The Father God (Pt. 5)

Yet there is a question that needs to be asked, what happens when the fatherly nature of God is not taught, and more, taken away from him? What are some of the resounding issues that are confronted when the fatherly nature of God is removed from him and is not taught or, even, the opposite is taught? Would culture see these changes or would it just be in the religious regions that the waves would reach?

It would seem that culture would not just see the waves of this change, but would also be shocked by the changes it brings on within culture. For something interesting occurs when you strip God of his Fatherly nature. He becomes it and it becomes impersonal and impersonal becomes impartial and impartial becomes careless and careless becomes graceless and graceless becomes meaningless - meaningless to the point of irreverence and disregard. So much so that culture uses his name as a byword and a curse.

Culture has steadily and slowly attempted at removing God’s personal qualities, especially that he is Father. And Christianity is now, yes, even now, seeing the outcomes of those slow and steady cultural modifications to cultural Christian understandings of the Fatherly nature of God. The modern day fight of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered (LGBT) movement for cultural standing and inclusion is part and portion of the degenderization of the society at large which is an outcome of removing God’s Fatherly nature from his personality. It is also part of the reason for such drastic issues with out of wedlock pregnancies and fatherless children[1] as well as the astounding 56 million abortions that have legally happened since Roe V. Wade.

Statistic after statistic point to the rampant issue of fatherless homes within America and the subsequent issues faced by those children who are forced to grow up within a fatherless home. These subsequent issues are not simply the issues of the children growing up in fatherless homes but are also an issue of the culture at large.[2]

Removing God’s Fatherly nature from the written Word, from our modern understanding of God, and our cultural understand of Christianity has done nothing in the way of help for the American economy as well as for our children or our future. It is safe to argue that homosexuality is not an economically sound decision because economics is based on buying units, of which, homosexuals do not produce because they cannot reproduce. The same can be said for abortion; on an economic point 56 million buying units have been lost thus far, which is both dollars not being used but also jobs not being created or sustained by one, if not all, of those 56 million.[3] And statistically speaking a child born out of wedlock is more likely to live life on welfare than one born in a traditionally married family and thus this is a burden on the economy because a non-producing unit is only consuming. [4]

But God is Father and father he remains. He is Father because he has revealed himself as such. He has spoken clearly of who he is in his Word, therefore we see him not as impersonal, impartial and unimportant; no, we see him as personal, partial and vastly important and this changes everything.

The Fatherly nature of God is confessed in the original Christian confession of Baptism as well as the foundational Christian Creeds. It is radically important to both recognize and believe in God’s Fatherly nature for in so doing one rightly see God as he is Father, Son and Spirit, not mother or degenderized. The importance of seeing God as Father is necessary to one’s Christian faith, for to be Christian is to be a child of God the Father.

---

[1] U.S Fatherless Statistics. http://fatherhoodfactor.com/us-fatherless-statistics/ (Accessed April 29, 2014)

[2] Stephen Baskerville (2002). The Politics of Fatherhood. Political Science & Politics, , pp 695-699. doi:10.1017/S1049096502001191.

[3] Data and Statistics . http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/. (Accessed April 29, 2014)

[4] U.S. Fatherless Statistics. http://fatherhoodfactor.com/us-fatherless-statistics/ (Accessed April 29, 2014)

photo credit: http://teamorthodoxy.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/god-the-father.jpg

The Father God (Pt. 4)

These present the typical Christian understanding of God the Father. But what makes this understanding any different from the understanding of the Mormons (Ladder Day Saints)?

            The Church of the Ladder Day Saints (from hence forth referred to as ‘Mormons’) believes in a fatherly nature of God too, so what differs in their belief in God as a father and the Christian belief of God as Father, or does it differ?

“God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things. He “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's” (D&C 130:22).“[1]

This is the official doctrine of the Mormon Church on their belief of God as Father and is expounded upon on their website. So how is this Mormon doctrine any different than that of the Christian doctrine of God the Father?

