Page 1 of 1

There is nothing wrong with axiomatizing the Bible

Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2025 6:08 am
by godelian
The act of "axiomatizing" amounts to accepting a set of beliefs. If you accept a set of beliefs, you must also accept its deductive closure:
ChatGPT: deductive closure

Deductive closure refers to the principle that if a set of propositions (or beliefs) includes certain statements, then it must also include all the logical consequences of those statements. In other words, a set is deductively closed if, whenever a proposition can be logically inferred from the set, that proposition is also included in the set.

Formal Definition:

A set of propositions S is deductively closed if, for any proposition p, if S logically entails p (i.e., S⊢p), then p is in S.

Example:

If a person believes:
"All humans are mortal."
"Socrates is a human."
Then, by deductive closure, they must also believe: 3. "Socrates is mortal."

Importance:

In Epistemology: The idea of deductive closure is often discussed in relation to knowledge and belief. Some argue that if you know something, you must also know all its logical consequences, but this leads to problems like logical omniscience (humans don't always recognize all logical consequences of what they know).

In Formal Logic: Deductive closure is important in formal systems where all provable theorems must be included in the system.
Martin Luther famously pointed out during his trial in Worms, 1521, that this is not what Christian churches do:
Martin Luther: Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant.
Unlike Islamic doctrine, which is the deductive closure of the Quran, Christian doctrine has never been, and will never be, the deductive closure of the Bible. Christian doctrine consists of what its clergy has invented and will be inventing in the future. Christianity is literally a clerical invention. As Martin Luther pointed out, the resulting Christian doctrine is highly contradictory.

Christianity is not the axiomatization of the Bible.
Hence, Christianity is simply not the religion of the Bible.
Christianity is in fact not even the religion of Christ.

The true nature of Christianity revolves around the belief that you should viciously persecute anybody who refuses to believe in your glaring contradictions:
Decet Romanum Pontificem

Nevertheless Martin himself—and it gives us grievous sorrow and perplexity to say this—the slave of a depraved mind, has scorned to revoke his errors within the prescribed interval and to send us word of such revocation, or to come to us himself; nay, like a stone of stumbling, he has feared not to write and preach worse things than before against us and this Holy See and the Catholic faith, and to lead others on to do the same.

He has now been declared a heretic; and so also others, whatever their authority and rank, who have cared nought of their own salvation but publicly and in all men’s eyes become followers of Martin’s pernicious and heretical sect, and given him openly and publicly their help, counsel and favour, encouraging him in their midst in his disobedience and obstinacy, or hindering the publication of our said missive: such men have incurred the punishments set out in that missive, and are to be treated rightfully as heretics and avoided by all faithful Christians, as the Apostle says (Titus iii. 10-11).

Our purpose is that such men should rightfully be ranked with Martin and other accursed heretics and excommunicates, and that even as they have ranged themselves with the obstinacy in sinning of the said Martin, they shall likewise share his punishments and his name, by bearing with them everywhere the title “Lutheran” and the punishments it incurs.

On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.

We would make known to all the small store that Martin, his followers and the other rebels have set on God and his Church by their obstinate and shameless temerity. We would protect the herd from one infectious animal, lest its infection spread to the healthy ones. Hence we lay the following injunction on each and every patriarch, archbishop, bishop, on the prelates of patriarchal, metropolitan, cathedral and collegiate churches, and on the religious of every Order—even the mendicants—privileged or unprivileged, wherever they may be stationed: that in the strength of their vow of obedience and on pain of the sentence of excommunication, they shall, if so required in the execution of these presents, publicly announce and cause to be announced by others in their churches, that this same Martin and the rest are excommunicate, accursed, condemned, heretics, hardened, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them, and so listed in the enforcement of these presents.

No one whatsoever may infringe this our written decision, declaration, precept, injunction, assignation, will, decree; or rashly contravene it. Should anyone dare to attempt such a thing, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Written at St. Peter’s, Rome, on the 3rd January 1521, during the eighth year of our pontificate.
Look at what happens when you refuse to believe in their bullshit!

Re: There is nothing wrong with axiomatizing the Bible

Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2025 8:55 am
by Veritas Aequitas
As usual you are very lost.

