I'd like to revisit this topic as I've seen the "No True Scotsman" fallacy popping up of late in the threads. In one instance,seen in this thread, a contributor claims that he knows his interpretation of the scriptures is correct because of "the holy spirit and a relationship with God". If "a relationship with god" is attainable, and therefrom a proper interpretation of the bible, why have we not settled on one correct christian denomination, but rather have so many in operation? A christian might have greater credibility if there were not so many other self-professed christians who disagree with him.

Yeah, I guess it was a vain expectation someone would have the ballz to take it on. I figured one should be obliged to answer, since they so freely use the term "christianity", without any specification.

Oh well, I tried. History should treat me kindly.

I've never met or heard of a real christian. Just a lot of people who claim to be. Considering that a christian must follow the bible absolutely to be a christian, and that the bible contradicts itself on a few seperate points, it is literally impossible to be a real christian.

Is that reason enough to endorse its absconsion? 

Thank you for responding.

 I will first point out that Islam does share the "basic agreements" you listed in regard to god, creation, etc.  As far as Islam's stance on the corrupt texts:  It holds that the Torah, the Psalms, and jesus' teachings (Injil) were in fact correct when originally imparted by god - and it was their corruption over time that made the provision of the qu'ran necessary.  

By your statement that "Jews ought to think Christians are as heretical as Islamics think Jews are", are you asserting that the term judeo-christian is inappropriate, or ought still to be used? 

To say "jesus was a jew" is too general. Even in the 1st century (the presumed time of jesus' existence), there were multiple jewish theologies in operation (Essenes, Pharisess, Sadducees, to name a few), just as there are multiple jewish denominations today. Only 1/4 of the jews at the time believed in the messianic prophecy. You cannot really "lump together" Judaism itself, much less add on a christian lump.

I don't find it quite clear. What does it mean to be a jew?

I said that islam parttakes of the same tradition. It acknowledges the same prophets (abraham, moses, solomon), only treating jesus as another prophet. As far as the "holy books", islam treats the torah, the psalms and the injil as holy books alongside the qu'ran.

And you are perhaps misguided in saying "the christian holy book contains the jewish holy book". I'm sure you're aware, that the Talmud, for instance, is not "contained" in the bible.

Please give citations.

Islam and judaism are in agreement that jesus was not divine, and therefore in disagreement with christianity. islam and christianity are in agreement that jesus was a man of god, and therefore in disagreement with judaism. I'm not certain why your comparison of the qu'ran being written by one man to the multiple authors of the bible should suffice to invalidate it.

You are perhaps missing the point of my question. What is the objective standard to determine what judaism is? There are multiple, incompatible versions of judaism. To simply retort "the OT" ignores that point entirely. Which denomination is reading the OT correctly?

You are perhaps missing the point of my question. What is the objective standard to determine what christianity is? There are multiple, incompatible versions of christianity. To simply retort "the NT" ignores that point entirely. What denomination is reading the NT correctly?

Islam represents just such a society.

Then we should perhaps discard its use.

So, sugarfree, it is safe for me to say you're a Lutheran? After all, Christian is Christian, and Jew is Jew, right?

What about Jehovah's Witness? Last time I checked, they use the Bible and believe in Jesus. So you're a Jehovah's Witness.

Ok, sugarfree. You're right. It's overanalyzed. You believe that 144,000 people are going to heaven, and that's it. It's ok for me to say this because any old Bible based theology will work. Analysis for truth is a bad thing. Who cares whether it's what you believe or not. I'm not interested in knowing the truth, because it's enough that you believe in the Bible.

You think? You mean by looking at the texts, you see similarities, and it occurs to you that the later writer (Muhammed) borrowed from the earlier writers? What a profound revelation you've had! I wonder why it never occurred to you that other writers (NT) might have borrowed from previous writers (OT). Seems obvious to me. The puzzle is why they didn't do a better job of matching them... Why would that be, I wonder...

Damn good question, you Jehovah's Witness, you! Good thing you're not one of those Catholics who's going to burn in hell for praying to Mary...

That's a rotten analogy. We're talking about authorship, not translation.

So, logically, the bible would be more trustworthy if ten or twelve people had authored each book of the bible, since the original point you were trying to refute dealt with the bible having many books with different authors.

You need someone to teach you how to make a proper analogy.

I can't decide if you're being intentionally obtuse, or whether you just can't see the point. Sugarfree, if everyone has to make the decision for themselves, then there's no right answer. Is there an objectively true version? If so, what is it? How do you know? If you know "in your heart," how is it objective, since everyone else knows in their heart, too? Are you better than them?

That's why it's ok for me to call you a JW.

Right. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that, and you better not say they're fringe left, or I'll know you're just ignorant.

So your church doesn't let women speak in church, right? The NT objectively says women should not speak in church.

Hypocrite.

Ok. Live up to your words! Women should shut the hell up in church.

Excellent observation. They are human inventions.

Again, excellent observation!

My brain tells me, after thoroughly reading the OT, NT, and gads of history, that the bible, like the talmud, torah, koran, and every other god-book ever written, is a man-made entity, describing a made up fantasy sky daddy, who happens, in the case of Judeo-Christianity, to be a petulant narcissist who really loves blood.

Why do you believe it? Because you feel it in your heart?

Or... brain... which was it again that you're supposed to use?

But it very clearly said so in the NT that women shouldn't speak in church.  Right here in 1 Corinthians 14:34-37

14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

 So not only is Paul letting people know that women shouldn't speak in church, but that Jesus commands that women not speak in church.

Wow, sugarfree. You managed to produce non-answers to every single point I made. All that writing, and not one rebuttal.

Actually, sugar, I wasn't playing mind games with you about the JWs. I was using your logic on you to show you how absurd your ideas are. The exact same logic you use to flippantly dismiss different sects of Judaism is used against you to justify any and all sects that use the Bible.

Since they are all interchangable, according to your logic, then it is quite fair for me to assume you believe what the JW's believe. In fact, I could mix and match, and it would be ok, because it's not important. It would be overanalyzing.

Don't you see, sugarfree? If I use your method of approaching Judaism, I can say that you said all those things, even though you didn't. That's why your method is flawed. This is a common technique in logic, by the way. You can refute bad logic by taking it to its normal conclusion. When the conclusion and reality don't match, you know your logic was bad.

Sugarfree, I'm not trying to be mean when I say this. Not only have I studied the bible thoroughly, not only have I read more apologetics than most Christians, I also have studied logic, argument, and rhetoric, so I can say this as somewhat of an authority: You need to learn the difference between naysaying and argument.

What you have done is simply say, "No, hamby, you're wrong."

Well, that's just not very convincing. What I did was use a valid logical construct to prove your logic to be flawed. If you wish to continue the discussion, you'll have to show me where I made a logical error. If you can't do that, then my point stands unrefuted.

I think we may very well be in agreement here.  My primary objection is to its use by politicians.  It's a meaningless catch-all phrase that most americans find resonance with when they hear it -- although they differ widely on the details of their denominational beliefs.  The claim that this country was founded on "judeo-christian" values is an absolute canard - in no small part due to the fact that noone knows what "judeo-christian" means.