Board index ‹ Christianity

[End of Dreams]

Why, of all the religions, do you think Christianity is the correct one?

I trust in Christ, but this is something I've struggled with a lot because I trust in human rationality and I tend to take it somewhat seriously if a lot of people disagree with me. The conclusion I've come to is that the Bible is closest to the truth, but it's not the whole truth and there's something about other religions that is true too.

How have you reconciled the existence of other religions with your faith?

[jimwalton]

I believe there is some truth in all religions. None of them is completely lies. But I am convinced that Christianity is the correct one, and here's why.

Weighing and comparing the major religions of the world, there seem to be only two that really rise to the top: Christianity and Hinduism. Islam (and many others like Mormonism) is just a cult, or distortion, of Christianity. Buddhism (and others) is just a cult of Hinduism. Confucianism is really a philosophy of lifestyle, not a religion per se. When I weigh Christianity and Hinduism, Christianity seems to far outweigh Hinduism in its realistic portrayal of God, reality, evil, pain, salvation, life, and death.

Islam? As I mentioned before, Islam is the greatest of the Christian heresies (to use a phrase from C.S. Lewis). Mohammad took Christianity and changed it, removing Jesus from deity, and putting Mohammad as its greatest prophet. But it still has Abraham, Moses, etc.

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.

Islam is a religion of the Book, as opposed to Christianity, which focuses on the person of Jesus. But how does one hold that the written text is perfect (which it is not; there are textual variants)? Also, Jesus didn't come to give a certain group of people ethnic worth. That's Islam. Jesus loved the world and came to save the world.

Truth has to correspond to reality, and so at least on this fundamental level, correspondence to reality is what anyone would look for in "proving" any religion. But I'd also say, before we go on, that very little (if anything, when it comes right down to it, depending on your philosophical viewpoints) can be PROVEN. Most of the time we use adductive reasoning: inferring as wise as we can the most reasonable conclusion. In both of these areas I think Christianity has strength.

1. Though I know there are many disagreements (and I might as well draw a target on my back for saying this), YHWH is the kind of God we would expect if a God truly exists, and Jesus is the kind of person we would expect to see if God visited the planet. Their beings conform to our highest reasonings of theology and philosophy. God must be all-knowing, all-powerful (without self-contradiction), completely other (transcendent) and yet completely engaged (immanent), loving but just, judging but merciful, maintaining standards and yet full of grace, never-changing but flexible to human situations, communicative, good but can crack a whip when that is called for, eternal, creator, able to work wonders, and yet knows how to play by his own rules at the same time. This is the God we would expect to see, and this is the God we see in the Bible. As far as Jesus, we would expect compassion, power, kindness but doesn't take guff from detractors, fearless, relational, words of authority and truth, knowledge of people and situations, knowledge of the past and future, sacrificial and not self-oriented, and full of patience but not a pushover, meek but not a doormat, assertive, humble, and yet confident. This is exactly what we see. It corresponds to reality.

2. The Bible presents a world that we see. It presents a world where evil is real (as opposed to other religions like Hinduism), and where God lets things take their course but intervenes to keep his plan of redemption on track. It portrays humanity as noble but hopelessly lost, moral but corruptible, both good and evil, torn between self and others, having a conscience, knowing purpose, aware of morality, acknowledging beauty, capable of creativity, but in some ways animalistic and capable of horrific behavior. We see all these things in real life.

3. The Bible portrays "religion" not as a way to earn a place in God's graces, but as God reaching out to us, to love his way into our hearts. To me this corresponds to reality, because if we have to earn our way, we are all in hopeless trouble. But if God would just reach out to us, invite us into the kingdom, pay any sacrifices himself, and make a way for us to find him, come to him, and be redeemed, this makes sense as the only possible way someone could ever find salvation, and this is what the Bible teaches.

4. A true religion must engage the whole of the human nature, not just the mind and not just the emotions. It can't possibly just be about swaying to the music, entranced and brainless, caught up in the rhythms, spells, notions and potions. By the same token, it can't possibly just be about deep philosophy, ironing out theological conundrums, connecting intellectually with the mysteries of the universe and transcending humanity to enter the divine. True religion engages the mind and can fulfill the most intellectual queries, but at the same time enjoy expression, joy, uplifting emotions and the pull of our hearts. True religion is for the scholar and the child, the patrician and the plebeian, the civilized and the barbarian, the slave and the free, the man and the woman, the scientist and the poet. Christianity conforms to these categories.

5. A true religion must make sense out of history. It doesn't function above it or without it, compete against it or necessarily endorse it. Christianity (in contrast to Hinduism and Buddhism) is a historical religion where God works in history and among history, accomplishing his purposes, involved in people's lives, bringing out the redemption of all creation.

6. A true religion must makes sense out of science. It doesn't function above it or without it, compete against it or necessarily endorse it. Christianity teaches principles of cause and effect, beauty, regularity, predictability, beauty, purpose, design, and a world in which science is possible.

7. Christianity teaches purpose, significance in humanity, forgiveness for wrongs, life out of death, hope for the hopeless, redemption, fairness, love, beauty, a God who is there, knowledge, conscience, renewal, and meaning. I think it addresses all of these (#s 1-7) with far greater satisfaction than other religions to such a great extent that I consider Christianity to be true.

I haven't even mentioned such things as the beauty, power, and authority of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus, and the life changes that Christianity brings to so many. Such things are convincing to me, but objects of scorn to others.

I am well aware that in drawing up this list I will draw the ire and the fire of many. Obviously, if everyone agreed with me, all would be Christians. Since all people are not Christians, there is heated disagreement about the things I've said. Granted, understood, and noted. But since the question was, "Why do I think Christianity is true over against the other religions?", I hope I have answered the question to your satisfaction.

Does Christianity have its issues and problems? Everything does. Anything can be argued against. We have to think our way to the most reasonable conclusion.

> The conclusion I've come to is that the Bible is closest to the truth, but it's not the whole truth and there's something about other religions that is true too.

I have come to a different conclusion: The Bible is wholly true, though there are things that are not in the Bible that are also true (for instance, the Bible says nothing about gravity). But every religion has things in it that are true.

Hinduism: "Wound not others. Do no one injury by thought or deed. Utter no word to pain your fellow creatures." "One should speak truth."

Buddhism: The virtues of humility. "Look at evil as evil." "Return good for evil."

Taoism: "The truth is not always beautiful, nor beautiful words the truth."

Islam: "And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when you know (what it is).

There is truth in all religions, but all religions are not true.

[Chall]

Fantastic response, thank you!

[Handsome]

> Islam (and many others like Mormonism) is just a cult, or distortion, of Christianity. Buddhism (and others) is just a cult of Hinduism.

I don't quite know what your definition of a "cult" is in this instance, but if I'm following the pattern correctly... is Christianity not a cult of Judaism?

[jimwalton]

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.

[Handsome]

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 .

[jimwalton]

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.

[Scape211]

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.

[jimwalton]

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.

[Above All]

> 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.