            As one delves a little further into the Mormon belief of God as father the nuance of words begins, or should begin, to become glaringly important. They are subtle yet profound. There are three things to understand of the Mormon god.

First, the Mormon god is literally, in their belief, our father. He is the father of all mankind, we are sired by him. Second, there is difference between the son and the father. That is to say the understanding of God the Father that we as Christians gain from knowing God the Son is not the same understanding that a Mormon would gain from knowing their version of Jesus in relation to their father god. Jesus is to them simply a man born of god as all mankind is born of god who through his good life and death became the supreme man and therefore a god. Thirdly, and contingent on the second point, there is no trinity of unity within the Mormon godhead. Therefore all the understanding of the unity between Father, Son and Spirit is more than just not present in the Mormon Church but it is not the same religion as Mormonism. In other words, and for clarification, the Mormon understanding of God as father is in no way the same as the Christian understanding of God the Father.

---

[1] God the Father. https://www.lds.org/topics/god-the-father?lang=eng (Accessed April 29, 2014)

The Father God (Pt. 3)

Another creed, which bears witness to the Fatherly nature of God, is the Athanasian Creed. Dealing with, almost in its entirety, the Trinity, this creed develops further what it means that God is Father. It is important to note the way this particular creed develops the person of the Father by simultaneously developing the persons of the Spirit and Son.

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; there are three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.”[1]

As was stated above and now reiterated by the Athanasian Creed, it is impossible to know the Christian God if the original baptismal confession is not held. There are at least seven different characteristics or qualities of God contained in the above quoted creed: unity, uncreated, incomprehensibility, eternality, might, Lordship, equality, and distinctness. These themes play together in part, portion and whole to build a robust understanding of God as Father. For in God’s unity we see his Fatherly nature (as well as the Son’s nature and the Spirit nature) both presented and developed; in the Son we see the light of the glory of the Father in the face of the Son;[2] in the Spirit we are brought into right relationship with the Father.

            It is, therefore, evident that knowledge of the Father depends on our knowledge of the Son and Spirit and likewise the knowledge of the Son and Spirit depends on the Father. While distinct they are inseparable, so to knowing the Father is also to know the Son and Spirit of God, if the Father is to be known in a Christian understanding.

---

[1] Athanasian Creed. http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html. (Accessed April 28, 2014)

[2] 2 Corinthians 4:6

The Father God (Pt. 2)

To think on this topic rightly we must initiate with the first confession the Church was given. While there are many creeds, which are staring points for the Church this beginning confession is the foundational confession, a confession that all true Christians make in their life. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”[1] This (and the other recordings of the Great Commission) contains the basic confession of the Christian faith. The original Christian confession is the confession of Baptism, and within this confession is the depicter of God as the Father.

It is in this confession of Baptism that a believer is baptized and confesses to the Church, to the entire earthly and spiritual realm, their allegiance to the Christian God and the Christian God alone. Therefore in the baptismal process, in that distinct, specific confession is the affirmation that God is Father, that he is not Mother or some odd mixture of both. Thus the Creeds are built off of this original confession and all other confessions must carry as a part of them this base confession of our belief as Christians.

It is now, therefore, proper to dive into some of the early Creeds of the faith, those confessions that carry within themselves the above confession confessed at our baptism. (It would be safe to assume that any confession that does not carry this basic confession is not Christian.)

“I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,”[2] the Apostle’s Creed begins. One of the earliest confessions of the Christian faith bears in its first line the description of God as Father. Mirroring what Jesus gave before ascending into Heaven, “God the Father.” Yet it is of interest to note the other words used to augment God’s Fatherly nature, that of, “Almighty,” and, “Maker.” Part of the qualities that make God Fatherly is his might and that he is the Creator. As such he determines what we are and what he is and therefore what he is, is not determined by what we think. On the contrary, as he states in Exodus 3, “I am who I am,” it is thus determinable that he is and we are because he is. The attempt of the creation to change the Creator would be futile at best, absurd in the medium and pure lunacy at its plainest. So, in part, God being Creator means he is our Father because he is who he is.

