Zone1 What makes Christianity different from other religions?

[ding]

who's they ... who realized "it is wrong" ...

that's not a witch, its hester prynne - of course - the fame of scarlet letter in abstentia for that derision of christianity the evils of moses, judaism their false commandments the three desert religions - where were the magi who saved mary ...

Free will is a *****. Can’t wait for you to experience the consequences of your free will.

 

[BreezeWood]

Free will is a *****. Can’t wait for you to experience the consequences of your free will.

- so claims the arsinist ...

 

[ding]

- so claims the arsinist ...

I can’t believe you ignored your spell checker.

 

[Meriweather]

I think there’s a third option beyond just agreeing or disagreeing: actively trying to avoid bias. In my approach, I aim to understand the Bible by reading it in full, taking the text at face value, and viewing interpretations that ignore parts of the text as provisional or possibly biased. To me, either the text is a coherent divine message that can be understood through careful reading, or it’s a human work that requires selective interpretation to fit a narrative. I recognize this is a high standard, but if God—an omnipotent being—truly had a hand in it and wants people to worship Him, the least He could do is make His message clear enough to be understood simply by reading it. If it requires human intermediaries to explain it—often contradicting the text or each other—I have no good reason to accept it. Especially because, throughout history and even today, those intermediaries have disagreed so frequently that their conflicts have sparked countless wars and schisms across religions.

Most English Bibles today were translated from Hebrew to Greek/Latin, to English. My approach was to understand the Hebrew language, which is not a subjective language, rather it paints a picture. This took me into a study of etymology, and the history and cultures of Biblical times. What was the original author of that time saying to his original audience living in that time. Middle Eastern cultures in Biblical times did not hold the perspectives of the modern Western world.

Next, not every word and passage of the Bible is directed to every individual. There is a lot in the Bible that has nothing to do with me. With prayerful study, each individual can ascertain whether a passage does or does not pertain to him/her.

The best homilies can take a passage and present the theme so that we can think of it in terms of our own life today. One Sunday homily I listened to pointed out we are given things to do that we put off. We know what we should do, but we procrastinate. Therefore, what is one thing we know we ought to do, and so let's make a plan to implement it this week. That is the purpose of weekly (or daily worship). It's hard to keep the entire Bible at the forefront of our minds every minute of every day.

I don't know why contradictions bother people so. I teach. Often times I have a dozen perspectives of a novel, an historical event, or how a science experiment will turn out. Endless possibilities...and most like each possibility holds a bit of truth that can expand any/all perspectives without losing sight of one's original.

 

[Meriweather]

If they first realized there was no God, they would not have burned little girls at the stake in the first place, tortured people for a non belief, hung and burned non-believers, invented a hell to scare people.....warp young kids minds.

"Cancel Culture" was the "Woke" figuratively burning people at the stake with dire results for many. God is not the reason people were burned at the stake; people with grudges and resentments against others are what cause burning and cancelling.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

"Cancel Culture" was the "Woke" figuratively burning people at the stake with dire results for many. God is not the reason people were burned at the stake; people with grudges and resentments against others are what cause burning and cancelling.

Without God, they would not have been able to justify it.

 

[BreezeWood]

I can’t believe you ignored your spell checker.

its the correct spelling for a desert dweller ... arsinist, consider it a new word for the mentally deranged.

 

[ding]

its the correct spelling for a desert dweller ... arsinist, consider it a new word for the mentally deranged.

More like you are semi-illiterate when it comes to the English language.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

More like you are semi-illiterate when it comes to the English language.

I see the resident "spell checker to avoid repsonding" to factual posts strikes again.



PS to others: I intentionally mispileed responding and another secret word to see if ding catches it.

 

[Meriweather]

Without God, they would not have been able to justify it.

How so? Many in that group wasn't known for their religious faith.

 

[BreezeWood]

More like you are semi-illiterate when it comes to the English language.

as you well know, heavenly people speak american - obviously foreign to a sinner.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

How so? Many in that group wasn't known for their religious faith.

Link?

