Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekecs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!tektronix!orca!tekecs!kene
From: kene@tekecs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Alan vs. the One True Way
Message-ID: <4011@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Aug-84 19:39:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekecs.4011
Posted: Tue Aug 28 19:39:29 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Aug-84 05:38:37 EDT
Sender: kene@tekecs.UUCP
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 120


Alan Driscoll recently took issue with Jeff Sargent over the subject of 
the One True Way (we've been on this one before, haven't we?).  In his 
article, Alan made the following assertions (paraphrased): 

 1. If you say that other religions are false, you should first know 
    what the other religions have to say.  

 2. Why should a seeker assume there is only one valid religion?

 3. None of Christianity's *claims to uniqueness* (as cited 
    in a quote from Jeff's article) are actually unique.  With all the 
    religions in the world, why not look for some underlying, unifying 
    principle?  

 4. How is a seeker to decide what religion(s) is(are) valid?  

Item #1 is a good point.  Perhaps the subscribers to this newsgroup could 
do more in this area.  

Item #2 -- No one has to assume there is only one valid religion.  On the 
other hand, by the same objectivity, you must account for the possibility 
that there may be only one valid religion.  Whether you decide that or not 
depends (or should depend) on the results of your own personal investigation.

Item #3 -- As I understand it, Christianity's claims to uniqueness go much 
deeper than the few doctrinal points quoted from Jeff's article.  Here is 
what I see as crux of the matter: 

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS (for the following description): 

Religion -- A system of belief and practice dealing with God (defined below) 
            and Man (i.e.; all humans) and the relationship between them.  

God -- Any concept of Deity or Higher Power, seen as existing on some higher 
            plane and to which Man ascribes some kind of subservient role.  

Heaven -- Any concept of Eternal Existence, especially in the context of 
            after death.  

A discussion on the uniqueness of Christianity could get very long, therefore 
I will abstain from intricate detail here and simply make general points.  
Most religions, as I understand them, seem to orient their doctrines and 
practices around the following points: 

-- Man is either a blank sheet or has some intrinsic goodness which, if 
   properly nurtured, will result in a heavenly reward of some kind.  

-- By following the tenets of [Hinduinsm, Bhuddism, Islam, Spiritism, et al],
   one can nurture and develop one's own intrinsic goodness or accumulate 
   a treasury of good works and eventually receive the heavenly reward.  

-- The emphasis rests on the action of Man reaching upward toward God.  

These, I believe, are the core tenets of most world religions.  
It is undeniable that many "Christians" describe Christianity in this way 
(i.e.; "Folow the Ten Commandments, go to church, pray, live a good life, 
and you'll go to heaven..."), but a person who seriously seeks the real 
meaning of Christianity understands that this is not true.  Historic 
Christianity differs from other religions in the following way: 

-- The nature of Man is fallen, making him(them) inherently unable to reach 
   up to God.  Man is not a blank sheet, nor does he have any intrinsic 
   goodness that enables him to aspire to a heavenly status by his own 
   effort. (see NOTE)

-- The work necessary to bring Man to a heavenly reward has already been 
   done.  It was accomplished by a substitutionary action, one person 
   doing the work on behalf of the entire human race.  The work is completed, 
   requiring no other action on the part of Man to be effective.  
   Rejection of this completed work maintains a person in a state of 
   fallenness and emnity toward God.  

-- The emphasis rests on the action of God reaching downward to Man.  

This, I believe, is the basic doctrinal difference that makes Christianity 
unique among other religions.  If you say that there are other religions 
that teach these same things, then please make some references so that I 
can check them out.  

Item #4 -- How does one choose?  My first response is to ask the question 
"Are you really interested in finding out?"  I have too often heard this 
question as cheap cop-out for inaction by a person who didn't want anything 
to do with religion in the first place.  I will answer this point with a 
quick illustration: 

  A small business owner decides he wants to get a small computer to help 
  with his business.  He goes down to the local bookstore and buys a few 
  computer magazines to acquaint himself with what's available.  Leafing 
  through the pages, he sees ad after ad for IBM, Commodore, Apollo, 
  DEC, Wang, etc., etc.  Seeing the plethora of available products, each 
  claiming superiority, he throws up his hands in dismay and says, 
  "There's no way I can choose.  There's so many and they all say they're 
  the best."  He finally rejects the idea of buying a computer.  

Is this fictitious businessman's conclusion valid?  Positively not!  
He certainly could find a computer -- if he really wanted to in the first 
place.  In the same way, a person who is serious about evaluating religions 
can also investigate.  I do it.  I am a Christian (pretty solid about it,
too) but I also investigate other religions as well.  I'm not looking to 
convert to anything else, but I still have a curiosity about what other 
people believe.  Finally, if Christianity is true (and I believe that it is), 
then God is not just sitting up in Heaven waiting for you to get up to 
Him, but He is right down here actively seeking you out.  

--------------------
NOTE:
The reference to Man not having "any intrinsic goodness that enables him 
to aspire to a heavenly status by his own effort" is not intended to say
that humankind has nothing good about it.  People are obviously capable 
of doing good things.  The import of the statement is to say that 
(according to basic Christian doctrine) the good things that people do 
will not elevate them to a heavenly status.  Christianity teaches that 
what is needed to enter the Kingdom of God is a change of nature, not 
an accumulation of good deeds.  
--------------------

                    [decvax,ucvax]!tektronix!tekecs!kene
                        Ken Ewing