---

[1] Matthew 28:18-20 (Italics added)

[2] Apostles' Creed. https://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html (Accessed April 28, 2014)

The Father God (Pt. 1)

What does it mean that God is Father? Aside from the obvious answer that it means God is our Father, there are many characteristics of God that are encapsulated in the description of God as “Father.” The providing aspect of God and his Kingship are just a couple, but, of course it cannot be overlooked that he has revealed himself in male terms. Some books present God as the all-mother or Mother God[1] in favor of a gender inclusive view of God. But we, as Christians, call God, “Father.” It is the purpose of this paper to delve into this idea of God’s Fatherly nature.

The aspects of God such as his love, greatness, goodness, gentleness, awesomeness, graciousness, mercifulness and more are not necessarily qualities that would make one think of God in male terms. But when coupled with his providence, Kingship and leadership we would need to assume upon his fatherly nature because these are the qualities, more often than not, associated with a father’s role within a family. As the Provider for his children we are given an old picture of a man bringing home what is needed to give health, home and happiness to his family. As King we see a God fierce in battle and mighty to save from the onslaught of demonic hosts and his people’s sin much as a father is the protector of his family and home. As Leader we see a God who is willing to do what is necessary to take his people where he wants them go, that is to say, where is best for them; as well as the ability to be the first to go into a situation. To literally lead his people by the hand into the seemingly unknown as a father leads his family to where he is called to be.

Yet where did this idea of God being a, “Father,” originate? How can God, who is Spirit[2], be known as a Father? Can we take this literally, figuratively or even believe this at all? To discuss this topic the Scriptures and the Creeds need to be examined. Therefore, for this particular piece the original confession of the Christian faith, the Apostle’s Creed and Athanasian Creed will be examined. But additionally the view of the Ladder Day Saints will also be studied in order to more narrowly define the Christian understanding of God as Father.

---

[1] Young, Paul. The Shack. Windblown Media. 2011

[2] John 4:24 English Standard Version. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+4&version=ESV. (Accessed April 28, 2014)

An Appraisal of Economically Challenged Individuals Fulfilling The Great Commission (Pt. 1)

One would think there are few reasons, if any, the economically challenged individuals of the world are highly valued to God in their role of fulfilling the Great Commission. However if one were to think that it would indeed show their arrogance for there are at least three reasons an economically challenged individual fulfills valued roles as a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ.

First, is simply this, a valued disciple, “make[s] disciples… and baptize[s] them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”[1] Yes, the command is to go to all nations, but all nations include this nation and the nations of those who are poor. Therefore the only detraction for those who are economically challenged in being a valued disciple of Jesus Christ would be that of unbelief. One cannot be a valued disciple of Jesus if one is not a Christian, that is, if one does not have the saving faith of Jesus being one’s only hope for redemption sent from God dying in their place for their crimes (sins) against God. Indeed the primary and most important requirement for being a valued disciple of Jesus is simply faith that he is one’s Savior and besides him there is no other. Truly, “without faith it is impossible to please God.”[2]

Thus, the reality in which God sees his disciples is as his beloved children in whom he is well pleased because of Jesus’ saving work; he is pleased in them and with them because they have faith. But what of seeming obvious detriments to being economically challenged and faithfully fulfilling the Great Commission?

Time would seem to be a deterrent for one to fulfill valued roles as a disciple. If one’s time is spent doing work necessary to make ends met and fend for one’s family then one is naturally bound by the same reality of time. They cannot work the required hours to make ends meet then use the leftover time, however brief, to fulfill the Great Commission well.

But the parable of the Widow’s Mite[3] would be applicable here in informing our understanding of the value God has placed on those with little. While the rich give it is from their abundance, but the poor give from their poverty giving the greater gift because it actually costs them something whether that something is a weekly meal, clean water, mosquito net or all of these. Therefore the value of the disciple would perhaps be more than those who give out of their abundance not thinking of the cost to them. 

