Bible Discussion: The Uniqueness Of Christianity

The Uniqueness Of Christianity
Posts: 20

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Voice Of Truth
2004-10-14 17:53:09 EST
Comparative Religions: The Uniqueness of Christianity

PETER KREEFT


---------
Any Christian who does apologetics must think about comparative
religions because the most popular of all objections against the
claims of Christianity today comes from this field. How insufferably
narrow-minded to claim that Christianity is the one true religion! God
just has to be more open-minded than that. This is the single most
common objection to the Faith today. Here are twelve of the commonest
forms of this objection, the odium of elitism, with answers to each.
---------




Ronald Knox once quipped that "the study of comparative religions is
the best way to become comparatively religious." The reason, as G. K.
Chesterton says, is that, according to most "scholars" of comparative
religion, "Christianity and Buddhism are very much alike, especially
Buddhism."

But any Christian who does apologetics must think about comparative
religions because the most popular of all objections against the
claims of Christianity today comes from this field. The objection is
not that Christianity is not true but that it is not the truth; not
that it is a false religion but that it is only a religion. The world
is a big place, the objector reasons; "different strokes for different
folks". How insufferably narrow-minded to claim that Christianity is
the one true religion! God just has to be more open-minded than that.

This is the single most common objection to the Faith today, for
"today" worships not God but equality. It fears being right where
others are wrong more than it fears being wrong. It worships democracy
and resents the fact that God is an absolute monarch. It has changed
the meaning of the word honor from being respected because you are
superior in some way to being accepted because you are not superior in
any way but just like us. The one unanswerable insult, the absolutely
worst name you can possibly call a person in today's society, is
"fanatic" especially "religious fanatic". If you confess at a
fashionable cocktail party that you are plotting to overthrow the
government, or that you are a PLO terrorist or a KGB spy, or that you
molest porcupines or bite bats' heads off, you will soon attract a
buzzing, fascinated, sympathetic circle of listeners. But if you
confess that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the
living God, you will find yourself suddenly alone, with a distinct
chill in the air.

Here are twelve of the commonest forms of this objection, the odium of
elitism, with answers to each.

1. "All religions are the same, deep down."

That is simply factually untrue. No one ever makes this claim unless
he is (1) abysmally ignorant of what the different religions of the
world actually teach or (2) intellectually irresponsible in
understanding these teachings in the vaguest and woolliest way or (3)
morally irresponsible in being indifferent to them. The objector's
implicit assumption is that the distinctive teachings of the world's
religions are unimportant, that the essential business of religion is
not truth but something else: transformation of consciousness or
sharing and caring or culture and comfort or something of that
sort--not conversion but conversation. Christianity teaches many
things no other religion teaches, and some of them directly contradict
those others. If Christianity isn't true, why be a Christian?

By Catholic standards, the religions of the world can be ranked by how
much truth they teach. Catholicism is first, with Orthodoxy equal
except for the one issue of papal authority. Then comes Protestantism
and any "separated brethren" who keep the Christian essentials as
found in Scripture. Third comes traditional Judaism, which worships
the same God but not via Christ. Fourth is Islam, greatest of the
theistic heresies; fifth, Hinduism, a mystical pantheism; sixth,
Buddhism, a pantheism without a theos; seventh, modern Judaism,
Unitarianism, Confucianism, Modernism, and secular humanism, none of
which have either mysticism or supernatural religion but only ethics;
eighth, idolatry; and ninth, Satanism. To collapse these nine levels
is like thinking the earth is flat.

2. "But the essence of religion is the same at any rate: all religions
agree at least in being religious. "

What is this essence of religion anyway? I challenge anyone to define
it broadly enough to include Confucianism, Buddhism, and modern Reform
Judaism but narrowly enough to exclude Platonism, atheistic Marxism,
and Nazism.

The unproved and unprovable assumption of this second objection is
that the essence of religion is a kind of lowest common denominator or
common factor. Perhaps the common factor is a weak and watery thing
rather than an essential thing. Perhaps it does not exist at all. No
one has ever produced it.

