Out of all the religions - Why Christianity?

[Darryl_B]

Out of all the world religions, from Hinduism to Zoroastrianism, why do you trust that the Christian message and interpretation of God is correct?

Judaism claims he was a false Messiah, and Islam claims Christ was merely a prophet whose message was corrupted. Why follow Christ over the other so called ‘gods’ and other ways of interpretation God (such as spiritualism over religion)?

For me, and everyone is different, it would be impossible to write prophecy, which is then fulfilled in Jesus Christ, unless Jesus Christ was instrumental to the writing of that prophecy. This indicates to me, that Jesus Christ is above and beyond all other “messengers” in that He told us before He was manifest, what He (and others) would do.

Religious leaders are a dime a dozen, but they all essentially do the same thing, to varying degrees, making promises for us. Jesus Christ is different in that He told us, in advance, at a time in history when we didn’t even understand, the things concerning Himself.

(The reason why I am Catholic and not Protestant is a different question.)

 

[Zadeth]

There is a lot of evidence in favor of Christianity being true.

Such as?

 

[Darryl_B]

When Jesus Christ was on the cross he cited Psalm 22 and Psalm 31. Psalm 22:1 and Psalm 31:5. The thing about these two citations is the Psalm numbers are easy to remember. 2+2 = 4 and 3+1 = 4. But when I look at the other Psalms of this number ie Psalm 13, Psalm 40 and Psalm 4, they are equally relevant to that moment.

 

[anon67074017]

Such as?

All the miracles are evidence.

 

[alwayswill]

Out of all the world religions, from Hinduism to Zoroastrianism, why do you trust that the Christian message and interpretation of God is correct?

Judaism claims he was a false Messiah, and Islam claims Christ was merely a prophet whose message was corrupted. Why follow Christ over the other so called ‘gods’ and other ways of interpretation God (such as spiritualism over religion)?

Either Christ rose from the dead or He didn’t…
Check it out
make a decision:
and think about all that it means if Christ actually rose from the dead.

 

[Young_Ludovicus]

This maybe isn’t my place to weigh in.

But for me it was objective truth. I have an inherent belief in objective truth, of its existence. Of good and evil. This is connected with the way I perceive the world. I see this inherent feeling of good and evil in many people, nature and animal. So that makes I believe there is something as real truth, real good and evil in this world.

But where does this come from. I have to say I started of a bit biased, shamanism, animism or polytheism weren’t my cup of tea. I see the force in this world in which I may believe as a single force. A force so great some would call it the galaxy or the cosmos etc. It’s in this I could see being God. (I’m not a God of the gaps fan at all)

So I started studying monotheism. I’ve studied loads of other religions but I’ll keep those out of this text because it’ll turn too long.

I’ve studied monotheistic religions like Samaritans, Judaism, christianity, Islam, Druze, Babism, Azali, Bahá’í and loads more.

The reason has never really been to find a religion but more out of boredom and I wanted to learn a lot about these faiths.

Long story short only four different kind of religions remained. (in this order)
-Catholicism
-Eastern Orthodoxy
-Oriental Orthodoxy
-Assyrian Christianity

If I were to turn religious at the moment I could only see me turn to one of these four religions. In reality the chance I’d turn Oriental Orthodox or to the Church of the East are 0,001 % probably. And I’d be way more likely to turn Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

Since I live in Western Europe catholic is the most convenient option. But the more important reason for me is the primacy of Peter. Otherwise it’s pretty much a toss-up between the two.

I’ve been reading about these things for the last seven years, I’m too much of a doubting Thomas really to actually convert on the spot. At the moment I have this dual way of thinking:
-I have an agnostic view (which is a candid friend of christianity).
-I have a catholic view.

I started out as a baptised ‘cultural catholic’. Often I think this played no part whatsoever in this search. But I wonder… I was pretty quick to turn to monotheism. What if my liking of catholicism is because of my cultural catholic past? I’d like to think it’s because of my research.

 

[Della]

This maybe isn’t my place to weigh in.

But for me it was objective truth. I have an inherent belief in objective truth, of its existence. Of good and evil. This is connected with the way I perceive the world. I see this inherent feeling of good and evil in many people, nature and animal. So that makes I believe there is something as real truth, real good and evil in this world.

But where does this come from. I have to say I started of a bit biased, shamanism, animism or polytheism weren’t my cup of tea. I see the force in this world in which I may believe as a single force. A force so great some would call it the galaxy or the cosmos etc. It’s in this I could see being God. (I’m not a God of the gaps fan at all)

So I started studying monotheism. I’ve studied loads of other religions but I’ll keep those out of this text because it’ll turn too long.

I’ve studied monotheistic religions like Samaritans, Judaism, christianity, Islam, Druze, Babism, Azali, Bahá’í and loads more.

The reason has never really been to find a religion but more out of boredom and I wanted to learn a lot about these faiths.

Long story short only four different kind of religions remained. (in this order)
-Catholicism
-Eastern Orthodoxy
-Oriental Orthodoxy
-Assyrian Christianity

If I were to turn religious at the moment I could only see me turn to one of these four religions. In reality the chance I’d turn Oriental Orthodox or to the Church of the East are 0,001 % probably. And I’d be way more likely to turn Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

Since I live in Western Europe catholic is the most convenient option. But the more important reason for me is the primacy of Peter. Otherwise it’s pretty much a toss-up between the two.

I’ve been reading about these things for the last seven years, I’m too much of a doubting Thomas really to actually convert on the spot. At the moment I have this dual way of thinking:
-I have an agnostic view (which is a candid friend of christianity).
-I have a catholic view.

I started out as a baptised ‘cultural catholic’. Often I think this played no part whatsoever in this search. But I wonder… I was pretty quick to turn to monotheism. What if my liking of catholicism is because of my cultural catholic past? I’d like to think it’s because of my research.

In all this seeking, it seems you are being led back home. For you are a Catholic, you are merely a lapsed/seeking Catholic. I highly recommend you read G. K. Chesterton’s books, especially “The Catholic Church and Conversion,” “Orthodoxy,” “The Everlasting Man.” He was a prolific writer who wrote with wit, wisdom and great insight into the human heart.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Out of all the world religions, from Hinduism to Zoroastrianism, why do you trust that the Christian message and interpretation of God is correct?

Judaism claims he was a false Messiah, and Islam claims Christ was merely a prophet whose message was corrupted. Why follow Christ over the other so called ‘gods’ and other ways of interpretation God (such as spiritualism over religion)?

Because the resurrection of Jesus is one of the most reliably attested events in ancient history.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

All of the apostles with the exception of John died for their beliefs.

Unless they actually saw and heard the things they claim to, they aren’t going to be willing to die for the cause.

And there are roughly 300+ Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Christ. God told us what was going to happen and how it was going to happen. And then they actually happened.

And how about the nature of God described by the Catholic Church? It’s complicated and it SHOULD be complicated, IMO. If we as created beings are made of body, soul and spirit, and we are, then how much more complicated must be the nature of He who created body, soul and spirit? The Trinity is hard for our finite minds to process…and it should be.

Also, the pedigree of the Catholic Church. It dates back to the apostles, which actually stood with the Lord. It wasn’t created by men a few hundred years ago, but by God Himself.

There are other reasons but those are the main ones.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

…

I’ve been reading about these things for the last seven years, I’m too much of a doubting Thomas really to actually convert on the spot. At the moment I have this dual way of thinking:
-I have an agnostic view (which is a candid friend of christianity).
-I have a catholic view.

I started out as a baptised ‘cultural catholic’. Often I think this played no part whatsoever in this search. But I wonder… I was pretty quick to turn to monotheism. What if my liking of catholicism is because of my cultural catholic past? I’d like to think it’s because of my research.

Your studies and mine are of immense value. Thomas was the Find-Outer. God being a tip-top forward planner knew an excellent place and time to get you born!

 

[eddie_too]

thorough and objective study will reveal the RCC makes the most sense.

young ludovicus, i enjoyed reading your post. i do not doubt that reason and your search for objective truth are important to your spiritual progress. however, when you disclosed that you were a cultural catholic through your earliest experiences and then you wondered if that might have something to do with your leaning toward one of the Churches that are apostolic and Christ-centered, i thought, maybe also helping you move in that direction is God’s grace. it sounded like you might have been baptized and that most certainly creates an infusion of God’s grace in to the human soul. i would not dismiss quickly or lightly the fact that you received baptism. the sacraments (the seven) work independently to provide grace to the recipients of them and their effects are not limited by the faith of the recipient or that of the person who provides the sacrament.

in my faith, you received an indelible mark on your soul when you were baptized. i do not take that lightly and deeply believe that it was a immediate infusion of God’s life and could only continue to be a source of many worldly encounters that are being used by God to draw you back to him.

just my two cents, but i certainly enjoyed you sharing your faith journey with us.

 

[Young_Ludovicus]

thorough and objective study will reveal the RCC makes the most sense.

young ludovicus, i enjoyed reading your post. i do not doubt that reason and your search for objective truth are important to your spiritual progress. however, when you disclosed that you were a cultural catholic through your earliest experiences and then you wondered if that might have something to do with your leaning toward one of the Churches that are apostolic and Christ-centered, i thought, maybe also helping you move in that direction is God’s grace. it sounded like you might have been baptized and that most certainly creates an infusion of God’s grace in to the human soul. i would not dismiss quickly or lightly the fact that you received baptism. the sacraments (the seven) work independently to provide grace to the recipients of them and their effects are not limited by the faith of the recipient or that of the person who provides the sacrament.

in my faith, you received an indelible mark on your soul when you were baptized. i do not take that lightly and deeply believe that it was a immediate infusion of God’s life and could only continue to be a source of many worldly encounters that are being used by God to draw you back to him.

just my two cents, but i certainly enjoyed you sharing your faith journey with us.

I’ve often thought about that. That my craving for God and the church is God’s grace through my baptism. But I’m trying to be logical about it. Though at some point you’ll have to take a leap of faith.

I was baptised, did my communion and was confirmed. But the times I went to church was basically once, maybe twice a year. My parents weren’t practicing. My mother a bit, but she’s also into New Age. My grandparents weren’t even all that religious as they gave religion up. My grandfather from my mother’s side being an exception as he believed in Jesus but didn’t think there was a heaven.

So safe to say that I was raised pretty secular.

 

[LethalMouse]

1. If I reason out how people should live in the most efficientway possible, I come to the same conclusions as God.
2. Delving into Catholicism I found no belief that contradicts common sense/science
3. Within Christianity being Catholic/Orthodox are the only ones that make historical sense from a secular standpoint (mormons do to but a bit more diluted IMO)
4. Christianity/Judaism makes much sense in regard to the evolution of religions being corrected by a supreme being following history.

 

[Abu]

Zadeth #1
Why follow Christ over the other so called ‘gods’ and other ways of interpretation God (such as spiritualism over religion)?

Young Ludovicus #26
At the moment I have this dual way of thinking:
-I have an agnostic view (which is a candid friend of christianity).
-I have a catholic view.

FIRST:
The historian Eusebius in his Church history, 4.3, 1.2, tells us that writing about 123 A.D., apologist Quadratus cited those in his day who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus of Nazareth – prime witnesses – long after the miracles, crucifixion and death of the Son of God. No other religious founder claimed to be God and proved it – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42;Jn11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

The evidence of history which attests Christ as the Son of God, sent to redeem humanity, also attests, to this day, to His reality and His truths through the facts of the miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the medically attested miracles that take place at Lourdes, and the Eucharistic miracles.

SECOND:
That Christ’s Church is Catholic and teaches infallibly follows from His mandate to Her as Christ Himself made St Peter His Papal Supremacist:
**“You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18) **
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis].

Again, to St. Peter alone, in Jn., 21:15-17, He committed the whole flock, saying: “Feed my lambs . . . feed my sheep;” also, in Lk., 22:32: “I have prayed for thee (again in the singular) that thy faith fail not; and do thou . . . confirm my brethren.”

No one can refute these facts of history.

Does this help?

 

[Lucretius]

Out of all the world religions, from Hinduism to Zoroastrianism, why do you trust that the Christian message and interpretation of God is correct?

Judaism claims he was a false Messiah, and Islam claims Christ was merely a prophet whose message was corrupted. Why follow Christ over the other so called ‘gods’ and other ways of interpretation God (such as spiritualism over religion)?

I can understand the Orthodox Jewish position somewhat, but I reject it because I have faith in Jesus Christ and His fulfillment of the Orthodox Jewish religion (to repeat: I don’t see Christ as contradiction Judaism in itself much, but rather certain view in Judaism). The differences between the Orthodox Jewish religion and the Catholic Church is whether you have faith or not in Jesus Ben Joseph.

Islam, on the other hand, I find conspiratorial and contradictory regarding their positions on Jesus of Nazareth: the simple fact is that Jesus didn’t teach what Muhammad taught, and they have to appeal to the intelligent design theory of history in order to justify their errors. Islam, to me, is just a simplified, and rather too simplified, version of the Church.

Hinduism is basically to India what Paganism was to the West. The Confucian-Taolist-Traditional synthesis is Chinese Paganism, as is Shinto to Japan (although Japan has the best architecture hands down ).

To me, there is only the Church, heresy (aka fragmented Christianity), post-Temple Judaism (aka unfulfilled Christianity), and paganism (aka unfulfilled Christianity).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Servant19]

I can understand the Orthodox Jewish position somewhat, but I reject it because I have faith in Jesus Christ and His fulfillment of the Orthodox Jewish religion (to repeat: I don’t see Christ as contradiction Judaism in itself much, but rather certain view in Judaism). The differences between the Orthodox Jewish religion and the Catholic Church is whether you have faith or not in Jesus Ben Joseph.

Islam, on the other hand, I find conspiratorial and contradictory regarding their positions on Jesus of Nazareth: the simple fact is that Jesus didn’t teach what Muhammad taught, and they have to appeal to the intelligent design theory of history in order to justify their errors. Islam, to me, is just a simplified, and rather too simplified, version of the Church.

Hinduism is basically to India what Paganism was to the West. The Confucian-Taolist-Traditional synthesis is Chinese Paganism, as is Shinto to Japan (although Japan has the best architecture hands down ).

To me, there is only the Church, heresy (aka fragmented Christianity), post-Temple Judaism (aka unfulfilled Christianity), and paganism (aka unfulfilled Christianity).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

One could easily ascribe that Muhammad did teach what MOSES taught, and so did Jesus, except some doctrines which were developed later in Christianity contradicted what Moses taught…

.

 

[Lucretius]

One could easily ascribe that Muhammad did teach what MOSES taught, and so did Jesus, except some doctrines which were developed later in Christianity contradicted what Moses taught…

Except that we have records otherwise of what Jesus taught. To put it another way, I don’t know if I would say Mohammed contradicted Moses, but he did contradict Christ

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Goya]

Out of all the world religions, from Hinduism to Zoroastrianism, why do you trust that the Christian message and interpretation of God is correct?

Judaism claims he was a false Messiah, and Islam claims Christ was merely a prophet whose message was corrupted. Why follow Christ over the other so called ‘gods’ and other ways of interpretation God (such as spiritualism over religion)?

It’s an interesting question.

The itchy thing that most people dance around, is that religion isn’t like a smorgasbord for most of us–it’s not like folks with an empty plate (blank slate) line up, look at what each dish (religion) has to offer, and decides what to put on their plates.

The fact is, most believers of every stripe, were born into a specific belief system.

As we mature, and grow old, it is incumbent upon us to question and challenge the belief system of our inheritance–and part of that, entails checking–or at least admitting to–the phenomena known as “confirmation bias.”

Obviously I can’t, and certainly don’t, pretend to speak for everyone–but, confirmation bias duly acknowledged yet notwithstanding…

…I questioned…I prayed…I challenged…I dug…and prayed some more…and prayed, and prayed, and prayed some more…

…and found Truth to be comfortably within the Catholicism.

But I’m no authority. I make no claims to authority.

The best I can say, is that “…I have it on good authority–nay, on divine authority–that Catholicism is True.”

FWIW.

 

[Michael_Allen]

Out of all the world religions, from Hinduism to Zoroastrianism, why do you trust that the Christian message and interpretation of God is correct?

Personally I don’t think I can be sure it is correct. I don’t have certainty myself.

But I do know it has been informative to how my life has been shaped, and that shaping has been positive (more compassionate).

I also like to think about key messages of other faiths, as I do find that other faiths can add thoughtful ideas. For example, there is little in Judeo-Christian belief about compassion extending to non-human animals (and indeed the balance is more towards the killing and sacrifice of animals) where Buddhism more explicitly extends compassion outside of the human sphere. Likewise I find Jainism has a more developed sense of non-violence than is apparent in Christianity (the Gospels by themselves more strongly support non-violence, but that is not supported by other scripture).

How about you Zadeth - where do you stand on the range of insights from different religions?

 

[Goya]

…Islam, a off-shoot of Christianity…

Not to pick nits, but I would say Islam is much more of a reaction to Christianity, than an off-shoot of it. As you pointed out, Mohammed was never a Christian, never in the Church, such that his manufactured belief system could be considered an off-shoot.

In contrast to Protestantism, for e.g., Luther wasn’t just a member of the Church–he was a priest. Hence one you could say “Protestantism is an offshoot of Christianity”.

Similarly, Christ didn’t make a religion out of whole cloth–He was a practical Jew, as were all of His Apostles. Hence one could say "Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism" (though it would be more accurate to say that Christianity is the fulfillment of [the promises of] Judaism, but at least, from a historical perspective, ‘off shoot’ could work).

But not Islam.

Contrary to what our separated brethren would like to maintain, we are not a ‘religion of the book’–or ‘people of the book’–as Protestantism and Islam claim to be.

We are a religion of a person–Christ Jesus (who, it should be well worth noting, did not leave us ‘a book’, nor suggest that we were to become a ‘people of the book’, or otherwise prophesy anything of the sort. He left us a Church; His Church). Or as the CCC puts it, “a religion of the Word of God”–reference to ‘the Logos’, which of course, is not limited to the written word of God, known as ‘scripture’, but rather to the person–the 2nd person of the Trinity, the Son of God, God incarnate–Jesus Christ, as best articulated in John 1:1:

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

fwiw.