Zone1 What makes Christianity different from other religions?

[ding]

I’m well aware of how the Catholic Church defines grace

Clearly you aren’t.

 

[BreezeWood]

-- each of these offers a way to earn approval. Only Christianity dares to make God's love unconditional.

far from the teachings of christianity ...

that is what jesus taught, there are no commandments or any other restrictions which clearly is not a desert religion, christianity.

they emphasized the heavenly goal to sin no more, triumph over evil being the heavenly means for judgement and admission to the everlasting - the repudiation of judaism found in the preamble of all three desert bibles.

 

[Meriweather]

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.

Let's start with this, and then I can return to your other points as time permits. Answering your question about God being contradictory. (Keep in mind I have also said that when one discerns what God has said, the first thing we do is check that it does not go against scripture.)

Let's imagine God asked me to do something and told me not to let my left hand know what my right hands was doing.

Now imagine that God asked you to do the exact same thing--but not to hide your light under a bushel basket.

We can find these types of contradictions throughout scripture, but with study, we can also see the circumstances are a bit different. We hear Jesus telling us don't pray in public for all to see, go to your closet. Then we read another passage where Jesus is praying in public. (Again, depends on the circumstances.)

So, no one ends up with a personal God, we end up with personal assignments, each matching scripture.

Nor, was I speaking of interpreting scripture when the discussion was about contradictions. The discussion was centering on personal experiences of God. Interpreting scripture requires care. My personal aim/ideal is to get as close as possible to what the original author was conveying to his original audience. That often entails studying a lot of etymology and remembering that the perspectives we take on in our modern Western culture vary widely from t he perspectives of Biblical cultures.

That's where my mind was going when speaking of contradictions. Do you have your own specific example?

 

[Meriweather]

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.

Truth is truth. Perspective is one's take on the story. For example, take the story of the Canaanite woman who kept calling after Jesus to heal her daughter. Jesus ignored her for quite some time. What is your perspective on why Jesus took this stance?

 

[forkup]

Thanks for laying that out — I see what you're aiming for. You're drawing a distinction between contradictions in God Himself and differences in assignments or context, and arguing that these differences still operate within the guardrails of scripture. That’s a coherent model — in theory.

But in practice, I think it breaks down. And here’s why:

Even if everyone agrees that scripture is the measuring stick, people apply it with wildly different lenses. Cultural background, denominational tradition, psychological disposition, social setting — all of these shape how people read, hear, and respond to what they believe God is saying. You say we don’t end up with a personal God, just personal assignments. But how do you distinguish the two when those “assignments” vary so dramatically, often in ways that just happen to align with personal, political, or tribal identity?

A perfect example: I recently watched a debate between Charlie Kirk and a Cambridge archaeology and anthropology student. At one point, when challenged on troubling biblical laws — like wearing of different fabrics in garments deserving death or several others that make no sense in today's context— Kirk insisted we must read them in historical context. Exactly the move you're making: don’t take it at face value, understand the world in which it was written. But minutes later, when defending his stance against gay marriage, he completely flipped. When the student pushed back on the authority of scripture in that case, Kirk dismissed him with: “Oh, so you think you know better than the Church Fathers?”

So: context matters… until it doesn’t. Then it’s "shut up and obey authority."
Same person. Same debate. Totally different interpretive principle — chosen based on which one backed the point he already wanted to make.

And this isn’t rare. This kind of selective application is everywhere in religious discourse. People toggle between “contextual reading” and “plain truth,” between “God spoke to me” and “check it against scripture,” depending on what outcome they’re aiming for. It’s not even necessarily dishonest — just deeply human. But it does mean that the God people follow is often a projection: not the unchanging Creator, but a divine mirror reflecting their own biases back at them.

So when you say no one ends up with a personal God, I just don’t see that borne out. In practice, that’s exactly what people have. And if God’s will can be so easily molded by personal context while still being claimed as objective and absolute — then how is that not a foundational inconsistency?

 

[forkup]

Truth is truth. Perspective is one's take on the story. For example, take the story of the Canaanite woman who kept calling after Jesus to heal her daughter. Jesus ignored her for quite some time. What is your perspective on why Jesus took this stance?

Thanks — but I need to point out that you still haven’t actually answered the question I asked.

You’re shifting the discussion toward interpretation and perspective, but I’m asking something more fundamental: Do you believe the Bible is true — and what kind of truth are you claiming when you say that? Literal, historical, theological, moral, metaphorical?

That’s not a side point — it’s the foundation of this entire conversation. Because without a clear answer there, it becomes impossible to evaluate the meaning or authority of any specific story — including the one about the Canaanite woman. If you're not willing to define what kind of truth you believe scripture holds, then any claim about God's will or character rests on sand.

