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

[BNR32FAN]

Uh-huh. So what?

Soooo...this is one thing that separates Christianity from other religions. You know...like something the OP was asking for.

 

[Tone]

Soooo...this is one thing that separates Christianity from other religions. You know...like something the OP was asking for.

Yeah, they ignored my contribution too. It's like when you give them something they ask for, they completely space out...or something.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Soooo...this is one thing that separates Christianity from other religions. You know...like something the OP was asking for.

You missed what the OP was asking for.
It said:
"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."

Of course there are things that separate Christianity from other religions. Every religion is unique, otherwise it would be a different religion.
Christianity is the only religion that begins with the letters.It's the only religion to have a holy book that repeats the same story four times. It's the only religion to have a God who is three persons in one. It's the only religion to have begun two thousand and twenty years ago. None of these prove that the Christian God is real.

So when you say "What other religion has their god suffered for his followers?"

The answer is: probably none.

So what?

We would, of course, be very interested if you could find some way in which Christianity is unique that shows it is actually of divine origin, some way which could not have been the product of mere mortal minds.

 

[Tone]

that shows it is actually of divine origin, some way which could not have been the product of mere mortal minds.

So, you are saying here that if something is not the product of "mere mortal minds" it is "actually of divine origin"?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

So, you are saying here that if something is not the product of "mere mortal minds" it is "actually of divine origin"?

Put it like this:
If Christians are right, then the God that they believe in is real, and the gods or all other religions are false. All other religions are simply made up by humans. To atheists and other nonbelievers, this seems to be rather puzzling, because there's nothing in Christianity that couldn't have been made up by humans, and you'd think that there would be.

So this thread, if I understand it correctly, is asking Christians if this is true: is there anything in Christianity that could not have been the product of a human mind? If there is, that would be strong evidence for God's existence. If not, then Christians are saying "yes, Christianity could have simply been made up, in the same way we Christians believe all other religions were."

 

[BNR32FAN]

You missed what the OP was asking for.
It said:
"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."

Of course there are things that separate Christianity from other religions. Every religion is unique, otherwise it would be a different religion.
Christianity is the only religion that begins with the letters.It's the only religion to have a holy book that repeats the same story four times. It's the only religion to have a God who is three persons in one. It's the only religion to have begun two thousand and twenty years ago. None of these prove that the Christian God is real.

So when you say "What other religion has their god suffered for his followers?"

The answer is: probably none.

So what?

We would, of course, be very interested if you could find some way in which Christianity is unique that shows it is actually of divine origin, some way which could not have been the product of mere mortal minds.

Christ’s sacrifice was of divine origin. He is God incarnated into man, He died and was resurrected. If your expecting proof then you won’t find it but if you want evidence there’s plenty to be found.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Christ’s sacrifice was of divine origin. He is God incarnated into man, He died and was resurrected. If your expecting proof then you won’t find it but if you want evidence there’s plenty to be found.

Any religion can and does say "our religion is true, and there's plenty of evidence to be found."

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

Christianity is a pretty broad notion in terms of the specifics that you could enumerate: are you Unitarian/Binitarian/Trinitarian/Modalist/etc, are you Calvinist/Arminianist/Universalist/etc, the list goes on. Granting the truth of something so vague as "Jesus saves" is skipping right over the problem of trying to lump everything into it except for descriptive purposes and categorizing relative to other positions, like, say, Abrahamic covering anything related to the Abrahamic origin in regards to Judaism, as it followed to Christianity and Islam. Christianity can cover pretty much anything related to venerating Jesus as the important figure in terms of the Gospels and such.

 

[muichimotsu]

Christ’s sacrifice was of divine origin. He is God incarnated into man, He died and was resurrected. If your expecting proof then you won’t find it but if you want evidence there’s plenty to be found.

I don't think you understand how evidence works: it's not merely that you can conclude something based on your interpretation of it, but that any reasonable person can conclude such a thing and it isn't subject to vacuous interpretations afterwards. You're likely arguing that what you find compelling is evidence, rather than more precisely sufficient evidence, which is distinct from demonstrable/falsifiable evidence.

And I also don't think you're utilizing proof that accurately because scientists and philosophers don't use the term except in relation to math and logic, any other usage becomes vague and vernacular at best.

 

[muichimotsu]

Got it.

And that's meant to reflect what kind of response that can be reasonably deduced online? Honestly, it sounds like you're not wanting to actually engage, but just get an answer and then use it as potential fodder for pointing out atheists as being irrational or the like, it would be pretty disingenuous.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don't think you understand how evidence works: it's not merely that you can conclude something based on your interpretation of it, but that any reasonable person can conclude such a thing and it isn't subject to vacuous interpretations afterwards. You're likely arguing that what you find compelling is evidence, rather than more precisely sufficient evidence, which is distinct from demonstrable/falsifiable evidence.

And I also don't think you're utilizing proof that accurately because scientists and philosophers don't use the term except in relation to math and logic, any other usage becomes vague and vernacular at best.

