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

[promethean75]

Three types of people believe in god. One type because he is fortunate and feels like something should be thanked for that (but there is nothing to thank). One type because [cue N's thesis on slave morality]. The final type is a mix of the other two but with a dash of something more sinister than the last. This is the 'priest' type. He is sick like the slave but wealthy like the first type, and he preserves his position and wealth by suppressing slave revolt by administering his snake oil in church, the mosque, the synagogue, wherever there are masses of people to be exploited.

[godelian]

Three types of people believe in god. One type because he is fortunate and feels like something should be thanked for that (but there is nothing to thank). One type because [cue N's thesis on slave morality].

You can axiomatize the belief in God without running into logical contradictions. The fact that there are often problems with the clergy does not mean that there necessarily are problems with the basic beliefs themselves.

The final type is a mix of the other two but with a dash of something more sinister than the last. This is the 'priest' type. He is sick like the slave but wealthy like the first type, and he preserves his position and wealth by suppressing slave revolt by administering his snake oil in church, the mosque, the synagogue, wherever there are masses of people to be exploited.

Power and its resulting corruption comes from centralization. Without centralization, no power, and therefore, no corruption.

Centralization is a fundamental characteristic of Christianity and its church(es):

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".

One telltale sign of things going astray, is the symptom that the Christian clergy invents "authentic" doctrines that are not even closed under logical consequence.

It is the Christian clergy's monopoly on "authentic" interpretation that gives rise to Mickey Mouse doctrines, including the ones aimed at keeping the potentially rebellious populace subdued.

There is no such monopoly in Judaism. There is no such monopoly in Islam. There is no such monopoly in Buddhism.

What other religion has a centralized "church"? None!

You are falling for the same mistake as the typical ethnocentric western atheist, who is hellbent on projecting the problems of Christianity onto all other religions.

No other religion is centralized. No other religion has a monopoly on "authentic" interpretation. No other religion fails to be closed under logical consequence. These diseases are unique to Christianity.

The problem is not caused by the belief in God, which in and of itself does not cause any problem at all. The problem is caused by the power monopoly on interpretation by the Christian clergy which allows them to invent imbecile doctrines.

Judaism is fine. Islam is fine. Buddhism is fine. It is only Christianity that is an incorrigible piece of shit.

[godelian]

Here, all along, I thought Christian clergy were taught to lie and deceive.

You see, one of the two Jesus(es) did indeed die at the cross. No doubt about that.

Christ, however, did not die at the cross. It is a lie. Origen advised to remove all evidence for the lie but the Inquisition of Roman emperor Theodosius did not manage to hunt down all copies with a copy of the truth and to destroy them.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Matthew 27:16-17

16 At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus[a] Barabbas. 17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”

Footnote. Matthew 27:16 Many manuscripts do not have Jesus; also in verse 17.

If you also translate "Barabbas", you end up with:

Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Son of the Father, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”

In both cases, it is Christ whom Pilate was going to release. So, Christ did not die at the cross, which explains why he could come back three days later.

As you can see, the fabrication of complete lies started very early in the history of Christianity.

The Christian clergy gets indeed extensively trained on spreading otherwise complete lies.

[Alexiev]

Here, all along, I thought Christian clergy were taught to lie and deceive.

You see, one of the two Jesus(es) did indeed die at the cross. No doubt about that.

Christ, however, did not die at the cross. It is a lie. Origen advised to remove all evidence for the lie but the Inquisition of Roman emperor Theodosius did not manage to hunt down all copies with a copy of the truth and to destroy them.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Matthew 27:16-17

16 At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus[a] Barabbas. 17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”

Footnote. Matthew 27:16 Many manuscripts do not have Jesus; also in verse 17.

If you also translate "Barabbas", you end up with:

Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Son of the Father, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”

In both cases, it is Christ whom Pilate was going to release. So, Christ did not die at the cross, which explains why he could come back three days later.

As you can see, the fabrication of complete lies started very early in the history of Christianity.

The Christian clergy gets indeed extensively trained on spreading otherwise complete lies.

You are contradicting yourself. In the post I quoted you said the clergy were "born liars". Now you say they are "extensively trained". Who (I wonder) is contradicting himself?

[godelian]

You are contradicting yourself. In the post I quoted you said the clergy were "born liars". Now you say they are "extensively trained". Who (I wonder) is contradicting himself?

The term "born liar" is natural-language hyperbole:

"I'm so hungry I could eat a horse."
"I've told you a million times not to do that."
"That movie was the worst thing I've ever seen."

The hyperbole is a rhetorical device used to emphasize a particular point.

In fact, it does not matter whether the Christian clergy were born as liars or trained to be liars. The point I am making, is that the Christian clergy are incorrigible liars.