3. "But if you compare the Sermon on the Mount, Buddha's Dhammapada,
Lao-tzu's Tao-te-ching, Confucius' Analects, the Bhagavad Gita, the
Proverbs of Solomon, and the Dialogues of Plato, you will find it a
real, profound, and strong agreement. "

Yes, but this is ethics, not religion. The objector is assuming that
the essence of religion is ethics. It is not. Everyone has an ethic,
not everyone has a religion. Tell an atheist that ethics equals
religion. He will be rightly insulted, for you would be calling him
either religious if he is ethical, or unethical because he is
non-religious. Ethics may be the first step in religion but it is not
the last. As C. S. Lewis says, "The road to the Promised Land runs
past Mount Sinai. "

4. "Speaking of mountains reminds me of my favorite analogy. Many
roads lead up the single mountain of religion to God at the top. It is
provincial, narrow-minded, and blind to deny the validity of other
roads than yours. "

The unproved assumption of this very common mountain analogy is that
the roads go up, not down; that man makes the roads, not God; that
religion is man's search for God, not God's search for man. C. S.
Lewis says this sounds like "the mouse's search for the cat."

Christianity is not a system of man's search for God but a story of
God's search for man. True religion is not like a cloud of incense
wafting up from special spirits into the nostrils of a waiting God,
but like a Father's hand thrust downward to rescue the fallen.
Throughout the Bible, man-made religion fails. There is no human way
up the mountain, only a divine way down. "No man has seen God at any
time. The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has
made him known."

If we made the roads, it would indeed be arrogant to claim that any
one road is the only valid one, for all human things are equal, at
least in all being human, finite, and mixtures of good and bad. If we
made the roads, it would be as stupid to absolutize one of them as to
absolutize one art form, one political system, or one way of skinning
a cat. But if God made the road, we must find out whether He made many
or one. If He made only one, then the shoe is on the other foot: it is
humility, not arrogance, to accept this one road from God, and it is
arrogance, not humility, to insist that our man-made roads are as good
as God's God-made one.

But which assumption is true? Even if the pluralistic one is true, not
all religions are equal, for then one religion is worse and more
arrogant than all others, for it centers on one who claimed, "I am the
Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man can come to the Father but by me.
"

5. "Still, it fosters religious imperialism to insist that your way is
the only way. You're on a power trip. "

No, we believe it not because we want to, because we are
imperialistic, or because we invented it, but because Christ taught
it. It isn't our way, it's his way, that's the only way. We're just
being faithful to him and to what He said. The objector's assumption
is that we can make religion whatever we want it to be.

6. "If the one-way doctrine comes from Christ, not from you, then he
must have been arrogant. "

How ironic to think Jesus is arrogant! No sin excited his anger more
than the arrogance and bigotry of religious leaders. No man was ever
more merciful, meek, loving, and compassionate.

The objector is always assuming the thing to be proved: that Christ is
just one among many religious founders, human teachers. But He claimed
to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life; if that claim is not true, He
is not one among many religious sages but one among many lunatics. if
the claim is true, then again He is not one among many religious
sages, but the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

7. "Do you want to revive the Inquisition? Don't you value religious
tolerance? Do you object to giving other religions equal rights?"

The Inquisition failed to distinguish the heresy from the heretic and
tried to eliminate both by force or fire. The objector makes the same
mistake in reverse: he refuses to condemn either. The state has no
business defining and condemning heresy, of course, but the believer
must do it-if not through the Church, then by himself. For to believe
x is to condemn non-x as false. If you don't believe non-x is false,
then you don't really believe x is true.

8. "I'm surprised at this intolerance. I thought Christianity was the
religion of love."

It is. It is also the religion of truth. The objector is separating
two divine attributes. We are not. We are "speaking the truth in
love".

9. "But all God expects of us is sincerity."

How do you know what God expects of us? Have you listened to God's
revelation? Isn't it dangerous to assume without question or doubt
that God must do exactly what you would do if you were God? Suppose
sincerity were not enough; suppose truth was needed too. Is that
unthinkable? In every other area of life we need truth. Is sincerity
enough for a surgeon? An explorer? Don't we need accurate road maps of
reality?

