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

[HelenRose]

P.S.

I so wish to give you the joy of possessing
the treasure that is my religion - Catholicism.

The Church is my joy, my love and my peace.

But, as St. Teresa said, “It is not mine to give.”

God bless you in your journey and may it always lead you to God.

 

[Thorolfr]

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 beauty, for truth and for goodness.

Thank you for your comments here. Starting out by finding ways to serve others and especially the poor would seem to be a good way to get beyond an overly intellectualized and cerebral way of being a person of faith.

 

[rossum]

Hinduism and Buddhism, for instance, don’t have that direct call to evangelize.

I cannot speak for Hinduism, but Buddhism does have such a call. Compassion requires us to spread the truth to our fellow men.

We do not always use the same set of methods as Christianity, but we do spread the word in our own way.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

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.

They support the principle of freedom when it suits them…

 

[commenter]

I cannot speak for Hinduism, but Buddhism does have such a call. Compassion requires us to spread the truth to our fellow men.

We do not always use the same set of methods as Christianity, but we do spread the word in our own way.

rossum

I stand corrected if wrong (and I often am wrong on CAF), and would strongly urge those who want more informed information about other beliefs to listen to rossum, and others who hold those beliefs.

The information I have about Eastern Faiths is that yes, people do want to spread truth to all people, but not especially to convert others to Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. For example the quote from the Dalai Lama referenced in earlier posts. The spread of Buddhism is mainly to try to encourage others to become better what-they-already-are, not necessarily to get them to formally become Buddhists, though that is very welcome too.

Inherent within Christianity there is a drive not only to spread the ideas of Christ, but to lead persons to formally, explicitly become Christians; and give up other religions. (Christianity also teaches us to love persons who don’t become Christians; the Vatican II document on religious liberty is relevant.) Some of the opponents of Christian evangelism are pushing the idea of NOT trying to convert people, but over emphasizing “Christ the ethical teacher” and spreading that - not “Christ as Savior”. Christians who are “orthodox” are opposing that, as undermining true Christian evangelism.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

Well said.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

In point of fact, Muhammad adopted elements of Christianity. The religion that prevailed in the Mideast before Muhammad was not Islam. Muhammad used the sword to annihilate that religion and establish his own, which was a perversion of the Old and New Testaments. Islam is really , as Belloc pointed out, a heresy more than an original religion. It’s roots are located in the Old and New Testaments, and the Koran is superimposed much as Joseph Smith superimposed his “discovered” tablets to establish Mormonism.

The Christian regions conquered by Islam failed to keep their religion alive because they were not allowed to do so. This contrasts sharply with the success of Christianity in cultures that tolerated or barely tolerated Christianity. When Islam invaded Spain, much of Spain fell to Islam by the sword. Islam then ventured into Western Europe and was only held back by the likes of Charles Martel’s army. Eventually the victories of Islam in Spain were reversed.

In a free market of religions, Christianity is likely to win against Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, much as it won over the Roman Empire which found in Christianity a far more respectable religion that it had known under the pagan emperors. If Christianity was allowed into the Middle East today, instead of being vigorously persecuted by radical Islamists, it would have a chance to survive and convert whole nations. That may be the one reason that it is being so vigorously persecuted today … the fear that it will win out in the end.

 

[rossum]

For example the quote from the Dalai Lama referenced in earlier posts. The spread of Buddhism is mainly to try to encourage others to become better what-they-already-are, not necessarily to get them to formally become Buddhists, though that is very welcome too.

Yes. The Christian method is usually to replace other religions with Christianity. The Buddhist method is more to add useful elements of Buddhism to any local religions it encounters. Certain practices may be strongly discouraged: human or animal sacrifice for example, but by and large the existing gods carry on, as with Taoism in China or Shinto in Japan.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes. The Christian method is usually to replace other religions with Christianity. The Buddhist method is more to add useful elements of Buddhism to any local religions it encounters. Certain practices may be strongly discouraged: human or animal sacrifice for example, but by and large the existing gods carry on, as with Taoism in China or Shinto in Japan.

rossum

Since you have said on other occasions that the Buddhist gods can be safely ignored, it would be helpful to know how a Buddhist God is distinguished from the Christian God, who cannot be safely ignored as far as Christians are concerned.

 

[commenter]

Yes. The Christian method is usually to replace other religions with Christianity. The Buddhist method is more to add useful elements of Buddhism to any local religions it encounters.
rossum

And the 2 secularist methods?
1.) to flood the agenda. They don’t want anyone to seek genuine “conversion”, but keep shopping. “I want a little from here, a little from there”. They redefine Christ not as Savior but as “Great Moral Teacher”. Take a little from him, take a sampling from other moral teachers, too, whatever fits YOU. YOU are on the throne.

2.) The Secularists have managed to avoid having secularism, or secular humanism, being examined as a religion. They present themselves as a neutral, impartial platform. Their dogmas are not excluded, but incorporated into public schools. No one scrutinizes them; they are the lens through which every other religion is scrutinized and measured. This is the “objective forum” through which the media evaluates everyone else’s “bias” and limitations. And now they have most of the government, too.

 

[rossum]

Since you have said on other occasions that the Buddhist gods can be safely ignored, it would be helpful to know how a Buddhist God is distinguished from the Christian God, who cannot be safely ignored as far as Christians are concerned.

The aim of Buddhism is to attain nirvana. The Christian God offers heaven, not nirvana. Buddhism already has heavens, and hells, so switching one version of heaven for a different version of heaven is not a very big change.

The Christian God does not offer nirvana. Hence He is not of any use in following the path to nirvana. Some of His advice is good: “You shall not kill”; other parts of his advice is not good, “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.”

The good advice is repeated in Buddhist scriptures anyway.

rossum

 

[thetazlord]

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?

You aren’t alone, & it’s very normal - and healthy - to reflect to find out if what you believe is actually true vs. simply believing because you were raised with that belief. The latter is why many non-christians become Christians, and - sadly - why many people who were raised Christian walk away from the faith. I would recommend two resources: 1) “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel; and 2) “Not really ‘of’ us: why do children of Christian parents abandon the faith?” by Steve Christie. The former is an apologetic resource to reassure you that what you were taught about Christianity reallly is historically true. The latter explains from a Biblical perspective “why” Christian kids, regardless of their denomination, stops believing in Christianity. Both can be found on Amazon.com.

 

[Lucy107]

For example the quote from the Dalai Lama referenced in earlier posts. The spread of Buddhism is mainly to try to encourage others to become better what-they-already-are, not necessarily to get them to formally become Buddhists, though that is very welcome too.

The Dalai Lama saying that is so often taken out of context. He takes issue with Buddhism in the West being treated as a mere fashion, and how in the process, the actual Buddhist teachings are being perverted and people mislead and conflict ensues.

E.g.

[CND 01/02/01] The Dalai Lama spoke out against the current craze for Buddhism in Europe and said he opposed religions trying to convert one another, AFP reported on Saturday. In reply to the fashion for Buddhism in France, the Dalai Lama said: "I believe that the French, who are Christian by culture and ancestry, should remain Christian. It is better to stick to your own traditional values … It is only if, after mature reflection, you believe that Buddhism could offer you more than Christianity that you should become a Buddhist."
www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln260/DalaiLama/DL01-1.htm

Some of the statements of the Dalai Lama against conversions and the work of the missionaries are causing confusion and opposition among many Christians. In an attempt to condemn bad proselytism, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism said he was against conversions and changing from one religion to another. In this way, his position is likely to be seen as support for the policies of the radical Hindu groups and the anti-conversion laws that exist in some Indian states. Card. Oswald Gracias, who personally knows the Dalai Lama, comments to AsiaNews that the freedom to change religion is a fundamental human right and can not be obscured for any convenience.

On 23 January, the Dalai Lama visited the St Xavier’s College in Mumbai, at the invitation of the Dean, Fr. Frazer Mascarenhas. Before students and professors, he gave a speech on “Ethics: educating the heart and mind.”

During his speech, he touched on the issue of conversions. “I do not like conversions,” he said, because they have a negative impact [on society]. "The two parties, that of the converted and the community abandoned by him, begin to fight."

As an example of the negative influence produced by conversions, he cited the violence against the Australian missionary Graham Staines, burnt alive in his car with his two sons, and the violence and destruction still ongoing in Orissa and Karnataka. The Dalai Lama has, however, reiterated that religious freedom - the freedom to practice ones faith - should be guaranteed to all.
/…/
asianews.it/news-en/The-Dalai-Lama-says-no-to-conversions.-Card-Gracias:-Changing-religion-is-a-right-27075.html

And anyone interested in this, please read this whole interview with the Dalai Lama on just this matter, to see where exactly he is coming from:
hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes111.html

I would like to share some of my thoughts with all of you gathered here, brothers and sisters in Buddhism. First of all, Buddhism corresponds to a new tradition, a religion which did not previously exist in the West. Consequently, it is normal that all those who are interested in Buddhism in its Tibetan form would also like to be informed about and continue to study other religions and traditions. This is perfectly natural. However, for those who are seriously thinking of converting to Buddhism, that is, of changing your religion, it is very important to take every precaution. This must not be done lightly. Indeed, if one converts without having thought about it in a mature way, this often creates difficulties and leads to great inner confusion. I would therefore advise all who would like to convert to Buddhism to think carefully before doing so.

