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

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51996256]Again, it still isn't free reign to pick and choose what parts of the bible you like and don't.[/QUOTE] Sure it is, the bible even says so. Even gives an example with Paul being told by god to eat from a table of shellfish despite it being against OT law. With the lesson eventually branching into "Do not call unclean that which I have declared clean". [QUOTE=carcarcargo;51996256] Much of the bible is stated fairly clearly with very little way of interpreting it.[/QUOTE] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_Christianity#Branches_of_Christianity[/URL] Obviously not [QUOTE=carcarcargo;51996256] If you disagree with that then quite honestly why call yourself Christian if you feel you can't even trust the founding documents of it.[/QUOTE] See above. Actually, go through that list and tell me what religion they actually are.

[QUOTE=Cliff2;51996285]Sure it is, the bible even says so. Even gives an example with Paul being told by god to eat from a table of shellfish despite it being against OT law. With the lesson eventually branching into "Do not call unclean that which I have declared clean". [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_Christianity#Branches_of_Christianity[/url] Obviously not[/QUOTE] The shellfish thing was a specific permission by god himself (at least according to Paul), it wasn't just Paul deciding he didn't like the OT. (In reality it probably was but we're arguing this assuming the bible was inspired by god and not made up) The different branches of Christianity found most of their disagreement in regards to the nature of god and salvation, there's very little disagreement on the legal aspects.

The real issue here is extremism. Islamic countries and their culture and laws are currently MUCH more extreme in their ideas than their Christian counterparts. The truth is that religion has the ability to unify people more than atheism alone does, so if the growth of modern moderate christianity is the natural reaction to the growth of radical islamic ideas then I would consider it to my benefit, as someone with western values.

[QUOTE=The Jack;51996236]Isn't islam really, really harsh on apostasy? Like, if you're a jew walking through Islamic-state town with a star of david sweater, you're better off than a known apostate in Manchester. If you leave islam, many muslims that consider themselves moderate will want your head. It's death in Sharia. It's the biggest fuckup you can make.[/QUOTE] Anyone who considers themselves moderate and wishes for the heads for those who leave Islam, are not moderate. But yes, apostasy is a colossal taboo in Islamic societies. Here in the US, you'd usually just be a target of some withering old ladies' gossip with eachother.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51996256]Again, it still isn't free reign to pick and choose what parts of the bible you like and don't. Much of the bible is stated fairly clearly with very little way of interpreting it. If you disagree with that then quite honestly why call yourself Christian if you feel you can't even trust the founding documents of it.[/QUOTE] So I can't be considered a Christian even if I agree with 99% of the teachings? That little 1% of disagreement completely nullifies my entire belief system and religion? Do you even hear yourself?

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51996304]The shellfish thing was a specific permission by god himself (at least according to Paul), it wasn't just Paul deciding he didn't like the OT. (In reality it probably was but we're arguing this assuming the bible was inspired by god and not made up) The different branches of Christianity found most of their disagreement in regards to the nature of god and salvation, there's very little disagreement on the legal aspects.[/QUOTE] Then there are no Christians left based off of Deuteronomy alone, what is the point of the definition if it is not accurate to those who call themselves Christian?

[QUOTE=Cliff2;51996398]Then there are no Christians left based off of Deuteronomy alone, what is the point of the definition if it is not accurate to those who call themselves Christian?[/QUOTE] Not the same, at least according to the new testament the changes were sanctioned by god himself through direct contact with the Christian founders of the time. It's not the same as someone today just saying they don't like part of it and ignoring it. [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51996386]So I can't be considered a Christian even if I agree with 99% of the teachings? That little 1% of disagreement completely nullifies my entire belief system and religion? Do you even hear yourself?[/QUOTE] If you want to maintain it's inspired by god then yes, otherwise you're suggesting god is wrong. If you don't think it's inspired by god then why would you be a Christian? Many of the same morals are echoed by other philosophers, you don't need to subscribe to Christianity to follow them.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51996422] If you want to maintain it's inspired by god then yes, otherwise you're suggesting god is wrong. If you don't think it's inspired by god then why would you be a Christian? Many of the same morals are echoed by other philosophers, you don't need to subscribe to Christianity to follow them.[/QUOTE] "Inspired by God" is not the same as "God himself said this". The Bible was written by men, not Jesus himself. There are things in there that are fully written by men. It may be different for Islam, where the Koran is the literal teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, but the Christian Bible is different in its creation.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51996386]So I can't be considered a Christian even if I agree with 99% of the teachings? That little 1% of disagreement completely nullifies my entire belief system and religion? Do you even hear yourself?[/QUOTE] That's just not a realistic situation. No one disagrees with just "1%" of it. Christianity has a few fundamental doctrines that lead to all the many conclusions. Those who disagree with the conclusions also disagree with the fundamental doctrines, leading to many other differences down the line.

