The subject/object is a really good take. I still feel like the reasons for religion encompassing mind/body/soul are slightly opinionated. Not saying that I completely disagree with you, but it still seems to come down to individual opinions on the meaning of life and God and what not, you feel? Your elaboration was very insightful though, I'll be thinking about these concepts for a while now.

> All knowing and powerful yes, but why loving? The "God" can just as easily be not caring

If God is truly the ideal being, and if perfectly moral and good, then "loving" is necessarily one of His essential attributes. A God who is cruel, apathetic, or malicious is neither ideal, moral, or good. So it's self-contradictory if God is not loving & caring.

> We're but one planet among trillions in a galaxy among trillions of others.

True

> Potentially one universe among an infinite amount.

This is way more speculative, and there is no evidence for multiverses, but I get your point: We are but a speck in an immense vastness.

> We frequently say that God is so far beyond our understanding yet also give him human characteristics like being loving.

Yes, a God that is not personal could not have created. Creation requires a subject/object relationship (or else everything is a meaningless unity in which there is no diversity). If there is no subject/object relationship, we are left with a vast emptiness and void of non-personality as ultimate reality. In such a view of God there is no foundation for knowledge, love, or morality.

But since humans have personality, and we are separate from other objects, then there is such a thing as subject/object relationship, and therefore God (assuming He exists because we're discussing his attributes) is personal. And since we know there is such a thing as knowledge, love, and morality, then God must necessarily be personal. That's why the Bible gives God characteristics that humans also have in common with Him. It's necessary.

> Also you say he plays by his own rules but I'm not sure if I agree. His doings like leading crusades, flooding the world, and making a bet with Satan (Book of Job) would send any human to hell, but we give him a pass for being almighty.

God didn't lead the Crusades. That was a human undertaking.

The Flood was a just judgment on people who were corrupt beyond repair. I don't have a problem with a judge condemning wrong.

God didn't make a bet with Satan (book of Job). The book of Job is a legal case brought against God. The satan (the challenger) is the prosecutor in the courtroom, and Job (and thus all humanity) is the "evidence." It's not a bet.

> Why? How do you say what a true religion should be like?

Because reason tells us that for a religion to be actually authentically true, it must encompass and engage all of our beings (physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual) and not just split us into pieces. We are human beings, not test dummies or car parts.

A religion that doesn't make sense out of history is one that doesn't engage real life. How can that be true?

A religion that doesn't make sense out of science doesn't correspond to reality. How can that be true?

If God is really there, the implications are huge. He has to be personal, as we are. He has to reveal Himself. He has to engage real life and correspond to reality. If there really is a God, then we can't just make Him whatever we want Him to be. If He corresponds to reality, then He corresponds to reality, and there are many certain inevitable and necessary components to His being.

I see why you choose Christianity now, although I'm not sure if I understand all of your philosophical points.

Point 1: All knowing and powerful yes, but why loving? The "God" can just as easily be not caring. We're but one planet among trillions in a galaxy among trillions of others. Potentially one universe among an infinite amount. We frequently say that God is so far beyond our understanding yet also give him human characteristics like being loving. Also you say he plays by his own rules but I'm not sure if I agree. His doings like leading crusades, flooding the world, and making a bet with Satan (Book of Job) would send any human to hell, but we give him a pass for being almighty.

Points 4-6: Why? How do you say what a true religion should be like? If I were to say something like "A true religion involves mind, emotions, AND a 5 day workout routine. It must be 100% historically accurate but also needs to be completely mystical without science", what exactly would make your points more valid than mine? Or are these simply your own beliefs which happen to line up with Christianity? I do understand where you come from on these points, but I just want to know the "why".

Thank you for your response.

Thank you for your reply. I'm aware Buddhism arose in India, and it arose out of a Hindu context and their belief system, sort of as a branch, but some would say a cult, since Buddhism denies any divine beings that are sometimes part of Hinduism. Buddhism is more a philosophy of life rather than a religion, per se, since Buddhism is a-theistic. It is based, I'm sure you know, in the four Noble Truths, and the noble Eightfold Path, none of which has anything to do with a deity of any sort. It teaches the law of cause and effect (karma) and morality. There is no G(g)od or supreme creator. Gautama Buddha took the Hindu understandings of his upbringing and cultural context, purged them of certain divine elements, changed others, and so Buddhism was born as a branch (but more accurately detached) of Hinduism.