Yet as we have learned in class people are the true wealth of economies. Thus, I would submit, the economy of God is shown to be truly wealthy by not merely the members it currently enraptures but the members who are yet to be enraptured by the saving grace of Jesus Christ proclaimed through current disciples. We are, if we are to take this idea of mankind being the wealth of economies literally, the wealth of God’s economy. Valued and made worthy by God himself. Thus in treasuring us he truly values himself for his redemption is complete in his love for us, which is his love for himself in us. But it still remains to be seen how do economically challenged individuals help the world around them?

---

[1] The Holy Bible. NKJV. Matthew 28:19. Thomas Nelson 1991.

[2] The Holly Bible. ESV. Hebrews 11:6

[3] The Holy Bible. ESV. Mark 12:41-44.

Treatment of Religions (Pt. 5 - final post)

In comparison the writers, both of Christian backgrounds, offered their specific flavor to interpretations of other world religions. Corduan’s, “So you meet a…” sections at the end of every chapter were of great value and often times taught much more than one can experience on one’s own. Additionally Corduan’s premise of Original Monotheism, again, helps to bolster the whole book and therein provides the reader a more substantial understanding of the historical nature and progression of all religion while still providing the facts of specific religions. Dickson’s chapter, “What’s Wrong With Jesus” furnishes the reader information that they would not normally consider especially if they were of a Christian upbringing or background. Herein lies the power of Dickson’s book, attempting to show each of the five religions regarded in their own specific light and therefore letting the reader get to know the unadulterated state of a religion as best as a Christian writer can do given his preconceptions.

            If asked to recommend one of these two books as a resource of another believer to learn about other religions, Corduan’s work would best suit the believer. While it offers many more religions to learn about this is not the primary case for choosing this book (but it does not hurt). The main reason Corduan’s book is more helpful than Dickson’s is completely based on the Original Monotheism motif, which runs the course of the book. In so doing it gives the read a deeper and richer understanding of the historical sense as well as equips them for the, now seemingly, inevitable conversation they will have with an Atheist about their faith.

            What remains after this? That Christ is the Savior of his Church and the Church is the herald of that glorious news. As Christians it is part of their purpose to know, to the best of their abilities, how to speak the gospel into other people’s lives. Therefore Christians are the bearer of wonderful news with cunning minds, able to see the myths of other belief systems (and unbelief systems) for what they are and, by the grace of God for the glory of God, proclaim,

“O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free Thine own from Satan's tyranny; from depths of Hell Thy people save, and give them victory o'er the grave… O come, Thou Day-Spring, come and cheer; our spirits by Thine advent here; Disperse the gloomy clouds of night, and death's dark shadows put to flight. Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.”[1]

---

[1] Emanuel Veni. translated by John M Neale. O Come, O Come Emmanuel. Mediaevel Hymns, 1851

Treatment of Religions (Pt. 4)

These two ideas, Evolutionary Approach and Original Monotheism are at odds and will be continually at odds in a Post-Christian society. For a fundamental assumption on the part of atheism is that of the evolutionary model for not simply biological creatures but also for culture. In so assuming the Atheist logically follows the outcome of what should happen in an ideal circumstance, namely that of progressively tighter organization, belief systems and reason. This would continue until there is no more need for religious institutions and doctrine, as reason would dictate. But against this idea stands Original Monotheism, which assumes that religion began as monotheistic and spiraled out of control in to polytheism, henotheism, animism and fetishism while a segment of that original monotheism was preserved by that original deity (the Christian God).[1]

The evidence for Monotheism is, it would seem, weightier than that of the Evolutionary Approach. For the Evolutionary Approach assumes that all culture and society are gradually evolving into more and more unity, but in many ways society and culture do not seem to be evolving in that direction at all. Therefore Original Monotheism’s approach of an almost devolution of religion and society makes a good case.

It is this portion of Corduan’s book and the way in which he interprets all religions discussed therein through the lens of Original Monotheism that makes his book unique and, presumably, more helpful to those aiming at living in, or already living in, an ever increasing Post-Christian culture. But John Dickson provides helpful insight into what is now being faced in American Culture at large, namely the issue of pluralism.

