I think it's readily apparent that our fundamental understanding of Christianity now would be abhorrent to Christians only a few centuries ago. Today the dominant view of Christianity is that it stands for the inclusion of all outcasts, particularly the non-Christian. "Jesus would never reject anyone." Jesus stands for ultimate tolerance. His vicar on earth is most Christ-like when he is welcoming non-Christian migrants into the holy city and washing their feet. His vicar on earth loves gays and transexuals, because that is what Jesus would do.

The purpose of my post is not merely to condemn this interpretation of Christianity. There seems to be scriptural support for it. Why should we passively accept Muslims, even if they aim to kill us? Well, Christ emptied himself, even unto death. He valorized Samaritans in the face of Judeans. He passively accepted crucifixion at the hands of his enemies. Why should we eschew rigid sexual regulation? Well, whether it was with the woman at the well or the woman who would be stoned, Jesus of the New Testament seemed quick to embrace sexual deviants.

The purpose of my post is to point out that this Christianity would be completely foreign to Christians a few hundred years ago, who with great sincerity understood their Christian obligation to be to drive out Muslims and to convert any Jews. They understood, with scriptural support, that they had to fiercely condemn lustful behavior and any kind of sexual union that was not between a man and a woman.

So here's my problem -- if Christianity is that plastic, if it can be bent at will by any cultural trend, and is merely a prophylactic for *other*, more powerful moral systems, than what is it worth, really? It's a veneer painted over other systems that do the real heavy lifting, whether nationalism or shitlibbery, or whatever.

And that really threatens my faith.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691452)

The hierarchy, simony and monetary corruption that has plagued the organized Church in the past (and now all this crazy gay shit) is the Whore of Babylon

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691465)

Worse, look at protestantism in action. It devolves into local churches that kook out at the first possible, low IQ moment, handling snakes and hosting rock bands. Or it mimics RCC in big, mainstream churches that become so second-rate and bland that no one ever goes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691478)

Think about that for fucking second. A pope saying "who am i to judge?"

It was a typical shitlib move, because of course the pope HAS judged and he has judged that being gay is like having green eyes, unimportant to your soul, and that the moral christian response is to be blind to such unimportant matters.

While self-styled orthodox catholics are pushing back on the pope for things like this, he is only voicing how the majority of humans (in the west) understand jesus -- as the pinnacle in acceptance and tolerance.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691546)

Regarding nationalism, the church has always transcendsed national boundaries, which was why there was so much conflict between the Catholic Church and European kings in the 1300s-1700s.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691513)

And it is most apparent in the understanding of who Jesus Christ is. There existed a Christianity where Jesus was a King and if one did not bend the knee at his name and receive the holy waters of baptism, one would very literally spend eternity in damnation. LOL at finding a contemporary Christian who truly believes that. Jesus today is a kind, soft friend, whose message is one of salvation for all. Both have scriptural support, but they make rival claims about reality.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691535)

" There existed a Christianity where Jesus was a King and if one did not bend the knee at his name and receive the holy waters of baptism, one would very literally spend eternity in damnation."

every church I've ever been in would still affirm this as the governing principle

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34692690)

This is essentially correct. It also, because it's supposed to be treated as "the word of god" it also drives EXTREME behavior.

Jesus doesn't really get an A grade on morality teaching.

Also, we don't really get a clear sense of Jesus --who he was--from the bible--at one moment he's a pacifist or a quietist, at the next moment he's calling for bloody revolution. At one moment the Kingdom of God is here right now, inside us, at the next moment, it's coming from on high in the lifetime of the people who were around when the stories were written up some 300 years after the fact. (There's a reason for this: There was no Jesus. He's a heroic character like Moses. But that might be too much for you right now.) Just think on the plasticity some more, and you'll see how toxic and false religion is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691547)

This is a very dumb position and it is dumb because it betrays no understanding of history. It expects a modern version of a historical record.

We have about as much historical record of Jesus as we have of ANYONE who lived thousands of years ago. What the fuck do you think the new testament is? Written between c. 70 and c.110 AD, we have dozens of writings about a non-politician. Who else do we have any of that about?

Even using basic logic, Christmos were dying for Jesus by the 70s and 80s. You think that mere decades after an infernal conspiracy to invent a magic character, people (some of whom would have been eye witnesses) would die for the lie?

Or are all of those early christians invented, too?

Indisputably there was a controversial Galilean preacher named Jesus who purported to work miracles and who upset Jewish leaders and who was killed by Romans. Perhaps the rest is mythology, but dont be dumb

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691591)

If you have trouble doing so you just aren't thinking clearly enough about the issue yet. Think on your OP question some more.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691620)

It's like agreeing with someone about some controversial climate issue and they throw in parentheses that the earth is flat.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691634)

You are right to say Christianity can be spread across to justify any act, like Smuckers jelly. And that plasticity suggests that its not an absolute truth.

Some very smart people who wrestled with this concluded that it must be some sort of faith thing--just believe in him and thru that belief you get the bennies.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691668)

I dont need it to be "absolute truth". If it is, all the better, but I think that is kind of a greek idea that is in tension with the more jewish ideas central to christianity.

i do need it to be sincere, however, and not merely.... my vocabulary and IQ fail me in finding the right analogy. I have used plastic and prophylactic and veneer, and those get close to what I mean.

Anyway, I will keep thinking about it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691714)

You faggots should listen to me more than you do. I'm 140 plus IQ.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693712)

http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/showbook.asp?bkid=264

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693817)

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13352

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34694403)

(I'm familiar w this and know where it comes from) Stone mason? That's not the story I grew up w! Jesus or Y-SH-A or Joshua made wooden furniture bro. Surely your not telling me the story gets add-ons?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693763)

for theirs is an autist lawbort

Blessed are Christian race realists

for they shall have niggerthreads

Blessed are petty Christian clitdicks

for they shall have likeminded clitdicks

Blessed are the meek

for they shall know scholarship (and Darnell)

Blessed are those who hunger for misogny

for they shall have low IQ fempoasters to insult

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691592)

I) I think that this dilemma is premised on a few false assumptions:

- A) That either the older Church or today's Church got it mostly right, in some way. This isn't necessarily true.

- B) That Scripture was/is not misinterpreted to provide the basis for either of those extremes. Closely related to the prior assumption, the assumption that one of these two choices is correct is uncertain, and probably false; there is often far less Scriptural support on both sides that you've referenced than there is purported to be.

- C) That Christianity is monolithic, and thus, mainstream ideologies are representative of the Church in its entirety or its purest. This is untrue; while mainstream Christianity today has deviated radically from what was orthodox for an overwhelming majority of the history of the church, that doesn't mean that all Christians today have done so.

- D) That the majority of professing Christians are doctrinally sound, and are thus representative of true Christianity. This is by no means certain, and in fact is unlikely; it is Scriptural to believe that many will apostatize or adhere to a false faith. This, in conjunction with point C, is heavily refutative of your plasticity argument; it is possible and likely that there are sects/denominations that have it right, but they may not be mainstream.

- E) That Christians who are saved cannot have radically differing understandings of what civil government should look like, and how Christians should interact with it. Much of these differences are due to differing views on the role of civil government. Calvin provided strong justification for using civil government to enforce moral regulations, but there are plenty of Christians who disagree with his argument; this is not, I think, an error of anti-salvific magnitude.

II) In my belief, many of these objections are resolvable with careful hermeneutics; I'm going to now attempt to provided some clarification/rebuttal/explanation on the issues you mentioned in your poast.

- A) There are multiple points within your first paragraph that merit response:

-- 1) This philosophy may be exemplary of mainstream liberal theology, but there are plenty of denominations that reject this philosophy. Moreover, there is an abundance of Scripture that indicates this view is likely at least partially incorrect.

-- 2) Conflating kindness to migrants with the acceptance of homosexuals and transsexuals is incorrect. These are discrete issues.

-- 3) Kindness to migrants has a plethora of Scriptural support.

-- 4) Kindness to homosexuals and transsexuals has Scriptural support in limited measures, however, this should not be construed to include governmental endorsement or inclusion into the Church without permanent repentance from these sins.

- B) Careful interpretation of Scripture should provide you the answer to these and other issues. (I see you're Catholic, so under your tradition you would be exhorted to consult tradition and orthodoxy as well.) It is incorrect to consider these issues without careful exegesis, and it is also wrong to simply accept a denominational platform "part-and-parcel" without checking it for Scriptural validity in each area. This paragraph seems to imply a binary dichotomy between liberal theology and conservative theology, when in fact there are likely errors in both that should be held under the microscope of Scripture. It is poor Christianity to accept at face value assertions made about Scriptural support for an issue; you have a responsibility to check because you have a moral responsibility to be as correct as you can be. In answer to the two issues you mentioned in your poast:

-- 1) There are varying answers on this, primarily contingent on two Scriptural questions: what is the Church's duty to Muslims (even violent ones), and what is the role of civil government? Thus, portraying this as having equivalent Scriptural support to the Crusades is incorrect; either one certainly has more or they aren't in conflict.

-- 2) Rigid sexual regulation is much clearer than the previous issue; nowhere in Scripture are homosexual or transsexual behaviors legitimized, and they are explicitly forbidden in several instances.

- C) I'll address both of your next two paragraphs in the next two points. I've already explained the issues with viewing theological paradigms as wholly binary; there can be errors in all. These are resolved through careful hermeneutics. However, new to your argument is the argument that Christianity is merely a conduit for other more powerful moral systems. I'm curious how you arrived at that conclusion from the above premises; unless one wholly rejects propitiatory atonement in favor of a works-based salvation or an inclusive pluralism, Christianity is still a virtually self-referential moral authority. There is no reliance on other moral systems without a clear rejection of the entire salvation doctrine. This is patently unScriptural, and should be rejected out of hand.

- D) Even assuming in arguendo that one were willing to wholly reject Christianity as a conduit for some other moral system, the systems that is could act as a conduit for lack basis without it; there is no good argument for the value of man or virtue of the type prescribed by Christianity without the Christian faith. Hence either one must reject all moral systems of that type, one must find basis for them outside of Christian doctrine, or one must accept Christianity.

- E) Here, I'll address your last sentence. You should arrive at your own philosophical and Scriptural justification for your faith independently of whether it is mainstream. Read Aquinas, Augustine, Leibniz, Hegel, Pascal, and others; most importantly, read Scripture and pray. You should not be shaken in faith by the heresy or apostasy of others unless it is inherently refutative of your own justifications for faith. Study Scripture and develop your own answers to this issue, rather than placing yourself in a binary dichotomy between worldviews.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34692656)

I will actually print this out and read it carefully

tyvm

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34692754)

Sure, "true" Christianity could be something other than how its been interpreted or applied or perceived by everyone at all times but isn't this just the justification for schisms rather than for the legitimacy of the faith itself?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693004)

The legitimacy of the faith itself is another discussion entirely.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693224)

Your response, though well meaning, is simply to suggest more plasticity (though you wont acknowledge this).

EDIT: you are doing the "true Christianity is really beyond the ken of man to grasp" which when looked at carefully is tautological and means absolutely nothing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693321)

I’m not religious and I don’t care to be so I can’t help OP, and I don’t know if the Bible is or is not consistent. But the original response to OP certainly is not just arguing for a “specific shape of the plasticity” like you originally stated. It’s offering OP a way to square christianity’s Plasticity with his faith, which was OP’s request.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693397)

Query: how does OP know when he's "doing it" correctly? Or close to doing it correctly?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693537)

I'm not usually a straw man guy, particularly on this topic, where there are so many straw men arguments.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693641)

"There's no Agreement," said in a ghosty voice.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693728)

There is no way to achieve absolute certainty, but OP can study Scripture to the point that he has a degree of certainty about what Scripture says.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693583)

Far from beyond man's grasp, I think if it WERE beyond man's grasp, that would refute my argument, which is at least partially contingent on something closer to perfect Christianity than the mainstreams being practiced.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693533)

Maybe what you mean is there's a mainstream view of Christianity and theres a more esoteric or theologically, morally, ethically accurate view that is closer to the true spirit of the faith? Is that it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693692)

I'm arguing that the views he's looking at are both at least partially incorrect, and that rather than representing a shift in truth, they represent different misinterpretations of Scripture.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693564)

In Xty, too often mysteries of the former are confused w mysteries of the latter. If mystery of the latter, I'm just being asked not to think. And lots of harms come in when you are asked not to think and you don't think.

Please elaborate: "faith explains more than a lack of faith does"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693654)