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

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51997211]Your argument relies on everyone accepting the bible as the foremost authority on 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 none of these (rather religious individuals) are christians. This is a very, very narrow viewpoint to hold. 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.[/QUOTE] Except it IS the foremost authority on Christianity. Unless you have some other authority that I don't know about the bible is the founding text on which Christianity was built, without it then you don't have a lot to go on. If you think the bible is wrong then why on earth would you call yourself a Christian, on what basis do you assert your religious beliefs? The usual excuse given for 6 day creation is that they aren't literal days, a tenuous excuse but at least somewhat acceptable when you consider the meaning of the Hebrew word used in that section. There really is zero other interpretation when it comes to the law, there's no other way of looking at it and no real language quirks to fall back on as an excuse, it's pretty damn clear.

[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. And yes if you don't believe the bible why would you be Christian, yet again I'm forced to ask this question.[/QUOTE] Your argument is silly because of the reasons constantly listed for the past three pages that you somehow have yet to understand.

[QUOTE=JeSuisIkea;51997250]Your argument is silly because of the reasons constantly listed for the past three pages that you somehow have yet to understand.[/QUOTE] I've addressed all of them, just because you don't agree doesn't make me wrong.

[QUOTE=geel9;51997101] 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] Basically. Belief in the entire bible in its entirety isn't required to be Christian since it literally means follower of Christ. Almost any (Protestant) Christian church will tell you that all you need to be Christian is to believe in Christ and follow his teachings. It's why Evangelicals focus so much on the Gospels, because those are the core. The rest of the bible's importance will vary depending on which sect you're talking to. Luther also wanted to remove 4 New Testament books from Biblical Canon when he split from the church, but settled on removing only the Deutorocanonicals. LDS insists on an additional book that Joseph Smith found, but most christianities consider it false. Biblical canon is disputed among the different sects, but their core belief is the teachings of Jesus Christ, hence why they're called Christians.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51997216]Except it IS the foremost authority on Christianity. Unless you have some other authority that I don't know about the bible is the founding text on which Christianity was built, without it then you don't have a lot to go on. If you think the bible is wrong then why on earth would you call yourself a Christian, on what basis do you assert your religious beliefs? The usual excuse given for 6 day creation is that they aren't literal days, a tenuous excuse but at least somewhat acceptable when you consider the meaning of the Hebrew word used in that section. There really is zero other interpretation when it comes to the law, there's no other way of looking at it and no real language quirks to fall back on as an excuse, it's pretty damn clear.[/QUOTE] Not true. Gnosticism (and Christianity itself) predate the creation of the New Testament. Gnostics weren't known to follow the Bible yet to deny them as some of the earliest Christians would be outright false.

[QUOTE=matt000024;51997312]Not true. Gnosticism (and Christianity itself) predate the creation of the New Testament. Gnostics weren't known to follow the Bible yet to deny them as some of the earliest Christians would be outright false.[/QUOTE] The Gnostics aren't strictly Christian, at least in the modern sense, they're more their own thing. Yes they accepted Jesus, but then so does Islam however we wouldn't necessarily call Islam Christian.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51997355]The Gnostics aren't strictly Christian, at least in the modern sense, they're more their own thing. Yes they accepted Jesus, but then so does Islam however we wouldn't necessarily call Islam Christian.[/QUOTE] Just because they aren't identical to Catholics doesn't mean they aren't Christians. What would you consider the Christians who pre-dated the New Testament though? Not Christians because they didn't follow the Bible or what? You're arguments have been Swiss cheese. Facts don't change because they don't fit your agenda.

[QUOTE=matt000024;51997388]Just because they aren't identical to Catholics doesn't mean they aren't Christians. What would you consider the Christians who pre-dated the New Testament though? Not Christians because they didn't follow the Bible or what? You're arguments have been Swiss cheese. Facts don't change because they don't fit your agenda.[/QUOTE] It's not really, gnostics are considered separate, they take aspects of Judaism and Christianity but they still differ significantly enough to be their own separate thing, just like how Christianity isn't a form of Judaism and Islam isn't a form of Christianity

[QUOTE=matt000024;51997388]Just because they aren't identical to Catholics doesn't mean they aren't Christians. What would you consider the Christians who pre-dated the New Testament though? Not Christians because they didn't follow the Bible or what? You're arguments have been Swiss cheese. Facts don't change because they don't fit your agenda.[/QUOTE] So is there absolutely no definition for a religion? Can I call myself a Christian even though many people would call me an atheist? If I followed Islamic teachings, and did everything in the way that would be expected of someone following Islam, but I claimed I was a Christian, would you say I was correct?