/…/

 

[Lucy107]

Hinduism and Buddhism, for instance, don’t have that direct call to evangelize.

Some of their schools do, some don’t.

Generally, Eastern traditions tend to start with the premise that it’s up to the individual person first and foremost: if you really want to make spiritual progress, you will make an effort yourself to find suitable teachers, and then take things from there.
They focus first and foremost on an individual’s desire to make spiritual progress. The whole traditional culture is built around the concept of desiring mastery and working for it (whether in worldly pursuits like business, the martial arts, or spirituality).

In contrast, evangelizing monotheistic religions tend to invite people to join a religion for the sake of avoiding God’s wrath; making spiritual progress is not high on their list of priorities.

 

[Lucy107]

The Christian God offers heaven, not nirvana.

What exactly do you mean by “nirvana”? (I ask because I know different Buddhist schools differ on it a bit.)

 

[commenter]

In contrast, evangelizing monotheistic religions tend to invite people to join a religion for the sake of avoiding God’s wrath; making spiritual progress is not high on their list of priorities.

To my knowledge, I have not known anyone who became, or who grew up and flourish as Christian, “to avoid God’s wrath”. I have known many people who find that God loves them, and they love God; they find that loving God, and loving people, reinforce each other. They also are aware sin exists; its consequences are all around us. That’s part of reality, but not the totality of it. Ongoing conversion (to Christ) is also part of reality. So is Mother Theresa.

But their identity is as a child of a loving Father. “Spiritual progress” is another word for movement. If spiritual progress helps you move closer to God it’s good; if you are moving away from God, it’s bad. It’s not a priority in itself. Loving God, and your neighbor, is a priority.

 

[Lucy107]

To my knowledge, I have not known anyone who became, or who grew up and flourish as Christian, “to avoid God’s wrath”. I have known many people who find that God loves them, and they love God; they find that loving God, and loving people, reinforce each other. They also are aware sin exists; its consequences are all around us. That’s part of reality, but not the totality of it. Ongoing conversion (to Christ) is also part of reality. So is Mother Theresa.

But their identity is as a child of a loving Father. “Spiritual progress” is another word for movement. If spiritual progress helps you move closer to God it’s good; if you are moving away from God, it’s bad. It’s not a priority in itself. Loving God, and your neighbor, is a priority.

When Christians proselytize non-Christians, what do they tell them?
Something along the lines of:
“Convert, for the end is nigh!”
“Repent before it’s too late!”

Proselytizing stands and falls with the belief in God’s wrath.
Without the threat of God’s wrath, there is no point in proselytizing.

 

[commenter]

When Christians proselytize non-Christians, what do they tell them?
Something along the lines of:
“Convert, for the end is nigh!”
“Repent before it’s too late!”

Proselytizing stands and falls with the belief in God’s wrath.
Without the threat of God’s wrath, there is no point in proselytizing.

Christians, and also Hindus, who knew Mother Theresa might say they have a different experience with Christians who evangelize.

 

[rossum]

What exactly do you mean by “nirvana”? (I ask because I know different Buddhist schools differ on it a bit.)

All descriptions of nirvana are incorrect. Vimalakirti has fewer errors than most:

Then the Bodhisattva Manjushri said to Vimalakirti, “We have all given our teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the the entrance into the principle of nonduality.”

Thereupon Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

The Bodhisattva Manjushri applauded Vimalakirti: “Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the nonduality of the Bodhisattvas.”

– Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra, Chapter Nine

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The aim of Buddhism is to attain nirvana. The Christian God offers heaven, not nirvana. Buddhism already has heavens, and hells, so switching one version of heaven for a different version of heaven is not a very big change.

The Christian God does not offer nirvana. Hence He is not of any use in following the path to nirvana. Some of His advice is good: “You shall not kill”; other parts of his advice is not good, “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.”

The good advice is repeated in Buddhist scriptures anyway.

rossum

This is not the answer I was hoping for. My question is, how do you differentiate the Christian God from the Buddhist gods, who can be safely ignored.as you have said in other threads? What is the essence of a god in Buddhism? What powers does a Buddhist god have? Are Buddhist gods eternal? Do Buddhist gods come into existence? How or why do they come into existence? What relations do they have with humans? Can they help humans fulfill their destiny. Do they create the universe and everything in it? Are they omniscient? Are they omnipotent? Are they infinite.

All these questions are answered in Christian theology.

Are they also answered in Buddhist theology?

Why do we hear so much about Buddhist atheism?

Christian atheism is, of course, a tautology.