You notice that your "friend" "proves" his beliefs by quoting the "new testament," the very subject about which you disagree. For him this is sufficient. He can't understand that before one believes the "new testament" he must have reasons for doing so. Even if he does quote the Hebrew Bible he will quote some "messianic" prophecy without realizing that he is accepting the "new testament's" interpretation of that prophecy, once again not realizing that the "new testament's" authority on interpreting the Hebrew Bible is the very point in dispute.
The ancient churches, with their two thousand year pedigrees, intellectual traditions, and "authenticity" aren't really any different. They don't "thump" the bible, no . . . but they believe chrstianity is true because the "teaching church" says it is true. How do they know the "teaching church" knows what it's talking about? Like the Protestant with his "new testament," they just do.
You know, it's amazing . . . almost the entire world accepts that Judaism used to be the One True Religion. Yet those same people also believe it was replaced by chrstianity. But which kind? They've been arguing for two thousand years! A thousand years of clear Revelation gave way to this chaos! And every chrstian has shot down every other chrstian a zillion times over. But again, it doesn't matter to them!
It's easier for me to understand the Fundamentalist Protestants (my own people), though, and I think I can explain why their attachment to their religion is completely divorced from reason.
The very first chrstians had to be intellecutally converted to the new religion. They had to learn and accept its teachings. And of course the first chrstians were adult converts. So what are the chrstians supposed to do with their children? The eventual answer was to baptize them as infants. But the Radical Reformation insisted that anything not described or commanded in the "new testament" had to be purged. So once again, they demanded that all be adult converts.
But here's the problem: how do you intellectually "convert" to a religion whose teachings you have imbibed from birth? How do you convert to a religion that for all practical purposes you are already a member of? This is where the idea of the "new birth" comes in. The "born-again" experience provides the "cradle-chrstian" with an adult conversion experience. However, it doesn't involve any intellectual conversion, since the "convert" already had an intellect that accepted, without thought, all the doctrines of chrstianity. The "new birth" is an entirely mystical, personal experience. It is the only way to give a "cradle chrstian" an adult conversion at all.
The "potential convert" here already believes chrstianity is true. He already believes he must become a chrstian in order to avoid eternal damnation. Yet intellectually he is already a chrstian because he already believes in it! But he can't really be a chrstian because his faith insists one must convert to chrstianity as an adult. He literally mopes around waiting for some great mystical experience to seize hold of him, blaming himself even though he wants it to happen but for some reason it hasn't.
The "cradle chrstian" is not reached by teaching him anything he doesn't already believe. The same teachings are repeated to him over and over, the same "new testament" verses quoted. But he can't give himself a mystical experience! And then one day . . . on hearing a verse that he already believes quoted for the seven zillionth time, something begins to happen. He feels electricity running up and down his spine. He "gets happy." And suddenly, the non-chrstian who already believed in chrstianity suddenly becomes an "adult convert" to chrstianity! I believe it is for this reason that their only arguments are to quote the "new testment" (or the "teaching church") over and over and over again. At one point the unbeliever will feel the electricity running up and down his spine. He will be "saved." And he will be an "adult convert to chrstianity" just like the cradle chrstian!
This is why it's a waste of time to explain to him (over and over again) that explain that one doesn't believe the "new testament," that it must first be proven to his satisfaction. The proselytizer was also once a non-chrstian, just like you, and he vividly remembers his "adult conversion." And he is sure that if he repeats the same things often enough you will feel the electricity running up and down your spine. The fact that he already believed in chrstianity and you don't means nothing. To him the cradle Baptist waiting to be "saved" and the Sentinel Islander who has never heard of chrstianity are exactly the same!
You know, I once saw a video on YouTube by a Protestant missionary in Armenia. She was learning the language so she could "convert" the Armenians to chrstianity. She actually claimed that one person told her it wasn't even necessary to learn the language. To be "converted," the "non-chrstian" doesn't even need to understand a word you're saying! The Holy Spirit will simply send the electricity up and down the spine!
How do you argue rationally with that?
I'm afraid all you and I can do is to ignore them. Their belief is irrational and beyond any rational argument.
Honestly, I don’t want to argue with them. I don’t want to convince them of anything at all. I like Christians, including very devout Christians, some of whom I’ve met on Freep. What riles me about Jim-boy is that he takes the fact that I do not believe in Christian doctrine of any kind as a “challenge” to his faith, as if since I do not believe that the Messiah is himself G-d, or in eternal damnation, or immaculate conception, MUST mean that I adhere to the Devil, which I also don’t believe in. I disagree. Civil discourse requires that we can agree to disagree on matters not material to political discussions when we are discussing politics. It seems that Jimmy cannot manage that, so I tell him to go to a religion forum and stop bugging me. I only want to discuss politics. If I were on a religion forum, I would agree to disagree regarding politics with political proponents who nonetheless want to discuss religion.
The main thing is focus. Someone who can’t focus on politics can’t help but disrupt this forum, just as someone who goes on a religious forum would be disruptive if he said that anyone who voted for Trump will go to hell.
This is a political forum. Let’s all just agree to disagree regarding religion, except where it intersects with politics, such as abortion, gay marriage, or the like. Otherwise, we will all descend into eternal flaming, and the end result will be hell on freep.
The subject of the article and this thread is the Jew-hating world especially the Left, and my statement is that the Jews seem to fail to recognize their enemies (but at least many in Israel recognize America as their friend).
My first post here was about the Jews being confused about who their friends are because so many are Democrats, the Party that hates Israel and them. The history of Israel for the last 2500 years has been one of wandering and wondering, ostensibly looking for their Messiah, many having long since given up. Eleutheria5 took me up on what I said.
Yet wandering and wondering Jews like yourself apparently, accuse people like me of irrational belief and then when I engage with you, people like Eleutheria5 bail and accuse me of of hijacking the thread although he is the perp.
I don’t mind discussing and debating this stuff in the forum of ideas which is what FR is, - I enjoy and invite such - but I’m only willing to do that with good-faith participants, not snipers who once unable to answer, fall back into Leftist-style ad personam and non-sequiturs.
Since you copied me on your post about our (my) belief being irrational, I challenge you to support that assertion in this FR forum of ideas in a good-faith, rational discussion/debate.