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51997394]It's not really, gnostics are considered separate, they take aspects of Judaism and Christianity but they still differ significantly enough to be their own separate thing, just like how Christianity isn't a form of Judaism and Islam isn't a form of Christianity[/QUOTE] You're missing my point. What I'm saying is that the New Testament Bible exists because of Christianity, not the other way around. Christians predate the New Testament, not the other way around which defeats your point of "Christians must follow a strict interpretation of the Bible." Even in Catholicism, the Bible isn't the highest authority behind God, the Pope is. [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=geel9;51997395]So is there absolutely no definition for a religion? Can I call myself a Christian even though many people would call me an atheist? If I followed Islamic teachings, and did everything in the way that would be expected of someone following Islam, but I claimed I was a Christian, would you say I was correct?[/QUOTE] No because Christ isn't included in your primary beliefs.

[QUOTE=matt000024;51997409]You're missing my point. What I'm saying is that the New Testament Bible exists because of Christianity, not the other way around. Christians predate the New Testament, not the other way around which defeats your point of "Christians must follow a strict interpretation of the Bible." Even in Catholicism, the Bible isn't the highest authority behind God, the Pope is. [/QUOTE] Well if we're to believe the new testament on what early christianity was like, then early christianity was still consistent with the doctrines of modern christianity. If the new testament isn't true then Christianity has no real basis to exist on. Of course Early Christianity has very little relevance to it's modern counterpart, which is what the majority of people are involved in today. The issues of today are caused by the ideals set by Modern Christianity. [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=matt000024;51997409]No because Christ isn't included in your primary beliefs.[/QUOTE] But according to you and the others it's all up for interpretation, so he can apparently interpret it however he wants. If he wants to interpret it as not requiring a belief in Christ then apparently he can.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51997436]Well if we're to believe the new testament on what early christianity was like, [b]then early christianity was still consistent with the doctrines of modern christianity.[/b] If the new testament isn't true then Christianity has no real basis to exist on. [b]Of course Early Christianity has very little relevance to it's modern counterpart,[/b] which is what the majority of people are involved in today. The issues of today are caused by the ideals set by Modern Christianity.[/quote] Early Christianity was vastly different in certain ways than it's modern counterpart, but they are still both Christianity. Also the highlighted parts show how you essentially deconstructed your own point. [quote] But according to you and the others it's all up for interpretation, so he can apparently interpret it however he wants. If he wants to interpret it as not requiring a belief in Christ then apparently he can.[/QUOTE] Interpretation isn't all or nothing though. The very definition of Christianity is followers of Christ. That is literally the only requirement by definition. Also you're claiming that early Christianity has no part in Christianity today, but at the same time claiming there must be a very strict interpretation of the Bible which is counter-intuitive. [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] Also love how you ignored my point about the Pope being superior to the Bible in Catholicism.

[QUOTE=geel9;51997395]So is there absolutely no definition for a religion? Can I call myself a Christian even though many people would call me an atheist? If I followed Islamic teachings, and did everything in the way that would be expected of someone following Islam, but I claimed I was a Christian, would you say I was correct?[/QUOTE] Literally gave you one further up. Islam places the focus on Allah and Muhammad as his primary prophet. Not Christ. Nor do they believe in his message only that he's a prophet. Not Christian. Judaism doesn't believe Christ was who he said he was. Not Christian. Atheists don't believe Christ was who he said he was. Not Christian. It's a really simple definition. Following the "Believing in the entirety of the Bible determines if you're Christian or not" line brings you into conflict of the Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Bibles problem. And if adding or removing books is an ok thing to do in that case, then Christianity isn't needed as a descriptor. They're just Jews that believe in a few more books.

[QUOTE=matt000024;51997480]Early Christianity was vastly different in certain ways than it's modern counterpart, but they are still both Christianity. Also the highlighted parts show how you essentially deconstructed your own point. Interpretation isn't all or nothing though. The very definition of Christianity is followers of Christ. That is literally the only requirement by definition. Also you're claiming that early Christianity has no part in Christianity today, but at the same time claiming there must be a very strict interpretation of the Bible which is counter-intuitive. [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] Also love how you ignored my point about the Pope being superior to the Bible in Catholicism.[/QUOTE] Very disingenuous highlighting considering the nonhighlighted point prior is important to the point and the entire point I was making is missed if you ignore it. I mean you can just say you follow Christ, but that's fairly meaningless if it has no doctrine behind it. Since the new testament is the only real source of what Christ stood for, it's kind of required to really "follow Christ" in any meaningful way. If you consider only Jesus' word in the gospels then the only logically consistent way to do that without Paul's amendments is to follow Torah tradition, considering that's what Jesus did, and of course the Torah was no less bigoted either. As for the pope, I can't find anything stating that the popes word is above the bible, I know of papel infallibility but I can't find anything that puts it above the bible itself.

