The difference is that the supernatural
claims of religious dogma are things which can not ever be proven true outside of the context which I have already mentioned, which is the context of belief.
Not exact matches
By grounding
religious claims in human experience, Schleiermacher did not have to begin with metaphysical speculation nor by requiring intellectual assent to the
dogmas of the church.
On the other end
of the spectrum, revisionists like Paul Tillich and Hans Küng
claimed that
dogmas and propositions are expressions
of religious experiences or spiritual intuitions, alerting us to an encounter with God that goes beyond all formulas or man - made intellectual systems.
On the subject
of very specific
religious dogma of a particular sect, it is very easy to disbelieve because the
claims can easily be proven false.
Richard, there is nothing in Christian
dogma that can be interpreted as a
claim that the followers
of Jesus are sinless, even though there are too many professed Christians who seem to believe that grace has made them not only righteous; but inerrant in spiritual /
religious matters.