Eyewitness testimonies are admissible as evidence in a court of law. The word proof is often used in a court of law when referring to conclusive evidence.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Christianity is a pretty broad notion in terms of the specifics that you could enumerate: are you Unitarian/Binitarian/Trinitarian/Modalist/etc, are you Calvinist/Arminianist/Universalist/etc, the list goes on. Granting the truth of something so vague as "Jesus saves" is skipping right over the problem of trying to lump everything into it except for descriptive purposes and categorizing relative to other positions, like, say, Abrahamic covering anything related to the Abrahamic origin in regards to Judaism, as it followed to Christianity and Islam. Christianity can cover pretty much anything related to venerating Jesus as the important figure in terms of the Gospels and such.

All of these denominations agree that Jesus is incarnated into man, and that He was resurrected. So I don’t see the relevance of bringing up differences between denominations pertaining to what I provided.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

And that's meant to reflect what kind of response that can be reasonably deduced online? Honestly, it sounds like you're not wanting to actually engage, but just get an answer and then use it as potential fodder for pointing out atheists as being irrational or the like, it would be pretty disingenuous.

I have engaged all through the thread. Please read my posts. I understand your position.

 

[muichimotsu]

Eyewitness testimonies are admissible as evidence in a court of law. The word proof is often used in a court of law when referring to conclusive evidence.

Admissible, but not conclusive unless the situation is that unambiguous, which is rarely the case, especially when physical evidence apart from the eyewitness testimony is generally going to be more consistent, barring contamination of the crime scene.

Conclusive in a certain manner, but burden of proof is also used differently in legal context, which isn't relevant when you're talking about whether a worldview is true, versus whether Joe killed Steve or the like, very particular circumstances that require particular investigation, in contrast to something that is meant to apply universally.

 

[muichimotsu]

All of these denominations agree that Jesus is incarnated into man, and that He was resurrected. So I don’t see the relevance of bringing up differences between denominations pertaining to what I provided.

Because the denominational differences are arguably important, particularly as regards claims about how one is saved and reconciled to God: universalism directly contradicts Calvinism and Arminianism, for instance, they can't all be true. The question requires more precision: what brand of Christianity is concluded to be true in the discussion, since a religious spectrum exists for Christianity and thus would create contradictions if you're claiming they're all true.

 

[muichimotsu]

I have engaged all through the thread. Please read my posts. I understand your position.

If you understand, then why seemingly refuse to engage further if you're already certain you understand. Not even sure what you supposedly understand, since that kind of reflects assumptions about what I said that I may not have actually said, but were interpreted as such by you

 

[Maria Billingsley]

If you understand, then why seemingly refuse to engage further if you're already certain you understand. Not even sure what you supposedly understand, since that kind of reflects assumptions about what I said that I may not have actually said, but were interpreted as such by you

I apologize for not being more clear. I understand that you do not believe. I respect that.

 

[muichimotsu]

But is my disbelief rational? You seem to insinuate that Paul is compelling as someone conveying Christianity because of his particular scenario: but really that seems to be a common theme in general. My dismissal of Paul seems to just be something you accept and not investigate further as to my justification for why I don't take him as reliable based on your arguments that his persecution of Christians means the conversion was genuine and lends some kind of credibility to Christianity itself (it doesn't)

If a person disbelieves in Christianity, then converts and they're meant to be taken more seriously than someone who just believed, even though the Bible seems to suggest that those who aren't skeptical like Thomas was, are to be praised more in their belief without having seen as he did. How can a skeptic be somehow more praiseworthy in any sense except that they fulfill the narrative Christianity in particular tends to present of the "prodigal son" returning to the forgiving "father"

 

[Maria Billingsley]

But is my disbelief rational? You seem to insinuate that Paul is compelling as someone conveying Christianity because of his particular scenario: but really that seems to be a common theme in general. My dismissal of Paul seems to just be something you accept and not investigate further as to my justification for why I don't take him as reliable based on your arguments that his persecution of Christians means the conversion was genuine and lends some kind of credibility to Christianity itself (it doesn't)

If a person disbelieves in Christianity, then converts and they're meant to be taken more seriously than someone who just believed, even though the Bible seems to suggest that those who aren't skeptical like Thomas was, are to be praised more in their belief without having seen as he did. How can a skeptic be somehow more praiseworthy in any sense except that they fulfill the narrative Christianity in particular tends to present of the "prodigal son" returning to the forgiving "father"

Why does it bother you that I respect your view?

 

[muichimotsu]

Why does it bother you that I respect your view?

It's not that at all, it's more that it seems to be almost unimportant as regards my motivations, so to speak. You offer the notion of Paul as somehow a unique aspect of Christianity and I point out that we can find other examples elsewhere, to say nothing of a more underlying issue of someone's motivations for conversion in the narrative making them seem more petty than sincere at times.

It seems to be reflecting an idea similar in regards to defending the resurrection as reliable in its accounting because the disciples were willing to die for it and such.