Sounds like you must become Catholic. My logic never forces me into a religion like you. Christians are willing to murder for God, put their own responsibility on him, and eat his enfleshed body. What more do you need?

Jesus said "this is my blood, take and drink". You have to think multi-dimensionally, going from one set of beliefs to another. If this was in an Indian religion, the Christian unaware of communion would declare it pagan and immoral. When he finds it in his own religion, suddenly it's fine. That is why I said aspects of Christianity, if seen as only in another religion, would be declared wrong. But when seen under the aspect of Christianity, suddenly it's ok. As for the substance view of God, it trivializes virtue. You don't realize the principalities and powers behind it though

The substance view of God that Christians have is illogical, for how can a person be striving, working, fighting, and doing in itself? A person can't just be those things. But I don't really care though what people think or want to think. I like to send my ideas out into the world though. Christians can expect no end to their toil

I've found that putting questions of religion into "premise-conclusion structure" only takes away from clarity of thought on these issue. Catholics believes they swallow Jesus entire with one gulp. Lutherans do too. Other Protestants pretend to do this. But eating people is unnatural. Therefore Christianity is unnatural. Perhaps premise-conclusion is only useful in the reverse :)

Maybe God is going to make heaven a torture chamber for Christians, where they will for all eternity offer up their suffering to his glory. How about that?

You, sir or mis, are clearly an immoral person

As Richard Dawkins often points out, if God wanted to show mercy he could have done it freely without killing himself, accepting the law, and binding us to his cross. Christian theology is just retarded

You make the claim that if God were to strive, then he would be imperfect. — Josh Vasquez

I said the opposite

God sent Jesus Christ to earth and Jesus by no means lived an “easy” life. — Josh Vasquez

Who cares? It wasn't God's nature, nor the Father or the Holy Ghost

I would hardly say this is cannibalism. — Josh Vasquez

They believe it is cannibalism mr.

If the God of the Israelites is the one and true God then it would be foolish for them to disobey his commands simply because they see it as “wrong”. Additionally, you are assuming that God is ordering the Israelites to kill without reasoning. Is there a particular instance where you God commands the Israelites to kill a certain people, but completely void of reason? Are you saying God has no reason or purpose or are you saying those reasons don’t align with what you believe to be right? — Josh Vasquez

I am saying not to trust religion when it tells you to kill people

we have sinned against God and owe a debt that we cannot pay which means we will be punished, however, Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was enough to bear the entire debt of our sin and when we trust in him we too have life like he does. In other words, there is most certainly a second chance, but it can only be found through Christ’s sacrifice. — Josh Vasquez

That totally violates the doctrine of justice. Fundamentally

I see. You don't even know what an animal is. This is ridiculous! God if he is goodness-perfection itself would have, with almighty power, made learning and living a pleasant enjoyable experience for every animal, bug, and plant. Instead... Therefore your God exists only in you mind (poor guy). It makes no difference if God chooses to suffer with the animal. The animal shouldn't suffer at all. It didn't ask for this.

The pain felt by the animals would have to be for THEIR good and there must have been NO other way to achieve this good without allowing the pain. Sorry Christians, but you are turning animals into humans. If God's nature is perfect, he can create perfection. A world without pain for animals would be perfect for them. You can feel smart by writing in premise style but your God does not exist. You need to switch the archetype structure in your minds

Abelard wrote 3 works on the Trinity, making fine distinctions between unity and relation. I don't know if I can use his ideas or not

I am more into neutral monism and pluralism. Kant, then Fitche, then Schelling, then Hegel, and finally Schopenhauer tried to say the world was matter and mind together, as a hybrid. I think the world is beyond necessity and contingency, and beyond finite and infinite. I think the unique part of what I believe is having perfect wholeness with perfect plurality. It's even more mysterious to consider than the Trinity

Your ideas are interesting and consistent

What options to be have of interpreting Enformation apart from mathematics? Plato tried to refute this by saying that the question "is 4 big?" has no answer and therefore there is something prior to math

Y

Are you saying THE WORLD is corporeal consciousness or simply information? We might not be anything

Catholics at least have an authority to tell them what the Bible means.They don't rely on themselves for interpretation of the Scripture. They just rely on the hierarchy

But to fact check current Rome:

https://nypost.com/2019/02/14/80-percent-of-priests-in-the-vatican-are-gay-new-book/

Half of all Catholics are neurotics. The following link shows a certain strong tendency in Catholics in the modern age (which is whythey are always using the mantra of the Rosary)