To be blunt: if the Bible is just a source of inspiration or personal meaning for you, then contradictions and selective readings aren’t really a problem. But if you're claiming that there’s a real God who has revealed a singular, knowable truth, then contradictions aren’t just inconvenient — they’re fatal to the claim of coherence.

So I’ll ask again, clearly and directly: Do you believe the Bible is true — and in what sense? Because without that clarified, the rest of the discussion risks becoming just a dance around hard questions.

 

[ding]

You’re shifting the discussion toward interpretation and perspective, but I’m asking something more fundamental: Do you believe the Bible is true — and what kind of truth are you claiming when you say that? Literal, historical, theological, moral, metaphorical?

The first Christians who witnessed the supernatural acts performed by Jesus - which included controlling matter, controlling nature, healing physical deformities, healing diseases, raising the dead and resurrecting himself from death - worshiped Jesus as God because they witnessed those miracles. Non-Christian historians recorded that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God because he performed supernatural feats. 24,000 written manuscripts documented the supernatural feats Jesus performed and the first Christians witnessed. The Babylonian Talmud confirms Jewish religious leaders put Jesus to death for sorcery and for leading Israel into apostasy. There are no opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts. There are no opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy. There are no opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected. There are no opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts. There are no opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God.

 

[Meriweather]

A perfect example: I recently watched a debate between Charlie Kirk and a Cambridge archaeology and anthropology student. At one point, when challenged on troubling biblical laws — like wearing of different fabrics in garments deserving death or several others that make no sense in today's context— Kirk insisted we must read them in historical context. Exactly the move you're making: don’t take it at face value, understand the world in which it was written. But minutes later, when defending his stance against gay marriage, he completely flipped. When the student pushed back on the authority of scripture in that case, Kirk dismissed him with: “Oh, so you think you know better than the Church Fathers?”

Of course it is historical and for good reason. Some directions were for a specific people, sometimes for a specific time. The Jews were to be a people set apart, not mix with others. There are three theories I've come across relating to different fabrics. One, is for the Jews putting them on and wearing them to remember they were a people set apart, not to mix with others. Second, the fabrics of the time were primarily linen and wool which, even today, is not a good mix due to shrinkage and durability factors. The third I find the most interesting, especially in light of the golden calf. Clearly, some of the people still thought these idols could still answer prayers, protect them. There are a few occupations, positions today where one does not copy the dress of these positions. Judges robes, military uniforms, police uniforms, priestly robes.

Priests wore linen clothing and then a vestment of wool over it. Tassels, belts were often a mixture of strands of wool with strands of linen. There were certain tasks only priests were to perform, especially when it came to worship and sacrifice. The people were not to copy/imitate priests--especially not for worship or sacrifice to false gods. One God. After the issue with the golden calf, priests (which previously could come from any tribe) were limited to the tribe of Levi because that tribe would not have anything to do with the golden calf. We can see priesthood was taken seriously during Exodus.

Some Jews have told me many things are acts of obedience: God said not to do this, and as obedience to God is good, we simply don't do it out of obedience.

So: context matters… until it doesn’t. Then it’s "shut up and obey authority."
Same person. Same debate. Totally different interpretive principle — chosen based on which one backed the point he already wanted to make.

Yes...but what is the ideal action? And is the ideal the same for every situation? Isn't it a matter of rigid versus flexibility? While we want our tables to be rigid, it's better for the cloth we clean it with to be flexible. The same is true when studying history--and that includes the Bible. Isn't it also true whether one is trying to apply Biblical advice or trying to apply advice given to them by a psychologist.

 

[Meriweather]

And this isn’t rare. This kind of selective application is everywhere in religious discourse. People toggle between “contextual reading” and “plain truth,” between “God spoke to me” and “check it against scripture,” depending on what outcome they’re aiming for. It’s not even necessarily dishonest — just deeply human. But it does mean that the God people follow is often a projection: not the unchanging Creator, but a divine mirror reflecting their own biases back at them.

It is not God who changes, but people.

 

[Meriweather]

So when you say no one ends up with a personal God, I just don’t see that borne out. In practice, that’s exactly what people have. And if God’s will can be so easily molded by personal context while still being claimed as objective and absolute — then how is that not a foundational inconsistency?

I teach. When a student needs an additional explanation or approach to understand a problem, I'm there. This does not make me their personal teacher, it means I gave them some personal attention for their particular question and level of understanding.

There is no "personal God" but a God who cares for each person. The problem(s) I present before God may be different from those presented by others--just as two different students may ask different questions when working the same problem. One God over all; one teacher over a class.

 

[Meriweather]

Thanks — but I need to point out that you still haven’t actually answered the question I asked.

You’re shifting the discussion toward interpretation and perspective, but I’m asking something more fundamental: Do you believe the Bible is true — and what kind of truth are you claiming when you say that? Literal, historical, theological, moral, metaphorical?