The objector's implicit assumption here is that there is no objective
truth in religion, only subjective sincerity, so that no one can ever
be both sincere and wrong; that the spirit does not have objective
roads like the body and the mind, which lead to distinct destinations:
the body's physical roads lead to different cities and the mind's
logical roads lead to different conclusions. True sincerity wants to
know the truth.

10. "Are non-Christians all damned then?"

No. Father Feeny was excommunicated by the Catholic Church for
teaching that "outside the Church, no salvation" meant outside the
visible Church.

God does not punish pagans unjustly. He does not punish them for not
believing in a Jesus they never heard of, through no fault of their
own (invincible ignorance). But God, who is just, punishes them for
sinning against the God they do know through nature and conscience
(see Rom 1 -2). There are no innocent pagans, and there are no
innocent Christians either. All have sinned against God and against
conscience. All need a Savior. Christ is the Savior.

11. "But surely there's a little good in the worst of us and a little
bad in the best of us. There's good and bad everywhere, inside the
Church and outside. "

True. What follows from that fact? That we need no Savior? That there
are many Saviors? That contradictory religions can all be true? That
none is true? None of these implied conclusions has the remotest
logical connection with the admitted premise.

There is a little good in the worst of us, but there's also a little
bad in the best of us; more, there's sin, separation from God, in all
of us; and the best of us, the saints, are the first to admit it. The
universal sin Saint Paul pinpoints in Romans 1: 18 is to suppress the
truth. We all sin against the truth we know and refuse it when it
condemns us or threatens our self--sufficiency or complacency. We all
rationalize. Our duty is plain to us-to be totally honest--and none of
us does his duty perfectly. We have no excuse of invincible ignorance.

12. "But isn't God unjust to judge the whole world by Christian
standards? "

God judges justly. "All who sinned without [knowing] the [Mosaic] law
will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the
law will be judged by the law" (ROM 2:12). Even pagans show "that what
the law requires is written on their hearts" (ROM 2:15) if we honestly
consult our hearts, we will find two truths: that we know what we
ought to do and be, and that we fail to do and be that.

Fundamentalists, faithful to the clear one-way teaching of Christ,
often conclude from this that pagans, Buddhists, et cetera, cannot be
saved. Liberals, who emphasize God's mercy, cannot bring themselves to
believe that the mass of men are doomed to hell, and they ignore,
deny, nuance, or water down Christ's own claims to uniqueness. The
Church has found a third way, implied in the New Testament texts. On
the one hand, no one can be saved except through Christ. On the other
hand, Christ is not only the incarnate Jewish man but also the
eternal, pre-existent word of God, "which enlightens every man who
comes into the world" (Jn 1:9). So Socrates was able to know Christ as
word of God, as eternal Truth; and if the fundamental option of his
deepest heart was to reach out to him as Truth, in faith and hope and
love, however imperfectly known this Christ was to Socrates, Socrates
could have been saved by Christ too. We are not saved by knowledge but
by faith. Scripture nowhere says how explicit the intellectual content
of faith has to be. But it does clearly say who the one Savior is.

The Second Vatican Council took a position on comparative religions
that distinguished Catholicism from both Modernist relativism and
Fundamentalist exclusivism. It taught that on the one hand there is
much deep wisdom and value in other religions and that the Christian
should respect them and learn from them. But, on the other hand, the
claims of Christ and his Church can never be lessened, compromised, or
relativized. We may add to our religious education by studying other
religions but never subtract from it.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Kreeft, Peter. "Comparative Religions: The Uniqueness of
Christianity." Chapter 11 in Fundamentals of the Faith. (San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 74-80.

Reprinted by permission of Ignatius Press. All rights reserved.
Fundamentals of the Faith - ISBN 0-89870-202-X.

THE AUTHOR

Peter Kreeft has written extensively (over 25 books) in the areas of
Christian apologetics. Link to all of Peter Kreeft's books here.

Peter Kreeft teaches at Boston College in Boston Massachusetts. He is
on the Advisory Board of the Catholic Educator's Resource Center.




http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0020.html

HaRDWiR3D
2004-10-14 19:20:54 EST


> Comparative Religions: The Uniqueness of Christianity

unique in intolerance, ignorance, hate, bloodshed and destoying other
cultures.

> PETER KREEFT

lol, some ass called 'peter lobster' wrote this? glad he migrated, let him
shove that lobster up his ass.