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/scrupulosity?fbclid=IwAR3-CLdpTVXE0LHb3c-xi33NTU4mpuovnwxlL2rWe1NH1Bh0TZlbPZZYjGk

One traditionalist priest wrote:

“God had originally created the sexual act between man and woman to be no more pleasing to the flesh then a handshake and childbirth was not to be painful. The emphasis on the flesh, both the momentary pleasure during the act and pain during childbirth, are effects of Adam and Eve’s original sin. After Adam and Eve committed original sin they covered their private parts indicating a violation had occurred in this area not intended by God. This quick, momentary pleasure during the sexual act placed the excitation of the flesh at the center of attention instead of the true cause, which is the procreation of a child. Satan always promises a quick thrill while death lies underneath. This strange sensation that Adam and Eve experienced, this momentary flesh pleasure, was at the same time very shameful, something alien to them, to which they sensed a loss of control over their bodies. It is a misplaced and inordinate pleasure. Circumcision, which brings pain where a pleasure never belonged, is a sign that God reclaimed dominion over those that faithfully bore it, so that the devil may not tempt them with lust.”

That is from a Catholic priest. It is based on certain comments by Augustine, Jerome, and a couple other Church Fathers. They are very confused on the subject. Now bishops are saying homosexual desires are normal but acting on them is not

I don't think that's true and I don't think many Protestants hold this belief as long as they acknowledge that if you're not in heaven sins are not equal, for each has its own consequence. I think Leviticus explains it. — xinye

Many many Protestants have told me that, according to the Bible, all sins are equal before God

any Protestant who has the right belief of resurrection/salvation would discard thoughts such as this. — xinye

What about Calvinism?

I would like to add: why is the existence of "objective beauty" probable under theism? A Platonic theism, sure. But not all theisms. There are many forms. Hegel said we have a subjective mind and an objective mind. Maybe "God" likes the subjective much more than theists realize

Lastly, the existence of objective beauty is not improbable under atheism. You can be a Platonist minus the lower "creature". You can be a Confucian of some sort. There are many ways of believing in objective beauty without positing a superpowerful Father figure who watches us constantly

A “brute fact” is beautiful. Did any of you watch the Land Before Time as a kid?

The Bible says the Church is the spouse of Jesus. Yet the Church is nothing else but the assembly of
Christian. So a Christian is being called to marry Jesus, to spiritually take the form of a female. Nietzsche objected to this. Christian belief on this matter is the consequence of passive redemption (passive on our part). Christians say "there is nothing I can do about my sins. I can never tip the scales. All I can do is offer my crumb, my morsel of repentance which is worth nothing except that it is accepted as payment by Jesus and completed by His merits". If you are stuck in an archetype where you have to become a dead Jewish male's wife in order to feel (temporary) peace in your conscience, you got the issues.

At least Catholics believe that not all sins are equal. Many Protestants think kicking a dog is as evil as murder and rape, and even believe that babies are murderers and rapists because of original sin. Catholic don't believe the former (mortal vs venial sin, remember) and usually do not believe the latter either (unless they follow Augustine over Aquinas on this). They do however have all their crazy rituals and it is true that many priests are gay and/or pedophiles. Underage porn is all over Rome

I don’t know why they won’t just choose to be a theist — xinye

It's not always a choice, is usually a revolting one, and there is much evidence that the idea of God that most Westerners hold is illogical. Nietzsche was only anti-intellectual in the sense that Bergson claimed to be. They would be regarded as highly logical in the East

The difference between Buddhist love and a mature Christian love is that the latter is unnatural (which is why they call it "supernatural") and unhealthy. Spiritual=good. Supernatural=bad

Matter and form are one. Some people find a certain model beautiful, others find her rather odd looking

The beauty thermometer varies from person to culture. There is no standard. The reason we animals enjoy beauty is the same reason lions play: it reboots their battery

Does you contemplation come from the East or Christianity? Scholasticism did nothing but slow down progress in science because they were book obsessed people who only love philosophy and theology. Are you seriously saying that science is like the monkey on the typewriter who finally writes the Illiad? That's dumb

Aristotle had no idea of statistics and spoke less directly of scientific method than Bacon. All Aristotle did was propose a awkward useless theory called hylophorphism. Making the rocket is science. How it works is always open to interpretation. Aristotle is useless

Jungian phsychology says we should not get stuck in attachment to an archetype. Nietzsche failed in this (there many excuses for being a Nietzsche though), as do Chrstians. Belief in spirituality being who love us only ends in darkness because it won't be reciprocal. Those who love "God" more than there family fall under judgment

