The Islamic Caliphate

[time_bomb]

 

 

I don't even agree with a lot of Muslim teachings but I respect that it isn't a progressive religion in the way that Christianity is because it goes against everything that religion is supposed to be - a word free from doctoring that doesn't compromise it's message regardless of the context. Yet here in 2014 we have Christian's pointing at Islam and saying 'look how archaic and barbaric it is, look how demeaning it is to women'.

One doesn't interpret a line from Shakespeare at 3 years old as one does at 23, in essence you are saying we should maintain the viewpoint of a 3 year old for our entire lives.

This is exactly what I always tell a Muslim brother when he tells me the bible has been "changed'

 

 

Mate this aint a leonardo dicaprio film, if u pick up a shakespeare book it will be same as the original, bar some adjustment of the language.

[local]

 

 

 

I don't even agree with a lot of Muslim teachings but I respect that it isn't a progressive religion in the way that Christianity is because it goes against everything that religion is supposed to be - a word free from doctoring that doesn't compromise it's message regardless of the context. Yet here in 2014 we have Christian's pointing at Islam and saying 'look how archaic and barbaric it is, look how demeaning it is to women'.

One doesn't interpret a line from Shakespeare at 3 years old as one does at 23, in essence you are saying we should maintain the viewpoint of a 3 year old for our entire lives.

This is exactly what I always tell a Muslim brother when he tells me the bible has been "changed'

 

 

Mate this aint a leonardo dicaprio film, if u pick up a shakespeare book it will be same as the original, bar some adjustment of the language.

 

 

that's not the argument that's being made

 

also, chaps that defo aint the exact argument uve ever used

[local]

pointless debate

 

i jus wana see donuts in tanks

[The Somalian]

They have 1.3billion worth of american military might what the iraqi soilders abandoned.

Everyone does not wants to send ground troops but they are going have to.

Still wanna see how this plays out over the next 3 weeks. Pm still on holiday so he clearly does not think this is a crisis

[Flojo]

 

 

I don't even agree with a lot of Muslim teachings but I respect that it isn't a progressive religion in the way that Christianity is because it goes against everything that religion is supposed to be - a word free from doctoring that doesn't compromise it's message regardless of the context. Yet here in 2014 we have Christian's pointing at Islam and saying 'look how archaic and barbaric it is, look how demeaning it is to women'.

 

In your noble pursuit of impartiality you have actually descended to levels of lunacy.

 

How can you say you respect a non progressive religion that doesn't compromise it's message regardless of context?

 

Try to look past this trivial point scoring stuff you have in your head for a minute, think about religion in a worldly context.

 

How can civilization and science make such advances and yet perspective not advance also.

 

You said yourself scriptures are open to interpretation why would you expect that interpretation not to become refined as we move forward as a society?

 

 

I'll snip what I said the previous post because it addresses the same point.

 

 

My respect for something isn't based on whether or not I necessarily agree with it. It's pretty simple, if the word is the word as religious people often profess then how it's interpreted and applied shouldn't change over time which is why the notion of a progressive religion is surely an abomination in itself.

 

If you're religious the way in which society moves shouldn't influence the principles at the foundation of your religion, they are the word of god and don't alter for anyone which is why I asked about female pastors. For hundreds of years females were prohibited from holding high ranking positions in the church and scriptures were presented as the basis for this (I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man Timothy 2:12) . With the advancement of feminism in society on the whole we've seen the church follow suit and embrace the idea that gender isn't an issue like they once thought it was, my question is what about the scripture that they've been reading for centuries has changed to the point whereby there's been such a big shift on this? Or is it more a case of moving with the times?

The advances of Science and civilisation don't alter or influence the word, this is why fundamentalists in America refute the scientific explanations of anything that's covered in the bible and argue that the creation of the earth should be taught in schools as explained in the bible. Whether you agree with it or not society's attitude towards homosexuality is changing but this is incompatible with Christian beliefs, I fail to see how for anyone to reinterpret the bible to follow society's lead isn't diverting from the word.

