If Christianity the true religion, how is it observably different from other, false, religions

[Tinker Grey]

Haaa! I did chuckle, no offence, but you are starting to split hairs on this. I am sure you know someone who wrote down a story as an adult about their boyhood experience? Hint..hint.

I'm not splitting hairs. A guy saying something happened is not enough to agree that it happened. A guy saying he had a vision might be believable but that it was actually not a stroke requires more ... especially if want me to up end my life over it.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Paul either simply made it up, or he genuinely hallucinated that Jesus spoke to him.
As to "witnesses" to the experience, Paul and/or Luke simply made it up to make the story sound better.

Sorry, but if you think quoting a miracle story from the Bible is "historical proof" that God exists, you're quite mistaken.

Got it.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I'm not splitting hairs. A guy saying something happened is not enough to agree that it happened. A guy saying he had a vision might be believable but that it was actually not a stroke requires more ... especially if want me to up end my life over it.

Got it.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Almost certain Hinduism can actually substantiate all of that, though the swath of texts to go through makes it a bit trickier, but Hindu thought easily predates Christinaity, if not Judaism as well. Diversity within a unity...never heard of the monistic thought in Hinduism?

Mainstream Hinduism teaches that ultimately ALL is ONE. Diversity is just an illusion. The difference is Christianity teaches that diversity is real and common sense tells us that also. And yet the evidence says that there most likely is only one universe. So Christianity fits reality and everyday real experience better.

mm: Seems to me you're just looking for stuff that's "common" and then pointing out how "only Christianity" is claiming those things with a pretty narrow viewpoint, to say nothing of speaking in a manner that isn't remotely humble or rational.

I apologize if I dont sound humble, probably just an artifact of my writing style. See above, where I rationally explain a significant difference between Christianity and Hinduism.

mm: The fact that Christianity or Islam or Hinduism may agree with things we have substantive evidence for is not evidence that the faith worldview is remotely true in itself, that's incidental and correlative, not causative or demonstrable, because someone can be correct even if everyone thinks they're insane, but they can also be sane and still be wrong, it's not a matter of credibility in the sense of someone trusting them, it's whether their claims can be substantiated and demonstrated in a meaningful manner that's not subject to vacuous interpretations of ambiguity

Islam and Hinduism have serious problems explaining fundamental aspects of reality. See above for one problem with Hinduism and there are other serious problems with it regarding morality. Allah is unlikely to be the Creator of this universe. He is a pure unity and therefore would unlikely to be able to understand diversity or create it. He also is unable to have a personal relationship with humans because mainstream Islam does not believe that humans are made in His image like the Christian God. But the very nature of the Triune Christian God, a diversity within a unity, matches the fundamental characteristic of the universe so most likely that is His fingerprint on it to reveal Himself as its creator. There are also serious problems with morality in Islam, such as the Koran allowing the beating of your wife.

 

[Tone]

"If Christianity the true religion, how is it observably different from other, false, religions"

Christianity deems itself the true religion as defined by one of its own books:

James 1:27
"27Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."


So, I guess you may use the above to determine if Christianity has remained true to its own standards.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Allah is unlikely to be the Creator of this universe. He is a pure unity and therefore would unlikely to be able to understand diversity or create it.

Dude. He's a God. He can do anything He likes.

He also is unable to have a personal relationship with humans because mainstream Islam does not believe that humans are made in His image like the Christian God.

So what? Again, He's God. He can do anything He likes.

But the very nature of the Triune Christian God, a diversity within a unity, matches the fundamental characteristic of the universe so most likely that is His fingerprint on it to reveal Himself as its creator.

Well, that might be true, if the Christian God was real. But since Allah is the One True God, the question doesn't arise, does it? No matter how amazing a character is in a story, that doesn't make him real.

There are also serious problems with morality in Islam, such as the Koran allowing the beating of your wife.

This is one of the clearest cases of the pot calling the kettle black that I have ever seen.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Christianity deems itself the true religion as defined by one of its own books:

"We know Christianity is true. It says so in the Bible."

I must admit, Colbert did it better.
"We know every word [of the Bible] is true because the Bible says that the Bible is true and if you remember from earlier in this sentence, every word in the Bible is true."