I don't think there are are any spiritual entities that love us. Any experience of them is the brain being altered or acting abnormally

Here's a podcast that is catching my eye

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+hidden+djinn&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS867US867&oq=the+hidden+j&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l6j46.5289j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I don't think the Argon/Djinn have intellect though, nor do I think they are intentionally malicious. They are simply random, purely undetermined will. Like a black rider whom's mind you can never know (since we are rational)

Here is a specific audio video you might find quaint. Long before computers..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIGrAg6vuMA

"Maybe the devil is God, and God is the devil." Some wonder this. "God is the devil unknown"

Esoteric cosmology is fun, and physicist are tempted to it often. Schopenhauer says there is a secret will in the universe. First off, I'm a materialist when it comes to earth, consciousnesses coming from matter and usually if not always from a brain. It is possible for will and intellect to be separate. Will would choose in a random way, and intellect would just think without choosing which mental direction to go in. I think of the evil will(s) of Schopenhauer as Archons that lack intellect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon_(Gnosticism)).

I don't mention a Demiurage because they has to do with a personal Creator of the world. Matter is not bad. It is at least neutral, and when formed into organism it is a great good. Matter has emergent forces such as friction. Nothingness is pure Yin and energy is potential. Matter is emergent, formed energy. Gravity would be the first mover of matter, but not "in time". There is no time outside of consciousness. I adopt the "relational" theory of time from Leibniz. Matter has evolved into intellect, and if reason is "a
whore" as Luther said it was, this is not wholly a good thing. (My view does not contradict Aristotle's formation of "causality") The two fundamental forces of action in the universe are the archons and gravity. I would consider myself more of a pagan because I think we are greater than the Archons, even though and because of the fact that we are animals. Many animals are like gods compared to earlier phases of evolution. We are organism and intellect.We can't, or maybe it's just hard, to outsmart Archons because of the complete random spontaneity of their wills (i.e. their nature) I know someone might bring up Satanism. But from what I know, Crowley was for searching out the Higher Will of the person. And Anton Levay was simply more into being as much of an animal as one could be (in a gothic sense I guess). I've never heard of someone saying "the Bible is true but I want to join the devil."

There is no Super-Father in a supernatural realm who sends his Son to become our death and sin on a
cross. No, we stand alone

You have a strange sense of "substance" and thus must logically subscribe to the theory that everything is determined except free will. Modern science wouldn't generally agree to that

You are obviously a process philosopher and a very modern type of that as well. There are Christians versions of these ideas i've come accross: https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Immortality-Modern-Cosmology-Resurrection/dp/0385467990

not about pixels, but Bits of meaning. — Gnomon

If we found that instead of strings, there were tiny photons that rule the world, I think the German idealists and romantics would sing from their graves

I don't see a whole perfect supernatural being to be beautiful. An object, like a perfect Platonic Form, can be beautiful. Contingent things as well. Poetry usually portrays the contingent, unless it's mystical

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity_(alternative_formulations)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity


Not much agreement in science it seems.

Please tell me, if Jesus really meant by the word 'sword' that self-defence is allowed, why do you think his apostles and first disciples didn't use it to defend themselves while they were preaching later? — KerimF

Sometimes you turn the other cheek, other times you defend. It depends on the situation

I'll politely disagree. A self-explained cause has no underlying necessity as to what it is. It cannot have any, "must be", because that implies some rule beyond itself. It can be anything. Anything! It could appear for five seconds, then blink out of existence. A self-explained causality could even appear within a causal universe and disrupt it. While a self-explained entity could also be eternal and be the "first" thing (thus the start of time if time can only exist with "things"), that is only one option out of an infinite other. — Philosophim

Anything you apply to "God" can be applied to matter because there is no proof these things do not apply to matter but do to something non-composite

By the way, do you know any heavenly rule to be obeyed (as in the army) that Jesus, in person, mentioned in his teachings? — KerimF

Luke 3:14
"Soldiers also asked him, “'And we, what shall we do?' And he said to them, 'Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.'"

So Jesus was fine with being a soldier. Also:

Luke 22:36:
"He said to them, 'But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.'"

So at least self-defense is allowed. The over zealous Crusaders probably used this first to justify violence, and the one where Jesus said he has come to "bring violence" among families and nations

Perhaps that sounds like rubbish. However, Enformation seems to me to be either pantheistic or panentheistic digitalism, as if pixels have replaced string theory