Religion or Science - How do they compare?

I think most Christians would agree with most of that sentence, however, as is the case with many doctrines or concepts, there are differences in belief and subtle things that are harder to defend scripturally. The quoted scripture would support almost all of the more widely held doctrines of substitutionary atonement.

well, you do have a point.Personally, I don't believe that these early doctrines are necessary reflections of reality--- let us just say that I remain unconvinced---but I was defending Faith based on the source of the doctrines rather than the content and belief in authoritative orthodox teaching. She holds to the content as infallible and basically non-negotiable philosophically, whereas I do not.My critics from within the church would say that I remain uncommitted to endorsing orthodox belief.My critics here at EvC would say that I remain willfully ignorant by even considering such beliefs as logical, reasonable, or rational.And jar could be a little nicer to his opponent rather than repeating the idea that modern Biblical Christians are willfully ignorant. Why not ask Faith why traditional orthodox teaching must never be questioned?

Members of a cult never know they're in a cult. They just think they have The Truth. You keep misunderstanding what "marketing" means. It isn't necessarily a cash transaction. Evangelism is inherently a form of marketing.

I can't even figure out how anyone calls mainstream Protestant traditional Christianity a "cult." The list of well known Christians in Message 777 ought to be enough to put this nonsense to rest, but nothing is ever enough for that at EvC.

I have said somewhere else what I consider a cult to be: a group that considers itself (its leaders) the authority on everything, that discourages its members from looking/learning outside the group, that cites "authorities" rather than evidence. You certainly fit that description, as do the Moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. I have pointed out to you before that you have cited Catholics as authorities. Do you relly want that list scrutinized? I suspect we would find people on it who disagree with you.

By your standard there could never be a body of doctrine that wasn't a cult.There are no "liberal Christians" on that list, go ahead and check, but there will always be minor points of disagreement. And there were Catholics in the history of Christianity who WERE Christians, or there could never have been a Reformation which was brought about by Catholics. But I don't think there are any Catholics on my list.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Bingo.Note that Judaism doesn't have a solid body of doctrine; everything is open to interpretation. Note how Jesus reinterpreted the Pharisees' interpretation.Similarly, the "liberal" Christianity that you spit on is somewhat flexible in its interpretation - i.e. more Christ-like.

Oy.

Vey.If you're going to use their language, you should show some respect for their views.

I'm still flabbergasted at your irrational idea that a body of doctrine has to be a cuit. And Judaism DOES have a body of doctrine. There is no organized institution on the planet that doesn't have a coherent body of doctrine.

There's a difference between a coherent body of doctrine and a fixed, dogmatic one. A cult protects its doctrine from reality.

You are the one inventing a "fixed dogmatic" doctrine, not I.

On the contrary, you're the one who insists that all truth comes from the Bible - but not from what the Bible actually says, only what your "orthodox authorities" say it says. To me that describes a cult.

To me, consensus comes from a wide and varied audience--not from one old codger with critical thinking who argued philosophy on a battleship gray front porch and who formed his own dogmatic views.There are ground rules within the framework of the consensus.God by definition does not lie. satan by definition has no truth in him. Making up a new rule based on one's own interpretation of what is written will have to pass the muster of the group. Otherwise, we may as well introduce Loki and the spaghetti monster as reasonable alternatives to the Creator of all seen and unseen.Which can be done of course. I vote to stick to the concept of an intelligent Creator who is not learning on the job and who is not simply a product of the imagination of early authors...no matter what inspiration is claimed for them. After all, if they could be inspired, why can't we also?

But that is not what the Bible says and so you are now placing dogma above what is actually written.