Toto

If you think this is misinformation, please be specific.

Otherwise, the last group of posts are just theological weirdness. I will entertain a suggestion to split this off.

outhouse

y aill go with weirdness as well

no need to split

Toto

I still have no idea what exactly you mean by misinformation, or why.

outhouse

and on and on and on

PhilosopherJay

Hi all,

I'm surprised that nobody has challenged the assertion that there are no positive doctrines in Christianity when it begins. It seems to me that this is key to understanding the origins in an anti-priestly movement.

Iskander

What do you mean by “positive doctrine”? As in “there are no positive doctrines in Christianity when it begins”

sotto voce

If turning a blind eye is what skepticism/atheism is reduced to, it's no wonder that most skeptics and atheists are turning to papacy as their means of refuge.

Iskander

Your assertion is empty. But someone will come along to entertain you.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Iskander,

A positive doctrine would be something like, "You should select philosophers to be your king, because philosophers have seen the real world of ideas, and although they might act clumsy, they really know what is good for you."

Or, "You should not fear death because after you die, you will return to atoms and not know that you are dead. When you are here, death is not and when death is here, you are not.

Or, "If you are Jewish, you should worship Yahweh and not worship the idols of other Gods or marry non-Jewish women."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Iskander

Thank you.

The most relevant example of the absence of positive doctrine in early Christianity is:


Positive doctrine

Let’s assume that early Christians had said this. In this case the Christian religion would not exist since these words (doctrine) are a repetition of the teachings of the established religion. There is no anti-priest movement because there is no new religion.