 

[dlamberth]

Mainstream Hinduism teaches that ultimately ALL is ONE. Diversity is just an illusion. The difference is Christianity teaches that diversity is real and common sense tells us that also. And yet the evidence says that there most likely is only one universe. So Christianity fits reality and everyday real experience better.

I have a different understanding of Hinduism and it's difference from Christianity. Christianity teaches that God is separate and apart from Creation. Hinduism teaches that God is IN Creation. Christianity tends to look at God through the dualistic lens. The Hindu tends to look through non-dualistic eyes. With God imaged as separate and apart from Creation, Christians are left to see this physical world as absolute reality. With Hindu's it's God who is the absolute reality that is in the diversity of life. So it's in God that the diversity becomes One. It's all centered around how God is imaged in where the difference sits. And directly related to that is how a person has God as their reality.

 

[muichimotsu]

Mainstream Hinduism teaches that ultimately ALL is ONE. Diversity is just an illusion. The difference is Christianity teaches that diversity is real and common sense tells us that also. And yet the evidence says that there most likely is only one universe. So Christianity fits reality and everyday real experience better.

Common sense is not a sufficient notion to conclude something, otherwise we wouldn't buy into germ theory, we'd still use humors or such. And the evidence is inconclusive on the number of universes when we only have 1 we can observe. You can keep shifting the goalposts and conveniently defining things to fit that, it's not helping

I apologize if I dont sound humble, probably just an artifact of my writing style. See above, where I rationally explain a significant difference between Christianity and Hinduism.

The difference is irrelevant to whether Christianity's specific claims are evidenced, particularly regarding a God, sin and an afterlife related to a supposed soul, none of which have been substantively demonstrated

Islam and Hinduism have serious problems explaining fundamental aspects of reality. See above for one problem with Hinduism and there are other serious problems with it regarding morality. Allah is unlikely to be the Creator of this universe. He is a pure unity and therefore would unlikely to be able to understand diversity or create it. He also is unable to have a personal relationship with humans because mainstream Islam does not believe that humans are made in His image like the Christian God. But the very nature of the Triune Christian God, a diversity within a unity, matches the fundamental characteristic of the universe so most likely that is His fingerprint on it to reveal Himself as its creator. There are also serious problems with morality in Islam, such as the Koran allowing the beating of your wife.

Unity does not exist as an antinomy to diversity, only that it precedes diversity if we're going the transcendent route. You're obfuscating to try and say that any Unitarian idea of God is somehow incoherent because of your particular dichotomy of unity and diversity, as they are diametrically opposed rather than qualitatively distinct

No, you don't know the fundamental characteristics of the universe, don't start talking like you have the answers to such a degree, it's monumentally arrogant and not in a sense of tone, but the content itself of what you say.

And the Koran doesn't universally have to be interpreted as such, same with the multiple wives aspect, which is applied supposedly to men based on their affluence (because of how marriage was as much based in helping widows as it was the particularly modern notion of romance rather than merely familial continuation)[/QUOTE]

 

[muichimotsu]

Saul of Tarsus, a persecutor of Christians, encountered the
resurrected Christ. He had no motive to claim such an encounter if it had never occurred.

He encountered what he believed to be Jesus, that isn't sufficient to conclude that his experience reflected reality. And his motive is irrelevant when we see that his shift is just a different form of zealotry than before rather than being reasonable and then becoming unreasonable

 

[LoG]

He encountered what he believed to be Jesus, that isn't sufficient to conclude that his experience reflected reality.

Perhaps not to you but the reality is that his encounter had to have been pretty dramatic to voluntarily change from being a persecutor to persecuted. What do you suppose other then perhaps instant insanity would prompt a rational human being to change to the side both he and those he was with, were trying to eradicate?

 

[muichimotsu]

Perhaps not to you but the reality is that his encounter had to have been pretty dramatic to voluntarily change from being a persecutor to persecuted. What do you suppose other then perhaps instant insanity would prompt a rational human being to change to the side both he and those he was with, were trying to eradicate?

