Church of Sweden to stop referring to God as 'he' or 'Lord' in favor of gender neutrality - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=sgman91;52923320]The Bible contains two kinds of texts: proscriptive and descriptive. Proscriptive is when the Bible is saying that you ought to do something. Descriptive is when it's simply describing something that happened, often without giving a moral opinion. The story you've cited is the latter. The fact that the sons of those unions are said to be fathers of tribes that opposed Israel (Moabites and Ammonites) seems to suggest that God was not in approval with them, though it doesn't say one way or the other explicitly.[/QUOTE] I know you'll never agree, and I know there's people who study this(albeit with a huge amount of bias regardless of whether you want to acknowledge this or not) but the way they get to that is interpretation which is not objective, it doens't really give a strong argument as to why it's one or the other without using said interpretation.

The book of Esther is especially interesting, not once does it mention the name of God in the entire book, yet He is clearly present throughout it. [editline]25th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52923324]I know you'll never agree, and I know there's people who study this(albeit with a huge amount of bias regardless of whether you want to acknowledge this or not) but the way they get to that is interpretation which is not objective, it doens't really give a strong argument as to why it's one or the other without using said interpretation.[/QUOTE] To say that something is interpreted doesn't mean it isn't objective. It simply means that it's possible to be wrong. In fact, all knowledge is gained through some level of interpretation.

[QUOTE=Talishmar;52922432] Catholic church alone has on several occasions picked and choosed what texts to accept into canon, based on whatever whims and surrounding cultural pressure affecting them at the time.[/quote] Source? [QUOTE=Talishmar;52922432]If there exists one original "true" denomination of christianity, hasn't that been lost for two thousand years or more?[/QUOTE] Rome has been the center of western Christianity since the time the city was an empire, though? [editline]26th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=CruelAddict;52922619]Jesus Christ is not a God.[/QUOTE] Literally centuries of Christianity disagrees with you [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-variations.svg/610px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-variations.svg.png[/t]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52923330]Rome has been the center of western Christianity since the time the city was an empire, though?][/QUOTE] Early Christianity had lots of centers, with Rome being just one. The others included Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, just to name some of the largest.

It's pretty dumb but it seems like it would actually be a relatively minor change in a Swedish translation. It should just be a straight word-swap.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52923335]Early Christianity had lots of centers, with Rome being just one. The others included Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, just to name some of the largest.[/QUOTE] Just adds to my point that the original church was never lost

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52923338]Just adds to my point that the original church was never lost[/QUOTE] Oh, I agree with that completely. I can, and have, read many of the earliest of church fathers and feel almost totally familiar with them. [editline]25th November 2017[/editline] Other than a few theological things here and there, St. Augustine could have written his stuff today and it would still make sense. The same goes for Clement of Rome, Ignatius, etc.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52923325]The book of Esther is especially interesting, not once does it mention the name of God in the entire book, yet He is clearly present throughout it. [editline]25th November 2017[/editline] To say that something is interpreted doesn't mean it isn't objective. It simply means that it's possible to be wrong. In fact, all knowledge is gained through some level of interpretation.[/QUOTE] While this is true that doesn't mean interpreting the bible means you have an objective understanding of things, let alone the bible as claiming you can't have anything wrong about it seems pretty contradictory to the history of change that doctrine and interpretations have seen.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52923357]While this is true that doesn't mean interpreting the bible means you have an objective understanding of things, let alone the bible as claiming you can't have anything wrong about it seems pretty contradictory to the history of change that doctrine and interpretations have seen.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't disagree, that's why I said that interpretation leaves the possibility of being wrong. If fact, I full acknowledge that understanding of the Bible has progressed and developed as time has went on. The Trinity, for example, wasn't denied by the earliest church, but it also wasn't fully understood. I say "fully understood" because there are quite a few quotes from early church fathers that suggest some basic understanding of Jesus's divinity and equality with God. With more study and time to further the quality of their interpretation, the church brought those basic beliefs forward with the more comprehensive idea of the Trinity. This development came with better interpretation, a more comprehensive look at the full revelation, etc. It did not just pop out of some dudes opinion. In the same way, I do not claim to have the full and perfect interpretation of the entirety of the Bible and am always willing to hear alternative arguments. I've actually changed on quite a few issues as I've studied over time. [editline]25th November 2017[/editline] I would also add that the Bible recognizes this fact. There is clear development in revelation and understanding even throughout the Old Testament.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52922735]Here's the misunderstanding: when Christianity has evolved over the years, it's been due to people claiming to have a more comprehensive view of God's revelation. They attempted to prove their new ideas by appealing to the Bible or, in the case of the Catholic church, church tradition. It hasn't been due to an attempt to meld the religion to better fit with modern culture, that is until the very modern era. The progressive churches now often totally recognize that they don't hold any sort of text as authoritative, and at that point, is it really even recognizably Christian anymore?[/QUOTE] I agree that melding the religion for the purpose of fitting into modern culture would be religiously rather dubious. Still the evolution of religion for non-religious reasons like political is nothing new, considering how liberally the title of pope was passed around in the middle ages and the whole creation of anglican curch. Can such religions be called "Christian"? Who's to say, and does it matter? It's like trying to pinpoint at the precise moment a wolf evolved into a dog.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52923330] Literally centuries of Christianity disagrees with you [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-variations.svg/610px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-variations.svg.png[/t][/QUOTE] this image is logically bananas like, I understand the point it's trying to make, but it could almost be an image made by a non-christian, ad-absurdem-ing that belief

[QUOTE=Talishmar;52926275]I agree that melding the religion for the purpose of fitting into modern culture would be religiously rather dubious. Still the evolution of religion for non-religious reasons like political is nothing new, considering how liberally the title of pope was passed around in the middle ages and the whole creation of anglican curch. Can such religions be called "Christian"? Who's to say, and does it matter? It's like trying to pinpoint at the precise moment a wolf evolved into a dog.[/QUOTE] The whole pope thing is complicated, with LOTS of necessary history to get any grasp on it. So I'm going to focus on the Anglican Church. It's a myth that it was simply created out of thin air by the king of England to justify his divorce. It was more that multiple theological factions existed within England, and the king decided to go with the one that allowed him to get a divorce. The theology behind the Anglican Church preexisted the king's decision and had nothing to do with the king.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52922309]I was raised with the idea that man was made and given free will so God can have someone freely choose to worship him. And, if the OT is read, there are numerous times God revealed himself - such as the burning bush. And the fact that, Jesus whom is God himself, sorta arrived on Earth. Pretty sure it's a "I've given you all this proof already" type of thing.[/QUOTE] That "proof" is in the bible, which I would have to believe in the first place to take those as fact. God gave me reason not to believe circular logic as well. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52922309]What part doesn't make sense, because the bible has been around for over a millennia and I'm sure there have been a theological answer written at some point for any passage in it.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying it doesn't have teachings. I'm saying it's illogical and inconsistent. Best example is above, the evidence for bible is what's in the bible.