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

[Tone]

the gods or all other religions are false.

Yes, they are false, but this doesn't mean they are not real.

there's nothing in Christianity that couldn't have been made up by humans

As someone pointed out "Christianity" is a very broad term, but we can take the Bible to narrow it down. As someone else pointed out, there are prophecies contained in Scripture that have come to pass, kind of as if time travel were involved. As far as I know time travel has not been achieved by the human mind.

is there anything in Christianity that could not have been the product of a human mind?

The Bible.

we Christians believe all other religions were.

Not necessarily...Christians believe that super human minds are behind many other religions.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

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.

Ok understood. I used Saul, not a disciple, as one of the examples of proof that Jesus Christ of Nazareth resurrected from the dead because there was no motivation for him to believe. He was sent to gather Christians from Damaskus for trial. His conversion was disputed even in the New Testament until he proved his faith was real. Do you have a theory on his conversion? It would seem highly unlikely that Saul, a defender of Temple Judaism ,to suddenly switch sides. Any thoughts on that?

 

[BigV]

Christianity is BASED upon LOVE and RELATIONSHIP. No other religions are.

Not really.

And a second is like it: You shall LOVE your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the revelation of God.”

This is a meaningless command. No Christian (and no sane person, for that matter) will love their neighbor as themselves or their loved ones. Your property and your belongings will belong to you. Your neighbor cannot use your stuff without your permission, etc... And if you follow Jesus to a 't' then, congrats, you will lose everything. The more you share, the less you have. That's why communism fails. And Christian communism fails also.

Please also understand that Jesus wasn't consistent on this point, of loving your family.

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

For partnership with me is easy, and will not be a burden unto you."

Matthew 19:24 Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

 

[BigV]

It doesn't. But it is the only religion based on history over time.

~Unique in Its Time Span~
Most scholars agree that the New Testament was completed by the second half of the first century AD. But sufficient evidence confirms that the earliest forms of the Bible were written during the time of the Hebrew exodus out of Egypt (c. 1400-1200 BC). This means the composition of the biblical writing, from the earliest book of the Bible to the last of the New Testament writings, spans a period of 1,300 to 1,500 years. The Bible is exceptional in that it was written and assembled over a vast number of generations.

I think Mormons may not be happy with being excluded from your list. The Bible has been written up until the 1800s CE (or AD, if you prefer).

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

the differences your referring to are completely irrelevant to my post. As I stated ALL of these denominations agree that Jesus is incarnated as a man and resurrected from death. None of them dispute this. So their differences in beliefs have no bearing on my post.

 

[A_Thinker]

This is a meaningless command. No Christian (and no sane person, for that matter) will love their neighbor as themselves or their loved ones

So how do you explain firemen, or soldiers, or those who will risk their lives for others ?

Please also understand that Jesus wasn't consistent on this point, of loving your family.

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

If you understand the context in which he is speaking, He is consistent.

Matthew 19:24 Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

It is hard (actually impossible) ... BEFORE one partners with Jesus ...

 

[BigV]

So how do you explain firemen, or soldiers, or those who will risk their lives for others ?

I have yet to find a fireman, or a solider who will share their pay with me as they do with their families. Not that I'm looking for it. We each have our jobs. Some of our jobs are riskier than others. My point was, that NOBODY loves their neighbors as they do their family or themselves.

It is hard (actually impossible) ... BEFORE one partners with Jesus ...

Partnership with Jesus was not an option for the rich young ruler. Read the text again. The man went away sad, because he was told, by Jesus, to sell all his possessions. Jesus made the same command applicable to all, actually, in verses such as Luke 12:33 and Luke 14:33, but nobody takes these serious today. And good for them.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think Mormons may not be happy with being excluded from your list. The Bible has been written up until the 1800s CE (or AD, if you prefer).

Perhaps they have their own answer and are not depending on my answer to keep them happy.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have yet to find a fireman, or a solider who will share their pay with me as they do with their families. Not that I'm looking for it. We each have our jobs. Some of our jobs are riskier than others. My point was, that NOBODY loves their neighbors as they do their family or themselves.

It's a valid point. Firemen and police and soldiers do risk themselves and their families future by risking their lives for the benefit of others. And those three do not get compensated very well considering the potential loss of their own life.

 

[BigV]

It's a valid point. Firemen and police and soldiers do risk themselves and their families future by risking their lives for the benefit of others. And those three do not get compensated very well considering the potential loss of their own life.

Risk of death is never zero for those who are alive. I wonder if there is an actual percentage of a risk of death for a firefighter, soldier or police vs a miner, construction worker or a taxicab driver.

Edit: Well, here is the statistics
The 20 deadliest jobs in America, ranked

Loggers and Fishermen have a higher fatality rate vs firefighters and police!

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.
ia: Dude. He's a God. He can do anything He likes.