 

[forkup]

[

Most English Bibles today were translated from Hebrew to Greek/Latin, to English. My approach was to understand the Hebrew language, which is not a subjective language, rather it paints a picture. This took me into a study of etymology, and the history and cultures of Biblical times. What was the original author of that time saying to his original audience living in that time. Middle Eastern cultures in Biblical times did not hold the perspectives of the modern Western world.

Next, not every word and passage of the Bible is directed to every individual. There is a lot in the Bible that has nothing to do with me. With prayerful study, each individual can ascertain whether a passage does or does not pertain to him/her.

The best homilies can take a passage and present the theme so that we can think of it in terms of our own life today. One Sunday homily I listened to pointed out we are given things to do that we put off. We know what we should do, but we procrastinate. Therefore, what is one thing we know we ought to do, and so let's make a plan to implement it this week. That is the purpose of weekly (or daily worship). It's hard to keep the entire Bible at the forefront of our minds every minute of every day.

I don't know why contradictions bother people so. I teach. Often times I have a dozen perspectives of a novel, an historical event, or how a science experiment will turn out. Endless possibilities...and most like each possibility holds a bit of truth that can expand any/all perspectives without losing sight of one's original.

Let me zoom into a couple of things.

The reason contradictions bother me is that, logically speaking, a claim is either true or it isn’t. You say you teach and mention science experiments, and you’re right to point out that multiple hypotheses often exist early on. But what you didn’t mention is that a hypothesis is just the first step — it gets tested. We don’t stop there; we eliminate contradictions and refine our understanding based on the evidence. That’s how we move closer to truth.

What you seem to be doing is stopping at the hypothesis phase when it comes to religion. You treat every contradictory reading or interpretation as just another “perspective,” and say that they all might contain some truth — but that bypasses the core question: is the claim actually true? If two people hold opposing views about what God wants, they can’t both be right if there is only one God with a consistent will.

Which brings me to a more fundamental issue: are you seeking truth or personal meaning? Because those are not the same thing. If your goal is inspiration or moral reflection, then yes — contradictions might not matter so much. But if you're claiming a particular God exists and has communicated a singular divine truth, then contradictions do matter — not as a preference, but as a logical necessity.

To me, the position you're taking implies that every believer ends up with a personal God — one shaped to fit their own reading, feelings, and background. And that, to me, directly contradicts the claim that there is only one true, knowable God. That’s not a minor inconsistency. That’s a foundational one.

 

[buttercup]

“During a British conference on comparative religions, experts from around the world debated what, if any, belief was unique to the Christian faith. They began eliminating possibilities. Incarnation? Other religions had different versions of gods' appearing in human form. Resurrection? Again, other religions had accounts of return from death. The debate went on for some time until C. S. Lewis wandered into the room. "What's the rumpus about?" he asked, and heard in reply that his colleagues were discussing Christianity's unique contribution among world religions. Lewis responded, "Oh, that's easy. It's grace."

After some discussion, the conferees had to agree. The notion of God's love coming to us free of charge, no strings attached, seems to go against every instinct of humanity. The Buddhist eight-fold path, the Hindu doctrine of karma, the Jewish covenant, and the Muslim code of law -- each of these offers a way to earn approval. Only Christianity dares to make God's love unconditional.

Aware of our inbuilt resistance to grace, Jesus talked about it often. He described a world suffused with God's grace: where the sun shines on people good and bad; where birds gather seeds gratis, neither plowing nor harvesting to earn them; where untended wildflowers burst into bloom on the rocky hillsides. Like a visitor from a foreign country who notices what the natives overlook, Jesus saw grace everywhere. Yet he never analyzed or defined grace, and almost never used the word. Instead, he communicated grace through stories we know as parables.”

— Philip Yancey, What's So Amazing About Grace? 1997

 

[forkup]

“During a British conference on comparative religions, experts from around the world debated what, if any, belief was unique to the Christian faith. They began eliminating possibilities. Incarnation? Other religions had different versions of gods' appearing in human form. Resurrection? Again, other religions had accounts of return from death. The debate went on for some time until C. S. Lewis wandered into the room. "What's the rumpus about?" he asked, and heard in reply that his colleagues were discussing Christianity's unique contribution among world religions. Lewis responded, "Oh, that's easy. It's grace."

