Religion What faith do you profess?
- Thread starter Stargazer
- Start date
Every faith is real,becouse it exist.If i decide now start church of great @ATP,it would be real,too.Althought probable with only one beliver.
But some faith,as islam or protestant could be proved as unlogical - and in this case there is no sense in speaking about them.Becouse all you could say is "I belive,becouse i belive"
That kind of Faith is real,but we could not discuss that.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
Lutheran Protestantism was my religion of birth. When I mean Lutheran I mean the 'removed the saints and other excesses of the Catholic Church' Lutheran.
Now? With how shitty my life went over the years (and jumping from church to church for the better part of a decade before I quit going to church altogether)? I. Don't. Follow. Religion. At. All.
Now? With how shitty my life went over the years (and jumping from church to church for the better part of a decade before I quit going to church altogether)? I. Don't. Follow. Religion. At. All.
Every Faith is more or less illogical,including catholic one.
But i am saing about logic used to prove that eligion X is false,not if religion X is logical.
And,since Jesus departed us in 33AD,all churches made after 1517 must be false.That is all.
[QUOTE="
“And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.”
― John Henry Newman, An Essay On the Development Of Christian Doctrine: Theology
[/QUOTE]
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Hey, if we only included options that were logical, atheist and agnostic would be the only choices, but then this poll wouldn’t be very informative 
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
It's important to note that the illogic of virtually all religions, actually doubly so the organized ones because of the extra layers of buy-in for clergy, comes from the matter of them not having developed with modern standards of "full" rigor. The Ancient Greek Pilosophers were basically raving lunatics compared to what the Enlightenement tried setting the bar to when it started rejecting religion.
Holding morality to the standards of Principia Mathematica is just not really possible to bring the conclusions of to the general public, because building out coherent and useful moral systems from few inarguable axioms in proper logic is... Not really a thing. Nearest we get is Libertarianism, which doesn't have a "scripture" doing this for its moral framework and is well known for gaping holes in that moral framework.
A big thing behind this is the Is/Ought paradox, which is that nobody's worked out how to logically prove going from a recognition of physical fact to an imperative action. Which requires defining axiomatic goals, and doing so properly is a near-incomprehensible challenge nobody's solved, because you have to come up with ironclad utilitarian calculus before you can even start testing your axioms.
Granted, due to the nature of these problems, AI-devised morality is very ironically the most straightforward and likely resolution to the problem, especially if the AI is designed to study historic cultural factors to learn what exactly religion does in a materialistic sociological capacity to keep civilizations going for centuries. Which is to say, society's probably best off working to create Silicone Prophets to calculate the logical basis of the universal roots of human morality and various religions in particular, so that the asshole naytheists get on some of the same pages as the bible-thumpers.
Very important that it be plural, by the way, so that the religious people can present a logical basis of their own lifestyles, even if they'll be sticking to their faith as the reason they follow it. Allows them some lasting defense from the asshole naytheists corroding everything into meaningless sludge like my profile pic.
...Numidium is actually an interesting allegory for this. Sure, it can kill most of the Gods in one-on-one combat and literally destroy the concept of time. Its metaphysical basis is so all-encompassing that it can erase entire races from existence retroactively by simply declaring they Are Not. But it's wholly incapable of actually providing a constructive answer. It's the ultimate culmination of philosophy based solely on disbelief. Sound familiar?
Holding morality to the standards of Principia Mathematica is just not really possible to bring the conclusions of to the general public, because building out coherent and useful moral systems from few inarguable axioms in proper logic is... Not really a thing. Nearest we get is Libertarianism, which doesn't have a "scripture" doing this for its moral framework and is well known for gaping holes in that moral framework.
A big thing behind this is the Is/Ought paradox, which is that nobody's worked out how to logically prove going from a recognition of physical fact to an imperative action. Which requires defining axiomatic goals, and doing so properly is a near-incomprehensible challenge nobody's solved, because you have to come up with ironclad utilitarian calculus before you can even start testing your axioms.