With the variety of different Christian sects, some of which are being made even today, how can you say I am not a Christan when perhaps I am merely a part of a different sect with its own interpretations? [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;51996455]That's just not a realistic situation. No one disagrees with just "1%" of it. Christianity has a few fundamental doctrines that lead to all the many conclusions. Those who disagree with the conclusions also disagree with the fundamental doctrines, leading to many other differences down the line.[/QUOTE] Really missing my point. It's not a literal "99% vs 1%". I don't even know how an amount of belief can be quantified into a percentage.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51996451]"Inspired by God" is not the same as "God himself said this". The Bible was written by men, not Jesus himself. There are things in there that are fully written by men. It may be different for Islam, where the Koran is the literal teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, but the Christian Bible is different in its creation.[/QUOTE] Inspired by god is essentially the same thing for all intents and purposes. If you think god is so incompetent that he can't inspire something properly then I yet again have to question why you would worship him.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51996462]With the variety of different Christian sects, some of which are being made even today, how can you say I am not a Christan when perhaps I am merely a part of a different sect with its own interpretations?[/QUOTE] Groups are allowed to define their own membership requirements. The no true Scotsman fallacy only applies when arbitrary requirements are applied for the specific reason of denying membership. This isn't the case when it comes to Christianity. Someone who, for example, doesn't think the Bible holds any real authority over theology is so far removed from anything that would be traditionally considered Christian, as to make the title meaningless.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51996475]Groups are allowed to define their own membership requirements. The no true Scotsman fallacy only applies when arbitrary requirements are applied for the specific reason of denying membership. This isn't the case when it comes to Christianity. Someone who, for example, doesn't think the Bible holds any real authority over theology is so far removed from anything that would be traditionally considered Christian, as to make the title meaningless.[/QUOTE] You both have already declared either protestants or some branches of Catholicism(Including Roman Catholic) as non Christian. Because most protestants consider [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible#Deuterocanonical_books_of_the_Old_Testament]deutorocanonical books[/url] to be apocryphal. Such as Esdras, Tobit, and Judith. Which of them is the true Christianity?

[QUOTE=Cliff2;51996581]You both have already declared either protestants or some branches of Catholicism(Including Roman Catholic) as non Christian. Because most protestants consider [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible#Deuterocanonical_books_of_the_Old_Testament]deutorocanonical books[/url] to be apocryphal. Such as Esdras, Tobit, and Judith. Which of them is the true Christianity?[/QUOTE] They still both consider the Bible canon.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51996598]They still both consider the Bible canon.[/QUOTE] They are different bibles. They do not consider it canon if they differ on what should be in it.

[QUOTE=Cliff2;51996605]They are different bibles. They do not consider it canon if they differ on what should be in it.[/QUOTE] They aren't, they still hold the traditional canon they just have extra books which they draw from. The bible itself is still the central authority

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51996621]They aren't, they still hold the traditional canon they just have extra books which they draw from. The bible itself is still the central authority[/QUOTE] Well considering you're unwilling to actually follow and read the link, I guess we're done here.

[QUOTE=Cliff2;51996714]Well considering you're unwilling to actually follow and read the link, I guess we're done here.[/QUOTE] I read the link, my point stands just fine.

I was under the impression that apostasy was super bad in Islam, I'm surprised that so many are converting to Christianity.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51996475]Groups are allowed to define their own membership requirements. The no true Scotsman fallacy only applies when arbitrary requirements are applied for the specific reason of denying membership. This isn't the case when it comes to Christianity. Someone who, for example, doesn't think the Bible holds any real authority over theology is so far removed from anything that would be traditionally considered Christian, as to make the title meaningless.[/QUOTE] depends, most christians don't adhere to the concept of sola scriptura

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51993428]I was rather enjoying Christianity's decline though[/QUOTE] I wish my life was so easy that I had to busy myself by whining about other people's beliefs.

[QUOTE=Kirbunny431;51996916]I wish my life was so easy that I had to busy myself by whining about other people's beliefs.[/QUOTE] Considering they make my life not so easy I don't feel it's unjustified.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51996935]-snip-[/QUOTE] your arguments essentially boil down to massive generalizations of huge demographics. Your argument can be used to justify saying that all Germans who considered themselves Germans in the 1940s were either nazis or not German Whats your stance on other religions? Or what about denominations that dont accept the bible as the absolute word of god? Why do you think that christianity is simply incapable of reforming its beliefs, despite the fact that most long lasting denominations of christianity have done so multiple times throughout history?

