Perhaps. Never forget that Protestantism- the source of most degenerate/withered Christianity- was founded on Sola Scriptura

If various powers could wear that down overtime, the same can theoretically be done with Islam

Well yes. It's birthed the most fundamentalist and liberal churches

And it actually is somewhat similiar in islam

Like moderate mosques are pretty much doing the same thign as Ahmadiyya by avoiding the uncomfortable Suras

Whereas Ahmadiyya is the extreme end of it

There isn't an authoritative head in islam outside the Ayatollah in Iran afaik

The Turkish sultan used to fill the role of caliph/head of sunni islam too

Hard to say how it'll turn out in the end

At least in Tunisia you can see that tourism has made a more liberal islam win elections over the muslim brotherhood

Yeah, could be interesting

It really comes down to what power is able to leverage it's international infrastructure quicker

I don't think so

As far as I can see leftist that turn "pagan" just maker it abotu giving into their bestial nature

They want to fuck around and whatnot

It seems like a repeat of the matriarchal fertility cults

I think you would expect to see a Cult of Dionysius in any legitimate pagan practice. A machine cult would probably be a Cult of Apollo, but this would trend towards Christianity anyway. While there might be a small section of Apollonians devoid of Dionysianism, I think the Dionysian element would quickly overtake the Apollonian and act in opposition to Christianity.

It'll be fun to see all sorts of space cults pop up once it's been demonstrated you can just live on Mars or whatever
In a way it might be a chance for the more upstanding elements to leave a morally rotten earthy behind

Can't wait for a Martian theocracy to yeet earth with an asteroid causing shitlibs to go extinct

I'm joking

There's actual potential for escaping this mess though

Btw Zeon did nothing wrong

whats so bad about sola scriptura. all that means is that all that's necessary for salvation is contained within scripture

i dont see why catholics disagree with this

because whenever we debate practices

they always use the bible to justify what they do

Something something papal infallibility in case he's speaking ex cathedra

they try to justify the traditions of church through scripture

protestants just disagree

the council

The main strength about catholicism and orthodoxy is the strength that comes from organizing, however treating it as anything other than an administrative issue has lead to all sorts of nonsense

I think something broke when imperial authority over the church was sidelined

It gave it more cohesion

And stopped stuff like a bishop callign himself infallible and whantnot

In a way I dislike dogma not that I necessarily disagree with its points about morality but because it's not flexible
I'm a strong believer in good being something real but intangible and belief in this would sort of be a self correcting mechanism

Getting hung up on the details is just a corrosive thing for society

I'm not a christian so I don't agree but fine

the thing about dogma is what keeps me from the catholics as well

like i hate marian devotion and veneration of the saints

Well yes but you don't have access to the literal word of god just writings about what Jesus said etc.

i really do think its idolatry

but i cant be catholic and not believe that

In principle even to a christian good is mostly intangible

You have some orientation

But not all the answers

also some other disagreements

but they are more minor

dosent the catholic church roundly condemn the death penalty as well

I don't care about the veneration of saints but it allowed for pagans to convert to the church by rebranding gods and whatnot

thats exactly the problem though

it was something that evolved out of conviencence and then catholics have to argue that its totally 100% scriptural

I think the veneration of saints is kind of ppl coping with their monotheistic beliefs when ppl have tendencies going both towards unity of god/good and multiplicitousness

Same thing with the trinity

It's not a blatant violation of monotheism per se but definitely an expression of pagan mindsets

Yes morality to a degree is intuitive

Which is why I'm saying it's intangible

Striving for virtue is the main path towards it

That's why muslims call trinitarianism paganism
The intuitive way to express an unkowable god is to say he is unknowable, not to lay out a complex multiplictious nature of him which ppl can understand

not sure if anyone has explained this

the criteria for inclusion in the new testament wasw

1. it had to be attributed to an Apostle, either directly written by or written on behalf of

2. it had to be widely accepted

3. it had to have some value and not contradict the rest of the new testament

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

This is the earliest list of canon we have

the oldest fragment we have is from the Gospel of John and is within a hundred years of it being written

@Mr. Nessel yes but the clear difference between Christianity is that God, loving His creation, reveals Himself to it and became a part of it, without losing His divinity. Islam just believes their god is utterly unknowable. Except what he revealed to his prophet, I guess.

Now this is probably best for <#668911109562040371>, but I'm curious about your ontology regarding 'good'

What is 'good'

You say it is intangible, but imply it must be knowable somehow

How does one know, therefore, if something is good? By what process to they intuit or recognize good? How does one measure what is good versus not good?

> Striving for virtue is the main path towards it
How does one know what is virtuous?

Well you can't know for certain. The point is you're able to reach for it but never grasp it fully

@A B S O L U T I S T i would also like you to answer why sola scriptura leads to degeneracy

You only have your intuition to rely on and the drive to be good

As opposed to amoral characters which refuse to acknowledge the possibility of an objective good existing

@Mr. Nessel Now I agree with the existence of an objective good, and I agree that in the world before the Incarnation all man had was intuition to guide them. But where I disagree is where good is passive.

If there is an objective good, there must be a Telos to the Cosmos. If there is a Telos, there is an ideal state of the Cosmos. And if there is an ideal state to the Cosmos, that benchmark must have been set by something. It makes sense that whatever unmoved mover set the Cosmos into being (and in doing so set it's ideal form) would also endeavour to correct whatever flaws have appeared within the Cosmos back towards its original Telos.

So, that's why the Incarnation is such an important event. It's is literally the sustainer of the universe, good-embodied, that came personally to course-correct, for lack of a better term.

I sort of see it as an emergent property. Not somethign handed down to us arbitrarily

Not a benchmark but yes it's idealistic

@Skellington phones about to die, but I will answer your question

What is an ideal then?

A perfect way/state of being

Often unattainable

Nonetheless still somehing worth striving for, distinctly positive

Well how does one know perfection?

People don't

Which is why I say good is intangible

But if perfection exists there has to be a benchmark for it

No, it's an abstraction

The ideal is not an actual state which has been achieved at some point

It doesn't need something to create it as a benchmark

If there is an idealized perfection the implication is that there is some sort of point, however impossible to reach, were something goes from being "imperfect" to "perfect" no?

Well yes in theory and in practice we'll never actually reach it but have to nonetheless continue reaching for it to the best of our abilities

Which I certainly appreciate

But how can you reach for something if you don't know what you are reaching for?

Like, to steal an analogy from Evola, you might describe perfection as the peak of a mountain, and the process of attaining perfection as ascending that mountain

I'll agree that you can intuit the right way and you can do the same when scaling a mountain (intuitively, the peak is ⬆️)

But this is a mountain no one has been on or even seen

It's like scaling a mountain in a pitch black night. You're as soon to fall down a chasm as you are to find a foot path