[vrgtfvgt4vg]

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I'd like to add that it depends what you mean as a legitimate source. Technically, all faith-based claims, whether slanderous or not, are truth. Why? Because faith has no evidence. It's based on ones interpretation, indoctrination, and understanding. There's no empirical evidence to support it. So, when discussing "doctrines" or religion and why one is right over the other, it is purely faith-based and each source is just as reliable as the next.

The problem is, for example, within Christianity there are over 35,000 denominations. All of these denominations claim to be the right denomination based on faith. They have no reason, just faith and interpretation of a particular text that the other 35,999 interpreted differently. Amongst those 35,000 denominations, you won't find TWO Christians who believe EXACTLY the same. This means of the approximate 2 billion Christians in the world, there are about 2 billion versions of Christianity, and each, in their own mind, are the correct versions of Christianity. So finding accuracy on something faith-based is impossible.

Rather, I think asking an individual what they believe is a more accurate way to accumulate a knowledge of faith-based thinking instead of relying on a group that tries to box 2 billion beliefs.

However, if by legitimate you mean the historical accuracy of a religion and it's claims, then that's a different matter entirely.

I thought about that. I don't mean accurate like Atheism/Judaism/Catholicism is correct and thus other information is false. I mean accuracy about what a particular group believes. So, "Lutherans believe in Jesus" is an accurate statement. "Lutherans worship Satan and eat babies" is not an accurate statement.

Like the example I gave. An official Lutheran website is likely giving the correct information of what Lutherans believe. This information might not be historically correct but indeed it is what Lutheran's believe.

I've encountered evangelical websites that give just plain incorrect information about other groups and then disprove it. Websites like that are an evangelical view of why the other religious group is wrong. It may not be the view of every evangelical Christian in the world. It may not accurately represent what another group believes. When websites set out to disprove other groups it can look like this:

1. "I believe this religion is incorrect and here is why"
2. [Fill in group] believes [incorrect information about other group]. Isn't that ridiculous? We know that our religion is correct about this and [misentrepretation] is totally wrong.
3. [Fill in group] is evil/a cult/disgusting/despicable. A bunch of slurs and derogatory terms about the religion.

If the website is taking a stance similar to the first one and not slurring, insulting, or providing false information it might be okay, but in general don't trust another religious group for accurate, impartial information. If you're looking for reasons another religion is wrong read from a reliable source of that religion or something like Wkipedia. Draw your own conclusions and then check out that webpage trying to disprove the other group. That way you can tell whether the information they give is factual.

Like this:
http://www.catholicculture.org/cultu...fm?recnum=8759

It's not a good source about Wicca, but it probably is a good source for Catholicism.

Historical accuracy is another thing entirely.

EDIT: http://www.watchman.org/cults/bahai2.htm

There's an example of information that is plain inaccurate.

1. The name of the religion is spelled incorrectly. It's missing an accent and an apostrophe.
2. The religion itself is misnamed. It's similar to calling the religion of Christianity "Christian."
3. This religion of millions is misidentified as a cult.
4. They are not a sect of Islam. It's a separate religion.
5. The Bab is named incorrectly as " Mizra Ali Muhammed". I think they were going for "Mírzá Muhammad `Alí'" but they spelled it incorrectly. That man wasn't even alive in 1844. The Bab's name is Siyyid `Alí Muḥammad Shírází.
6. Baha'u'llah is named as Mizra Husayn Ali. His name is actually Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri.
7. Baha'u'llah is not believed to be the final prophet.
8. The religion is incorrectly called "Bahaism."
9. They do not believe every religion ever was sent from God.
10. The belief about God is reported incorrectly.

This was written in 1991 though. I mean that likely has something to do with it, but I found this website through Google.

Another example of a website giving information that isn't entirely correct. It's better than the last example:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bahai-faith.html

1. This is somewhat a technicality, but the Baha'i Faith really comes from Babism, not Shi'a Islam. Baha'u'llah became a Babi in his late twenties after being introduced to the movement by Mullá Husayn. He was a Babi when he announced his prophethood.

2. It does not have "practical autonomy" from Islam. It is completely separate. That's like saying Christianity has practical autonomy from Judaism.

3. It's not completely correct to say that the Bab is the eighth Manifestation of God. It is stated there are Manifestations whose names are last to history.

4. "Implicit to that statement was the denial of Muhammad as the last and greatest prophet and a denial together of the unique authority of the Koran. Islam did not take kindly to such thoughts." They managed to insult both Muslims and Baha'is there. This is fairly slanderous. Why would a Christian group care about believing in Mohammed as the final prophet or the authority of the Quran? It's purposely defamatory. Some of the first followers of the Bab and Baha'u'llah were previously Muslims.

5. The Bab is not viewed "like" John the Baptist; He is literally viewed as John the Baptist. That's pretty lazy research. It's in like the third paragraph on the Wikipedia page.

6. Their report of his messianic claims are confusing and don't seem to be completely factual. Baha'u'llah claimed to be a Manifestation of God, He whom God shall make manifest, the spiritual return of Isa, and the promised messianic figure of various religions. These claims are seen in a converging, symbolic sense rather than a literal fulfillment of every messianic claim and Eschatology. That's a pretty important detail to leave out. I wager they did that on purpose, or they didn't know that because of the clearly represented lazy and ineffectual research. Also notice the jeering tone of the repeated "not only".

I started reading that pretty pissed off, but I'm starting to have fun with it. It's just such shoddy and erroneous research. In general the article has an overtly mocking and condescending tone.