General Discussion: This is a discussion on Aren't all religions the same? Is Christ the only way to God? within the Discussion forums, part of the extensive steroid information at MESO-Rx; Jesus claimed absolute exclusivity. Christ was unique compared to founders of other world religions. Some promoted their teachings as the ...
Aren't all religions the same? Is Christ the only way to God?
Jesus claimed absolute exclusivity. Christ was unique compared to founders of other world religions. Some promoted their teachings as the only way to God, but Christ proclaimed Himself as the only way to God. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).
Christianity is unique in other ways. The views of gods of other religions are very different from Christianity. The philosophical Hindu is either a monist (believing that ultimate reality is a oneness beyond differentiation) or a pantheist (believing that everything is God). The popular sects of Hinduism are polytheistic (worshipers of many gods).
Buddhist sects may hold a variety of views on God, including polytheism, pantheism, or usually, atheism. Classical Islam endorses the killing of infidels but Christianity teaches to love your enemies.
Of eleven major religions of the world, ten of them teach salvation through human effort. Only Christianity recognizes the frustration and futility of man's own efforts and declares that man's salvation rests in the provision and grace of God.
Christianity alone makes provision for man's basic need—the forgiveness of sin. Only Christianity resolves the problem of God's dual nature of both absolute justice and absolute love. This dichotomy is once and for all resolved by Christ's coming, His sinless life, and His finished work on the cross as our substitute.
There are irreconcilable conflicts between Christianity and other religions. Christianity is at odds with other views of God, heaven, and salvation. The law of noncontradiction says that if two statements about one particular issue contradict each other, then (1) only one of them is true, or (2) they are both false. They cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time. Truth, by definition, is exclusive.
Objective evidence must be the basis for Christian truth claims. By the rationale presented, the evidence validates that Christianity is correct, while the other religions are wrong. To reiterate, the evidence includes: (1) the proven reliability of the Bible through history and prophecy, (2) the demonstrated perfection of Christ, (3) observation and experience that the principles of life and human nature are consistent with those taught by Christianity, and (4) the evidence of uniquely changed history and lives of people.
Rick Rood (Halverson book listed in the offers four criteria for evaluating religious truth-claims: (1) logical consistency, (2) empirical adequacy, i.e., being consistent with known facts, (3) ability to explain why reality is the way it is, and (4) experiential relevance, i.e., it should enable us to live in the everyday world. No religion other than Christianity stands up to all of these tests.
Authors Boa and Moody explain that the problem with this narrow view for some people is that it seems intolerant. It eliminates many sincere people who are seeking God through other means. Christianity, in this sense, indeed, is not "tolerant" of any other avenue to salvation. A sincerely held belief of another road to salvation does not necessarily mean it is true. Sincerity does not determine truth. It would be cruel to tell a blind man on the edge of a cliff that it doesn't matter which way he steps, as long as he is sincere. A position can be narrow and wrong, or it can be narrow and right. While tolerance in personal relationships is a virtue, tolerance in truth is a travesty.
The great Christian communicator Ravi Zacharias discusses the concept of equality of people, but elitism of ideas. All ideas are not equal. The ideals sought by every culture are embodied in Christ. It is only in Christianity that one finds unity in diversity. Jesus Christ breaks the barriers of gender, race, and background that divide us.
(For further study about what the Bible teaches on this matter, see Acts 4:10-12, also Exodus 20:3-5, Isaiah 44:6-11, 24, Matthew 7:13-20, Mark 16:16, John 3:18, 36, 8:24, 12:48, Galatians 1:6-10, Philippians 2:9-11, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10, 1 Timothy 2:5, 1 John 2: 23, 5:12.)
I see very little REAL unity within Christianity itself. What if two "Christian" faiths have contradicting views? Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, 7th Day Adventists, all have differing and in some cases contradictory beliefs. Are all "Christian" religions the path to salvation?
I see very little REAL unity within Christianity itself. What if two "Christian" faiths have contradicting views? Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, 7th Day Adventists, all have differing and in some cases contradictory beliefs. Are all "Christian" religions the path to salvation?[/QUOT]
The question you have to ask is what makes a denomnation a Christian one? The answer to that is simple. They have Christ as the means of Salvation. All thoses denomations do that. Yes they might disagree on other things, but Christ for salvation is uniform, which is what the topic is about.