[puto]

Scholars call it the Niceno-Consltanipolian Creed that encapsulates the orthodox doctrine of the trinity, St Augustine the philosopher and Saint. In relations meaning the Son is begotten by the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and what makes them a Hypostases. Use an a priori approach when you confront the divine 'theism is true'.

[godelian]

Scholars call it the Niceno-Consltanipolian Creed that encapsulates the orthodox doctrine of the trinity, St Augustine the philosopher and Saint. In relations meaning the Son is begotten by the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and what makes them a Hypostases. Use an a priori approach when you confront the divine 'theism is true'.

In a decentralized situation, the Nicene Creed would have been just one of the many interpretations. However, the Christian clergy managed to get emperor Theodosius to outlaw every other alternative, such as the back then more popular Arian creed:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

Arianism (Koinē Greek: Ἀρειανισμός, Areianismós)[1] is a Christological doctrine which rejects the traditional notion of the Trinity and considers Jesus to be a creation of God, and therefore distinct from God.

Centralization of interpretation leads to bullshit doctrines that are not even closed under logical consequence, such as the doctrine of the Trinity.

Google AI

Edict of Thessalonica (380): This edict, issued on February 27, 380, declared Nicene Christianity as the state religion and condemned Arianism and other Christian creeds as heresies, authorizing their punishment.

Emperor Theodosius is no longer around to enforce the Nicene Creed or to persecute the alternatives. So, why would anybody keep professing the Trinity?

I have absolutely no respect for the doctrine of the Trinity. It is the result of intellectual oppression. I spit, pee, and shit on the Trinity. I think that the Trinity should also be persecuted. It is time to pay the bill now. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

[Alexiev]

The term "born liar" is natural-language hyperbole:

"I'm so hungry I could eat a horse."
"I've told you a million times not to do that."
"That movie was the worst thing I've ever seen."

The hyperbole is a rhetorical device used to emphasize a particular point.

In fact, it does not matter whether the Christian clergy were born as liars or trained to be liars. The point I am making, is that the Christian clergy are incorrigible liars.

Gee whillikers! Thanks for explaining! I could never have figured that out without your kind help!

"Show me a man who don't lie, and I'll show you a man who ain't got much to say." --- Mark Twain

[attofishpi]

-- --

Are you on board with the made up contents of the Hadiths - much of which have no substance to be based upon within the Quran?

For example, the approval of paedophilia?

[godelian]

Are you on board with the made up contents of the Hadiths - much of which have no substance to be based upon within the Quran?

There is no centralization in Islam. So, nobody is in a position that allows him to invent novel doctrines and shove them down everyone else's throats. There is no so-called "magisterium" with a monopoly on "authentic" interpretation.

There is also no emperor Theodosius to impose something like the doctrine of the Trinity at gunpoint onto everyone else.

The doctrine in Islam consists of only the logical consequences that necessarily follow from its documentation. In that sense, Islam is the axiomatization of its scriptures. It is pretty much a calculable and computable doctrine.

For example, the approval of paedophilia?

Islam encourages early marriage at a young age. Every traditional society does. After reaching puberty, marriage is physically possible and considered even desirable.

[puto]

godelian

No it was not, you are using Wikipedia as your source.

[attofishpi]

Are you on board with the made up contents of the Hadiths - much of which have no substance to be based upon within the Quran?

There is no centralization in Islam. So, nobody is in a position that allows him to invent novel doctrines and shove them down everyone else's throats. There is no so-called "magisterium" with a monopoly on "authentic" interpretation.

To the contrary, Imam's are free to ram any crap down the throats of uneducated Muslims throughout the world, especially in the M.E. & Africa.

The doctrine in Islam consists of only the logical consequences that necessarily follow from its documentation. In that sense, Islam is the axiomatization of its scriptures. It is pretty much a calculable and computable doctrine.

..as far as I am aware the Quran has nothing to support the Hadiths pertaining to what the civilised world considers paedophilia, this appears to have crept in via the creepy old men of Islam, as per below.. (*contrary to your above claim: "nobody is in a position that allows him to invent novel doctrines".)

For example, the approval of paedophilia?

Islam encourages early marriage at a young age. Every traditional society does. After reaching puberty, marriage is physically possible and considered even desirable.

It's to do with when a girl menstruates, then a Muslim can have sexual intercourse with her. This means that girls as young as 8 can, under consideration of non medieval cultures, be raped by a much older man - marriage or whatever doesn't discount the fact that any civilised man would not want his 8-12 year old daughter to be having sexual relations with a grown man.

Or do you believe that it is perfectly ok as per the Hadiths that a Muslim man of ANY age can have a bride at the age of 8-12 and have sexual intercourse with her?