No, he is a specific type of god. Most all gods have certain specific characteristics. And if the god and its religion are not internally consistent or logically consistent then that is evidence that is man made. Or if is designed to retrofit absolute any situation, that is also evidence it is man made. If it is truly something that is not manmade then it will consistent and will reflect and explain reality better than any other. So since Allah is believed to be a pure unity then it is rational to assume that it cannot create or even understand diversity. The triune nature of the Christian God was discovered 1800 years ago, long before we discovered that the universe was a diversity within a unity, so it could not have been a retrofit. This is evidence that Christianity was not man made.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

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

See above.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

ia: 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.

The OP was not to present evidence for the existence of God but rather how IF it IS true and He does exist, how is significantly different from other religions. I am showing that but in addition, I am showing how it explains things about reality better than other religions. But in fact, the fact that the universe is structured that way, that is evidence for His existence. But there is other better evidence such as the BB theory combined with the law of causality.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
There are also serious problems with morality in Islam, such as the Koran allowing the beating of your wife.

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

Huh? How in the world is that true? The Bible plainly teaches that the husband is to treat his wife as he would treat his own body. No sane person beats their own body.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

You are basically saying what I am saying about Hinduism. But you are wrong about Christians believing that the physical world is absolute reality. God is the absolute and ultimate reality. But His creation is real, unlike in Hinduism where the world is not really real. This is the reason Christians invented modern science because they believed that the world and nature objectively exists and can be studied. For Hindus god IS the only reality. The physical world is an illusion and subjective, that is one reason Hindus never invented modern science. Yes, the diversity is not real because ultimately it is one in god, but common sense and human experience and science tells us that diversity is REAL and not an illusion. In addition, there are serious problems with morality in Hinduism, but I wont go into that right now.

 

[Tone]

Christians invented modern science because they believed that the world and nature objectively exists and can be studied.

Hear! hear!...a fact that many here space out on......

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No, he is a specific type of god. Most all gods have certain specific characteristics. And if the god and its religion are not internally consistent or logically consistent then that is evidence that is man made. Or if is designed to retrofit absolute any situation, that is also evidence it is man made. If it is truly something that is not manmade then it will consistent and will reflect and explain reality better than any other.

Congratulations, Ed. In trying to disprove Allah, you've dismantled Christianity. The Christian God is not internally consistent (if He is everywhere and knows all, how can He ever choose to do anything? How can three persons be one person at the same time?) God seems designed to fit any situation. He loves peace, He loves war, He is infinitely merciful and sends His enemies to hell forever, He is everywhere and nowhere. And God does nothing at all to explain reality.

So since Allah is believed to be a pure unity then it is rational to assume that it cannot create or even understand diversity.

Why? Allah is a God. He knows everything. Naturally He knows what diversity is.

The triune nature of the Christian God was discovered 1800 years ago, long before we discovered that the universe was a diversity within a unity, so it could not have been a retrofit.

Discovered? You mean it's been proved?
Because it we don't have proof, I think you just mean "claimed". Or, less charitably, made up.

This is evidence that Christianity was not man made.

OF course it isn't. There is absolutely nothing in what you've said that could not have been thought of by humans.

See above.

Again: Allah is a God. If He wants to have a relationship with humans, who or what can stop Him?

The OP was not to present evidence for the existence of God but rather how IF it IS true and He does exist, how is significantly different from other religions. I am showing that but in addition, I am showing how it explains things about reality better than other religions.

How strange that every scientific discovery we have ever had came from scientists, not theologians.

But in fact, the fact that the universe is structured that way, that is evidence for His existence. But there is other better evidence such as the BB theory combined with the law of causality.

None of these are evidence in the least, I'm afraid.

Huh? How in the world is that true? The Bible plainly teaches that the husband is to treat his wife as he would treat his own body. No sane person beats their own body.

First, I wasn't necessarily talking about husbands beating wives. You said there are serious problems with morality in the Koran, and I was pointing out that the Bible is full of serious moral problems, such as stoning unbelievers, commanding genocide and endorsing slavery.
But since you bring it up, of course the Bible endorses beating your wife. Look up conservative Christians and the "discipline" of spanking both wife and children - in love, of course, and for their own good:
7 Ways to Discipline Your Wife
"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
The logic is clear - the husband is the head of the family, the wife is subservient to the husband, and if the subservient person disobeys, she needs to be disciplined - in love, of course, and for her own good.

 

[SkyWriting]

Risk of death is never zero for those who are alive. I wonder if there is an actual percentage of a risk of death for a firefighter, soldier or police vs a miner, construction worker or a taxicab driver.

Edit: Well, here is the statistics
The 20 deadliest jobs in America, ranked

Loggers and Fishermen have a higher fatality rate vs firefighters and police!