It is true Christianity per se is not axiomatizing the Bible because Christianity-proper should be axiomatizing or maximizing the Gospels only.

Even Allah is well aware of that,
  • Quran 57:27. Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those [Muslims] who followed him.
In the Quran, the Torah [OT] is attributed to the Jews.

Deductively, Christianity's overriding axiom or maxim is 'love all, even enemies' 'give the other cheek' [Mathew 5-7].

Those supposedly Christians who do not adopt the above axiom [or maxim] are not axiomatizing the Gospels. They are not Christian-proper but rather pseudo-Christians only. The Bible as a whole [OT, NT, Acts & Epistle] is not applicable to Christianity proper.

It is the same with Islam and Muslims.
The majority of supposedly Muslims are not Muslim-proper but are pseudo-Muslims because they do not axiomatize or maximize the Quran [the only valid text of Islam].
The overriding maxim or axiom of Islam is grounded in Quran 5:33, i.e. for the slightest fasadan [threat to the religion] kill the perpetrators as a duty within the contracted terms of the covenant [mithaq, ahd] signed with Allah.
It appear only the malignant psychopaths and the like, the very desperate would qualify to be Muslim-proper; it seems you are likely one of those?

Re: There is nothing wrong with axiomatizing the Bible

Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2025 10:35 am
by attofishpi
I'm not even bother to read the crap godelian is posting, he's clearly got a bug up his arse as if religion is competition based..

Regarding thieves..
As if a DIVINE being would condone this:-

the Qur'an specifies that the thief, male or female, should have their hand cut off “as a requital for what they have done and as a deterrent ordained by God” (Qur'an 5:38)

Re: There is nothing wrong with axiomatizing the Bible

Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2025 12:39 pm
by godelian
attofishpi wrote: Sun Mar 23, 2025 10:35 am I'm not even bother to read the crap godelian is posting, he's clearly got a bug up his arse as if religion is competition based..
I only demand deductive closure. Every other religion has it. Christianity doesn't.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Mar 23, 2025 10:35 am Regarding thieves..
As if a DIVINE being would condone this:-

the Qur'an specifies that the thief, male or female, should have their hand cut off “as a requital for what they have done and as a deterrent ordained by God” (Qur'an 5:38)
It does not matter what a belief system axiomatizes, as long as it supports deductive closure. If people still voluntarily believe in it after a thousand years, then it has withstood the test of time. However, if there is a French Revolution or a Russian one that burns all the churches and mass executes the clergy, then we also know what to conclude.

By the way, the Bible also punishes crime severely:
ChatGPT: Death penalty in the Old Testament

The Old Testament contains numerous references to the death penalty, prescribing it for various offenses, often as part of the legal and moral framework given to Israel. The Mosaic Law (Torah) outlines capital punishment for crimes such as murder, adultery, idolatry, blasphemy, and certain forms of disobedience. Here are some key points:

1. Crimes Punishable by Death

Murder – Genesis 9:6 states, "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed." This establishes a form of justice based on retribution.

Adultery – Leviticus 20:10 commands execution for both parties involved.

Blasphemy – Leviticus 24:16 states that anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be stoned.

Idolatry – Deuteronomy 13:6-10 and Exodus 22:20 prescribe death for worshiping other gods.

Sabbath Breaking – Numbers 15:32-36 recounts a case where a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath was stoned to death.

Rebellious Children – Deuteronomy 21:18-21 describes how persistently disobedient sons could be executed.

2. Methods of Execution

Stoning – The most common method (e.g., Leviticus 24:14).

Burning – Used in cases like certain forms of sexual immorality (Leviticus 20:14).

Sword or Spear – Sometimes implied in cases of war or divine judgment.

Hanging – Used occasionally (Deuteronomy 21:22-23).

3. Judicial Process and Mercy

The law required witnesses to establish guilt (Deuteronomy 17:6).

False witnesses could face the same penalty they sought for the accused (Deuteronomy 19:16-21).

Some laws included provisions for atonement and sanctuary cities where manslayers could seek refuge (Numbers 35).
I do not have a problem with any of the above because it still allows for deductive closure. The French and Russian revolutions were not about the Bible but about the inventions by the Christian clergy that were clearly not closed under logical consequence.