That’s not a side point — it’s the foundation of this entire conversation. Because without a clear answer there, it becomes impossible to evaluate the meaning or authority of any specific story — including the one about the Canaanite woman. If you're not willing to define what kind of truth you believe scripture holds, then any claim about God's will or character rests on sand.

To be blunt: if the Bible is just a source of inspiration or personal meaning for you, then contradictions and selective readings aren’t really a problem. But if you're claiming that there’s a real God who has revealed a singular, knowable truth, then contradictions aren’t just inconvenient — they’re fatal to the claim of coherence.

So I’ll ask again, clearly and directly: Do you believe the Bible is true — and in what sense? Because without that clarified, the rest of the discussion risks becoming just a dance around hard questions.

The Bible is the story of God in our midst, in the midst of the people, in the midst of their history. Not everything in the Bible is about me, but about life in general. Not all facets of my life match all facets of the Bible. What matched the life of my closest friend, did not match my own life. In that way, the Bible is quite flexible in that it covers a huge number of situations--and not all Biblical situations enter into my life.

I'm going to answer your question with a question: What is truth? Why dodge my question about the Canaanite woman? The answer is simple. We.don't.know. The Bible doesn't say. We become the student who has additional questions, which isn't a bad thing because we can then look a possibilities.

Do you know why Jews added six hundred more laws to the first ten? Because people had questions. Do you know why we had the first Ten Commandments? Because the Law in our hearts, minds, mouth, and soul is to love God and to love our fellow man. As the rabbi said: The rest is just commentary. But....

People have questions. So, Ten laws explaining the first two; then 613 laws explaining the next Ten....

In each Biblical story, can you identify those who hit the target of loving God above all else? Can you identify where they missed the target? Can you identify those who hit the target of loving one's fellowman? Can you identify those who missed that target?

 

[ding]

For the record, I witnessed this in my own family in how my mom was a devout Catholic who was taught a women's place was in the home and to have many children and obey her man. Conveniently, my father was a devout Catholic and loved those rules and lorded over her like a military general berating her for anything and everything, all in accordance with biblical teachings that a woman (or slave) was much less than a male and their property.

She accepted these rules because people in authority taught her that this was what "God" wanted.

I had devout Catholic parents too and that’s not how my father behaved. So maybe it wasn’t the fault of the Church. Maybe it was the fault of your father and you are blaming the Church for his behaviors. Didn’t you say he was a drunk? Didn’t you say he was abusive? Didn’t you say he cheated on your mother?

 

[Dragonlady]

For the record, I witnessed this in my own family in how my mom was a devout Catholic who was taught a women's place was in the home and to have many children and obey her man. Conveniently, my father was a devout Catholic and loved those rules and lorded over her like a military general berating her for anything and everything, all in accordance with biblical teachings that a woman (or slave) was much less than a male and their property.

She accepted these rules because people in authority taught her that this was what "God" wanted.

Here's the thing. Religion interprets the Bible for the uneducated or the illiterate. Throughout history, the peasants weren't educated. They relied on the nobility and the priests to teach them about the Bible.

The priests were mostly the lesser sons of nobility, (first son inherited the wealth, lands and title, second son joined the army, third son joined the priesthood), with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for their own family's wealth and power.

Popes encouraged wars, colonialism, and involved themselves in European politics until the Reformation. Promising the poor life everlasting and riches in heaven, if they submit to their Lords and masters on earth.

 

[BackAgain]

In the LDS faith, its not that we believe doing good works will save us but that Jesus requires us to do good works or he will not save us. Consider the the following scripture:

Matthew 7:21
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Is it not the will of our Father in heaven to keep his commandments and to do good unto all mankind? Our works do not save us. It is Jesus and Jesus alone that saves us. But according to his own words in the verse above, unless we do the will of our father in heaven, then we may not obtain the kingdom of heaven. It is Jesus that requires us to do good works even if they are not what saves us. Jesus is in total control of our salvation and unless we do his bidding, and do the works of righteousness, He may not save us into the kingdom of heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:57-58
57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.
There is some useful commentary in your post. Specifically;

Matthew 7:21
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I had devout Catholic parents too and that’s not how my father behaved. So maybe it wasn’t the fault of the Church. Maybe it was the fault of your father and you are blaming the Church for his behaviors. Didn’t you say he was a drunk? Didn’t you say he was abusive? Didn’t you say he cheated on your mother?

Maybe he was following scripture. You know, like slave owners followed the letter of God's word of how to beat your slaves.

 

[ding]

Maybe he was following scripture. You know, like slave owners followed the letter of God's word of how to beat your slaves.

