In this case you're saying it, not hearing it.
You're a self-proclaimed atheist promoting the worst interpretations of the bible because that's what comfortable for you.
In this case you're saying it, not hearing it.
You're a self-proclaimed atheist promoting the worst interpretations of the bible because that's what comfortable for you.
So why are there directives on how to run a church in the official doctrine of this religion?
B/c the religion was invented by people who run churches.
If they’re only meant to be relevant to Timothy, shouldn’t they have been cut with the rest of the apocrypha?
It seems pretty obvious from the context that the quote is about dis/allowing disruptions during church.
It's more disingenuous to take quotes out of context.
And no christian has any obligation to bow down to paul. They're not paulians.
I wouldn’t do all the awful things he does or punish anyone
This kind of wacky belief (god is a magic person who does awful things and punishes people) is a terrible foundation for both religion and atheism.
Yes. Dude is a fraud. Not jesus.
B/c a main point of jesus was pointing out how those old laws are worthless.
Christianity continued this tradition by obviating all those old laws like circumcision, no pork, misogyny, etc. That's literally why christians don't follow that stuff. It was rejected like thousands of years ago.
The people who still worship the old testament are mostly jews and phony christians/cultists.
You're talking about the gospels maybe, not the bible.
euclidean geometry is famously complete
Nah, euclidean geometry was not complete. Tarski didn't come up with a complete version until the 20th century. I'm not sure how famous Tarski geometry is, but it doesn't seem very famous in USA outside of math depts.
this doesn’t mean that “it’s impossible to create any consistent set of math statements that completely describes everything,”
It says far less than that: "It’s impossible for a mathematical system containing the natural numbers to be both complete and consistent."
In itself it has very little to do with physical reality. I think it's more about how we think about math and then its applications.
reality itself could be a complete system, understandable from both the outside and inside if only viewed at the right angle…
This has been largely debunked.
hilbert’s dream is not dead yet,
I dunno what his dream was, but Hilbert's program is very much dead.
That's not a flaw. It's one of the greatest mathematical revelations of the 20th century.
It's only a "flaw" for people who want to believe in some imaginary positivism. This is a popular grift under capitalism. See also the entire field of economics.
Nah, the math used in physics is just a tiny tiny part of wider math.
This requires lots of Physics. The math required is relatively minimal.
No. It's subjective labeling far removed from facts.