Why should I be a Christian instead of some other religion?

[tonyrey]

The only religions that have as their foundation divine revelation are the Jews and the Christians.

All the others are either deceptions of the evil one, or made up in the minds of men.
Granted, there is a bit of truth in some of them, such as the golden rule.

It seems very unlikely that God has inspired only those who are Jews and Christians. His intervention would be restricted by accidents of birth…

 

[Kliska]

In philosophy we talk about two separate issues in different ways. First you have living vs. dead options. If you are born into an Orthodox Jewish family and as an infant and child are NEVER exposed to Islam, or hear about it, or read about, or know a Muslim family, then Islam is a “dead option” for you. It’s not an option because the individual doesn’t even know it exists. However, there are 2 responses to dead options; a whimpering response vs. a practical response.

A whimpering response says; the individual is perpetually “stuck” in only the culture they know and will not and cannot change. A practical response says that whimpering is foolish and ignorant; you make dead options into living options by living life, by being curious and learning (and of course we supernaturalists also believe in revelation). As the “Orthodox Jewish Child” grows, they have a philosophical responsibility to explore, to learn, to grow. That doesn’t mean they are intellectually or philosophically bankrupt if they stay in Jewish Orthodoxy IF they know why they are Jewish and not Muslim.

I know why I’m not Muslim, or Jewish, or Atheist, or Hindu, etc… and I know why I am indeed Christian.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6

Does any founder of any other religion claim that much?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I agree. But I feel like I’ve been seeking for the truth all my life and am never certain that I’ve finally found it.

Truth! I think that no one should ever stop seeking for it, Thorolfr. We probably will never find it, but in the process we will become better and better.

Perhaps you need to clarify to yourself what you understand by the word “truth”. Is it something that you find when you study mathematics, for example; or is it what Jesus meant when He said “I am the Truth”, or something that everybody accepts or has to accept, or is it something else?

You were asking for a kind of philosophical argument to discern which religion should be chosen. So, I guess you understand “truth” as some kind of vision of reality (a “theory”, in the Greek sense). And as you mention “certainty”, I guess you are looking for rational evidences, which can be found in Mathematics or in Logic (in other disciplines we just have approximations to high performance, and we are continuously improving on that). In philosophy!.. Well; there are a great variety of different doctrines opposed to each other. You would need to start anew with a set of premises (axioms) universally admitted. From there, you should have to proceed rigorously until you get to your desired conclusions, whichever they might be. The problem is that those universally accepted axioms do not exist yet. And even if they existed so that you could obtain those conclusions, you would be surprised to see that not everybody would accept them, no matter how clear they were to you. Some would even combat them more or less aggressively, trying to refute you or to shut you up. My guess is that after all that effort, you would still wonder if you had found the “truth” or not.

But…, I don’t think you are looking for a universally accepted theory, are you?

 

[Partinobodycula]

Truth! I think that no one should ever stop seeking for it, Thorolfr. We probably will never find it, but in the process we will become better and better.

Perhaps you need to clarify to yourself what you understand by the word “truth”. Is it something that you find when you study mathematics, for example; or is it what Jesus meant when He said “I am the Truth”, or something that everybody accepts or has to accept, or is it something else?

You were asking for a kind of philosophical argument to discern which religion should be chosen. So, I guess you understand “truth” as some kind of vision of reality (a “theory”, in the Greek sense). And as you mention “certainty”, I guess you are looking for rational evidences, which can be found in Mathematics or in Logic (in other disciplines we just have approximations to high performance, and we are continuously improving on that). In philosophy!.. Well; there are a great variety of different doctrines opposed to each other. You would need to start anew with a set of premises (axioms) universally admitted. From there, you should have to proceed rigorously until you get to your desired conclusions, whichever they might be. The problem is that those universally accepted axioms do not exist yet. And even if they existed so that you could obtain those conclusions, you would be surprised to see that not everybody would accept them, no matter how clear they were to you. Some would even combat them more or less aggressively, trying to refute you or to shut you up. My guess is that after all that effort, you would still wonder if you had found the “truth” or not.

JuanFlorencio, there is a great deal of truth in your post, and so I am very much compelled to agree with it, except for one thing. There is one fundamental truth to which all men can come. They may not all do so, but it’s none-the-less within them. That one simple truth is, I am. I don’t know from whence I came, but I do know that I am. Everything else, from my suffering to my faith, is simply about defining what I am.

