Muslim converts breathe new life into Europe’s struggling Christian churches - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51997588]Did you actually read what I said, I said if you don't accept the Paulian Amendments which are why Christian's don't do all that stuff, then you'd have to defer to what Jesus did which is following the Torah's law.[/QUOTE] The Paulian Amendments were intended to bring in more converts. Who wants to join a religion where they cut the tip of your dick off and forbid food that you've eaten your whole life? Homophobia is rapidly losing its appeal in modern times. Large numbers of people who call themselves Christian, while not entirely accepting of the LGBT community, have adopted a live-and-let-live approach. I think you'll find that people tend to be practical when the political winds change.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51997679]The Paulian Amendments were intended to bring in more converts. Who wants to join a religion where they cut the tip of your dick off and forbid food that you've eaten your whole life? Homophobia is rapidly losing its appeal in modern times. Large numbers of people who call themselves Christian, while not entirely accepting of the LGBT community, have adopted a live-and-let-live approach. I think you'll find that people tend to be practical when the political winds change.[/QUOTE] That's the atheistic interpretation, but I'm talking about this from an Christian's perspective. [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=matt000024;51997677]Wait you can edit the Bible now? I thought you said it was written in stone.[/QUOTE] Well realistically that should make a lot of Christian's question the validity of their faith if their own founding text can be so easily corrupted. But that's an issue for Christians not for me.

[QUOTE=matt000024;51997677]Wait you can edit the Bible now? I thought you said it was written in stone.[/QUOTE] Generally, those who believe in inerrancy think that the original text is inerrant. So the goal is to get as close as possible to the original. It also happens that we have very good reason to believe that our current text is the same as the original, to an extremely high degree of accuracy. There is no key doctrine in question.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51997686] Well realistically that should make a lot of Christian's question the validity of their faith if their own founding text can be so easily corrupted. But that's an issue for Christians not for me.[/QUOTE] How is that relevant to your argument?

[QUOTE=matt000024;51998092]How is that relevant to your argument?[/QUOTE] Because the Bible texts are essentially the only documented accounts of Jesus and the teachings of early Christian's. Without those Christianity doesn't have a whole lot to stand on, so if they're faulty then Christian's have a bit of a problem.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51998138]Because the Bible texts are essentially the only documented accounts of Jesus and the teachings of early Christian's. Without those Christianity doesn't have a whole lot to stand on, so if they're faulty then Christian's have a bit of a problem.[/QUOTE] You realize, of course, that there is an inherent problem in arguing against a religion based on faith using anything less than deductive grounds, right? If you are trying to establish, on solely probable grounds, that Jesus did not say a thing that is basically a cornerstone of most modern christians' conceptions of christianity, then you are simply going to run into faith based arguments. People have [I]faith[/I] that Jesus said and believed things like “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” You can argue all you want that it isn't found in the earliest manuscripts because people from various parts of christianity will simply respond that that was due to an the liturgical calendar at the time, and that there still remain many old manuscripts which have the last page missing (which held this phrase due to it being ordered that way for the liturgically scheduled sermon). Moreover, even discarding that, people will argue from the original oral tradition of the bible to say that this was indeed an true account passed on and so therefore holds just as much weight. Even discarding all of the arguments above, a Christian can simply argue that the religion they believe in also holds that as a belief, and so you're simply stopped at that. You can do nothing more that decry them heretics or false scotsmen. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;51995664]The bible has a lot of clearly defined lines, it's no less clearly defined than any other political text. I mean please attempt to explain another interpretation of 1 Timothy 1:8-11, it's pretty damn clear cut and doesn't change much from translation to translation.[/QUOTE] Alright, sure, why not? [quote="1 Timothy 8-11 (NIV)"]8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.[/quote] So, if I am understanding you right, your main point of contention in this context is that this passage puts 'those practicing homosexuality' among the lawbreakers. In response to this, may I simply point out that also in that category, and on either side of homosexuality, are the sins of murder and lying, not to mention 'sexual immorality' in general. Now, I should hope that you have enough good sense to allow that there exist many sects of Christianity which take varying stances on what one should do about these things. If you do not allow me that there exist such multiple sects with different interpretations, then this conversation is mute. Assuming that you've allowed me that assumption, may I point out that there is a difference between claims about ethics and claims about meta-ethics. Different systems of meta-ethics may share certain claims such as "X is bad", but they will differ in respect to "If someone does X then do Y." Meta-ethics itself is the way in which claims come to be good and bad, and those claims can be tempered by additional considerations such that knowing that "X is bad" is insufficient for making an appropriate judgement. (eg. traincar problem in utilitarianism) Therefore, if there exist multiple sects, and you are forcing my hand on saying that they agree on a certain set of moral claims, then there still will be significant diversity in the liberalism of those sects based upon the way they set up their meta-ethical system, and to what degree they emphasize forgiveness and acceptance over judgement.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51998260]You realize, of course, that there is an inherent problem of arguing against a religion based on faith using anything less than deductive grounds, right? If you are trying to establish, on solely probable grounds, that Jesus did not say a thing that is basically a cornerstone of the modern Christian's conception of christianity, then you are simply going to run into faith based arguments. People have faith that Jesus said and believed things like “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” You can argue all you want that it isn't found in the earliest manuscripts because people from various parts of christianity will simply respond that that was due to an the liturgical calendar at the time, and that there still remain many old manuscripts which have the last page missing (which held this phrase due to it being ordered that way for the liturgically scheduled sermon). Moreover, even discarding that, people will argue from the original oral tradition of the bible to say that this was indeed an true account passed on and so therefore holds just as much weight. Even discarding all of the arguments above, a Christian can simply argue that the religion they believe in also holds that as a belief, and so you're simply stopped at that. You can do nothing more that decry them heretics or false scotsmen. Alright, sure, why not? So, if I am understanding you right, your main point of contention in this context is that this passage puts 'those practicing homosexuality' among the lawbreakers. In response to this, may I simply point out that also in that category, and on either side of homosexuality, are the sins of murder and lying, not to mention 'sexual immorality' in general. Now, I should hope that you have enough good sense to allow that there exist many sects of Christianity which take varying stances on what one should do about these things. If you do not allow me that there exist such multiple sects with different interpretations, then this conversation is mute. Assuming that you've allowed me that assumption, may I point out that there is a difference between claims about ethics and claims about meta-ethics. Different systems of meta-ethics may share certain claims such as "X is bad", but they will differ in respect to "If someone does X then do Y." Meta-ethics itself is the way in which claims come to be good and bad, and those claims can be tempered by additional considerations such that knowing that "X is bad" is insufficient for making an appropriate judgement. (eg. traincar problem in utilitarianism) Therefore, if there exist multiple sects, and you are forcing my hand on saying that they agree on a certain set of moral claims, then there still will be significant diversity in the liberalism of those sects based upon the way they set up their meta-ethical system, and to what degree they emphasize forgiveness and acceptance over judgement.[/QUOTE] So essentially your argument is "things are true because I want them to be"? That doesn't really stand up to critical thought. Your second point is essentially just straight up bigotry apologetics.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51998286]So essentially your argument is "things are true because I want them to be"? That doesn't really stand up to critical thought. [/quote] No, my argument is that inductive arguments, which you have been providing, are not sufficient to turn a significant section of population away from earnestly believing that Jesus said not to be vindictive against sinners. If you can't establish that, then you can't say that it isn't a part of 'real' christianity, whatever that is (since you seem so keen to treat it homogeneously). I made that point from various angles including the academic religious studies approach, if you paid attention. [quote]Your second point is essentially just straight up bigotry apologetics.[/QUOTE] You mean my point, which I painstakingly tried to make clear, that just because things like lying are considered sins that doesn't mean 'real' christians need to be shit to eachother for it (because everyone does it)?