While quoting Chris McGillion from The Sydney Morning Herald Dickson writes of what sophisticated pluralism is,

“The very diversity of religions… speaks to a truth – that all people in every time and place have felt the need to respond to the infinite… The various religious traditions are the ‘how’ of that response… All religions are truthful in far more important ways than some of their propositions are false.”[2]

In reading this description of pluralism C.S. Lewis comes to mind, “We cannot tell it because it is a desire for something that has never actually appeared in our experience. We cannot hide it because our experience is constantly suggesting it, and we betray ourselves like lovers at the mention of a name…”[3] that there is indeed something more mankind is aiming for, reaching for, or grasping at attaining because within all humanity is a hardwired desire for, as McGillion would say it, “the infinite.” But Lewis does not leave off with the same conclusion McGillion’s does, nor does he assume, as so many pluralists do, all religions are the same but rather he continues with,

“These things – the beauty, the memory, of our own past – are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself, they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers. For they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of tune we have not heard, news from a country we have never yet visited.”[4]

So it is that pluralism, while seeking to describe the paths of religions almost grasp hold of Blaise Pascal’s God shaped vacuum inside of us all.

            Thus in contrast Corduan’s book helps those of a Post-Christian culture become more aware of the arguments of those around them while Dickson would be of more help to one in a Post-Modern culture. Corduan writes of more about the basis behind religions and, from this position, discusses the belief systems of various religious systems. Dickson attempts to present a fair treatment of each religion based on their fundamental doctrinal beliefs.

---

[1] However Original Monotheism assumes that God is real and God is at the center of all. This is the idea that Atheists will indeed argue against. But the question at hand is not to argue for or against the existence of God but rather to pose the question, “If Original Monotheism is true, then…”

[2] John Dickson in A Spectators’ Guide to World Religions An Introduction to the Big Five. P 218 Lion Hudson, 2008

[3] C.S. Lewis. The Weight of Glory p 30-31. Harper Collins, NY 1949

[4] Ibid

Treatment of Religion (Pt. 3)

The former part of contrasting and comparing the two assigned books of Winfried Corduan’s Neighboring Faiths A Christian Introduction to World Religions and John Dickson’s A Spectators’ Guide to World Religions An Introduction to the Big Five and their treatments of religions is to be accomplished in two main ways. First, that of the how a Christian in a Post-Christian society might be able to best use these resources and the information they contain; and second the Christian approach of both books in presenting other world religions.

The Post-Christian world is a steadily increasing mindset in America. A recent study by the Barna Group shows some ninety-six cities are listed as having higher than 10% post-Christian tendencies with the highest being 63% Post-Christian having been rated on a scale of fifteen factors of unbelief (from atheism to lack of local church attendance) . Therefore it is an ever-growing necessity to learn how to be an effective disciple of Christ in a land that is becoming increasingly ignorant and intolerant to the views of Christianity. Part of doing this is aiming at understanding the arguments, which stand as fundamental to the atheistic mindset. 

Corduan explains well the mindset, which demands our understanding, “The Evolutionary Approach,” which, “many scholars assume… rests on two assumptions. The first… is a general commitment to an evolutionary view of life and culture… The second assumption has to do with the anthropological method.” That culture and subsequently religion has moved from, “mana and magic,” to, “animism, polytheism, henotheism, and finally monotheism,” begging the question that atheism is the next move in mankind’s religious and cultural evolution.

Within this same chapter Corduan explains the merits of Original Monotheism over and above the Evolutionary Approach. In it’s most basic form, “Original monotheism locates the beginnings of religion in God.”  The first form of religion would looks something like: a God of personhood referred to in masculine terms; living in heaven; great in power and knowledge; creator; author of the standards for good and evil; causing mankind’s purpose as his creatures to be obedience to his laws; an alienation of mankind because of their disobedience; and the provider of a way of overcoming said alienation.  This is the idea of Original Monotheism Corduan sets forth at the beginning of his book. 

[1] Barna Group. The Most Post-Christian Cities. http://cities.barna.org/the-most-post-christian-cities-in-america/.