Re: There is nothing wrong with axiomatizing the Bible

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2025 2:02 am
by Veritas Aequitas
godelian wrote: Sun Mar 23, 2025 12:39 pm ....
You cannot counter my views above?
Meanwhile you keep spouting fallacious views re Christianity-proper.

If you understand your God, Allah in the Quran, Allah attributes Christianity-proper only with the Gospels and nothing else. The Torah is merely a guide and reference regarding certain prophecies but not with reference to its morality.

If the overriding moral maxim or 'axiom' of Christianity whole set is 'love all, even your enemies' give the other cheek and the like, these logically would abrogate all the evil terms therein the OT, else there would be a contradiction.

Re: There is nothing wrong with axiomatizing the Bible

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2025 2:38 am
by godelian
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 23, 2025 8:55 am It is true Christianity per se is not axiomatizing the Bible because Christianity-proper should be axiomatizing or maximizing the Gospels only.
That view is problematic for at least two good reasons.

First of all, the Gospels themselves do not transmit religious law. They do not elaborate the moral theory. It is the Torah that is the law and legal context for the Gospels.

Secondly, Christ was himself a keeper of Jewish law.

Following Christ as the example to emulate therefore means that the follower must in principle also keep Jewish law. Paul and Peter later on simplified that requirement to just the Noahide core of law for the Gentiles but the basic principle remains the same. Hence, leaving out the Torah would leave the resulting religion without a law, i.e. moral theory.

So, it is actually the other way around.

You can leave out the Gospels and still end up with a functioning religion (Judaism) but the other way around would completely fail. If you leave out the Torah and its Jewish law, you end up with a crippled failure at non-law based on just the Gospels. Furthermore, it would not even contain the core definition for God as the creator of the heavens and the earth (Genesis).

What's more, there is not very much to axiomatize from the Gospels alone. It contains at most two vague commands: love (1) God and (2) your neighbor, without even defining what the verb "to love" is supposed to mean in that context. It does not clarify "neighbor" either. We only know what the term "God" means because of Genesis. The term "God" is otherwise not axiomatized anywhere in the Gospels themselves.

Unlike Moses, Christ did not mean to bring a copy of the law. His ministry was interesting, surprising, and even intriguing, but it did not bring anything to effectively axiomatize into the foundation of law.

Re: There is nothing wrong with axiomatizing the Bible

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2025 4:02 am
by godelian
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 2:02 am Meanwhile you keep spouting fallacious views re Christianity-proper.
A decentralized religion will eventually achieve deductive closure. A centralized religion, on the other hand, will inevitably lose its deductive closure.

All mainstream religions except Christianity are decentralized and are therefore eventually consistent:

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

Judaism, Islam, Buddhism are eventually consistent. Christianity is not.

The fact that Christian doctrine consists of an accumulation of contradictory bullshit is an inevitable byproduct of its centralization. Contradictory bullshit is simply an unavoidable emergent property of centralized religions such as Christianity.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent

After millennia of bullshit accumulation, Christianity has now become imbecile beyond repair. It is long past its point of no return. Christianity can no longer be saved. In fact, Christianity has become so nonsensical that it is not even worth saving.

Re: There is nothing wrong with axiomatizing the Bible

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2025 5:50 am
by Veritas Aequitas
godelian wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 2:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 23, 2025 8:55 am It is true Christianity per se is not axiomatizing the Bible because Christianity-proper should be axiomatizing or maximizing the Gospels only.
That view is problematic for at least two good reasons.

First of all, the Gospels themselves do not transmit religious law. They do not elaborate the moral theory. It is the Torah that is the law and legal context for the Gospels.

Secondly, Christ was himself a keeper of Jewish law.

Following Christ as the example to emulate therefore means that the follower must in principle also keep Jewish law. Paul and Peter later on simplified that requirement to just the Noahide core of law for the Gentiles but the basic principle remains the same. Hence, leaving out the Torah would leave the resulting religion without a law, i.e. moral theory.

So, it is actually the other way around.

