Knowledge workers must reject and condemn Christian doctrine

[godelian]

You can't possibly live well with your utterly transactional/materialistic obsession.

Not wanting to lose half your stuff to your ex and her new boyfriend, is "materialistic"? Seriously?

Most of all. You sound too incompetent to hire a lawyer and draft a prenup. Whatever your faith.

There is no need for that in other religions. Only countries with Christian clerical lobbyists have that kind of laws.
Marriage in a country with Christian laws, is an ambush. It is a pig butchering scam.
The scam of "Community property" does not exist in Buddhism either, but especially in Islam, this is very well documented:

ChatGPT: Does community property exist in Islamic marriage?

Islamic marriage does not recognize community property in the same way that some Western legal systems do (e.g., in California or France). Instead, Islamic law (Sharia) treats the property of each spouse as separate before, during, and after marriage.

Key Principles:

Separate Property:
Each spouse retains individual ownership of their own property, whether acquired before or during the marriage.
A husband has no automatic right over his wife's wealth, income, or property, and vice versa.

Mahr (Dower):
Upon marriage, the husband is obligated to give the wife a mahr, a specified gift (money or property), which becomes her exclusive property.

No Automatic Sharing of Earnings or Assets:
Even if both spouses contribute to a household or a business, ownership remains separate unless a mutual agreement is made.

Voluntary Agreements:
Spouses can voluntarily enter into contracts (e.g., business partnerships or joint ownership), but this is not imposed by Islamic law.

Post-Divorce Settlements:
Upon divorce, the wife is not entitled to half of the husband's property, unlike community property systems. She retains:
Her own property
Her mahr
Any maintenance (nafaqah) due during the waiting period (iddah)
Possibly compensation (mut‘ah) in some interpretations

In Summary:
Islamic marriage ≠ community property
Property remains individually owned
Joint ownership requires explicit mutual agreement

Let me know if you'd like a comparison with specific countries' laws or schools of Islamic thought (e.g., Hanafi vs. Maliki).

I don't need a so-called "prenup". I just need to stay away from the detestable Christian scamfest. Seriously, I spit, pee, and shit on Christianity.

The "problem" you are wrestling with isn't actually a problem for competent people.

I do not wrestle with this problem, because I am perfectly aware of the Christian pig-butchering scam. I live in SE Asia. So, they cannot ambush me. Most people here are Buddhist. However, I still despise Christianity for its attempt at scamming. I will keep defecating on Christianity for the rest of my life, and keep spreading the hatred for that fake religion with their fake divinities.

[Skepdick]

Not wanting to lose half your stuff to your ex and her new boyfriend, is "materialistic"? Seriously?

No. But the amount of energy you are putting into a non-problem sure is.

There is no need for that in other religions. Only countries with Christian clerical lobbyists have that kind of laws.

That's' a weird angle to take on the issue. So you are saying that the only country where you have legal protection against the very thing you are concerned about is Christian countries?

Marriage in a country with Christian laws, is an ambush. It is a pig butchering scam.
The scam of "Community property" does not exist in Buddhism either, but especially in Islam, this is very well documented:

I would've thought having the choice leaves the matter to be settled between partners. Where I live multiple marriage agreements are recognized
Community of property, antenuptial with; or without accrual. So you can share some assets and not others; or share no assets at all.

But hey. We aren't bigots like that. Telling people how to manage their assets when they get married.

It really isn't the society's business.

You really don't seem to have a problem with society imposing property rules on marriage. As long as it's your rules.

[godelian]

I would've thought having the choice leaves the matter to be settled between partners. Where I live multiple marriage agreements are recognized
Community of property, antenuptial with; or without accrual. So you can share some assets and not others; or share no assets at all.

But hey. We aren't bigots like that. Telling people how to manage their assets when they get married.

It really isn't the society's business.

You really don't seem to have a problem with society imposing property rules on marriage. As long as it's your rules.

