But I admit it to be "true" only because I "know" in my conviction (i.e. I believe) it is true, not because I have objective proof that it is. If I had irresistable proof then I could easily sway all others to believe as I do.
If in attitude we revert to "your religion is as good as mine" then our evangelism is pointless
Yes, because then you wouldn't even believe your own religion to be true, which is as good as not having one.
Maybe the evangelism aspect is what makes blind faith acceptable to the Orthodox.
I couldn't tell you. I find in Orthodoxy everything other Christian religions have, and then some.
The words are human, not divine. If the Bible were perfect then the Bible would be God. Some people take it that way.
Then to you "God-breathed" means "human"
No. God-breathed means that the individual comes to "know" something ineffable, and then tries to describe it. Try something like falling in love...But the nature of that revelation doesn't mean it is from God. It could be an evil spirit appearing as an angel of light. Do not forget that Gnostics and even the LDS claim to be "inspired."
I disagree that if the Bible was perfect it would "be" God
That which is perfect is God, FK. It means literally complete, that which lacks nothing.
Perfection includes the intended purpose for the creation
Anything from God is by definition perfect.
The Bible IS perfect for what it was intended for
Then we must presume that God intended for us to fall. The Bible certainly doesn't reveal that. If anything, it suggests that God "regretted" ("repented" in KJV) having made man.
God's Church IS infallible to the extent He moves through it. If He made only a particular hierarchy infallible, then it would have proved all other Christian faiths wrong
He didn't make them infallible, FK. He gave them the "keys to the kingdom of heaven." And as the Lord told his disciples:
If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained [John 20:23]
Just in case you wondered where the priests get their authority. They get it directly from the Apostles. It doesn't make them infallible. It simply makes them a tool of the Holy Spirit. You don't have to accept it or "recognize" it. It doesn't change the fact that the earliest Church accepted it as God's will.
Have some abused this? You bet! Did not Adam abuse God-given freedom?
God's Church does teach the word of God, and on core principles of faith it is in good agreement. That leaves most of the rest of the faith for us to disagree upon. For whatever reason, this was God's design
Or our failing. You do realize that we can fail God?
God also created the faith (Church) of the Jews personally, and look what happened to that
Look what happened with Adam.
God gave many clear revelations to the Jews, which they got for five minutes, and then they blew it
Yup.
I'm not sure why you believe you have been immune to that for 2,000 years
We go back to the beginnings and make corrections rather than inventions.
The Reformation was also a part of God's plan to correct many errors
The Reformation started out that way and then proceeded to reject Church authority, proclaiming that the Church was in apostasy from the getgo, for 1500 years. The Reformation certainly never made a universally convincing case for that.
Well, this equates God's Church with your Church only. The Latins do the same
No, we equate that to the Church Christ established and the authority bestowed to her. You are confusing ecclesial and theological differences with Apostolic authority. Both particular Churches are inheritors of the same Commission.
None of us outsiders can possibly know which of you to believe, since both of you have always and everywhere believed in your own different faiths, that used to be the same
LOL, we were theologically one Church until the the East realized that the West changed. For one thousand years, the two wings of the Church officially proclaimed the same faith. The Church did not have (a) Immaculate Conception dogma, (b) Purgatory dogma, (c) Infallibility of the Pope dogma, (d) created grace doctrine, (e) original sin doctrine, (f) the Filioque clause, etc.
You also have to understand that a lot of these differences are a matter of degree and not of kind, and that some of them are consistent with the particular mindset which have not been synchronized. The differences between the East and the West are intraecclesial and not extraecclesial.
But I admit it to be "true" only because I "know" in my conviction (i.e. I believe) it is true, not because I have objective proof that it is. If I had irresistible proof then I could easily sway all others to believe as I do.
"Easily sway" is up to God. He either grants ears to hear at that time or He does not. Reasonable proof is always available to the believer with which to witness. Even if it is God's decision that a particular time is not the right time, the seed planted will be MUCH stronger if it has the backing of reason versus blind faith.
FK: "Then to you "God-breathed" means "human".
No. God-breathed means that the individual comes to "know" something ineffable, and then tries to describe it. Try something like falling in love...But the nature of that revelation doesn't mean it is from God. It could be an evil spirit appearing as an angel of light. Do not forget that Gnostics and even the LDS claim to be "inspired."
Even by your description, God-breathed includes human error. That's what I meant by "human". IOW, God breathes error. I'm really not sure how to respond. :) The value of the Bible between our two faiths could not possibly be more night and day.
That which is perfect is God, FK. It means literally complete, that which lacks nothing.
Is a perfect square God?
Anything from God is by definition perfect.
Then you acknowledge that the Bible is not "from God". I mean, that would make sense from what you have said and all ......
Then we must presume that God intended for us to fall. The Bible certainly doesn't reveal that. If anything, it suggests that God "regretted" ("repented" in KJV) having made man.
Of course God intended man to fall. Did it happen by accident? The Bible reveals God's intentions in full by what we are given. He planted the tree, He opened the gate, and then He disappeared. Was Adam supposed to outsmart satan on his own? I don't think so. God set all the conditions, so if I can figure out what was guaranteed to happen, I'll bet God had some idea too. :)
Have some [clergy] abused [authority]? You bet! Did not Adam abuse God-given freedom?
If your clergy are relying on blind faith and are just as fallible as my clergy, then (if you get my meaning) I don't see why I should trust them or what they say. :)
You do realize that we can fail God?
Sure. I know from everyday personal experience. :) But He is neither surprised, nor is His plan altered in any way when this happens.
FK: "I'm not sure why you believe you have been immune to that for 2,000 years."
We go back to the beginnings and make corrections rather than inventions.
Well, then what about "always and everywhere believed"?
FK: "The Reformation was also a part of God's plan to correct many errors."
The Reformation started out that way and then proceeded to reject Church authority, proclaiming that the Church was in apostasy from the get go, for 1500 years. The Reformation certainly never made a universally convincing case for that.
Well, after the Apostles, no Christian faith has ever made a universally convincing case for its faith. :) I don't know how the word was used back then, but I wouldn't accuse you guys of apostasy. I just think that mistakes were made, and then compounded.
The differences between the East and the West are intraecclesial and not extraecclesial.
I'm not sure what difference that is supposed to make to a non-Apostolic Christian. You and the Apostolic West have much in common, to be sure, but one cannot hold both faiths simultaneously. One has to choose. One is right and one is wrong. I agree with you on some things more so than with the Latins, BUT the opposite is true as well. If the basis of Apostolic faith is blind, then how can one know which is correct?