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51998297]No, my argument is that inductive arguments, which you have been providing, are not sufficient to turn a significant section of population away from earnestly believing that Jesus said not to be vindictive against sinners. If you can't establish that, then you can't say that it isn't a part of 'real' christianity, whatever that is (since you seem so keen to treat it homogeneously). I made that point from various angles including the academic religious studies approach, if you paid attention. You mean my point, which I painstakingly tried to make clear, that just because things like lying are considered sins that doesn't mean 'real' christians need to be shit to eachother for it (because everyone does it)?[/QUOTE] The adulterer story doesn't even make sense within the bibles own internal logic, it was god's own law that those people were following, he told them to stone adulterers, so it makes little sense for him to reprimand people following through with the law he gave them in the first place. So not only does it not appear in older documents, it's also inconsistent with the bible itself.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51998260]You realize, of course, that there is an inherent problem in arguing against a religion based on faith using anything less than deductive grounds, right? If you are trying to establish, on solely probable grounds, that Jesus did not say a thing that is basically a cornerstone of most modern christians' conceptions of christianity, then you are simply going to run into faith based arguments. People have [I]faith[/I] that Jesus said and believed things like “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” You can argue all you want that it isn't found in the earliest manuscripts because people from various parts of christianity will simply respond that that was due to an the liturgical calendar at the time, and that there still remain many old manuscripts which have the last page missing (which held this phrase due to it being ordered that way for the liturgically scheduled sermon). Moreover, even discarding that, people will argue from the original oral tradition of the bible to say that this was indeed an true account passed on and so therefore holds just as much weight.[/QUOTE] Can you point to a Christian denomination that makes this argument, namely, that they recognize the manuscript difficulty, but still believe it based on pure faith? I've, personally, never heard it.

Regardless of what other parts of the bible say, I'm pretty sure Christians who are accepting of homosexuality are just holding true to Jesus's 2nd great commandment 'Love thy neighbor as thyself", which as far as I know trumps any and all other laws, teachings, etc that are mentioned elsewhere. [editline]23rd March 2017[/editline] On top of that, if homosexuality is to be viewed as an absolute sin, then it is a Christian duty to forgive sinners, not condemn them.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51999195]Regardless of what other parts of the bible say, I'm pretty sure Christians who are accepting of homosexuality are just holding true to Jesus's 2nd great commandment 'Love thy neighbor as thyself", which as far as I know trumps any and all other laws, teachings, etc that are mentioned elsewhere. [editline]23rd March 2017[/editline] On top of that, if homosexuality is to be viewed as an absolute sin, then it is a Christian duty to forgive sinners, not condemn them.[/QUOTE] Christians are called to forgive all sin against them. They have no power to forgive the sin of other people. On the other hand, Jesus said that the world hates him because he reveals their sin, and the world will hate Christians for the same reason. The church is supposed to reveal the sin of the world around it while also showing love, as in treating everyone kindly, at the same time. To ignore one side in favor of the other is to totally ignore a huge part of Jesus's message.

All the Holy books are host to several contradictions. It's up to you to prioritise