After some discussion, the conferees had to agree. The notion of God's love coming to us free of charge, no strings attached, seems to go against every instinct of humanity. The Buddhist eight-fold path, the Hindu doctrine of karma, the Jewish covenant, and the Muslim code of law -- each of these offers a way to earn approval. Only Christianity dares to make God's love unconditional.

Aware of our inbuilt resistance to grace, Jesus talked about it often. He described a world suffused with God's grace: where the sun shines on people good and bad; where birds gather seeds gratis, neither plowing nor harvesting to earn them; where untended wildflowers burst into bloom on the rocky hillsides. Like a visitor from a foreign country who notices what the natives overlook, Jesus saw grace everywhere. Yet he never analyzed or defined grace, and almost never used the word. Instead, he communicated grace through stories we know as parables.”

— Philip Yancey, What's So Amazing About Grace? 1997

I actually don’t think grace is unconditional in the way people often claim — at least not if you read the Bible as-is or look at how it's practiced across denominations.

If grace were truly unconditional, there wouldn’t be any steps required to receive it — but that's not how it works in most Christian traditions. In Catholicism, for example, you receive grace through sacraments like baptism, confession, and last rites — and mortal sin puts you out of grace until you confess. That’s conditional by definition.

Even in Protestant denominations that emphasize “grace alone,” it’s not entirely unconditional either. You still need to have the right kind of faith — and if your life doesn’t reflect that, people will say you were never truly saved. So while the language might be about free and unearned grace, in practice it still comes with expectations that function like conditions.

Scripturally too, it’s all over the place. There are verses that say grace is a gift, but also plenty that tie it to repentance, confession, or forgiving others. So at the very least, it’s not clear-cut — and if something that central needs that much interpretation, I’m not sure how “unconditional” it really is.

To me, grace — like a lot of religious concepts — gets described one way in theology and another way in practice. And I just prefer to be honest about that gap rather than pretend it’s not there.

Also, if C.S Lewis actually made that claim. Something that's debatable, those experts were probably wrong. I don’t think Christianity has a monopoly on the idea of divine grace. You see similar concepts in other traditions — like Pure Land Buddhism, where salvation comes not through effort but by trusting Amitabha’s vow, or in Hindu Bhakti, where God’s mercy lifts the devotee regardless of karma. Even in Islam, God’s mercy is said to outweigh judgment — the Quran constantly repeats that He forgives whom He wills.

So no, grace isn’t exclusive. The framing might differ, but the core idea — that the divine can offer unearned compassion — shows up in many places.

 

[ding]

I see the resident "spell checker to avoid repsonding" to factual posts strikes again.



PS to others: I intentionally mispileed responding and another secret word to see if ding catches it.

You should spend some time with Breezewood. I think you two have much in common.

 

[ding]

I actually don’t think grace is unconditional in the way people often claim — at least not if you read the Bible as-is or look at how it's practiced across denominations.

If grace were truly unconditional, there wouldn’t be any steps required to receive it — but that's not how it works in most Christian traditions. In Catholicism, for example, you receive grace through sacraments like baptism, confession, and last rites — and mortal sin puts you out of grace until you confess. That’s conditional by definition.

Even in Protestant denominations that emphasize “grace alone,” it’s not entirely unconditional either. You still need to have the right kind of faith — and if your life doesn’t reflect that, people will say you were never truly saved. So while the language might be about free and unearned grace, in practice it still comes with expectations that function like conditions.

Scripturally too, it’s all over the place. There are verses that say grace is a gift, but also plenty that tie it to repentance, confession, or forgiving others. So at the very least, it’s not clear-cut — and if something that central needs that much interpretation, I’m not sure how “unconditional” it really is.

To me, grace — like a lot of religious concepts — gets described one way in theology and another way in practice. And I just prefer to be honest about that gap rather than pretend it’s not there.

Also, if C.S Lewis actually made that claim. Something that's debatable, those experts were probably wrong. I don’t think Christianity has a monopoly on the idea of divine grace. You see similar concepts in other traditions — like Pure Land Buddhism, where salvation comes not through effort but by trusting Amitabha’s vow, or in Hindu Bhakti, where God’s mercy lifts the devotee regardless of karma. Even in Islam, God’s mercy is said to outweigh judgment — the Quran constantly repeats that He forgives whom He wills.