-hw
#2198



Chris
2004-10-14 19:26:36 EST
Voice of Truth wrote:
> Comparative Religions: The Uniqueness of Christianity
>
> PETER KREEFT
>
>
> ---------
> Any Christian who does apologetics must think about comparative
> religions because the most popular of all objections against the
> claims of Christianity today comes from this field. How insufferably
> narrow-minded to claim that Christianity is the one true religion! God
> just has to be more open-minded than that. This is the single most
> common objection to the Faith today. Here are twelve of the commonest
> forms of this objection, the odium of elitism, with answers to each.
> ---------
>
>
>
>
> Ronald Knox once quipped that "the study of comparative religions is
> the best way to become comparatively religious." The reason, as G. K.
> Chesterton says, is that, according to most "scholars" of comparative
> religion, "Christianity and Buddhism are very much alike, especially
> Buddhism."
>
> But any Christian who does apologetics must think about comparative
> religions because the most popular of all objections against the
> claims of Christianity today comes from this field. The objection is
> not that Christianity is not true but that it is not the truth; not
> that it is a false religion but that it is only a religion. The world
> is a big place, the objector reasons; "different strokes for different
> folks". How insufferably narrow-minded to claim that Christianity is
> the one true religion! God just has to be more open-minded than that.
>
> This is the single most common objection to the Faith today, for
> "today" worships not God but equality. It fears being right where
> others are wrong more than it fears being wrong. It worships democracy
> and resents the fact that God is an absolute monarch. It has changed
> the meaning of the word honor from being respected because you are
> superior in some way to being accepted because you are not superior in
> any way but just like us. The one unanswerable insult, the absolutely
> worst name you can possibly call a person in today's society, is
> "fanatic" especially "religious fanatic". If you confess at a
> fashionable cocktail party that you are plotting to overthrow the
> government, or that you are a PLO terrorist or a KGB spy, or that you
> molest porcupines or bite bats' heads off, you will soon attract a
> buzzing, fascinated, sympathetic circle of listeners. But if you
> confess that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the
> living God, you will find yourself suddenly alone, with a distinct
> chill in the air.
>
> Here are twelve of the commonest forms of this objection, the odium of
> elitism, with answers to each.
>
> 1. "All religions are the same, deep down."
>
> That is simply factually untrue. No one ever makes this claim unless
> he is (1) abysmally ignorant of what the different religions of the
> world actually teach or (2) intellectually irresponsible in
> understanding these teachings in the vaguest and woolliest way or (3)
> morally irresponsible in being indifferent to them. The objector's
> implicit assumption is that the distinctive teachings of the world's
> religions are unimportant, that the essential business of religion is
> not truth but something else: transformation of consciousness or
> sharing and caring or culture and comfort or something of that
> sort--not conversion but conversation. Christianity teaches many
> things no other religion teaches, and some of them directly contradict
> those others. If Christianity isn't true, why be a Christian?
>
> By Catholic standards, the religions of the world can be ranked by how
> much truth they teach. Catholicism is first, with Orthodoxy equal
> except for the one issue of papal authority. Then comes Protestantism
> and any "separated brethren" who keep the Christian essentials as
> found in Scripture. Third comes traditional Judaism, which worships
> the same God but not via Christ. Fourth is Islam, greatest of the
> theistic heresies; fifth, Hinduism, a mystical pantheism; sixth,
> Buddhism, a pantheism without a theos; seventh, modern Judaism,
> Unitarianism, Confucianism, Modernism, and secular humanism, none of
> which have either mysticism or supernatural religion but only ethics;
> eighth, idolatry; and ninth, Satanism. To collapse these nine levels
> is like thinking the earth is flat.
>
> 2. "But the essence of religion is the same at any rate: all religions
> agree at least in being religious. "
>
> What is this essence of religion anyway? I challenge anyone to define
> it broadly enough to include Confucianism, Buddhism, and modern Reform
> Judaism but narrowly enough to exclude Platonism, atheistic Marxism,
> and Nazism.
>
> The unproved and unprovable assumption of this second objection is
> that the essence of religion is a kind of lowest common denominator or
> common factor. Perhaps the common factor is a weak and watery thing
> rather than an essential thing. Perhaps it does not exist at all. No
> one has ever produced it.
>
> 3. "But if you compare the Sermon on the Mount, Buddha's Dhammapada,