This is why it says Christian Solipsist at the top right of this post. One represents all that I can ever be certain of, I am. The other represents all that I can ever aspire to, to be like Christ. To give all, in the service of others.

I very much agree with the Dalai Lama’s sentiments posted above. Wisdom it seems, can be found in many faiths.

 

[Dorothy]

It seems very unlikely that God has inspired only those who are Jews and Christians. His intervention would be restricted by accidents of birth…

You are correct. He loves all people and gives them different gifts and talents. I didn’t mean to sound elite.

When they go through their lives living by the natural law they have as well as they can they are fulfilling His purpose.

And those blessed with the gift of faith in the Lord have the responsibility of using it to shine His Light to all.

 

[tonyrey]

You are correct. He loves all people and gives them different gifts and talents. I didn’t mean to sound elite.

When they go through their lives living by the natural law they have as well as they can they are fulfilling His purpose.

And those blessed with the gift of faith in the Lord have the responsibility of using it to shine His Light to all.

Indeed, Dorothy. This forum gives us an excellent opportunity to do precisely that…

 

[commenter]

All religions have the same fundamental moral and spiritual truths:

Aldous Huxley* - The Perennial Philosophy
*

In “The Everlasting Man” and “Orthodoxy” G. K. Chesterton describes the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western “religion”. It’s not like comparing apples to oranges, it’s like comparing apples to screwdrivers. It’s really misleading to use the same word for both.

The reason for the huge promotion of Eastern religions in Western countries is not to make Westerners accept Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. It’s to undermine their Christianity. Young adults are persuaded that the morality, dogmas, absolutes of truth they learned about in their Catholic, Lutheran, etc upbringing were all just accidental, historical developments, no more sacred than the color of one’s skin or their accent. By putting Hinduism up on a platform it doesn’t belong, courses in Comparative Religion don’t make Christians become Hindus, it helps them accept legalized abortion.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In “The Everlasting Man” and “Orthodoxy” G. K. Chesterton describes the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western “religion”. It’s not like comparing apples to oranges, it’s like comparing apples to screwdrivers. It’s really misleading to use the same word for both.

The reason for the huge promotion of Eastern religions in Western countries is not to make Westerners accept Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. It’s to undermine their Christianity. Young adults are persuaded that the morality, dogmas, absolutes of truth they learned about in their Catholic, Lutheran, etc upbringing were all just accidental, historical developments, no more sacred than the color of one’s skin or their accent. By putting Hinduism up on a platform it doesn’t belong, courses in Comparative Religion don’t make Christians become Hindus, it helps them accept legalized abortion.

Moral relativism is the end game. Lump all the religions together as one and the game is won. That could be considered the subtle mantra of all sociology of religion.

 

[meltzerboy]

In “The Everlasting Man” and “Orthodoxy” G. K. Chesterton describes the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western “religion”. It’s not like comparing apples to oranges, it’s like comparing apples to screwdrivers. It’s really misleading to use the same word for both.

The reason for the huge promotion of Eastern religions in Western countries is not to make Westerners accept Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. It’s to undermine their Christianity. Young adults are persuaded that the morality, dogmas, absolutes of truth they learned about in their Catholic, Lutheran, etc upbringing were all just accidental, historical developments, no more sacred than the color of one’s skin or their accent. By putting Hinduism up on a platform it doesn’t belong, courses in Comparative Religion don’t make Christians become Hindus, it helps them accept legalized abortion.

FYI, both Hinduism and Buddhism (Eastern religions) are strongly opposed to abortion. Judaism, on the other hand, a Western religion, while in the main opposing abortion, maintains certain exceptions.

 

[commenter]

FYI, both Hinduism and Buddhism (Eastern religions) are strongly opposed to abortion. Judaism, on the other hand, a Western religion, while in the main opposing abortion, maintains certain exceptions.

I was aware of the position of Hinduism and Buddhism. If Western Christians were to study them in detail, they would be aware of the importance they place on sexual purity, for instance. But young Western people don’t study them in detail, they are superficially exposed to them in high schools, colleges, and the media.

They are told to see them as other “religions”. See, they are right here on the chart, alongside Christianity, etc. The message they get is that Christian religious norms towards purity are just cultural - you say tomato, I say tomoto - and of no universal authority. Thus they fall for the relativist line, on purity, and other things. They don’t fall into actual Buddhism, they may fall into a bed.

I don’t object to the Dalai Lama being called a good leader, I object to him being called a good religious leader. It’s a different kind of thing.

