[randilover]

Wow, there's a lot going back and forth here. I will address what I can from where I left off, I guess, and try to touch the larger points:

1) All Religions CANNOT be the same. At their core, each religion is different. (And at this point I am not differentiating between Chrisitian denominations.) Yes, Islam and Christianity are all monotheistic, however, the similarities end there. Islam, for one, differs on the matter of sin and redemption, which is a core element, if not the core. It is also fundamentally irreconcilable with Christianity on the naute of God. Islam is Allah, Christians believe in a trinity. These conflict with each, so how can one be valid and the other valid as well? Hinduism is polytheistic, with more gods than there are people. And Buddhism is, for all intent and purposes, basically atheistic, just very spiritual. However, each of these all have ancient literature, are highly spiritual, etc., but these are marginal issues. At their core they can not co-exist.

I heard a great quote today: "It is more logically possible that all the religions in the world are wrong than that all the religions are right." Meaning, there are inherently different ideas and doctines in each one that would make the other irreconcilable with itself.

2) Elitism. This is kind of addressed in my above comment. First, Christianity, like hypocrites, doesn’t corner the market on exclusion. There is almost no major religion that is inclusive, and by definition, there is nothing wrong with exclusion. Islam is an exclusive religion (most of the time to your physical peril). Hinduism has done more damage with its caste system than Christianity has ever been able to do when it was in it’s most deviate form. Those would be elitist.

When Jesus made his exclusive statement, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes unto the Father except through me," it is a reasonable statement. The question is, "Is it true?" Truth by definition is exclusive. When you affirm something, you exclude anything that contradicts that. In a basic way, acceptance is a moot point. If I had the cure for cancer or AIDS sitting on my desk right now, all you have to do is come here to get it. Would you say, "That’s too inclusive, it’s too narrow, there has to be another way," or, to save someone yourself or someone you love, you spent every cent you have just to get the next plane to Philly to get the cure.

Christianity asserts people have a sin problem. When you have a plumbing problem, you get a plumber. When you have an electrical problem, you get a electrician. When you have a sin problem, you get a savior. Christianity is the one that asserts Jesus (and he did so himself) to be the "cure."


3) Hypocrisy. I like what the Unded is saying. All major religions are stock full of hypocrites, we just live in a mostly Christian society. However, it does not invalidate what is asserted by Christ himself as the crux of the religion (and in someways validates what most of the New Testament of the Bible claims, that men are sinners, and even as Christians, stuggle against what is termed the sin nature).


Last but not least, to address your point earlier, Preds:
For my quote:
"If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth- only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair." -C.S. Lewis
This does really help my point. There are things that are true, meaning the opposite can not be true, these need to be pursued. All the talk on exclusivity, hypocrites vs. the religion itself, etc., can be uncomfortable, but that in no way invalidates its truth. If it is true, it must be dealt with, but if you go searching for the one that is least uncomfortable, you will be left with little else than "despair."

Just some thoughts. I'll have to address the validity of the Bible later on. As for Rami's book, it's one of the best on addressing some of the hardest questions asked of Christianity. There's another as well, "The Case for Faith." Just as good. It is an atheistic journalist who set out to debunk Christianity, winds up getting converted. It's not heady at all, reads very easily.