Disproving Christianity

Originally Posted by RabbiO

Then Mordecai Kaplan is spinning in his grave - figuratively speaking.

B'shalom,

Peter

I don't think so since Jerusalem seems to have shifted to Arizona. Afterall, he was all about an American Judaism.

Now Joseph Smith - I can't imagine his reaction to my thesis.

Originally Posted by Reverend Keith

Well, let's start with Catholics, since most Christians in the world are Catholic. Catholics believe in a very qualified sort of "inerrancy" in scripture - "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted to put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation". In other words, scripture may be wrong about history, science or prophecy, but it will tell you what you need to know for salvation. But there are additional qualifications that scripture must be interpreted with the context of the tradition of the Church, that the reader must be inspired, etc.

Other mainline denominations take qualified views also. John Wesley, founder of Methodism, taught that the Christian faith is "revealed in Scripture, illuminated by tradition, vivified in personal and experience, and confirmed by reason" When reading the Bible, in other words, use your brain.

As for B and C, those are accepted by most Christians. Unitarians tend to deny both, and teach that Jesus is an inspired human prophet and didn't claim to be anything else. While most mainline denominations would reject this position, you will find that the seminary textbooks used in these institutions often line up more with the Unitarians.

So in short, you can't have a purely logical or purely scriptural discussion with a Christian... that what you're saying? I already king of knew that... the feeling of devotion in the heart is more important that logic, which is a tool of the devil... or something like that....

Originally Posted by Yamah

So in short, you can't have a purely logical or purely scriptural discussion with a Christian... that what you're saying? I already king of knew that... the feeling of devotion in the heart is more important that logic, which is a tool of the devil... or something like that....

So I think you got it. Jesus was not the Messiah to the Jews. However he was channeling the consciousnesses of Love which ironically enough would in the end inhibit war, create a kingdom for the soul and heal one's whole self.

Judaism/Christianity had nothing to do with it.

http://www.oracleofthephoenix.com/fo...an-gospel.html

[SeaZen]

Originally Posted by Honza
As I have every right to do so. As far as I'm concerned you overstep your mark fairly often.

Originally Posted by psychoslice

And who do you think you are, the owner here, just keep out of my face from now on or I'll be going to admin, you try to make out that you are such a lovely person, but underneath, well I'm not going there, as I said keep out of my face from now on.

[Reverend Keith]

Originally Posted by Yamah

So in short, you can't have a purely logical or purely scriptural discussion with a Christian... that what you're saying? I already king of knew that... the feeling of devotion in the heart is more important that logic, which is a tool of the devil... or something like that....

I'm not sure it's really possible to have a meaningful discussion that's exclusively logical or exclusively scriptural. Logic needs premises to work on, and everyone brings their own baggage to scriptural interpretation, whether they recognize it or not.

What I was saying is that you're not likely to persuade most Christians they are wrong by showing them places in the New Testament that you don't think agree with the Old Testament. If it were that simple there wouldn't be any Christians.

Originally Posted by Reverend Keith

Well, let's start with Catholics, since most Christians in the world are Catholic. Catholics believe in a very qualified sort of "inerrancy" in scripture - "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted to put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation". In other words, scripture may be wrong about history, science or prophecy, but it will tell you what you need to know for salvation. But there are additional qualifications that scripture must be interpreted with the context of the tradition of the Church, that the reader must be inspired, etc.

Perhaps only the theories held by "Popish figures" are wrong and not Scripture, and the history built by the Catholic church, likewise, is as "wrong" and not Scripture.

I haven't ran into Christians that consider themselves Catholic, but have ran into many "mainstream Christians" that put as much distance between themselves and Catholics as possible.