[QUOTE=Cliff2;51997525]Literally gave you one further up. Islam places the focus on Allah and Muhammad as his primary prophet. Not Christ. Nor do they believe in his message only that he's a prophet. Not Christian. Judaism doesn't believe Christ was who he said he was. Not Christian. Atheists don't believe Christ was who he said he was. Not Christian. It's a really simple definition. Following the "Believing in the entirety of the Bible determines if you're Christian or not" line brings you into conflict of the Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Bibles problem. And if adding or removing books is an ok thing to do in that case, then Christianity isn't needed as a descriptor. They're just Jews that believe in a few more books.[/QUOTE] Key beliefs of any recognizable Christianity includes: - God exists as a Trinity - Jesus is God - There is only one God - All people require salvation from their sin - Jesus provided everything required for our salvation in his death and that it was totally unmerited on our end - The Bible is the key authority for doctrine. No doctrine can contradict it. (even the Catholic church would agree with this, they just go even further) Disagreeing with any of these puts a person outside of any clear idea of Christianity.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51997539]Very disingenuous highlighting considering the nonhighlighted point prior is important to the point and the entire point I was making is missed if you ignore it. I mean you can just say you follow Christ, but that's fairly meaningless if it has no doctrine behind it. Since the new testament is the only real source of what Christ stood for, it's kind of required to really "follow Christ" in any meaningful way. If you consider only Jesus' word in the gospels then the only logically consistent way to do that without Paul's amendments is to follow Torah tradition, considering that's what Jesus did, and of course the Torah was no less bigoted either. As for the pope, I can't find anything stating that the popes word is above the bible, I know of papel infallibility but I can't find anything that puts it above the bible itself.[/QUOTE] Papal infallibility is what puts the Pope above the Bible though. If Pope Francis decided that the book of John was no longer canon, it would be thus. Of course there would be backlash, but it wouldn't suddenly make him or his opponents not Christian. Also the New Testament is just a record of mainstream Christian beliefs/history. The earliest Christians believed Christ would return soon so they didn't bother recording anything and instead used oral tradition to pass on beliefs and history.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51997559]Key beliefs of any recognizable Christianity includes: - God exists as a Trinity - Jesus is God - There is only one God - All people require salvation from their sin - Jesus provided everything required for our salvation in his death and that it was totally unmerited on our end - The Bible is the key authority for doctrine. No doctrine can contradict it. (even the Catholic church would agree with this, they just go even further) Disagreeing with any of these puts a person outside of any clear idea of Christianity.[/QUOTE] Actually none of those are essential to Christianity, but instead are essential to Catholicism (which says Jesus is 100% God and human, not just God). You can read about various "heretical" sects that contradicted a lot of what you wrote and required the Church to create [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea]certain things during meetings[/url].

[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] You're referring to that passage in the book of Leviticus, aren't you? Leviticus is a codex of laws and ceremonies developed for the Israelites around the time of their takeover of Canaan. If modern Christians followed it, children would be stoned to death for cussing out their parents, goats, lambs and other livestock would be routinely sacrificed in front of churches, and women would be required to marry their rapists. I think you will find very few Christians who make a point of adhering to those laws.