 

 

 

One doesn't interpret a line from Shakespeare at 3 years old as one does at 23, in essence you are saying we should maintain the viewpoint of a 3 year old for our entire lives.

 

It's this type of rigid adherence to religion which has fuelled the situation with Israel Palestine on both sides, as I said in that thread it seems out of place in today's world.

 

The son of the Hamas leader in the video you posted converted to Christianity, it's fair to say he would disagree with your view on what religion is supposed to be, as would many others.

 

 

 

I think this is a poor analogy for a few reasons.

 

Shakespeare didn't write his plays with the intention of shaping how we exist as a society, he was providing a snapshot of the period he lived in through entertainment.

 

Reinterpreting the bible is akin to me saying that I better understand what Shakespeare was aiming to convey through his work than people who were actually alive at the time or that have studied it extensively before me.

[Guest Chelsea Jack]

 

nah the way this don keeps f*cking up the set and getting reloads in the rave... JESU

 

but the majority of it is factually inaccurate 

 

 

highlight which is please

 

school me

[Guest Chelsea Jack]

 

 

 

 

I don't even agree with a lot of Muslim teachings but I respect that it isn't a progressive religion in the way that Christianity is because it goes against everything that religion is supposed to be - a word free from doctoring that doesn't compromise it's message regardless of the context. Yet here in 2014 we have Christian's pointing at Islam and saying 'look how archaic and barbaric it is, look how demeaning it is to women'.

One doesn't interpret a line from Shakespeare at 3 years old as one does at 23, in essence you are saying we should maintain the viewpoint of a 3 year old for our entire lives.

This is exactly what I always tell a Muslim brother when he tells me the bible has been "changed'

 

 

Mate this aint a leonardo dicaprio film, if u pick up a shakespeare book it will be same as the original, bar some adjustment of the language.

 

 

that's not the argument that's being made

 

also, chaps that defo aint the exact argument uve ever used

 

 

[time_bomb]

 

 

nah the way this don keeps f*cking up the set and getting reloads in the rave... JESU

 

but the majority of it is factually inaccurate 

 

 

highlight which is please

 

school me

 

 

one that stood out for me was claiming people were converted to christianity by missionaries with just a bible, when in fact christian conquests across the globe were very brutal and violent and forced upon the natives, the americas for example.

[Yuri]

Probably because Hamas are doing a much better job of it. Funnily enough no Muslims seem to be in outcry about that

[Ulysses]

 

 

 

nah the way this don keeps f*cking up the set and getting reloads in the rave... JESU

 

but the majority of it is factually inaccurate 

 

 

highlight which is please

 

school me

 

 

one that stood out for me was claiming people were converted to christianity by missionaries with just a bible, when in fact christian conquests across the globe were very brutal and violent and forced upon the natives, the americas for example.

 

 

Well I'm not an apologist for the Conquistadors, but they were not Christian conquests (say as a Christian version of a Jihad) - they were mercantilist conquests on behalf of the Spanish and Portuguese empires. But in the specific example I gave, I was referring to Anglican and Catholic missionaries working in Africa in the 19th century.

 

In its first three centuries, the Early church was persecuted to such an extent that it became an underground movement. Christians really were fed to the lions. Look at the way the some of the early church fathers were martyred: St. Peter was crucified upside down, St. Bartholomew was skinned alive, St. Lawrence was grilled and toasted alive. Paradoxically, the systematic persecution that the church endured, contributed to it's rapid growth; The faithfulness of these saints in the face of death, convinced others that these martyrs were on to something. 

 

The rapid spread of Islam during its first three centuries was a very different affair.

[Da Luv Doc]

simply put

 

christianity was spread by brute force

 

islam was spread by brute force

 

democracy is being spread by brute force

 

atheism will be spread by brute force

 

the spreading of religion actually has nothing to do with religion or the teaching of the religions 

 

its very simply, "this is what i believe and if you don't believe it you are wrong and i will make you believe it because i am right"

 

/

 

funny enough there is outcry now that christians are under threat in iraq but no one bats an eyelid at the palestinian christians being slowly wiped out by israel

 

Hopefully Ancient Astronaut theory will become a big player, expose religion for what it is.................bullshit!