You can leave out the Gospels and still end up with a functioning religion (Judaism) but the other way around would completely fail. If you leave out the Torah and its Jewish law, you end up with a crippled failure at non-law based on just the Gospels. Furthermore, it would not even contain the core definition for God as the creator of the heavens and the earth (Genesis).

What's more, there is not very much to axiomatize from the Gospels alone. It contains at most two vague commands: love (1) God and (2) your neighbor, without even defining what the verb "to love" is supposed to mean in that context. It does not clarify "neighbor" either. We only know what the term "God" means because of Genesis. The term "God" is otherwise not axiomatized anywhere in the Gospels themselves.

Unlike Moses, Christ did not mean to bring a copy of the law. His ministry was interesting, surprising, and even intriguing, but it did not bring anything to effectively axiomatize into the foundation of law.
You are off target again.
What is critical and matter is what is from God, where God's dictated laws are the ultimate authority.
The morality in OT is abrogated in the Gospels and as such merely a reference and not authoritative.

In the Gospel, God made an offer [John 3:16] to believers to accept a Quid Pro Quo agreement which promised eternal life in heaven in exchange for a promise for the believers to comply with the terms of the covenant which is only in the Gospels as recognized even by Allah of the Quran.

What is to be axiomized in Christianity-proper can only come from the Gospels and nowhere else.

Here's ChatGpt on 'love' and 'Neighbor' in the Gospels.
ChatGpt wrote:In the Gospels alone, the verb "to love" and the term "neighbor" are explained through Jesus' teachings, parables, and actions, providing guidance for Christians on how to put them into practice.

1. Definition of "Love" in the Gospels
The Gospels clarify love primarily in the following ways:

Agape Love (Selfless Love)
Matthew 5:44 – "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

Love is not just emotional affection but an active, self-giving commitment, even toward enemies.
John 13:34-35 – "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

Jesus' love is the model: sacrificial, unconditional, and serving.
John 15:13 – "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends."

Love involves self-sacrifice.
Love Expressed Through Action
Matthew 25:35-40 – Love is shown by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick.
Luke 10:30-37 (Parable of the Good Samaritan) – Love is practical and transcends social or religious divisions.

2. Definition of "Neighbor" in the Gospels
Luke 10:29-37 (The Good Samaritan Parable) – When asked, "Who is my neighbor?" Jesus responds with this parable. The Samaritan (a traditional enemy of Jews) helps a wounded man, showing that "neighbor" extends beyond one's immediate community to anyone in need.

Matthew 5:43-48 – Jesus extends the concept of neighbor beyond friends and family, commanding love even for enemies.

How Christians Apply This
Love is demonstrated through actions rather than mere emotions.

Neighbor is anyone in need, regardless of social or religious background.

Following Jesus' model, Christians serve others selflessly and practice forgiveness.

Thus, the Gospels provide clear, actionable definitions of love and neighbor that guide Christian practice.
On 'love' means 'no killing of humans';
ChatGpt wrote:In the Gospels, the command to love humans can be interpreted as including not killing humans, based on Jesus' teachings that emphasize love as active goodwill and moral perfection. Here’s how this connection can be made:

1. Love and the Commandment Against Killing
Matthew 5:21-22 – "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment."

Jesus expands the prohibition of murder to include anger and hatred, showing that love eliminates even the root causes of killing.

Matthew 19:18-19 – When asked about eternal life, Jesus affirms the commandments, including “You shall not murder”, and immediately follows with “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

This suggests that not killing is a basic expression of love for others.

2. Love as Active Protection of Life
Matthew 5:44 – "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

If one must love even enemies, harming them is contradictory.

Luke 6:31 – "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

If we desire life and well-being, we must protect it for others.

3. The Good Samaritan as a Model (Luke 10:25-37)
Love means not just avoiding harm but actively preserving and promoting life.

The priest and Levite ignored the dying man, while the Samaritan saved him—showing that love is life-giving.

Thus, within the Gospel framework, "love humans" includes not killing them, but also actively ensuring their well-being.
As suspected, you are a psychopath with no sense of 'what is love' and who lack a proper moral compass.