[godelian]

To the contrary, Imam's are free to ram any crap down the throats of uneducated Muslims throughout the world, especially in the M.E. & Africa.

Unlike in Christianity, which is not closed under logical consequence, any logical consequence of the scriptures is valid in the Islamic doctrine. Not sure what "any crap" is supposed to mean.

It's to do with when a girl menstruates, then a Muslim can have sexual intercourse with her. This means that girls as young as 8 can, under consideration of non medieval cultures, be raped by a much older man - marriage or whatever doesn't discount the fact that any civilised man would not want his 8-12 year old daughter to be having sexual relations with a grown man.

Or do you believe that it is perfectly ok as per the Hadiths that a Muslim man of ANY age can have a bride at the age of 8-12 and have sexual intercourse with her?

You can view it in that way, or in any other way if you want, but that won't detract from the fact that you have no say over the matter. In the end, it is about other people's daughters, and not your own. In that sense, it is none of my business either.

If you want to impose your doctrine onto others, you will have to prove that you are willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in.

Don't be surprised if you run into a repeat of the French and Russian revolutions and into a brand new attempt at eradicating Christianity.

[attofishpi]

To the contrary, Imam's are free to ram any crap down the throats of uneducated Muslims throughout the world, especially in the M.E. & Africa.

Unlike in Christianity, which is not closed under logical consequence, any logical consequence of the scriptures is valid in the Islamic doctrine.

That makes absolutely no sense. The logical consequence of a Muslim strapped with explosives and blowing himself up in an English chippy killing lots of non-muslims inside IS a logical consequence of Islamic doctrine. I suppose that is ok then?

It's to do with when a girl menstruates, then a Muslim can have sexual intercourse with her. This means that girls as young as 8 can, under consideration of non medieval cultures, be raped by a much older man - marriage or whatever doesn't discount the fact that any civilised man would not want his 8-12 year old daughter to be having sexual relations with a grown man.

Or do you believe that it is perfectly ok as per the Hadiths that a Muslim man of ANY age can have a bride at the age of 8-12 and have sexual intercourse with her?

You can view it in that way, or in any other way if you want, but that won't detract from the fact that you have no say over the matter. In the end, it is about other people's daughters, and not your own. In that sense, it is none of my business either.

If you want to impose your doctrine onto others, you will have to prove that you are willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in.

Oh I view it precisely as it is.

That Islam is a barbaric medieval non divine ideology that supports paedophilia. That you in fact support paedophilia. That anyone in modern civilised society that understands the affect on the mental development of a child when (in the case of Islam) she is forced as a child to marry or just have sex with an old Muslim man because some Hadith states its ok, is DISGUSTING.

HENCE, why I must again INSIST to anyone with a brain that is reading this, that ISLAM should be kept from the shores of all civilised democratic societies.

[godelian]

To the contrary, Imam's are free to ram any crap down the throats of uneducated Muslims throughout the world, especially in the M.E. & Africa.

Unlike in Christianity, which is not closed under logical consequence, any logical consequence of the scriptures is valid in the Islamic doctrine.

That makes absolutely no sense. The logical consequence of a Muslim strapped with explosives and blowing himself up in an English chippy killing lots of non-muslims inside IS a logical consequence of Islamic doctrine. I suppose that is ok then?

It's to do with when a girl menstruates, then a Muslim can have sexual intercourse with her. This means that girls as young as 8 can, under consideration of non medieval cultures, be raped by a much older man - marriage or whatever doesn't discount the fact that any civilised man would not want his 8-12 year old daughter to be having sexual relations with a grown man.

Or do you believe that it is perfectly ok as per the Hadiths that a Muslim man of ANY age can have a bride at the age of 8-12 and have sexual intercourse with her?

You can view it in that way, or in any other way if you want, but that won't detract from the fact that you have no say over the matter. In the end, it is about other people's daughters, and not your own. In that sense, it is none of my business either.

If you want to impose your doctrine onto others, you will have to prove that you are willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in.

Oh I view it precisely as it is.

That Islam is a barbaric medieval non divine ideology that supports paedophilia. That you in fact support paedophilia. That anyone in modern civilised society that understands the affect on the mental development of a child when (in the case of Islam) she is forced as a child to marry or just have sex with an old Muslim man because some Hadith states its ok, is DISGUSTING.

HENCE, why I must again INSIST to anyone with a brain that is reading this, that ISLAM should be kept from the shores of all civilised democratic societies.

I think that it is time to finish the job where the French and the Russian Revolutionaries left off, reconstitute the 6th Department of the Soviet OGPU, reinstate the various Soviet decrees on the matter, and resume the eradication of Christianity.

Seriously, if you want to force your imbecile Christian doctrines onto others, then prove that you are willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in.