In absence of any specific deal saying otherwise, boyfriend and girlfriend do not share property. Why would it be different for husband and wife? Where does that absurd idea come from that suddenly all your income is shared and half of your assets belong to someone else? You see, I have absolutely no problem that people make their own specific agreements about these things. Christianity, however, turns it into an ambush. They hide it in the fine print. The fake Christian marriage ceremony, performed in the name of fake divinities, certainly does not mention that they are secretly concealing a trap in the deal.

Of course, it is not society's business. It is the business of the two people involved and typically also their parents.

Another problem I have with Christians, is that they have corrupted the laws to impose their obnoxious views onto everybody else. I utterly despise Christianity. So, why should I have to suffer the imbecile laws of Christianity? The French Revolutionaries did not finish their job. They shut down the churches and exiled the clergy. Unfortunately, these cockroaches managed to come back. The Russian Revolutionaries did a better job, but also unfinished.

I admire the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU:

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

Yevgeny Aleksandrovich Tuchkov (Russian Евгений Александрович Тучков; 1892, Suzdal, Vladimir Governorate – 15 April, 1957, Moscow) was a Soviet state security officer and the head of the anti-religious department of the Soviet OGPU.

From 1922 to 1929 Tuchkov headed the sixth secret department of the OGPU which targeted the Russian Orthodox Church during the 1920s. During this period, Tuchkov orchestrated a campaign of persecution against the church which included the mass arrests and executions of clergy.

In my opinion, it is time to resurrect Yevgeny Tuchkov and the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU. It is necessary to eradicate Christianity. It needs to be done. It is time to reconstitute the infrastructure for that.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

They're getting on like a house on fire! How cute.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

What, consensus?

right, consensus, "deductive closure" - godelian is claiming all that for islam only.

Sorry, right, thanks. I won't read him directly. Does he mean epistemic? What's his first truth, that makes all the propositions of Islam true? That's rhetorical, as there isn't one for us. The Shahada I presume. It is a matter of (true) religion, therefore it is true and all that follows is true. Within Islam, I reckon that's true. Closed indeed. Thomism and Jung and feeling based religions and the like all do that. Strange warmings of the heart. They are utterly impenetrably closed, hermetically sealed. Untouchable. I respect that. The passion that enslaves reason.

Our passion is reason.

Which should not be couched in derision, hostility toward a believer of course. They cannot help it.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The Christianity Moral Model is the Most Effective at Present [not future]
viewtopic.php?t=40374

Christianity is Idiot-Proof, Islam [inherently evil] is Not
viewtopic.php?t=43455

Knowledge workers all reject doctrine. godelian is no knowledge worker as he's indoctrinated. Like you. Attacking each other's doctrinal positions from doctrinal positions. A doomed dichotomy of deranged weak hostility.

[godelian]

Knowledge workers all reject doctrine.

That amounts to claiming that all knowledge is inductive and that there is no deductive knowledge. That is obviously wrong.

Attacking each other's doctrinal positions from doctrinal positions.

In principle, I am fine with any doctrinal position as long as it is consistent and deductively closed.

[promethean75]

Did someone just say Yevgeny Aleksandrovich Tuchkov?

[godelian]

Did someone just say Yevgeny Aleksandrovich Tuchkov?

Sounds like real Russian pronunciation!

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Christianity Moral Model is the Most Effective at Present [not future]
viewtopic.php?t=40374

Christianity is Idiot-Proof, Islam [inherently evil] is Not
viewtopic.php?t=43455

Knowledge workers all reject doctrine. godelian is no knowledge worker as he's indoctrinated. Like you. Attacking each other's doctrinal positions from doctrinal positions. A doomed dichotomy of deranged weak hostility.

I am a non-theist and non-religious.

You think you are knowledge worker but you are ignorant and not knowledgeable.
You are ignorant that humans were apes [still share 98% of DNA] not too long ago relative to evolutionary time.

The majority of humans with self-awareness and thus aware they are mortal are triggered with the terrible fears of mortality at the subliminal level and facing existential angsts.
As in the past and present, religions are the most efficient balms to soothe the inherent existential pains of the masses. Marx was on point ""Religion is the opium of the masses."