Or maybe you are blaming the Church instead of your father. Talk about an external locus of control. It’s not your father’s fault, it’s the church’s fault. Give me a break.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Here's the thing. Religion interprets the Bible for the uneducated or the illiterate. Throughout history, the peasants weren't educated. They relied on the nobility and the priests to teach them about the Bible.

The priests were mostly the lesser sons of nobility, (first son inherited the wealth, lands and title, second son joined the army, third son joined the priesthood), with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for their own family's wealth and power.

Popes encouraged wars, colonialism, and involved themselves in European politics until the Reformation. Promising the poor life everlasting and riches in heaven, if they submit to their Lords and masters on earth.

I have a bluetooth headset when I am doing work around the house and in the yard and driving and I listen to YouTube debates, podcasts and one of those is a black person who is a former minister who saw the light. He said Christianity was used to keep black people in poverty by telling them it was a cross to bear, and they would be rewarded in heaven. Unfortunately human history is such that even slaves were made to believe that nonsense and blacks accepted their lot in life of poverty as a "virtue".

 

[ding]

I have a bluetooth headset when I am doing work around the house and in the yard and driving and I listen to YouTube debates, podcasts and one of those is a black person who is a former minister who saw the light. He said Christianity was used to keep black people in poverty by telling them it was a cross to bear, and they would be rewarded in heaven. Unfortunately human history is such that even slaves were made to believe that nonsense and blacks accepted their lot in life of poverty as a "virtue".

I love people who only look to confirm their biases and never look at the whole picture. I wonder if that black minister knew the history of Christian churches and members who were abolitionists.

Christian churches and denominations that were abolitionist included the Quakers, Methodists, and Congregationalists, who were early leaders in the movement, along with some Presbyterians and Baptists. Driven by the moral belief that slavery was a sin, they used theological arguments, Bible interpretations, and organized political action to advocate for the immediate abolition of slavery, with figures like John Wesley and Anthony Benezet playing significant roles in the movement.

Early Roots

• Quakers:
  The first Christian abolitionists were the Quakers (Society of Friends), who began formally opposing slavery in the 17th century and actively campaigned to end the slave trade.
  
  
• John Wesley and Methodists:
  John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, denounced slavery as "the sum of all villainies" in his 1774 pamphlet, influencing many other Christian abolitionists.
  
  
• Other Protestant Groups:
  Other Protestant "Nonconformist" or "Dissenter" groups like Baptists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists also developed anti-slavery stances, often supported by their beliefs and practices that diverged from the Church of England.
  

Abolitionist Activities and Methods

• Theological Arguments:
  Abolitionists used the Bible to argue that slavery was a moral evil and sinful.
  
  
• Organized Protests:
  Quakers presented petitions to Parliament against the slave trade in the 1780s, marking the beginning of organized Christian efforts.
  
  
• Denominational Actions:
  The Philadelphia Quakers officially renounced slaveholding in 1754. In America, Methodists condemned slavery as early as the 1780s and incorporated anti-slavery sentiments into their doctrines.
  
  
• Influence of Key Figures:
  Leaders like Anthony Benezet wrote extensively on the topic, influencing figures like John Wesley and other abolitionists on both sides of the Atlantic.
  

The Second Great Awakening and the Abolitionist Movement

• Increased Fervor:
  The Second Great Awakening in the early 19th century, a period of widespread religious revival, inspired many Christians to actively participate in social reforms, including the abolition of slavery.
• "Immediatists" vs. Gradualists:
  This era saw the rise of "immediatist" abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison, who demanded the immediate end to slavery, and more pragmatic abolitionists, like Theodore Weld, who focused on programs for gradual emancipation.

The Role of the Catholic Church

• Gradual Shift: While many Christian denominations were actively involved in the abolitionist movement, the Catholic Church was slower to condemn slavery outright. However, the Church did become more critical of slavery during this period, with Pope Benedict XIV condemning it in 1741.

 

[ding]

I have a bluetooth headset when I am doing work around the house and in the yard and driving and I listen to YouTube debates, podcasts and one of those is a black person who is a former minister who saw the light. He said Christianity was used to keep black people in poverty by telling them it was a cross to bear, and they would be rewarded in heaven. Unfortunately human history is such that even slaves were made to believe that nonsense and blacks accepted their lot in life of poverty as a "virtue".

Given that 94% of blacks vote for Democrats, one has to wonder what that black minister has to say about the Democratic Party’s 150 years of racism, slavery, bigotry and segregation.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Given that 94% of blacks vote for Democrats, one has to wonder what that black minister has to say about the Democratic Party’s 150 years of racism, slavery, bigotry and segregation.

94% of blacks would disagree with you that Democrats are the party of racism, slavery, bigotry and segregation.
This fact proves my premise that humans are extremely easy to indoctrinate into political and religious beliefs. They can be persuaded to believe almost anything. Even god inspiration.