Have you ever actually seen Christians argue with members of other religions? Even they know that an argument like "your religion is wrong because mine says so" is pretty intellectually unfulfilling. Pop around a few apologetics websites and you can see how it goes down. Arguments from Scripture are fairly rare, except for the argument that goes "the Bible is better than your holy book because of more fulfilled prophecy" etc, because even a Christian can put themselves in another person's shoes and understand that an argument based on the assumed inerrancy of another religion's holy text isn't likely to be compelling.
We may simply be debating based on different personal experiences here. If you took a samples and categorized all Christian responses to other religious figures I have absolutely no idea how it would turn out. All I am saying is that based on MY experience, what you are claiming does not seem to be true. Christians DO frequently source the innerancy of the Bible as a justification for existence of God. I'll grant you that they ALSO use the arguments you list in support. In both fundie and non-fundie experiences in my church-going days it was the same.
That being said, you seem to be approaching the issue for a different direction than I am. It may be true that in a case of proselytizing they might try to "ease" a person into religion by way of psudo-objective reasoning. What I have been trying to talk about though is a Christian response to the atheistic criticism that their faith is on par with that of all other "blatant" absurd mythologies.
The correlation is not drawn between Zeus and Christ. The argument is ineffective. And I think it is because of an inability to apply reason to the comparison.
Let me see if you at least agree with this. True or False, they are rejecting the comparison base on rational reasons. If false, what are the likely alternatives?
It's just not true, Jazzns. That's not at all how other people defend themselves against other religions. That's not at all how they argue about it. Even the deeply religious see that, in order to proselytize, they need more than circular reasoning. "Because the Pope said so" is an argument that is only convincing once you're a Catholic. Even the Catholics understand that. They're not idiots.
Like I said above, granting that the name of the game is different when trying to convince someone else to join the dark side. That is not the same thing as defending God against the claim that He is the same as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
On one hand you get a cheery bright monologue of the benefits of religion and how the love of Jesus changed their lives. On the other you get HEAPS and barrels of apologetics about the supposed differences between the "absurd" god and their God. Where does that come from? I think it comes from their faith and their belief in the tenets of their religion that expressly command them to reject such comparison as a matter OF that faith.
I am not saying that you are wrong about the many other types of apologetics used. I just think the root of it is not simply denial of the reason to reject the supernatural at face value. Like you said, in many cases they are not idiots.
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
™ Version 4.2
