What evidence is there for the Christian God that isn't the same as past Gods or other current religions? To a non-believer, the Bible is just another religious book. So why should they believe it's the correct religion when there are people in other religions claiming theirs is the correct religion?

Off of the top of my head.. Personal agent is one.

This post was edited by HighschoolTurd on Jul 22 2014 09:42pm

Well compare the number of documents that the Bible had. The fact that over 2000 years the Bible hasn't changed all that much and the message in it hasn't changed at all. The individual books of the Bible were copied and shared throughout the East, and yet 99.99% of it stayed the same without massive burnings of "wrong texts" such as those found in the early history of the Qur'an. The people who put together the cannon was a group of people prayerfully bringing it together, not a single guy saying it was divine. The Bible has 20+ authors over thousands of years. The Bible is the most critiqued and openly studied text including ancient antiquity writings, the Qur'an, and any other religious book and still manages to explain "discrepancies" in it. As far as the creation of the Bible goes, it is unique.

two links which may be of interest to you (or not):

http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Leaks/post/A_glaring_omission_in_World%E2%80%99s_oldest_Bible/

http://www.theologynetwork.org/theology-of-everything/an-overview-of-feminist-theology.htm

You have an internet connection, use it. Perhaps comparing New Testament dating with other religious texts would be a good start. Maybe googling for the archeological evidence of the New Testament would make you take it a little more seriously than "any other religious book".

the first link didn't work. I read background on the site however. The author of the site wrote a book refuting the bible with a text written 500 years after the bible. furthermore he sais he examined text that contradicted the bible, which doesn't surprise me. There was a lot of text in the bible itself warning about people skewing it. I won't deny there are other "versions" of the Bible, but many of these are false teachings built after the time of Christ. using text outside the first 200 years of Christianity I would find questionable. furthermore the website has a one focused aim to disregard the Catholic Church. .. instead of entering with an open mind I gurantee they repost anything they can find that insults the church without enough proof.

as far as feminism goes.... I spoke on it earlier in the thread. God made men and women to compliment each other. woman are designed to be nurtures: they store the baby in the womb, they give birth and Feed it breast milk. women were designed to nurture. During this time of pregnancy it is the mens job to protect the women. Not saying they are less then but that they have different roles. In the bible it sais the body of Christ has no slave/free, jew/greek, male/female. women are made different plain and simple. If you don't believe me check the genes and anatomy.

the author of the first link uses the oldest extant version of the bible to show that there have been changes
and as per feminist theology (not feminism as you state) it criticises the typical male superiority orientated interpretation/editing of the bible
but i guess only what you hear in your bibles classes counts - thinking for yourself is clearly forbidden

Feminist theology is thoroughly disproven and the first link doesn't go to anything. Who wrote the article?

In this case, thinking for yourself = denying real scholarship, which is not surprising coming from you.

Why christians often have a condescending attitude, i find this curious for Jesus followers ?
And i don't understand why this mostly belong to that specific religion, modesty is usually a basic principle in most religions.

I actually really haven't taken a bible class. I admit that I accept the Bible of the protestant church and haven't truly looked into the 7 books of the Catholic church. Furthermore I never said their weren't differences just that they didn't change the gospel message. There are versions of the Bible out there that are false, but honestly I haven't dug into them too much. If you had 2500 copies of the Newyork times from different areas of the US and 1 copy that said something completely different, which would you believe?

I get what your saying about feminist theology...or thealogy. I think it is silly to change God to a girl, because it would be no more right. I guess God is especially thought of as male because Jesus referred to him as Father. Since God doesn't have sex, I don't believe he has genitalia therefore he doesn't have a gender. So trying to make the gospel completely feminine is silly.