[hardface]

All these religions are in the same shit bucket tbh

They've all at some point used violence to try to Force the spread of their religion throughout the World.

[Benicio del Toney]

 

 

If you're religious the way in which society moves shouldn't influence the principles at the foundation of your religion, they are the word of god and don't alter for anyone which is why I asked about female pastors. For hundreds of years females were prohibited from holding high ranking positions in the church and scriptures were presented as the basis for this (I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man Timothy 2:12) . With the advancement of feminism in society on the whole we've seen the church follow suit and embrace the idea that gender isn't an issue like they once thought it was, my question is what about the scripture that they've been reading for centuries has changed to the point whereby there's been such a big shift on this? Or is it more a case of moving with the times?

 

The passage you referenced is the word of Paul, not God, here's a snippet of the views regarding that passage though.

 

The traditional view holds that the "I suffer not a woman…" words are Paul's own words. However, the majority of modern scholars believe on the basis of content, vocabulary, and literary style that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul but is pseudepigraphical. They contend that this verse fits poorly with Paul's more positive references to Christian women and may be a later interpolation rather than part of the original text. Still others such as scholars/theologians Richard and Catherine Kroeger believe Paul did write the epistle of 1 Timothy, but that he was addressing a particular problem peculiar to the Church at Ephesus where Timothy was pastor of the multicultural congregation.

 

 

As someone who grew up a Christian I can tell you the underlying message is one of compassion and to adopt a humanistic approach in all things which is why I'm not surprised progress in the church sometimes mirrors that of society, whatever the reason though it's not a bad thing surely.

 

It's not 1 way though, as Ulysses alluded to progress historically has been driven by Christianity also, Granville Sharp and Wilberforce were largely inspired by the bible to help abolish slavery.

[Flojo]

 

 

 

If you're religious the way in which society moves shouldn't influence the principles at the foundation of your religion, they are the word of god and don't alter for anyone which is why I asked about female pastors. For hundreds of years females were prohibited from holding high ranking positions in the church and scriptures were presented as the basis for this (I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man Timothy 2:12) . With the advancement of feminism in society on the whole we've seen the church follow suit and embrace the idea that gender isn't an issue like they once thought it was, my question is what about the scripture that they've been reading for centuries has changed to the point whereby there's been such a big shift on this? Or is it more a case of moving with the times?

 

The passage you referenced is the word of Paul, not God, here's a snippet of the views regarding that passage though.

 

The traditional view holds that the "I suffer not a woman…" words are Paul's own words. However, the majority of modern scholars believe on the basis of content, vocabulary, and literary style that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul but is pseudepigraphical. They contend that this verse fits poorly with Paul's more positive references to Christian women and may be a later interpolation rather than part of the original text. Still others such as scholars/theologians Richard and Catherine Kroeger believe Paul did write the epistle of 1 Timothy, but that he was addressing a particular problem peculiar to the Church at Ephesus where Timothy was pastor of the multicultural congregation.

 

 

As someone who grew up a Christian I can tell you the underlying message is one of compassion and to adopt a humanistic approach in all things which is why I'm not surprised progress in the church sometimes mirrors that of society, whatever the reason though it's not a bad thing surely.

 

It's not 1 way though, as Ulysses alluded to progress historically has been driven by Christianity also, Granville Sharp and Wilberforce were largely inspired by the bible to help abolish slavery.

 

 

So that text you've just quoted says that the majority of modern scholars believe that passage wasn't even written by Paul but somebody posing as him? That reinforces what I was saying earlier about the authenticity of the bible being questionable then doesn't it?

 

If those scholars are wrong and it is in fact Paul but we're going to discount his opinion on this subject,  do we do the same for all the teachings he outlines on marriage, homosexuality and everything else? I don't think we do.