Granted, due to the nature of these problems, AI-devised morality is very ironically the most straightforward and likely resolution to the problem, especially if the AI is designed to study historic cultural factors to learn what exactly religion does in a materialistic sociological capacity to keep civilizations going for centuries. Which is to say, society's probably best off working to create Silicone Prophets to calculate the logical basis of the universal roots of human morality and various religions in particular, so that the asshole naytheists get on some of the same pages as the bible-thumpers.
Very important that it be plural, by the way, so that the religious people can present a logical basis of their own lifestyles, even if they'll be sticking to their faith as the reason they follow it. Allows them some lasting defense from the asshole naytheists corroding everything into meaningless sludge like my profile pic.
...Numidium is actually an interesting allegory for this. Sure, it can kill most of the Gods in one-on-one combat and literally destroy the concept of time. Its metaphysical basis is so all-encompassing that it can erase entire races from existence retroactively by simply declaring they Are Not. But it's wholly incapable of actually providing a constructive answer. It's the ultimate culmination of philosophy based solely on disbelief. Sound familiar?
Last edited:
Then how sects made after 1517 could be Jesus Church? they could not.Catholics church exist from time when first pope was Peter.Orthodox and eastern churches could at least claim that they have succesion of bishops from Jesus times.Protestants have nothing.Except abbeys they stealed.
And about what @ShieldWife said - all religions are more or less inlogical,but it is not the same,like using logic to show that they fake,becouse we could that only with protestantism and islam.
/first - where was Jesus church before 1517.second - why you wrote that Holy Mary is part of Trinity/
I already answered that question, and you ignored it.
If you're going to ignore my responses to you, you can stop posting in the thread I started and calling my faith "fake".
Not word of anybody,but succesion.Catholics could prove that popes existed from current one to Peter,which mean that catholic church existed when Jesus departed and could be his church
IT IS NOT PROOF,THAT CATHOLIC CHURCH IS JESUS CHURCH,ONLY THAT COULD BE.
Protestants churches was made all after 1517,thus they could not be Jesus church.Becouse if Jesus church exist - and i have no proofs for that - that it exist from 33AD.Like catholic church.
Or, like somebody smarter wrote :
Following Gospel of Jesus made Jesus Church? nice,but 20.000 + protestants sect claim that.Which one is true ?
And who would say what following Gospel means,if 20.000 + protestant leaders claims that only their version is true ?
And if Jesus Christ exist,it exist from 33AD,like catholic one.Where was your church in,let say,147AD ?
I do not have proof that catholic church is real,but that bits of logic are enough to proof that protestants churches could not be real.
Or,in other world:
“And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.”
― John Henry Newman, An Essay On the Development Of Christian Doctrine: Theology
But catholicism has been more corrupt and for the longest time were not able to read the Bible. They were also being forced to pay a tax to the church etc etc.
Just because Peter was the first pope does not make it any truer then Protestant.
One does not need a figure head to be able to talk to christ. One shluld nit need to see others besides christ as Devine or to have caused miracles.
Saints make no sense to me, from a Christian perspective.
Corruption and Bible is irrelevant here.Relevant is if church existed in 33AD.Catholics could claim that.Orthodox and eastern churches if they use flexible arguments could claim that,too.Protestants could not.
Thus:
“And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.”
― John Henry Newman, An Essay On the Development Of Christian Doctrine: Theology
P.S i do not claim that my Faith is true,only that could be true and it could not be denied by logic.When both protestantism and islam could be denied using only logic.That is all.
The Protestant churches that can be shown to preach the Gospel as it is taught in the Bible are the true church of Jesus Christ. This is not limited to one specific denomination.
My church preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible. The church that preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible existed in 147 AD. Therefore, my church existed in 147 AD.
No, you've proved nothing
I'm glad to debate this as long as, you know, you don't just make assertions and ignore challenges to your assertions. If you respond I'll go ahead and make another thread.
Hmmm...let see:
1.So,20.000 + protestant churches are one Jesus church-REALLY? then why Jesus said that he would built one church on Peter,not 20.000+ ?
2.That church which existed in 147AD was catholic church.So,catholic church was Jesus church in 147AD,but now it is 20.000+ protestant sects ? REALLY ?
3.I proved nothing - logic did it.Becouse simple logic is enough to knew,that id church was made in 33AD,then it must existed from 33AD to 2021AD.
None of protestant churches did so.