1. Logging workers. <
2. Fishers and related fishing workers. < ...
3. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers. < ...
4. Roofers. < ...
5. Refuse and recyclable material collectors. < ...
6. Driver/sales workers and truck drivers. < ...
7. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers. < ...
8. Structural iron and steel workers.

Environmental hazards feel different than personal confrontations.
Having been on the street in the ghetto...I can tell you the mindset is different
when you don't know about the next person you say hello to.

Different from when I did sheet metal work on church steeples.

 

[muichimotsu]

Ok understood. I used Saul, not a disciple, as one of the examples of proof that Jesus Christ of Nazareth resurrected from the dead because there was no motivation for him to believe. He was sent to gather Christians from Damaskus for trial. His conversion was disputed even in the New Testament until he proved his faith was real. Do you have a theory on his conversion? It would seem highly unlikely that Saul, a defender of Temple Judaism ,to suddenly switch sides. Any thoughts on that?

But he didn't see Jesus resurrected proper, he saw a vision of Jesus that can be interpreted spiritually rather than the disciples that supposedly saw Jesus resurrected in the flesh

Not having motivation by some skewed notion that he was persecuting them ignores cognitive dissonance that can be going on. As I already pointed out, he was zealous in a different manner, that's going to make his conversion possible given a compelling enough experience to his weak standards that seem to rely purely on a mystical ecstasy and such.

His faith being sincere does not mean the object of his faith is real, you're engaging in equivocation. Anyone can sincerely believe Jesus rose from the dead, even rough contemporaries, but we don't have reason to believe what they perceived was correct given the witnesses we even have an inkling about were all convinced by his cult charisma and such and supposed miracles, rather than actually investigating further than face value

If your only evidence as to why he'd convert is the Damascus road experience, then you're answering your own question: he changed his mind because he had a mystical experience and thought that was sufficient to change his mind because he was still working on a fundamentalist epistemologically unsound foundation

 

[muichimotsu]

You are basically saying what I am saying about Hinduism. But you are wrong about Christians believing that the physical world is absolute reality. God is the absolute and ultimate reality. But His creation is real, unlike in Hinduism where the world is not really real. This is the reason Christians invented modern science because they believed that the world and nature objectively exists and can be studied. For Hindus god IS the only reality. The physical world is an illusion and subjective, that is one reason Hindus never invented modern science. Yes, the diversity is not real because ultimately it is one in god, but common sense and human experience and science tells us that diversity is REAL and not an illusion. In addition, there are serious problems with morality in Hinduism, but I wont go into that right now.

Problem is, saying something is objective metaphysically is VERY different from claiming you can objectively verify those things apart from the filters of our perception. We can be close, but we cannot absolutely claim the diversity we perceive is real in itself, because we cannot grasp reality in itself, only the secondhand notion through our senses and rational consideration of it in an explanatory model. That's not objective, that's subjectivity seeking consistency and rationality in the worldview

 

[muichimotsu]

the differences your referring to are completely irrelevant to my post. As I stated ALL of these denominations agree that Jesus is incarnated as a man and resurrected from death. None of them dispute this. So their differences in beliefs have no bearing on my post.

Eh, not all denominations agree that his incarnation had the same nature, merely being human is a surface level agreement that had the early church bickering amongst itself.

Their differences in belief as regards further details is a pertinent concern in terms of getting to the heart of Christianity rather than just a surface level consideration that it's "right" without investigating further, the mentality of a credulous fool

 

[A_Thinker]

How strange that every scientific discovery we have ever had came from scientists, not theologians.

On reflection, ... that shouldn't seem strange at all. Of course, deeper thought brings insight that the two pursuits may not be so exclusive to one another as we might suppose ...

However, off-hand, we know, of course, of Mendel the monk, ... Georges Lemaître (1894–1966) – Belgian priest and father of the Big Bang theory, ... and Roger Bacon (c. 1214 – 1294) – Franciscan friar who made significant contributions to mathematics and optics and has been described as a forerunner of modern scientific method.

Of course, we find documentation for many others, as well ...

List of Catholic clergy scientists - Wikipedia

List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia

 

[InterestedAtheist]

On reflection, ... that shouldn't seem strange at all. Of course, deeper thought brings insight that the two pursuits may not be so exclusive to one another as we might suppose ...

However, off-hand, we know, of course, of Mendel the monk, ... Georges Lemaître (1894–1966) – Belgian priest and father of the Big Bang theory, ... and Roger Bacon (c. 1214 – 1294) – Franciscan friar who made significant contributions to mathematics and optics and has been described as a forerunner of modern scientific method.

Of course, we find documentation for many others, as well ...

List of Catholic clergy scientists - Wikipedia

List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia

But they made their discoveries as scientists, doing science, not as theologians. They did it by following the principles of scientific investigation, as well as they could, not by reading the Bible and waiting for revelation.