Knowledge workers must reject and condemn Christian doctrine

[Flannel Jesus]

Islam has had over a thousand years to reach a consensus. I don't think it's happening

Every new ruling needs to acquire consensus. There are new rulings every day of the week. Example, "Are memecoins halal? Yes or no?"

Old rulings don't even have consensus lmao. You're inventing your own little dream world about Islam. You're free to believe it, but don't expect anyone else to.

[godelian]

Islam has had over a thousand years to reach a consensus. I don't think it's happening

Every new ruling needs to acquire consensus. There are new rulings every day of the week. Example, "Are memecoins halal? Yes or no?"

Old rulings don't even have consensus lmao. You're inventing your own little dream world about Islam. You're free to believe it, but don't expect anyone else to.

An online source of rulings: https://islamqa.info

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/169819/ ... -every-day

Question: Is it prohibited for men to comb their hair every day?

Answer: Praise be to Allah.

It is recommended to comb the hair and put oil on it, because of the hadith of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), according to which the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever has hair, let him take care of it.” Classed as authentic by Shaykh al-Albani in Sahih Abi Dawud.

There may or may not be consensus on this particular ruling. It would require other scholars to weigh in on the matter.

[Flannel Jesus]

Every new ruling needs to acquire consensus. There are new rulings every day of the week. Example, "Are memecoins halal? Yes or no?"

Old rulings don't even have consensus lmao. You're inventing your own little dream world about Islam. You're free to believe it, but don't expect anyone else to.

An online source of rulings: https://islamqa.info

I don't see anything about consensus there

[godelian]

I don't see anything about consensus there

Of course not. It is a single scholar writing a ruling. For such ruling to reach the next level, it requires consensus amongst the scholars. At this point, it is only tentatively part of the deductive closure of Islam.

[godelian]

I don't see anything about consensus there

ChatGPT: Where can I find the rulings in al fiqh for which there is consensus in Islam?

Finding the rulings in al-fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) for which there is ijmā‘ (consensus) can be a bit of a scholarly task, as not all are compiled in one universally agreed-upon source. However, there are some trusted classical and modern resources that attempt to document these rulings:

1. Classical Sources

These scholars documented issues where there was claimed consensus:

Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 930) – One of the earliest scholars to mention ijmā‘ on various issues.

Ibn Qudāmah (d. 1223) – His book al-Mughnī often mentions where there is consensus.

Ibn Hazm (d. 1064) – In Marātib al-Ijmā‘, he collected rulings he believed had ijmā‘. It’s a famous source, but his claims are sometimes debated.

Al-Nawawī (d. 1277) – In his al-Majmū‘ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, he frequently notes where there’s consensus, especially in Shafi‘i fiqh.

2. Modern Compilations

These modern works summarize classical positions and ijmā‘:

"al-Ijmā‘" by Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Sadr – A more modern attempt to list consensus rulings with references.

"al-Mawsū‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kuwaytiyyah" (Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Fiqh) – A massive, scholarly encyclopedia organized by topic. It often mentions whether there is ijmā‘ on a ruling and cites the sources.

3. Online Databases

Al-Maktabah al-Shamilah – A digital library with thousands of classical Islamic books. You can search for "إجماع" to locate discussions of consensus.

Islamweb.net, Fatwa.islamqa.info, and SeekersGuidance – These offer summaries and often mention whether a ruling has consensus.

4. Academic Works

Scholars like Wael Hallaq and Joseph Schacht discuss ijmā‘ historically and methodologically in academic terms, though these are more critical and useful for understanding the concept, rather than specific rulings.

Would you like rulings from a specific madhhab (e.g., Hanafi, Shafi‘i) or just general ones agreed upon across all schools?

[Flannel Jesus]

Good, so how long until you convince the rest of the Muslims of the right interpretation? Seems like a waste of time to tell all of us, we don't give a shit about your silly cult. Go get them on board with your consensus.

[godelian]

Good, so how long until you convince the rest of the Muslims of the right interpretation? Seems like a waste of time to tell all of us, we don't give a shit about your silly cult. Go get them on board with your consensus.

As a former Christian, I can easily explain why I find Christianity a steaming pile of shit.