Im not familiar with all the different denominations, but I think the differences between them usually comes down to tradition, agendas, and a focus on small parts of the law. Tradition...Catholics. Agendas...Catholics and Im sure a bunch of others. The minutia...Baptists (dont drink, dont listen to secular music, etc).
Jesus was both man and God simultaneously. That means he was both fallible and infallible at the same time. Logically inconsistent.
(2) empirical adequacy, i.e., being consistent with known facts:
The only empirical facts about Christ that are known are not disputed by Atheists. Sure, we know he lived, we know he was Crucified, and some evidence shows that Jews though of him as a healer. That’s it. If anything, Christ goes AGAINST empirical adequacy: Walking on water, resurrection, magical cures...these go against physics.
(3) ability to explain why reality is the way it is:
Every religious figure/philosopher has attempted to explain why reality is the way it is. This is no accomplishment. Besides, there is no way to judge which view of reality is correct or not. Explanation of reality as religious justification reminds me of this Nietzsche quote: "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
(4) experiential relevance, i.e., it should enable us to live in the everyday world:
People lived in the everyday world for thousands of years before Christ. They seemed to get along just fine. I know many atheists who are perfectly happy with their lives.
"No religion other than Christianity stands up to all of these tests."
If it were so obvious, I wonder why the other religions haven’t figured this one out!
I think one problem with Christianity today is that it has become OBSESSED with proof. Christianity, for me, requires no logical consistency and no empirical proof. If religion requires this, then what makes it different than pure science?
I agree MK. To believe that Jesus was some kind of God/Man is logically inconsistent. That's why I don't. I believe that the Bible is both logical and consistent, with the exception of explaining certain miraculous events(there is a reason they're called miracles).
Jesus told us how to identify the true "religion" or faith in the Sermon on the Mount. "By their fruits you will recognize them." paraphrasing, every good tree produces fine fruit, but rotten trees produce worthless fruit; a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. What happens to rotten trees? Every tree not producing fine fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.(Matt 7:15-20)
Like Bob, I'm not familiar with all the denominations and their various beliefs. I do believe that by the time of the Nicene Creed, hypocrisy had already crept into the church. That is why I don't accept many of the tenets of today's common Christianity.
Jesus was both man and God simultaneously. That means he was both fallible and infallible at the same time. Logically inconsistent.
(2) empirical adequacy, i.e., being consistent with known facts:
The only empirical facts about Christ that are known are not disputed by Atheists. Sure, we know he lived, we know he was Crucified, and some evidence shows that Jews though of him as a healer. That’s it. If anything, Christ goes AGAINST empirical adequacy: Walking on water, resurrection, magical cures...these go against physics.
(3) ability to explain why reality is the way it is:
Every religious figure/philosopher has attempted to explain why reality is the way it is. This is no accomplishment. Besides, there is no way to judge which view of reality is correct or not. Explanation of reality as religious justification reminds me of this Nietzsche quote: "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
(4) experiential relevance, i.e., it should enable us to live in the everyday world:
People lived in the everyday world for thousands of years before Christ. They seemed to get along just fine. I know many atheists who are perfectly happy with their lives.
"No religion other than Christianity stands up to all of these tests."
If it were so obvious, I wonder why the other religions haven’t figured this one out!
I think one problem with Christianity today is that it has become OBSESSED with proof. Christianity, for me, requires no logical consistency and no empirical proof. If religion requires this, then what makes it different than pure science?
[MK]
Guys I do not have time to fully comment on Marks post, but I will later tonight. But Mark your questions are very common and very easily explained.
Why must the Bible, Jesus or Christianity be logical? I dont understand the Christian emphasis on being logical. If Christ's existence, Christianity or God must be logical, then that means there is a higher-power than God, and that power is "logic." Question: Does God have to be logical? Can God have A=B and (A not equal B) at the same time? YES HE CAN. God is ALL POWERFUL, which means He DOES NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAWS OF LOGIC.
The Christian reliance upon logical arguments, scientific evidence and empiricism can only weaken it. A Christian would be safer if they took Bob Smith's viewpoint, which is that Christianity doesnt need logic or science, but it sure does help.
Aren't all religions the same? Is Christ the only way to God? 
Linear Mode
