Quote:
That said, if that humanist viewpoint is incorrect, and God is inscrutable, how can you be so sure that you're getting the correct message and that they're the ones getting a garbled transmission? Then apply that to your sociopolitical viewpoint on religions.

Well, with something like religious faith, it's hard to "prove" one side vs. another. Faith (religious, marriage or otherwise) is often defined as believing in something without needing concrete proof. So, I can't say that a humanist viewpoint is incorrect compared to my viewpoint but perhaps I can say it's "incorrect for me." Was I reading too much into what you wrote? I'm just trying to be deliberate about not coming off as "you're wrong, I'm right."

As I write this, I'm thinking that a humanist fueling a debate on which particular group's view of God is "more valid" makes about as much sense as me fueling a debate between two feuding camps of gamers on which is better, the PS3 or the XBox 360. I know nothing about either system and nothing they could say would convince me to buy into either one.

Back to your rewording of the original debate: (H)ow can you be so sure that you're getting the correct message and that they're the ones getting a garbled transmission? That's quite easy. Because they are calling themselves Christians, I not only feel I have a little personal experience on my side, but I also have 2000+ years of history as well. With the exception of a handful of groups like this, Christianity has never been self-described in a way that these guys are demonstratiing. In fact, their messages of hatred are in direct contrast to the core teachings of Christianity. And, being Lutheran, I put less faith in any doctrine if it can't be found in the Bible. Because Christianity is based on the teachings of the Bible, the fact that this group contradicts the Bible makes it easy to conclude that their message is the garbled one and not mine.

If this group had called themselves something other than Christians, I'd have more trouble proving they were ideologically wrong, but any of us would have a field day proving this group was morally and ethically wrong.

A more interesting debate, IMO, would be between Lutherans and Catholics on the Vatican's system of sainthood or a debate between Jews and Christians on whether or not Jesus was the messiah. Those debates really come down to a matter of faith and can have a "point/counterpoint" discussion going. But they would only be of interest to people who believe in God and would likely be boring to someone looking to disect from a humanist perspective. In contrast, the group that Jim ran into isn't worth debating. They are simply bigots hiding behind the name of something they shouldn't be.