> Lao-tzu's Tao-te-ching, Confucius' Analects, the Bhagavad Gita, the
> Proverbs of Solomon, and the Dialogues of Plato, you will find it a
> real, profound, and strong agreement. "
>
> Yes, but this is ethics, not religion. The objector is assuming that
> the essence of religion is ethics. It is not. Everyone has an ethic,
> not everyone has a religion. Tell an atheist that ethics equals
> religion. He will be rightly insulted, for you would be calling him
> either religious if he is ethical, or unethical because he is
> non-religious. Ethics may be the first step in religion but it is not
> the last. As C. S. Lewis says, "The road to the Promised Land runs
> past Mount Sinai. "
>
> 4. "Speaking of mountains reminds me of my favorite analogy. Many
> roads lead up the single mountain of religion to God at the top. It is
> provincial, narrow-minded, and blind to deny the validity of other
> roads than yours. "
>
> The unproved assumption of this very common mountain analogy is that
> the roads go up, not down; that man makes the roads, not God; that
> religion is man's search for God, not God's search for man. C. S.
> Lewis says this sounds like "the mouse's search for the cat."
>
> Christianity is not a system of man's search for God but a story of
> God's search for man. True religion is not like a cloud of incense
> wafting up from special spirits into the nostrils of a waiting God,
> but like a Father's hand thrust downward to rescue the fallen.
> Throughout the Bible, man-made religion fails. There is no human way
> up the mountain, only a divine way down. "No man has seen God at any
> time. The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has
> made him known."
>
> If we made the roads, it would indeed be arrogant to claim that any
> one road is the only valid one, for all human things are equal, at
> least in all being human, finite, and mixtures of good and bad. If we
> made the roads, it would be as stupid to absolutize one of them as to
> absolutize one art form, one political system, or one way of skinning
> a cat. But if God made the road, we must find out whether He made many
> or one. If He made only one, then the shoe is on the other foot: it is
> humility, not arrogance, to accept this one road from God, and it is
> arrogance, not humility, to insist that our man-made roads are as good
> as God's God-made one.
>
> But which assumption is true? Even if the pluralistic one is true, not
> all religions are equal, for then one religion is worse and more
> arrogant than all others, for it centers on one who claimed, "I am the
> Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man can come to the Father but by me.
> "
>
> 5. "Still, it fosters religious imperialism to insist that your way is
> the only way. You're on a power trip. "
>
> No, we believe it not because we want to, because we are
> imperialistic, or because we invented it, but because Christ taught
> it. It isn't our way, it's his way, that's the only way. We're just
> being faithful to him and to what He said. The objector's assumption
> is that we can make religion whatever we want it to be.
>
> 6. "If the one-way doctrine comes from Christ, not from you, then he
> must have been arrogant. "
>
> How ironic to think Jesus is arrogant! No sin excited his anger more
> than the arrogance and bigotry of religious leaders. No man was ever
> more merciful, meek, loving, and compassionate.
>
> The objector is always assuming the thing to be proved: that Christ is
> just one among many religious founders, human teachers. But He claimed
> to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life; if that claim is not true, He
> is not one among many religious sages but one among many lunatics. if
> the claim is true, then again He is not one among many religious
> sages, but the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
>
> 7. "Do you want to revive the Inquisition? Don't you value religious
> tolerance? Do you object to giving other religions equal rights?"
>
> The Inquisition failed to distinguish the heresy from the heretic and
> tried to eliminate both by force or fire. The objector makes the same
> mistake in reverse: he refuses to condemn either. The state has no
> business defining and condemning heresy, of course, but the believer
> must do it-if not through the Church, then by himself. For to believe
> x is to condemn non-x as false. If you don't believe non-x is false,
> then you don't really believe x is true.
>
> 8. "I'm surprised at this intolerance. I thought Christianity was the
> religion of love."
>
> It is. It is also the religion of truth. The objector is separating
> two divine attributes. We are not. We are "speaking the truth in
> love".
>
> 9. "But all God expects of us is sincerity."
>
> How do you know what God expects of us? Have you listened to God's
> revelation? Isn't it dangerous to assume without question or doubt
> that God must do exactly what you would do if you were God? Suppose
> sincerity were not enough; suppose truth was needed too. Is that
> unthinkable? In every other area of life we need truth. Is sincerity