Irrelevant: someone can have experiences they credulously believe reflect reality and change their perspective, that says nothing about reality as it can be reasonably assessed by a person not undergoing some hallucination or delusion as Paul may very well have suffered

Sanity arguably is on a spectrum, there isn't some particular area where a person is just sane and then suddenly outside of that they're automatically insane, merely less sane on that gradation.

Who says Paul was even rational to begin with when he was persecuting based on religious zealotry, not skepticism that might've remotely been a thing in those times to some extent? This isn't someone going from "atheist" to "Christian", this is "Orthodox Jew" to "Christian", so categorically, it's missing the point that Paul is not reliable merely because you can frame his position to seem like there's no other option, that's faulty reasoning.

 

[LoG]

And his motive is irrelevant when we see that his shift is just a different form of zealotry than before rather than being reasonable and then becoming unreasonable

Think about it before you post. What would it take for you or some of the other resident atheists to suddenly switch from being an enemy of Christ to being His biggest promoter in spite of all the hardships Paul went through. Would it take anything less than a very personal and dramatic encounter with Jesus Himself?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I intend to post this question and see what people say. I don't want this to become an argument. So, I'll be reading responses but intend to not comment much if at all.

Notes - I acknowledge that some people view multiple religions as diifferent views on the same reality so that more than one religion can be true. This question is not for them.

Also - if anyone wants to convince me then they'll need to point out something that believers in other religions can't claim for their own religion. Or, the question will not have been answered.

And - I'm looking for something objectively observable. Belieivers having feelings and experiences again will not answer the question as believers of many religions have those.

EDIT: Unfortunately I spotted the read and agree thread after I posted this. I'll edit my post to make it more compliant.

Specifically I need to include an argument as to why Christianity may be false.

If there is a true religion, then it should clearly stand out as being different from the others, as its teachings will be true, not heavily distorted or downright wrong like other religions. I don't see any religion which stands out as being diifferent from others, and hence that for me is evidence that all religions are man-made, and none is true. Hence, I take that as evidence that Christianity is true.

My purpose in this thread is for Christians to have the opportunity to argue that Christianity is clearly different from other religions in a way that shows true divine guidance.

What other religion has their god suffered for his followers?

 

[muichimotsu]

Think about it before you post. What would it take for you or some of the other resident atheists to suddenly switch from being an enemy of Christ to being His biggest promoter in spite of all the hardships Paul went through. Would it take anything less than a very personal and dramatic encounter with Jesus Himself?

You ask an amusing question, not considering that I don't consider God a coherent or cogent concept (see my threads on those topics that I need to revisit eventually). It's not about evidence necessarily for me, it's bringing forth a concept that is rational in the first place and not just exercising special pleading, magical thinking and otherwise irrational unfalsifiable ideas like Christianity requires.

People can sincerely believe things, they don't have to be insane, technically speaking. They can just be wrong in spite of their sincere beliefs based on whatever experience they had. And in Paul's case, the sanity aspect becomes questionable when we consider even the basic notion that he was persecuting them and then decided to join them. I don't persecute Christians, so you can't remotely compare me or most atheists to Paul. Maybe antitheists, but even they aren't doing the stuff Paul supposed did, because they aren't working on a religious notion as Paul was, they're working on rationalism.

 

[muichimotsu]

What other religion has their god suffered for his followers?

That's a loaded question and irrelevant: the unique nature of claims does not lend more credence to the claims, they need to be substantiated themselves

 

[Tone]

"We know Christianity is true. It says so in the Bible."

I didn't say that Christianity was true, I gave some objective parameters to study whether or not it is so.

*I believe the OP was looking for some metrics.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's a loaded question and irrelevant: the unique nature of claims does not lend more credence to the claims, they need to be substantiated themselves

the title of the OP begins with the words “If Christianity IS TRUE” this implies that Christianity is substantiated and is asking for it’s differences from other religions. It’s not questioning the validity of Christian claims.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

He encountered what he believed to be Jesus, that isn't sufficient to conclude that his experience reflected reality. And his motive is irrelevant when we see that his shift is just a different form of zealotry than before rather than being reasonable and then becoming unreasonable

Got it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What other religion has their god suffered for his followers?

Uh-huh. So what?