 

I respect your opinion but as someone who also grew up as a Christian I have my own opinion of what the underlying message is. Whether or not the church is progressive can be deemed as a good thing depends on your view point, if you're a Christian and believe the word is the word  without compromise then I don't see how it can be anything but a bad thing.

 

This quote from an article on the subject of Female Pastors sums up exactly what I'm talking about 

 

 

In a social climate of complete equality in all things, the biblical teaching of only allowing men to be pastors and elders is not popular.  Many feminist organizations denounce this position as antiquated and chauvinistic.  In addition, many Christian churches have adopted the "politically correct" social standard and have allowed women pastors and elders in the church.  But the question remains, is this biblical?

 

My answer to this question is, "No, women are not to be pastors and elders."  Many may not like that answer; but it is, I believe, an accurate representation of the biblical standard.  You make the decision after reading this article. 

 

 

Progress has been driven by Christianity? That's a bold statement to make and one I'd disagree with, if you look at the most positively influential civilisations Christianity wasn't central to many of them.

[Ulysses]

 

 

 

 

If you're religious the way in which society moves shouldn't influence the principles at the foundation of your religion, they are the word of god and don't alter for anyone which is why I asked about female pastors. For hundreds of years females were prohibited from holding high ranking positions in the church and scriptures were presented as the basis for this (I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man Timothy 2:12) . With the advancement of feminism in society on the whole we've seen the church follow suit and embrace the idea that gender isn't an issue like they once thought it was, my question is what about the scripture that they've been reading for centuries has changed to the point whereby there's been such a big shift on this? Or is it more a case of moving with the times?

 

The passage you referenced is the word of Paul, not God, here's a snippet of the views regarding that passage though.

 

The traditional view holds that the "I suffer not a woman…" words are Paul's own words. However, the majority of modern scholars believe on the basis of content, vocabulary, and literary style that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul but is pseudepigraphical. They contend that this verse fits poorly with Paul's more positive references to Christian women and may be a later interpolation rather than part of the original text. Still others such as scholars/theologians Richard and Catherine Kroeger believe Paul did write the epistle of 1 Timothy, but that he was addressing a particular problem peculiar to the Church at Ephesus where Timothy was pastor of the multicultural congregation.

 

 

As someone who grew up a Christian I can tell you the underlying message is one of compassion and to adopt a humanistic approach in all things which is why I'm not surprised progress in the church sometimes mirrors that of society, whatever the reason though it's not a bad thing surely.

 

It's not 1 way though, as Ulysses alluded to progress historically has been driven by Christianity also, Granville Sharp and Wilberforce were largely inspired by the bible to help abolish slavery.

 

 

So that text you've just quoted says that the majority of modern scholars believe that passage wasn't even written by Paul but somebody posing as him? That reinforces what I was saying earlier about the authenticity of the bible being questionable then doesn't it?

 

If those scholars are wrong and it is in fact Paul but we're going to discount his opinion on this subject,  do we do the same for all the teachings he outlines on marriage, homosexuality and everything else? I don't think we do.

 

I respect your opinion but as someone who also grew up as a Christian I have my own opinion of what the underlying message is. Whether or not the church is progressive can be deemed as a good thing depends on your view point, if you're a Christian and believe the word is the word  without compromise then I don't see how it can be anything but a bad thing.

 

This quote from an article on the subject of Female Pastors sums up exactly what I'm talking about 

 

 

In a social climate of complete equality in all things, the biblical teaching of only allowing men to be pastors and elders is not popular.  Many feminist organizations denounce this position as antiquated and chauvinistic.  In addition, many Christian churches have adopted the "politically correct" social standard and have allowed women pastors and elders in the church.  But the question remains, is this biblical?

 

My answer to this question is, "No, women are not to be pastors and elders."  Many may not like that answer; but it is, I believe, an accurate representation of the biblical standard.  You make the decision after reading this article. 

 

 

Progress has been driven by Christianity? That's a bold statement to make and one I'd disagree with, if you look at the most positively influential civilisations Christianity wasn't central to many of them.

 

 

Positively influential civilisations? Like what? 

 

Toney is right. A lot of the freedoms we enjoy today in the west, a lot of the things we regard as being fundamentally good, are inextricably linked to Christianity. To deny this is to deny history.

[Heero Yuy]

This is the best topic in whatever in years, good discussion and opinions being exchanged, learning a whole heap still.

 

Pos's all round. 

[Mame Biram Diouf]

This is the best topic in whatever in years, good discussion and opinions being exchanged, learning a whole heap still.

 

Pos's all round. 

[time_bomb]

 

 

 

 

If you're religious the way in which society moves shouldn't influence the principles at the foundation of your religion, they are the word of god and don't alter for anyone which is why I asked about female pastors. For hundreds of years females were prohibited from holding high ranking positions in the church and scriptures were presented as the basis for this (I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man Timothy 2:12) . With the advancement of feminism in society on the whole we've seen the church follow suit and embrace the idea that gender isn't an issue like they once thought it was, my question is what about the scripture that they've been reading for centuries has changed to the point whereby there's been such a big shift on this? Or is it more a case of moving with the times?

 

The passage you referenced is the word of Paul, not God, here's a snippet of the views regarding that passage though.

 

The traditional view holds that the "I suffer not a woman…" words are Paul's own words. However, the majority of modern scholars believe on the basis of content, vocabulary, and literary style that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul but is pseudepigraphical. They contend that this verse fits poorly with Paul's more positive references to Christian women and may be a later interpolation rather than part of the original text. Still others such as scholars/theologians Richard and Catherine Kroeger believe Paul did write the epistle of 1 Timothy, but that he was addressing a particular problem peculiar to the Church at Ephesus where Timothy was pastor of the multicultural congregation.

 

 

As someone who grew up a Christian I can tell you the underlying message is one of compassion and to adopt a humanistic approach in all things which is why I'm not surprised progress in the church sometimes mirrors that of society, whatever the reason though it's not a bad thing surely.

 

It's not 1 way though, as Ulysses alluded to progress historically has been driven by Christianity also, Granville Sharp and Wilberforce were largely inspired by the bible to help abolish slavery.

 

 

Thats ridiculous, we can find many more god fearing good christian folk inspired by the bible who created the transatlantic slave trade. The reason ur name is toney and u were born a christian is because ur forefathers were plucked from their country, given a christian name and sent to church on their plantation every sunday. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're religious the way in which society moves shouldn't influence the principles at the foundation of your religion, they are the word of god and don't alter for anyone which is why I asked about female pastors. For hundreds of years females were prohibited from holding high ranking positions in the church and scriptures were presented as the basis for this (I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man Timothy 2:12) . With the advancement of feminism in society on the whole we've seen the church follow suit and embrace the idea that gender isn't an issue like they once thought it was, my question is what about the scripture that they've been reading for centuries has changed to the point whereby there's been such a big shift on this? Or is it more a case of moving with the times?

 

The passage you referenced is the word of Paul, not God, here's a snippet of the views regarding that passage though.

 

The traditional view holds that the "I suffer not a woman…" words are Paul's own words. However, the majority of modern scholars believe on the basis of content, vocabulary, and literary style that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul but is pseudepigraphical. They contend that this verse fits poorly with Paul's more positive references to Christian women and may be a later interpolation rather than part of the original text. Still others such as scholars/theologians Richard and Catherine Kroeger believe Paul did write the epistle of 1 Timothy, but that he was addressing a particular problem peculiar to the Church at Ephesus where Timothy was pastor of the multicultural congregation.

 

 

As someone who grew up a Christian I can tell you the underlying message is one of compassion and to adopt a humanistic approach in all things which is why I'm not surprised progress in the church sometimes mirrors that of society, whatever the reason though it's not a bad thing surely.

 

It's not 1 way though, as Ulysses alluded to progress historically has been driven by Christianity also, Granville Sharp and Wilberforce were largely inspired by the bible to help abolish slavery.

 

 

So that text you've just quoted says that the majority of modern scholars believe that passage wasn't even written by Paul but somebody posing as him? That reinforces what I was saying earlier about the authenticity of the bible being questionable then doesn't it?

 

If those scholars are wrong and it is in fact Paul but we're going to discount his opinion on this subject,  do we do the same for all the teachings he outlines on marriage, homosexuality and everything else? I don't think we do.

 

I respect your opinion but as someone who also grew up as a Christian I have my own opinion of what the underlying message is. Whether or not the church is progressive can be deemed as a good thing depends on your view point, if you're a Christian and believe the word is the word  without compromise then I don't see how it can be anything but a bad thing.

 

This quote from an article on the subject of Female Pastors sums up exactly what I'm talking about 

 

 

In a social climate of complete equality in all things, the biblical teaching of only allowing men to be pastors and elders is not popular.  Many feminist organizations denounce this position as antiquated and chauvinistic.  In addition, many Christian churches have adopted the "politically correct" social standard and have allowed women pastors and elders in the church.  But the question remains, is this biblical?

 

My answer to this question is, "No, women are not to be pastors and elders."  Many may not like that answer; but it is, I believe, an accurate representation of the biblical standard.  You make the decision after reading this article. 

 

 

Progress has been driven by Christianity? That's a bold statement to make and one I'd disagree with, if you look at the most positively influential civilisations Christianity wasn't central to many of them.

 

 

Positively influential civilisations? Like what? 

 

Toney is right. A lot of the freedoms we enjoy today in the west, a lot of the things we regard as being fundamentally good, are inextricably linked to Christianity. To deny this is to deny history.

 

 

Give examples of things we today see as fundamentally good which are linked to christianity?

[james00]

Thats ridiculous, we can find many more god fearing good christian folk inspired by the bible who created the transatlantic slave trade. The reason ur name is toney and u were born a christian is because ur forefathers were plucked from their country, given a christian name and sent to church on their plantation every sunday. 

 

Lol that harsh reality.

 

Don't know why black christians can't wake up and see that they follow a faith of a white mans doctrine. With their white jesus that can be rebutted in 5 minutes that he was probably middle eastern.

 

At this point it can only be put down to ignorance.

[Ulysses]

 

 

 

 

If you're religious the way in which society moves shouldn't influence the principles at the foundation of your religion, they are the word of god and don't alter for anyone which is why I asked about female pastors. For hundreds of years females were prohibited from holding high ranking positions in the church and scriptures were presented as the basis for this (I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man Timothy 2:12) . With the advancement of feminism in society on the whole we've seen the church follow suit and embrace the idea that gender isn't an issue like they once thought it was, my question is what about the scripture that they've been reading for centuries has changed to the point whereby there's been such a big shift on this? Or is it more a case of moving with the times?

 

The passage you referenced is the word of Paul, not God, here's a snippet of the views regarding that passage though.

 

The traditional view holds that the "I suffer not a woman…" words are Paul's own words. However, the majority of modern scholars believe on the basis of content, vocabulary, and literary style that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul but is pseudepigraphical. They contend that this verse fits poorly with Paul's more positive references to Christian women and may be a later interpolation rather than part of the original text. Still others such as scholars/theologians Richard and Catherine Kroeger believe Paul did write the epistle of 1 Timothy, but that he was addressing a particular problem peculiar to the Church at Ephesus where Timothy was pastor of the multicultural congregation.

 

 

As someone who grew up a Christian I can tell you the underlying message is one of compassion and to adopt a humanistic approach in all things which is why I'm not surprised progress in the church sometimes mirrors that of society, whatever the reason though it's not a bad thing surely.

 

It's not 1 way though, as Ulysses alluded to progress historically has been driven by Christianity also, Granville Sharp and Wilberforce were largely inspired by the bible to help abolish slavery.