> enough for a surgeon? An explorer? Don't we need accurate road maps of
> reality?
>
> The objector's implicit assumption here is that there is no objective
> truth in religion, only subjective sincerity, so that no one can ever
> be both sincere and wrong; that the spirit does not have objective
> roads like the body and the mind, which lead to distinct destinations:
> the body's physical roads lead to different cities and the mind's
> logical roads lead to different conclusions. True sincerity wants to
> know the truth.
>
> 10. "Are non-Christians all damned then?"
>
> No. Father Feeny was excommunicated by the Catholic Church for
> teaching that "outside the Church, no salvation" meant outside the
> visible Church.
>
> God does not punish pagans unjustly. He does not punish them for not
> believing in a Jesus they never heard of, through no fault of their
> own (invincible ignorance). But God, who is just, punishes them for
> sinning against the God they do know through nature and conscience
> (see Rom 1 -2). There are no innocent pagans, and there are no
> innocent Christians either. All have sinned against God and against
> conscience. All need a Savior. Christ is the Savior.
>
> 11. "But surely there's a little good in the worst of us and a little
> bad in the best of us. There's good and bad everywhere, inside the
> Church and outside. "
>
> True. What follows from that fact? That we need no Savior? That there
> are many Saviors? That contradictory religions can all be true? That
> none is true? None of these implied conclusions has the remotest
> logical connection with the admitted premise.
>
> There is a little good in the worst of us, but there's also a little
> bad in the best of us; more, there's sin, separation from God, in all
> of us; and the best of us, the saints, are the first to admit it. The
> universal sin Saint Paul pinpoints in Romans 1: 18 is to suppress the
> truth. We all sin against the truth we know and refuse it when it
> condemns us or threatens our self--sufficiency or complacency. We all
> rationalize. Our duty is plain to us-to be totally honest--and none of
> us does his duty perfectly. We have no excuse of invincible ignorance.
>
> 12. "But isn't God unjust to judge the whole world by Christian
> standards? "
>
> God judges justly. "All who sinned without [knowing] the [Mosaic] law
> will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the
> law will be judged by the law" (ROM 2:12). Even pagans show "that what
> the law requires is written on their hearts" (ROM 2:15) if we honestly
> consult our hearts, we will find two truths: that we know what we
> ought to do and be, and that we fail to do and be that.
>
> Fundamentalists, faithful to the clear one-way teaching of Christ,
> often conclude from this that pagans, Buddhists, et cetera, cannot be
> saved. Liberals, who emphasize God's mercy, cannot bring themselves to
> believe that the mass of men are doomed to hell, and they ignore,
> deny, nuance, or water down Christ's own claims to uniqueness. The
> Church has found a third way, implied in the New Testament texts. On
> the one hand, no one can be saved except through Christ. On the other
> hand, Christ is not only the incarnate Jewish man but also the
> eternal, pre-existent word of God, "which enlightens every man who
> comes into the world" (Jn 1:9). So Socrates was able to know Christ as
> word of God, as eternal Truth; and if the fundamental option of his
> deepest heart was to reach out to him as Truth, in faith and hope and
> love, however imperfectly known this Christ was to Socrates, Socrates
> could have been saved by Christ too. We are not saved by knowledge but
> by faith. Scripture nowhere says how explicit the intellectual content
> of faith has to be. But it does clearly say who the one Savior is.
>
> The Second Vatican Council took a position on comparative religions
> that distinguished Catholicism from both Modernist relativism and
> Fundamentalist exclusivism. It taught that on the one hand there is
> much deep wisdom and value in other religions and that the Christian
> should respect them and learn from them. But, on the other hand, the
> claims of Christ and his Church can never be lessened, compromised, or
> relativized. We may add to our religious education by studying other
> religions but never subtract from it.
>
> ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
>
> Kreeft, Peter. "Comparative Religions: The Uniqueness of
> Christianity." Chapter 11 in Fundamentals of the Faith. (San
> Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 74-80.
>
> Reprinted by permission of Ignatius Press. All rights reserved.
> Fundamentals of the Faith - ISBN 0-89870-202-X.
>
> THE AUTHOR
>
> Peter Kreeft has written extensively (over 25 books) in the areas of
> Christian apologetics. Link to all of Peter Kreeft's books here.
>
> Peter Kreeft teaches at Boston College in Boston Massachusetts. He is
> on the Advisory Board of the Catholic Educator's Resource Center.
>
>
>
>
> http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0020.html
What is your point?