Concerning other religions such as Islam, yes, they can only be much better than Christianity, because it is simply inconceivable that anything else would be worse.

I do not understand your obsession with Islam !?

Judaism and Buddhism are also vastly superior to Christianity.

Christianity is a highly inconsistent belief system that utterly lacks deductive closure, turning it into the worst religion on earth. What is there so difficult to understand about that?

[Flannel Jesus]

They all lack deductive closure. You're in fantasy land.

[godelian]

They all lack deductive closure. You're in fantasy land.

Deductive closure is the default natural and eventual outcome, unless there exists a centralized church actively preventing exactly that. The same for eventual consistency. It requires heavy-handed centralization to prevent these natural outcomes.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

This is evolving nicely isn't it. No question. Not Rogerian. But definitely more phenomenological I feel. Black puddin's in the oven. Bacon on [the edge, leaning on the side of the pan, so] the fat crisps up. The tomato's on.

[Phil8659]

Knowledge work rests on underlying beliefs that are consistent and deductively-closed. You cannot do math, science, or engineering if you refuse to subscribe to these two requirements.

Since Christianity and logic are like water and fire, the first step that every knowledge worker must make, is to reject, repudiate, reprobate, and utterly condemn Christian doctrine.

Christianity has always been and will always be for illiterate peasants only ... if even.

By the way, in and of itself, religion is actually fine as long as it does not have a centralized Church frantically damaging its consistency and its deductive closure.

I believe only a dumbass claims that there is such a thing as "Christian" Doctrine. Factually, it is easily proven that you, yourself are illiterate. Anyone claiming to know how to reason should be able to cite a fact: Relation to self is inadmissible, which means that there is a true religion, and it is called "doing our own work." Which, you have never done.
All a mind can do is process information, i.e., parse relative differences in order to produce both the perceptible and intelligible. Therefore, all knowledge is metaphorical. How many basic systems of grammar does binary recursion produce, and where are the grammar systems, on this earth today, which teach it?
One fool calling another fool foolish, is an act of an arrogant madman. Show me a correct grammar book, or the efforts to produce one.
Point to a solution, not to another idiot.
Any fool can point fingers in the wrong direction.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

And a fried egg. No HP sauce tho'. Worcester wasn't too bad.

[Skepdick]

Knowledge work rests on underlying beliefs that are consistent and deductively-closed. You cannot do math, science, or engineering if you refuse to subscribe to these two requirements.

...

Ex falso quodlibet. Since your premise is false any downstream reasoning is invalid.

If your premise were true we wouldn't be able to produce any empirical counter-examples to deductively-obtained conclusions. Falsification wouldn't work and we wouldn't be able to update beliefs with new information. This breaks abductive reasoning.

In practice scientists and engineers work with heuristics, models, and approximations. The systems may be locally consistent but not deductively closed. Counter-examples simply mean that the problem-domain was not well-defined.

Since Christianity and logic are like water and fire.

Deja vu. Trinitarian thinking is just as useful in formal logic (Logic, Type theory, Category theory) as it is in theology. In hand-wavey terms the deep insight is Unity in multiplicity,


Each perspective captives something unique about the "divinity" of computation.
Each language gives you a reification of the underlying structure of reason - syntax, semantics, proof theory. Each is not reducible to the others, but none can stand alone.

The idea of reification taking a meta-concept and embedding it as an object within the system is the same idea as (the abstract God becoming concrete in the incarnation of Christ). With a theological gift-wrapping.

The Incarnation is an archetype of meta-to-object translation - embedding meaning within a larger structure.

You have to work really hard to undermine the core of the Christian tradition and pretend the patristic, scholastic, and neo-Platonic traditions. were not deeply rational. Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and others used rigorous logical structure to understand faith.

You don't have to eat the candy with the Christian gift-wrapping, but it's the same candy in the packaging.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Islam has had over a thousand years to reach a consensus. I don't think it's happening

Christianity's had twice that.

[Flannel Jesus]

Islam has had over a thousand years to reach a consensus. I don't think it's happening

Christianity's had twice that.

I don't see why that's relevant. Nobody here is claiming that for Christianity, only for Islam.