 

 

Thats ridiculous, we can find many more god fearing good christian folk inspired by the bible who created the transatlantic slave trade. The reason ur name is toney and u were born a christian is because ur forefathers were plucked from their country, given a christian name and sent to church on their plantation every sunday. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're religious the way in which society moves shouldn't influence the principles at the foundation of your religion, they are the word of god and don't alter for anyone which is why I asked about female pastors. For hundreds of years females were prohibited from holding high ranking positions in the church and scriptures were presented as the basis for this (I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man Timothy 2:12) . With the advancement of feminism in society on the whole we've seen the church follow suit and embrace the idea that gender isn't an issue like they once thought it was, my question is what about the scripture that they've been reading for centuries has changed to the point whereby there's been such a big shift on this? Or is it more a case of moving with the times?

 

The passage you referenced is the word of Paul, not God, here's a snippet of the views regarding that passage though.

 

The traditional view holds that the "I suffer not a woman…" words are Paul's own words. However, the majority of modern scholars believe on the basis of content, vocabulary, and literary style that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul but is pseudepigraphical. They contend that this verse fits poorly with Paul's more positive references to Christian women and may be a later interpolation rather than part of the original text. Still others such as scholars/theologians Richard and Catherine Kroeger believe Paul did write the epistle of 1 Timothy, but that he was addressing a particular problem peculiar to the Church at Ephesus where Timothy was pastor of the multicultural congregation.

 

 

As someone who grew up a Christian I can tell you the underlying message is one of compassion and to adopt a humanistic approach in all things which is why I'm not surprised progress in the church sometimes mirrors that of society, whatever the reason though it's not a bad thing surely.

 

It's not 1 way though, as Ulysses alluded to progress historically has been driven by Christianity also, Granville Sharp and Wilberforce were largely inspired by the bible to help abolish slavery.

 

 

So that text you've just quoted says that the majority of modern scholars believe that passage wasn't even written by Paul but somebody posing as him? That reinforces what I was saying earlier about the authenticity of the bible being questionable then doesn't it?

 

If those scholars are wrong and it is in fact Paul but we're going to discount his opinion on this subject,  do we do the same for all the teachings he outlines on marriage, homosexuality and everything else? I don't think we do.

 

I respect your opinion but as someone who also grew up as a Christian I have my own opinion of what the underlying message is. Whether or not the church is progressive can be deemed as a good thing depends on your view point, if you're a Christian and believe the word is the word  without compromise then I don't see how it can be anything but a bad thing.

 

This quote from an article on the subject of Female Pastors sums up exactly what I'm talking about 

 

 

In a social climate of complete equality in all things, the biblical teaching of only allowing men to be pastors and elders is not popular.  Many feminist organizations denounce this position as antiquated and chauvinistic.  In addition, many Christian churches have adopted the "politically correct" social standard and have allowed women pastors and elders in the church.  But the question remains, is this biblical?

 

My answer to this question is, "No, women are not to be pastors and elders."  Many may not like that answer; but it is, I believe, an accurate representation of the biblical standard.  You make the decision after reading this article. 

 

 

Progress has been driven by Christianity? That's a bold statement to make and one I'd disagree with, if you look at the most positively influential civilisations Christianity wasn't central to many of them.

 

 

Positively influential civilisations? Like what? 

 

Toney is right. A lot of the freedoms we enjoy today in the west, a lot of the things we regard as being fundamentally good, are inextricably linked to Christianity. To deny this is to deny history.

 

 

Give examples of things we today see as fundamentally good which are linked to christianity?

 

 

Human freedom and the rights of individual, equality under the law, our system of Government, our morality, our legal system, universal education/ our universities, the arts, literature, music, science, architecture, Charitable organisations/ modern nursing/ hospitals/ orphanages/ The Red Cross etc. etc. etc. Even the Labour Party owes more to Methodism than it does to Marx.

[Guest eights]

And what's the difference between that an following a faith of a brown skinned mans doctrine with their browned skinned Mohammed?

So stupid