Doc Smartass
2004-10-14 19:38:29 EST
v*7@hotmail.com (Voice of Truth) wrote in
news:816e1d8c.0410141353.54208303@posting.google.com:

> Subject: The Uniqueness of Christianity

...just like every other religion.

--
Dr. Smartass -- BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939

The Fundamentalist
== Knows no greater joy than the sound of his own voice.
== Knows no greater terror than the god he creates in his own image.
== Knows no greater evil than an unfettered mind.
== Knows no greater blasphemy than being told "NO."

W. Syme
2004-10-14 19:56:33 EST
On 14 Oct 2004 14:53:09 -0700, voiceoftruth227@hotmail.com (Voice of
Truth) wrote:

>"Christianity and Buddhism are very much alike, especially
>Buddhism."

WTF does that mean? Buddhism is like itself?

Then again, if you believe in an invisible man in the sky, nothing
sounds funny anymore.

Paul Hovnanian P.E.
2004-10-14 20:14:09 EST
Chris wrote:
>
[snip]

> What is your point?

He(?) has none. Nor does he have any desire to engage in a discussion of
the posted topic.

Remember all those crazy guys that ued to stand on street corners and
scream about repentance? They're here now.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Time's fun when you're having flies. -- Kermit the Frog

Bob Young
2004-10-14 23:25:31 EST


HaRDWiR3D wrote:

> > Comparative Religions: The Uniqueness of Christianity

There is nothing unique about Christianity, it is a myth like all religions
are myths.

If anything is unique about it it would be the willingness of governments and
rulers for over 900 years to use this religion to bolster their power.

>
>
> unique in intolerance, ignorance, hate, bloodshed and destoying other
> cultures.
>
> > PETER KREEFT
>
> lol, some ass called 'peter lobster' wrote this? glad he migrated, let him
> shove that lobster up his ass.
>
> -hw
> #2198


Bob Young
2004-10-14 23:27:39 EST


"W. Syme" wrote:

> On 14 Oct 2004 14:53:09 -0700, voiceoftruth227@hotmail.com (Voice of
> Truth) wrote:
>
> >"Christianity and Buddhism are very much alike, especially
> >Buddhism."
>
> WTF does that mean? Buddhism is like itself?

Nothing similar, Buddha actually lived and never claimed to be a god.

Buddhism rejects all harmful things and requires followers to be
vegetarian - almost diametrically opposite to Xtianity!

>
>
> Then again, if you believe in an invisible man in the sky, nothing
> sounds funny anymore.


Rune_B=F8rsj=F8_=3Cbuggeroffm=40te=2Ecom=3E?=
2004-10-15 03:37:00 EST
On 14 Oct 2004 14:53:09 -0700, voiceoftruth227@hotmail.com (Voice of
Truth) wrote:

>Comparative Religions: The Uniqueness of Christianity

Let's see. Fiction, fable, indoctrination, violence, crime, fear,
hate, stick and carrot, appeals to the weak, desperate, and
ignorant..... nope, nothing unique there.

Christopher A. Lee
2004-10-15 07:10:46 EST
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:20:54 +0200, "HaRDWiR3D"
<hardwired--noooospammm-@planet.nl> wrote:

>
>
>> Comparative Religions: The Uniqueness of Christianity
>
>unique in intolerance, ignorance, hate, bloodshed and destoying other
>cultures.

The morons can't grasp that they evaluate it using inside-the-religion
criteria, which of course makes it special because it says so - but
only to themselves. They're too stupid to realise that believers in
the other religions "prove" their own religions exactly the same way.
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron