers were intellectual, then pagan that the Word and the Father are co-eternal, and the Holy Spirit proceeded from God and the World, an apparent paradox. Deriving, Boethius are not sufficient, which the three persons are both the same and different.

[Skepdick]

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.

Now try the Curry-Howard correspondence.

Proofs = Programs.
Except when Proofs != Programs

On the whole it's true that Proofs = Programs and Proofs != Programs

https://youtu.be/Jo1TbN0M3xc?si=Xbo2uineWGzcBidX

You know what the imbecilatii believe? They believe that being able to prove X and its negation entails that you are a frog.

[Alexiev]

In general religions are replete with contradictions. Among them:

Death= Birth
Meekness= inheritance of the earth
Mourning = comfort

I could go on and on.

According to Claude Levi-Strauss, myth helps us overcome contradictions by equating fundamental contradictions with trivial ones.

Levi-Stauss analyzed the Oedipus myth as dealing with the contradiction that humans were made from the earth, yet we know humans are made from sexual reproduction. By killing his father Oedipus undervalued kinship; by marrying his mother he overvalued it.

The idea is that by comparing major and minor contradictions, we become reconciled to them within our cultural context.

[attofishpi]

In general religions are replete with contradictions. Among them:

Death= Birth

I am unfamiliar within Christianity as to where you are getting this. Personally I see no contradiction as I am aware of reincarnation.

Meekness= inheritance of the earth

That's not a contradiction. Meek is not a synonym to weak either. Christ seems to suggest that those that quietly observe and don't argue and express their opinions in a forceful way are more in favour of the likes of Christ and his akin spirits the sages to (imo) have an undying life once all the other belligerent, egotistical twats drop off.

Mourning = comfort

Often it does. It's a time of quiet reflection upon a loved ones life, usually around those that share the same love.
Interesting that "mourning" is a homophone to "morning" - the new beginning of a day, comfort

I could go on and on.

Well you could but it would probably be futile. Personally, I see ACTUAL contradictions in the Bible, so what?


Here we go, this is what irks me about so many on this forum with much philosophical knowledge, but lacking in what is actually required, intellect, personally it comes across rather pretentious in always pointing out that you've read some other muppets stuff as if their opinion counts just because they became popular...but carry on:

According to Claude Levi-Strauss, myth helps us overcome contradictions by equating fundamental contradictions with trivial ones.

Levi-Stauss analyzed the Oedipus myth as dealing with the contradiction that humans were made from the earth, yet we know humans are made from sexual reproduction.

Wrong. Humans primarily were made from the Earth.

[Alexiev]

Ok. How about the contradiction in this thread 's title. Levi-Strauss was not referring to actual logical contradictions, but to seeming contradictions. Obviously, birth and death are not logically contradictory, but they are in many ways opposites, so the notion that death is birth is confusing and difficult, as is accepting the notion that man was made from the clay of the earth when we know humans are born from women.

[attofishpi]

Ok. How about the contradiction in this thread 's title. Levi-Strauss was not referring to actual logical contradictions, but to seeming contradictions. Obviously, birth and death are not logically contradictory, but they are in many ways opposites, so the notion that death is birth is confusing and difficult, as is accepting the notion that man was made from the clay of the earth when we know humans are born from women.

I provide answers (from my opinion) to all of that within this thread - have a gander.

[godelian]

In general religions are replete with contradictions. Among them:

Death= Birth
Meekness= inheritance of the earth
Mourning = comfort

I could go on and on.

Your examples do not mathematically express a contradiction. If they don't, I have absolutely no problem with them.

[godelian]

[Personally, I see ACTUAL contradictions in the Bible, so what?

The contradictions are not necessarily in the Bible. In fact, I personally don't know of one. The contradictions are in the strange doctrines invented on top of the Bible.

The Christian clergy are not capable of new metaphysical or new transcendental truth. It is by overstepping their authority that they introduced contradictions in the doctrine.

Martin Luther correctly pointed that out:

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God.

The metaphysical and transcendental nature of religious scriptures do not make them contradictory.

The problem is that you cannot and should not try to invent your own Bible, unless you truly have the capacity to do so. The Christian clergy clearly does not have that capacity. Their Pope is not "infallible". That is why their doctrines do not add up.

[attofishpi]

The problem is that you cannot and should not try to invent your own Bible, unless you truly have the capacity to do so. The Christian clergy clearly does not have that capacity. Their Pope is not "infallible". That is why their doctrines do not add up.

We agree.

Personally I have never considered their 'doctrine' with any degree of sanctity. I have many disagreements with what the Catholic Church dictates to followers, even though I was born into it (from GOD decision) and GOD/sage confirmed, it is THE Church stemming from Christ (*as indicated last week to me).

So.

Were you ever a Christian?

[puto]

Intellectual denotes ancient philosophers who did not recognize any school of thought. Upending, traditional assumptions by raising embarrassing questions, confronted orthodoxy and dogma, in a paraphrase of Edward Said. Do not confuse private interests with public ones. Intellectuals history comes out of the enlightenment of human reason, being men of letters - the academics, clergy, and gentlemen scholars. Simplicity was Occam’s Razor, not divine intervention. Do not ‘parrot other men’s thinking’, regurgitating the ideas of others. Using, freedom of the mind, reason, and the intellectual faculty. Dogma must have been the ancient philosophers that is why they were in my notes. Enlightenment: The most fruitful investigations are not academic at all, but autobiographies, narratives, and novels that should influence the understanding. The Enlightenment was pragmatic not theoretical, freeing from inherited dogmas. The slogan 'sapere aude', 'dare to know' in favor of free thought for the independent individual. Models, in my notes, say one was Rosseau, the other Hume: Former saying authenticity, a true self, and lastly roles we play. Recognize living 'you are alive'. There is so much to enlightenment thinking, read, read, read.

[attofishpi]

<DELETED>

...sorry Puto I don't recall posting that, a bit too much birthday booze there.

[godelian]

Were you ever a Christian?

The answer depends on how we define Christianity.

I consider most of the Bible to be a legitimate holy scripture, the most notable exception being the letters by Paul, which I consider to be merely Paul's questionable invention.

In that sense, I already reject the very first decision by the official church, when it got officially established in the Roman empire, in the fourth century AD, i.e. the decision to bundle the existing scriptures into what they consider to be the canonical truth. I see that as the very first false Christian doctrine. They should not have included Paul's bullshit.

I also reject every other clerical doctrine that was invented and imposed later on.

Did I ever consciously accept them in the past?

No. Never.

The only difference is that I came to openly reject the clerical doctrines and inventions. I consider the entire history of the official church to be a fraud.

Judaism and Islam do not contain clerical inventions, simply because these religions do not have and have never had an official church. That is what allows their doctrines to be closed under logical consequence.

I reject doctrines that are not closed under logical consequence, because it amounts to allowing the clergy to hijack the scriptures for their own nefarious purposes. Therefore, I reject any organization that does the following:

https://en.m.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".

The existence of an official church with a monopoly on authentic interpretation is very dangerous because it means that the clergy will forcibly and inevitably try to stuff your head full of mere bullshit.

Since Christianity is fundamentally a clerical religion, which advocates and insists on the truth of invented clerical doctrines, I have never been a real Christian. Christianity is not about Christ. Christianity is about unquestioned obedience to the Christian clergy and its invented doctrines.