Marx was on point ""Religion is the opium of the masses." Because the theistic inclinations are hardwired, there is no immediate alternatives, therefore the majority of humans need religion as a crutch; this is empirically evident, i.e. 90% of humans are theists or spiritual.

My point is, if we cannot find alternatives to religions as a balm at present, at the least get rid of that malignant and evil-laden one and keep the pacifist-based ones as suggested above.

At some point in the future we need to wean off theism an all religions. I am optimistic it is possible when we have the knowledge and technology to do so.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

You are ignorant that humans are still apes.

You are ignorant that existential angst is never pluralized.

You are ignorant of repeating,

Marx was on point ""Religion is the opium of the masses."

You are ignorant of the violence explicit in Christianity.

You are ignorant of your typo.

You are ignorant in your optimism.

And I am not ignorant of being a fool thinking that there is any purpose in not putting you in my box of frogs.

[godelian]

I am a non-theist and non-religious.

That's fine. However, you cannot prove that there would be inconsistencies or falsehoods in the deductive closure of any other religion than Christianity. So, in general, there is nothing wrong with theism or religion. That is why the only religion that has witnessed insurgencies, outright rebellions, and attempts at wholesale eradication, is Christianity. Unlike other religions, Christianity simply deserves to be eradicated.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are ignorant that humans are still apes.

You are ignorant that existential angst is never pluralized.

You are ignorant of repeating,

Marx was on point ""Religion is the opium of the masses."

You are ignorant of the violence explicit in Christianity.

You are ignorant of your typo.

You are ignorant in your optimism.

And I am not ignorant of being a fool thinking that there is any purpose in not putting you in my box of frogs.

Your thinking is very narrow and shallow.

I never claimed humans are still apes.
As defined biologically, species wise humans are not apes.
Humans and apes has a common ancestor.
That humans has 98% of same DNA as the higher primates give one an idea their fundamentals are not very different, i.e. this case of reasoning and knowledge.

Re "angsts"
[AI]"While "angst" is often treated as an uncountable noun (like "information" or "happiness") when referring to a general feeling of anxiety or dread, it can be pluralized to refer to multiple instances or different types of such feelings.
While not as common as the singular form, "angsts" is used, particularly in contexts where one wants to emphasize various specific anxieties or sources of worry. You can find examples of its use in published works, especially when discussing a collection of specific anxieties or different manifestations of existential dread.
For instance, one might talk about "the angsts of modern life" or "the different angsts faced by teenagers."
In German, from which the word "angst" originates, the plural form is "Ängste" (with an umlaut). In English, the plural is simply "angsts." [AI]

While Christians had committed atrocities over history, they [the individuals] had committed those evil acts in their own personal capacity and not in the name of Christ nor God as their terms of the Quid Pro Quo contract [covenant] with God.
God/Christ made an 'offer' in John 3:16 of eternal life in heaven and when believers accept this offer, they had entered into a Quid Pro Quo contract with God where the terms of the contract are only in the Gospels.
The overriding pacifist term of the contract which is only in the Gospels is 'love all, even enemies' and the like [Mathew 5-9]. If they MUST love all and even enemies, they are not suppose to kill or harm them [In line with one of the 10 Commandments -Thou Shalt Not Kill].
If any Christians had killed human[s] they have sinned in accordance to the terms of the contract; but they would be forgiven if done for the good of the religion or mankind else they will be sent to Hell.

See, you are ignorant of the above, do you have a counter for the above?

There is one religion at present which permit -in the terms of contract - their believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat to the individual beliefs and the religion, e.g. drawing of cartoons can even get one killed and even disbelief is a threat to the religion.

Optimistic??
That is based on empirical evidence and note,
"The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1] The book uses data documenting declining violence across time and geography. This paints a picture of massive declines in the violence of all forms, from war, to improved treatment of children."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature

To ensure you do not exposed more of your ignorance, counter the above with supporting evidences and reference, not merely unsubstantiated one-liners.