 

[meltzerboy]

I was aware of the position of Hinduism and Buddhism. If Western Christians were to study them in detail, they would be aware of the importance they place on sexual purity, for instance. But young Western people don’t study them in detail, they are superficially exposed to them in high schools, colleges, and the media.

They are told to see them as other “religions”. See, they are right here on the chart, alongside Christianity, etc. The message they get is that Christian religious norms towards purity are just cultural - you say tomato, I say tomoto - and of no universal authority. Thus they fall for the relativist line, on purity, and other things. They don’t fall into actual Buddhism, they may fall into a bed.

I don’t object to the Dalai Lama being called a good leader, I object to him being called a good religious leader. It’s a different kind of thing.

I understand your point. Therefore, if Hinduism were studied in depth, would that be better and would you accept it as a religion with different views from those of Christianity?

 

[Thorolfr]

In “The Everlasting Man” and “Orthodoxy” G. K. Chesterton describes the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western “religion”. It’s not like comparing apples to oranges, it’s like comparing apples to screwdrivers. It’s really misleading to use the same word for both.

The reason for the huge promotion of Eastern religions in Western countries is not to make Westerners accept Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. It’s to undermine their Christianity. Young adults are persuaded that the morality, dogmas, absolutes of truth they learned about in their Catholic, Lutheran, etc upbringing were all just accidental, historical developments, no more sacred than the color of one’s skin or their accent. By putting Hinduism up on a platform it doesn’t belong, courses in Comparative Religion don’t make Christians become Hindus, it helps them accept legalized abortion.

What about the religions of Native Americans? Are those also, in your opinion, not comparable to Christianity in terms of being religions and not worthy of respect? The Franciscans who converted the Mayas and other natives in what is now Mexico apparently did not think so. According to Inga Clendinnen, *Ambiguous Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1517-1570 *(Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 47-48:

[The Franciscans] worked within a context of coercion. Among Indian commoners, adults were obliged to attend weekly, and children daily instruction in the catechism. More importantly, those natives in authority were compelled to accept baptism, while the sons of native lords were gathered up and sequestered in the schools attached to every monastery, to be drilled in the catechism, in Christian-Hispanic patterns of living, and in contempt for their father’s ways.…Indians were baptized after minimal instruction: one Franciscan recorded the feat of a brother in baptizing ‘four or five or six thousand’ in a day.

 

[Thorolfr]

In “The Everlasting Man” and “Orthodoxy” G. K. Chesterton describes the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western “religion”. It’s not like comparing apples to oranges, it’s like comparing apples to screwdrivers. It’s really misleading to use the same word for both.

The reason for the huge promotion of Eastern religions in Western countries is not to make Westerners accept Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. It’s to undermine their Christianity. Young adults are persuaded that the morality, dogmas, absolutes of truth they learned about in their Catholic, Lutheran, etc upbringing were all just accidental, historical developments, no more sacred than the color of one’s skin or their accent. By putting Hinduism up on a platform it doesn’t belong, courses in Comparative Religion don’t make Christians become Hindus, it helps them accept legalized abortion.

So you think that Eastern religions are being promoted to undermine Christians in Western countries? But what about the huge promotion of Christianity in many parts of the world by Christian missionaries? Surely they’re not trying to undermine the religions already practiced there are they? We wouldn’t want to undermine the faith of Muslims or adherents of native African religions or Buddhists or Hindus would we?

 

[rossum]

So how can I tell that my religion as a Christian is correct or mostly correct while those other religions are not correct?

This is an old question. When the Buddha was walking through India preaching, he came to the country of the Kalamas. They asked him this question, (paraphrasing): “A lot of preachers come to preach to us. Each preacher tells us that he alone is right and all the other preachers are wrong. How do we know which preachers are really right?”

The Buddha replied:

“Yes, Kalamas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea ‘this is our teacher’. Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. … Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

– Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, 3.65

Or, in short, “By their fruits shall you know them.”

rossum

 

[Thorolfr]

This is an old question. When the Buddha was walking through India preaching, he came to the country of the Kalamas. They asked him this question, (paraphrasing): “A lot of preachers come to preach to us. Each preacher tells us that he alone is right and all the other preachers are wrong. How do we know which preachers are really right?”

