Theists: What makes your claims right and the claims of other theists wrong?

[Vicki Q]

What's the sig picture of?

That's taken from a photo of my garden. You a gardener too?

I'm afraid not. I got put off by a friend of mine, who had a lovely apple tree in his garden. Unfortunately, a colony of nudists kept wandering in and stealing the apples.

I think that's the story, anyway. Or I might be muddling it with something I read.

But well done on your garden. Very impressive!

---

Interesting choice of word. Would you describe your beliefs as 'superior'?

The real reason I chose the term 'superior' is due to the total exclusivity demanded by the major religions. If the Christian version of the Yahweh tale is true as the Bible tells it, for example, then the Jews and Muslims are missing the entire point of the thing, worshipers of other gods are, by definition, worshiping false gods, and atheists/agnostics are simply wrong about everything. There is no room for compromise.

ChadWooters clearly says as much: if you're not a dedicated and willing slave of Jesus, you're simply doing it incorrectly. One can only assume he misread the title of the thread as "Your claim's right and claims of other theists are wrong", given his refusal to justify his assertion.

I'm not at all sure it's that simple. Those who like a simple, unsophistemicated belief based on their pastor's interpretation of the Bible might take that view. On the other hand, the Pope might be right that all sorts of beliefs get to enter the Kingdom of God, even atheist. (Please let it be true. I would so like to have eternity to go “In your face” to them. Although the humour might get a little thin after a couple of millennia.)

I would avoid assumptions about Christianity requiring a single approach to biblical inspiration. Internet crusaders aren't a truly randomised sample.

However I agree it's probably for the best to be a “dedicated and willing slave of Jesus”. It's where you go and what you do after that decision...

---

There is evidence for a theory, which might or might not be true, that Peter was the primary source for Mark.

I'm not sure where you're headed with the question. Either there's a point I've missed completely, or you're unfamiliar with how secondary sources function within historical studies, in which case research would be both interesting and educational.

So, the answer to my question is "no."

Sorry for not explaining myself particularly well. I was aiming for “Quite possibly not” followed by “So...”.