So no, grace isn’t exclusive. The framing might differ, but the core idea — that the divine can offer unearned compassion — shows up in many places.

In the Catholic Church, grace is understood as a supernatural gift from God, a free and undeserved favor that enables humans to participate in the divine life and attain eternal salvation. It's not something earned or merited, but rather a divine gift that transforms individuals and draws them into a relationship with God.

Maybe try using google.

 

[forkup]

In the Catholic Church, grace is understood as a supernatural gift from God, a free and undeserved favor that enables humans to participate in the divine life and attain eternal salvation. It's not something earned or merited, but rather a divine gift that transforms individuals and draws them into a relationship with God.

Maybe try using google.

I’m well aware of how the Catholic Church defines grace — as unearned, supernatural, freely given. That’s the idealized theology. But saying that doesn’t address the actual point I made.

You say it’s not earned or merited — fine. But in practice, you can fall out of grace (say, through mortal sin), and must do something specific (like confession, penance, or absolution) to get back into it. That’s a condition, whether you like the word or not. Saying grace is “free” but requiring a ritual to receive or restore it is like calling a gift unconditional — but only after you register online, verify your email, and accept the terms. It might still be free, but it’s definitely not without strings.

So telling me to “use Google” doesn’t change the fact that what I said remains true: there’s a clear disconnect between how grace is described in theology and how it actually functions across denominations.

If you’re just going to repeat doctrinal slogans while ignoring how they’re applied in real life, then you’re not engaging — you’re reciting. Call that whatever you want, but it doesn’t touch the core of my argument. And quoting an ideal while refusing to examine the practice isn’t a counterpoint. It’s a dodge.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

“During a British conference on comparative religions, experts from around the world debated what, if any, belief was unique to the Christian faith. They began eliminating possibilities. Incarnation? Other religions had different versions of gods' appearing in human form. Resurrection? Again, other religions had accounts of return from death. The debate went on for some time until C. S. Lewis wandered into the room. "What's the rumpus about?" he asked, and heard in reply that his colleagues were discussing Christianity's unique contribution among world religions. Lewis responded, "Oh, that's easy. It's grace."

After some discussion, the conferees had to agree. The notion of God's love coming to us free of charge, no strings attached, seems to go against every instinct of humanity. The Buddhist eight-fold path, the Hindu doctrine of karma, the Jewish covenant, and the Muslim code of law -- each of these offers a way to earn approval. Only Christianity dares to make God's love unconditional.

Aware of our inbuilt resistance to grace, Jesus talked about it often. He described a world suffused with God's grace: where the sun shines on people good and bad; where birds gather seeds gratis, neither plowing nor harvesting to earn them; where untended wildflowers burst into bloom on the rocky hillsides. Like a visitor from a foreign country who notices what the natives overlook, Jesus saw grace everywhere. Yet he never analyzed or defined grace, and almost never used the word. Instead, he communicated grace through stories we know as parables.”

— Philip Yancey, What's So Amazing About Grace? 1997

In light of this thing called "grace" and "the sun shines on people good and bad; where birds gather seeds gratis, neither plowing nor harvesting to earn them; where untended wildflowers burst into bloom on the rocky hillsides. Like a visitor from a foreign country who notices what the natives overlook, Jesus saw grace everywhere." please explain why there is cancer, tsunamis, and all manner of calamity. Does the conceived god allow evil because of "grace"? Cancer and earthquakes and tsunamis are not a part of any free will equation.

 

[ding]

But saying that doesn’t address the actual point I made.

My post was limited to correcting your inaccurate statement.

In Catholicism, for example, you receive grace through sacraments like baptism, confession, and last rites — and mortal sin puts you out of grace until you confess. That’s conditional by definition.

So not only were you wrong in stating in Catholicism grace is received through the sacraments, you were also wrong in stating that according to Catholicism grace is conditional. I suspect it’s because you don’t understand the Catholic concept of redemption/grace, salvation and sanctification.

I saw no reason to read any further as the foundation of your argument was built upon error.