The Buddha replied:

“Yes, Kalamas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea ‘this is our teacher’. Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. … Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

– Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, 3.65

Or, in short, “By their fruits shall you know them.”

rossum

Great advice from the Buddha and from Jesus. The Parable of the Tree and Its Fruits is one way I use to decide whether I think that some teaching or belief really comes from God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So you think that Eastern religions are being promoted to undermine Christians in Western countries? But what about the huge promotion of Christianity in many parts of the world by Christian missionaries? Surely they’re not trying to undermine the religions already practiced there are they? We wouldn’t want to undermine the faith of Muslims or adherents of native African religions or Buddhists or Hindus would we?

Christianity has undermined every religion it has come into contact with by causing whole nations to give up their pagan ways. That is the mission Christ gave us, to spread the true gospel even among the nations who have a different gospel. How can you do that without in the end undermining other religions so that Christ may triumph not by the sword but by the gospel?

 

[Thorolfr]

Christianity has undermined every religion it has come into contact with by causing whole nations to give up their pagan ways.

So how did much of the Middle East and North Africa which used to be Christian become Muslim? BTW, although most of this area was conquered by Muslims in the 7th century, these Muslims only constituted the ruling class for a long time and it took several centuries until most of population was fully converted to Islam.

 

[commenter]

Christians evangelize because we were commanded by Christ to do so. That does not mean we do not respect the beliefs of other persons. Christianity spreads in Asia and Africa, for instance, only because Christians themselves are trying to spread their beliefs in Jesus as Savior, and out of love; even though Christians (and everybody else) sometimes do bad things because of our fallen nature.

Hinduism and Buddhism, for instance, don’t have that direct call to evangelize. The fact that they don’t especially try to spread their beliefs is constantly promoted by the media as a “virtue” for them, as opposed to Christianity which the media opposes. Unlike Christianity which is promoted by Christians, Eastern “religions” are promoted (superficially) in the West mostly by the media and academics, opposed to Christianity. Comparative religion classes or TV programs promoted by secularists (mostly not by Buddhists or Hindus) glorify Eastern beliefs in order to encourage Christians towards relativism, not towards Buddhism or Hinduism.

It is the secularists who are imposing their beliefs, and in Western countries they have the government, media and educational system to back them up. And there is no doubt which institution they are most opposed to.

 

[HelenRose]

As someone who has studied a lot about religion and history, I sometimes struggle with the question of why I should believe that my own faith as a Christian is the correct one. Growing up, I went to Sunday school and during the summers I sometimes went to Bible camps. Now as an adult, when I’m in church, certain rituals and hymns and certain stories about Jesus resonate with me and they sometimes even bring tears to my eyes.

But that I am now a Christian who feels an emotional connection to many of its rituals, creeds, hymns and stories is mostly due to the fact that I was raised a Christian in a Christian family and live in a part of world that has historically been Christian. That I am a Protestant Christian is mostly due to the fact that all of my ancestors for more than 400 years were Protestants who came from Scandinavia, England and parts of Germany that became Protestant during the Reformation. So, it is mostly an accident of history that I am now a Protestant Christian.

If I had been born some place in the Middle East or North Africa and belonged to a family from that part of the world, I would probably be a Muslim. If I had been born in India I might be a Hindu or if I had been born in Thailand, I might be a Buddhist instead. In each case, the Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist rituals, stories, and style of worship would probably resonate with me and feel most correct and most convincing to me because that would have been the faith I was raised in and the one my family belonged to.

I’m very interested in history, too, and can’t help reflecting that if I had been born in Scandinavia 1500 years ago, I would probably be worshipping Thor and Odin like my Viking ancestors and might not know anything about Christianity. If I had been born somewhere in what is now Mexico before 1517, I and none of my ancestors would ever have heard anything about Christianity and I would perhaps be practicing the religion of the Mayas or the Aztecs.

So how can I tell that my religion as a Christian is correct or mostly correct while those other religions are not correct?

I don’t suppose there is any way to answer your question because it is so very personal to you and it is your journey to make. For myself, I have answered this question by reading about Saint Mother Teresa of Calcutta and more important reading her own writings.

"I love my people very much, more than myself,
and so naturally I wish to give them the joy of possessing
the treasure that is my religion,
but, it is not mine to give,
nor can I force it on anyone.

So also no man, no government
has the right to prevent or force me, or anyone,
if I choose to embrace the religion that gives me
peace joy and love." ------ Mother Teresa

If you are not sure about what you should or should not believe, begin your search in the giving of yourself to the poor. Give yourself to the service of those around you. Follow in the footsteps of someone who lives and loves their religion.

Pattern your life in the search for peace, for joy and for love.