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51997023]your arguments essentially boil down to massive generalizations of huge demographics. Your argument can be used to justify saying that all Germans who considered themselves Germans in the 1940s were either nazis or not German Whats your stance on other religions? Or what about denominations that dont accept the bible as the absolute word of god? Why do you think that christianity is simply incapable of reforming its beliefs, despite the fact that most long lasting denominations of christianity have done so multiple times throughout history?[/QUOTE] Except German isn't an ideology so no not really.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51997030]Except German isn't an ideology so no not really.[/QUOTE] A few things are wrong with this post. One you didn't address 95% of the post. Two you didn't actually think about the argument. Three you state that all Christians must adhere to the strictest interpretations of the bible or they aren't Christians. This is akin to saying that Germans in the 1940s who didn't adhere to the guidelines and beliefs set forth by the nazi party were not germans.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51997049]A few things are wrong with this post. One you didn't address 95% of the post. Two you didn't actually think about the argument. Three you state that all Christians must adhere to the strictest interpretations of the bible or they aren't Christians. This is akin to saying that Germans in the 1940s who didn't adhere to the guidelines and beliefs set forth by the nazi party were not germans.[/QUOTE] If you disagree with the bible why be a Christian, I've already addressed this point about five times. Being German has no fundamental doctrine, as I've already said with someone who used the same analogy but with America. It's not the same. Other religions? I don't have as much experience so depends on the kind of ideas they believe in.

It seems there's a severe misunderstanding of what "No True Scotsman" actually is. There is a difference between changing the requirements to be part of a group to suit your argument, and [i]acknowledging the requirements that already exist[/i] for being part of a group. If I were to say "No true Scotsman isn't a citizen of Scotland" then that's not really "No true scotsman" because [i]there is an actual requirement for being a "Scotsman": being a citizen of Scotland.[/i] In the same way, there are requirements for being considered part of a religion. First and foremost: do you think it's true? Do you believe in the fundamentals it teaches? If you answer no to these, I don't see how you could possibly identify yourself as being part of the religion in question [i]if you don't even believe it to be true.[/i]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51997099]If you disagree with the bible why be a Christian, I've already addressed this point about five times.[/quote] So you're saying belief in the bible as absolute gospel is a qualifier for being christian? [quote] Being German has no fundamental doctrine, as I've already said with someone who used the same analogy but with America. It's not the same.[/quote] Let me boil down my analogy to the simplest terms, to avoid any possible misinterpretation, willful or otherwise. Group A is made up of a couple million people who follow some interpretation of a fictional religion Subgroup 1 is a group within that group that believes that sacrificing babies is a good idea because one of their holy books can be, at its most literal, interpreted to state "Sacrificing babies is a good idea". Subgroups 2,3,4,5, and 6 also exist in this group. None of them interpret this verse to mean that "Sacrificing babies is a good idea" or that the book its in is even the word of God. Your argument essentially states that subgroup 1 is representative of the group as a whole, which is clearly false. [quote] Other religions? I don't have as much experience so depends on the kind of ideas they believe in.[/QUOTE] Judging by your posts you dont have much experience with religion at all other then what was forced upon you

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51997146]So you're saying belief in the bible as absolute gospel is a qualifier for being christian? Let me boil down my analogy to the simplest terms, to avoid any possible misinterpretation, willful or otherwise. Group A is made up of a couple million people who follow some interpretation of a fictional religion Subgroup 1 is a group within that group that believes that sacrificing babies is a good idea because one of their holy books can be, at its most literal, interpreted to state "Sacrificing babies is a good idea". Subgroups 2,3,4,5, and 6 also exist in this group. None of them interpret this verse to mean that "Sacrificing babies is a good idea" or that the book its in is even the word of God. Your argument essentially states that subgroup 1 is representative of the group as a whole, which is clearly false. Judging by your posts you dont have much experience with religion at all other then what was forced upon you[/QUOTE] Your argument is still silly because the bible is written in pretty clear language when it comes to homosexuality, there isn't really any room for interpretation so short of willful ignorance there's no other way to look at it other than bigoted. And yes if you don't believe the bible why would you be Christian, yet again I'm forced to ask this question.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51997171]Your argument is still silly because the bible is written in pretty clear language when it comes to homosexuality, there isn't really any room for interpretation so short of willful ignorance there's no other way to look at it other than bigoted.[/QUOTE] Your argument relies on everyone accepting that the literal interpretation of the bible as the foremost authority on all aspects christianity. I've known plenty of people who see the bible as either mans interpretations of what God said or that the sayings in the bible should be treated with several grains of salt and not treated in the most literal fashion. Hell I've heard people outright say that parts of the bible are wrong. By your logic people who don't believe that God didn't create the universe in 7 days are not christians either. By your logic none of these (rather religious individuals) are christians. This is a very, very narrow viewpoint to hold. [quote] And yes if you don't believe the bible why would you be Christian, yet again I'm forced to ask this question.[/quote] Not every Christian thinks the bible is to be interpreted 100% literally or that its objectively correct. Those people are certainly a minority. Hell arguments over the interpretation of the bible have been going on since it was written. Beyond that I know I've known people who consider themselves Christians simply because they liked to go to Church and liked the sense of community they got out of it.