Re: There is nothing wrong with axiomatizing the Bible

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2025 6:25 am
by godelian
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 5:50 am The morality in OT is abrogated in the Gospels and as such merely a reference and not authoritative.
Christian doctrine does indeed largely reject its own foundations in Jewish law.

It is one of the many reasons why Christian doctrine lacks deductive closure. It is also an endless source of contradictions.

By the way, who exactly needs a religion that considers its own scriptures to be non-authoritative?

Don't you see that the bullshit will never add up?

You will invariably end up with a religion by the idiots for the idiots.

Re: There is nothing wrong with axiomatizing the Bible

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2025 8:47 am
by Age
attofishpi wrote: Sun Mar 23, 2025 10:35 am I'm not even bother to read the crap godelian is posting, he's clearly got a bug up his arse as if religion is competition based..

Regarding thieves..
As if a DIVINE being would condone this:-

the Qur'an specifies that the thief, male or female, should have their hand cut off “as a requital for what they have done and as a deterrent ordained by God” (Qur'an 5:38)

[/quote

But, a 'Divine' would condone the ETERNAL DAMNATION for individuals, as proposed, or THREATENED, in the bible, right?

Re: There is nothing wrong with axiomatizing the Bible

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2025 9:24 am
by attofishpi
Y don't you all piss off.

I'm the dude that ran the gauntlet of the TEST_A_MEN_T.

I'm the dude that had faith in Christ, and now nose GOD personally...I sniffed out the fucking truth.

Godelian, you must comprehend that Mohamad was a false prophet - the evidence is within statements he made within the Quran, and then the statements he was forced to make, by GOD, as he died. Would you like me to point them out?

Islam is not a DIVINE religion, it is based on the ego of a liar with war in his "heart".

Re: There is nothing wrong with axiomatizing the Bible

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2025 10:24 am
by godelian
attofishpi wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 9:24 am Godelian, you must comprehend that Mohamad was a false prophet - the evidence is within statements he made within the Quran, and then the statements he was forced to make, by GOD, as he died. Would you like me to point them out?
It is perfectly fine to axiomatize any scripture such as the Torah, the Quran, or the Bible as long as you respect the principle of deductive closure.

I don't think that Muhammad was a false prophet. He was just a different one. The axiomatization of the scripture that he transmitted is perfectly sustainable. It has led to a perfectly usable abstract Platonic object, i.e. Islamic doctrine.

Re: There is nothing wrong with axiomatizing the Bible

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2025 10:30 am
by attofishpi
godelian wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 10:24 am
attofishpi wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 9:24 am Godelian, you must comprehend that Mohamad was a false prophet - the evidence is within statements he made within the Quran, and then the statements he was forced to make, by GOD, as he died. Would you like me to point them out?
It is perfectly fine to axiomatize any scripture such as the Torah, the Quran, or the Bible as long as you respect the principle of deductive closure.

I don't think that Muhammad was a false prophet. He was just a different one. The axiomatization of the scripture that he transmitted is perfectly sustainable. It has led to a perfectly usable abstract Platonic object, i.e. Islamic doctrine.
HELL OWE

People around the entire planet say it, each and every day to strangers as a benevolent greeting..ironic don't you think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3R_3h6zQEs

PS: I'll point out the false profit point i was making lata (stated within your Quran).

Re: There is nothing wrong with axiomatizing the Bible

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2025 3:28 am
by Veritas Aequitas
godelian wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 6:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 24, 2025 5:50 am The morality in OT is abrogated in the Gospels and as such merely a reference and not authoritative.
Christian doctrine does indeed largely reject its own foundations in Jewish law.
It is one of the many reasons why Christian doctrine lacks deductive closure. It is also an endless source of contradictions.
By the way, who exactly needs a religion that considers its own scriptures to be non-authoritative?
Don't you see that the bullshit will never add up?
You will invariably end up with a religion by the idiots for the idiots.
The following is the counter argument to the above.

Christianity Has Deductive Closure
viewtopic.php?p=761802#p761802

Btw, how do you justify Islam has Deductive Closure when Allah recognize the validity of the Torah and Gospels where the Gospel contradicts the Quran e.g. Q5:33 kill non-believers upon the slightest fasad [threats] versus Gospels' love all even enemies [Mathew 5-7].