> Buddhism (and others) is just a cult of Hinduism.

I generally appreciate your engagement and thought-out replies here, but this is dismissive and, imo, completely incorrect. Buddhism arose in India, and in the context of Vedic culture that would eventually become what we refer to as Hinduism. It also uses some of the same terms and ideas, like dharma and karma, which on the surface would make it seem to be similar. Dig just a little deeper, however, and the practices, ethics, basis of knowledge, and even belief in God/Gods is very different. I'm not going to write a term paper on it here, but if you or anyone else is curious about the differences between these and other religions I can suggest Smith's "The World's Religions" as a good start.

I also think your criteria for what a 'true religion' is, at least in the above reply, is somewhat arbitrary. But again thanks for taking the time to write it.

Ah, good point. I, too, am an evidentialist (not subscribing to "blind faith"). We always look at the artifacts, documentation, any evidence from culture or history, logic, reasoning, and even the consequences in history.

Muslims would claim, of course, that the soldiers wouldn't have recognized Jesus from anyone else. They were just doing their jobs, crucifying whomever the gov't sent their way. It could have been Bozo the Clown, and they wouldn't have known the different. But, as you said, the evidence is against it, both from the Roman viewpoint and also from the NT record, which has yet to be shown to be incorrect. The Jewish leaders would never have fallen for a substitute: they knew Jesus well. Joseph of Arimathea would not have given his tomb away to someone else. The "substitution" theory doesn't hold much water.

jimwalton wrote:One of the things about Islam that doesn't make sense to me is the radical transcendence of Allah: the distance between man and God is impossible to cross. Repetition and submission are the rule, not any kind of a relationship. And there is no certainty of heaven for the common person. It is all "the will of God," they say. One's destiny is left at the mercy of an unknown and unknowable will. Zacharias says, "When relationship is swallowed up by rules, political power and enforcement become the means of containment." We've seen that to be true.

Another thing I found strikingly different (from a factual standpoint) when digging was the crucifixion of Jesus. Now, this is just what I have found as well as heard from others so I dont know if its all entirely accurate. I'm hoping others here can confirm/deny this.

Islam would tell us that Jesus was a prophet, but was not crucified. Someone else was crucified in his place and the disciples escaped with Jesus where he continued on in his ministry. This would help explain the other sightings of Jesus after the crucifixion. The problem with this is that Roman historical documents clearly mark Jesus as the one who was crucified. This creates a level of inconsistency between what Islam preaches and what historical evidence would tell us.

There's no "probably" about it. Jews don't perceive Jesus as the fulfillment of the Tanakh, neither do they view the New Testament as superseding it. It's why Jesus was crucified (blasphemy), and why many Jews still follow Judaism, not Christianity. Agreed.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but like you said a Jew probably won't describe the New Testament as "acceptance" or "fulfillment" of the Tanakh. They certainly found enough discrepancies and non-fulfillments to utterly reject Jesus outright. So even if a lot of the NT vibes with the Tanakh the core of the message is still off. In the best case, they may view it as more of a non-canonical sequel to the original .

A cult is a distortion of the original by denying certain fundamental aspects of it. Christianity is not a cult of Judaism because it accepts all of Judaism. Christianity is the fulfillment of their process and prophecies. Christianity, unlike a cult, doesn't toss out any of Judaism; it brings it to its rightful fulfillment, as was part of Judaism all along. (Granted, Jews don't see Christianity as a fulfillment, or else they would become Christians. Many Jews are becoming Christians, but many also are not.)

Mormonism is a cult of Christianity because they strip away the deity of Jesus (along with creating many other distortions). So also Jehovah's Witnesses. Buddhism is a cult of Hinduism because they strip away important parts of it (mostly the religious parts) to become a philosophy of life. Islam strips away the deity of Jesus (along with creating many other distortions). But Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. All of Judaism has its rightful place in Christianity. That's why I would say Christianity is not a cult of Judaism.