[2] Winfried Corduan. Neighboring Faiths A Christian Introduction to World Religions. P 24-32. InterVarsity Press IL, 1998.

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

Treatment of Religions (Pt. 2)

(Part 1 may be read by clicking here.)

Scripture makes clear the way God has set forth for his people to see those of other religions brought to faith in Jesus Christ.

“’Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!’” (Romans 10:11-15 ESV)

And,

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

Christians are the spear’s end of evangelism. It is the part, portion and privilege of the believer to bring the good news of King Jesus to the darkened doorsteps of the lost. In so doing, through the power of the Holy Spirit, seeing converts from every tribe, tongue and religion this world has thought to be worthy distractions from the worship of the Father.

With this in mind it is evident the prospects of a person of another religious conviction becoming a faithful servant of Jesus are completely dependent on God’s moving and his people’s going. Thus it is the privilege of the Christian to be part of the mission of God in the redemption of his people across the globe and within varying religions both hostile and peaceful. Truly it will be said (and is said), “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone.” (Isaiah 9:2) So it stands that the prospects of belief in the gospel for those of various religions is that of God himself who is the director of the steps and plans of man (Proverbs 16:9 NKJV). It is he who ultimately saves (Romans 9:16) any soul creating for himself faithful servants who will share in the work of his mission for all believers and his ultimate worship at the consummation of all things.

Treatment of Religions (Pt. 1)

The list of world religions, both major and minor, is an extensive list wherein many billions of people’s hopes, ideals and aspirations are found. Truly a study of these religions is sobering and saddening whilst also being encouraging. For in the study of other religions it becomes clear the claims of Christianity must be considered valid and truthful for they are the only claims, which rise out of the dross as pure. But, however, the treatment of some of the major and minor world religions accomplished by Winfried Corduan in Neighboring Faiths A Christian Introduction to World Religions and John Dickson in A Spectators’ Guide to World Religions An Introduction to the Big Five ought to be compared and contrasted in so far as they are related; additionally it shall be noted as to the prospects of any persons from any religion outside of Christianity becoming a faithful servant of Jesus Christ.

Beginning with the latter and moving to the former what are the prospects of a person converting from another religion to Christianity? In this area arguments made by Richard Dawkins about the origin of a person as the determining factor of their beliefs must be examined in order to gain a fuller understanding of the prospects of faith in Christ for non-Christians. “If you had been born in India I daresay you’d be saying the same thing about lord Krishna and lord Shiva; if you had been born in Afghanistan I daresay you’d be saying the same thing about Allah…”[1] It is this idea, which must be confronted when considering the hope of one’s salvation from another religion.

At its heart this argument assumes that all religions are the same, with all their claims and pageantry, their attempts at saving man’s soul. In so doing it creates a straw man fallacy, rather than facing each religious claim on their own merit (or folly) it bundles them all into a neat scarecrow made of straw and proceeds to topple them over. But, however, this is stripping Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and all other religions of their religion-specific claims. For there are many something’s[2] which differentiate Christianity from the rest of religion, many doctrines that separate it from the straw man. “…While many of the religions are superficially alike, most of them are fundamentally different.”[3] To be sure karma and grace are at odds; mercy and enlightenment are at odds; Jesus the Messiah and the missing Messiah are at odds; the triune nature of God and the oneness of Allah are at odds.

Therefore, because these religions are not the same and because their fundamental claims, hopes, and aspirations are different, it becomes clear that to assume the birthplace of an individual is the final factor in their belief is rudimentary ignorance on the part of the arguer. It would be as one comparing Mozart and The Rolling Stones declaring them the same.  What is more is this argument discounts the power of God (True, it is made by an atheist and therefore is made in the sense of discrediting God).

---

[1] Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins cruelly answers audience question.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ

[2] I use the word “something’s” intentionally for it is often the word used when describing the uniqueness or the under current of Christianity.

[3]John Dickson. A Spectator’s Guide to World Religions: An Introduction to the Big Five.  P. 209