[QUOTE=matt000024;51997583]Actually none of those are essential to Christianity, but instead are essential to Catholicism (which says Jesus is 100% God and human, not just God). You can read about various "heretical" sects that contradicted a lot of what you wrote and required the Church to create [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea"]certain things during meetings[/URL].[/QUOTE] The early heretical groups were specifically excluded from Christianity because of their disagreement with key doctrines. I'm not sure what your point is. [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Psychokitten;51997584]You're referring to that passage in the book of Leviticus, aren't you? Leviticus is a codex of laws and ceremonies developed for the Israelites around the time of their takeover of Canaan. If modern Christians followed it, children would be stoned to death for cussing out their parents, goats, lambs and other livestock would be routinely sacrificed in front of churches, and women would be required to marry their rapists. I think you will find very few Christians who make a point of adhering to those laws.[/QUOTE] The difference is that Paul refers directly back to the specific levitical law about homosexual sex. He doesn't do the same for things like the stoning laws.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51997584]You're referring to that passage in the book of Leviticus, aren't you? Leviticus is a codex of laws and ceremonies developed for the Israelites around the time of their takeover of Canaan. If modern Christians followed it, children would be stoned to death for cussing out their parents, goats, lambs and other livestock would be routinely sacrificed in front of churches, and women would be required to marry their rapists. I think you will find very few Christians who make a point of adhering to those laws.[/QUOTE] 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=sgman91;51997559]Key beliefs of any recognizable Christianity includes: - God exists as a Trinity - Jesus is God - There is only one God - All people require salvation from their sin - Jesus provided everything required for our salvation in his death and that it was totally unmerited on our end - The Bible is the key authority for doctrine. No doctrine can contradict it. (even the Catholic church would agree with this, they just go even further) Disagreeing with any of these puts a person outside of any clear idea of Christianity.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism[/url] [quote]The Bible is the key authority for doctrine. No doctrine can contradict it.[/quote] Which bible?

[QUOTE=sgman91;51997585]The early heretical groups were specifically excluded from Christianity because of their disagreement with key doctrines. I'm not sure what your point is.[/QUOTE] They are excluded from Catholicism (which essentially had a monopoly on Christianity until the Great Schism), not Christianity.

[QUOTE=matt000024;51997594]They are excluded from Catholicism (which essentially had a monopoly on Christianity until the Great Schism), not Christianity.[/QUOTE] ... Catholicism didn't even exist that early as it does today. The first recognizable pope didn't even come around until after 500 AD. The word "catholic" just meant all encompassing. It means the whole church. This meaning didn't change until the east-west split.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51997559]Key beliefs of any recognizable Christianity includes: - God exists as a Trinity - Jesus is God - There is only one God - All people require salvation from their sin - Jesus provided everything required for our salvation in his death and that it was totally unmerited on our end - The Bible is the key authority for doctrine. No doctrine can contradict it. (even the Catholic church would agree with this, they just go even further) Disagreeing with any of these puts a person outside of any clear idea of Christianity.[/QUOTE] iunno, i'd still kinda consider mormons to be christian in some capacity even if they are heretics.

[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] Jesus didn't follow the Torah's law exactly though which is why the Jewish authorities at the time had him killed by the Romans. [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;51997599]... Catholicism didn't even exist that early as it does today. The first recognizable pope didn't even come around until after 500 AD. The word "catholic" just meant all encompassing. It means the whole church. This meaning didn't change until the east-west split.[/QUOTE] Catholicism is the continuation of the Church which could no longer be called the Church by historians due to multiple groups claiming to be the Church.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51997601]iunno, i'd still kinda consider mormons to be christian in some capacity even if they are heretics.[/QUOTE] This is where we come back to the right of a group to define it's own membership. People outside the group don't get to tell you who you have to include. [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=matt000024;51997603]JCatholicism is the continuation of the Church which could no longer be called the Church by historians due to multiple groups claiming to be the Church.[/QUOTE] I don't know what you're trying to say. The church came together in order to exclude certain groups from itself, based on their specific heretical beliefs (like the gnostics or aryans).

[QUOTE=matt000024;51997603]Jesus didn't follow the Torah's law exactly though which is why the Jewish authorities at the time had him killed by the Romans.[/QUOTE] Yes he did, the pharisees were adding too the law which is what Jesus took issue with (at least that's how the story goes), he still kept to the mosaic law.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51997615]Yes he did, the pharisees were adding too the law which is what Jesus took issue with (at least that's how the story goes), he still kept to the mosaic law.[/QUOTE] Stoning adulterers was in the Bible, but Jesus objected to it. [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;51997609] I don't know what you're trying to say. The church came together in order to exclude certain groups from itself, based on their specific heretical beliefs (like the gnostics or aryans).[/QUOTE] Which Church came together? The Orthodox and Catholic Churches hated each other until somewhat recently.

[QUOTE=matt000024;51997651]Stoning adulterers was in the Bible, but Jesus objected to it. [/QUOTE] He didn't actually, that verse was never part of the original texts. Most modern bibles edit it out for that reason.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51997659]He didn't actually, that verse was never part of the original texts. Most modern bibles edit it out for that reason.[/QUOTE] Wait you can edit the Bible now? I thought you said it was written in stone.