Are All Religions Equal and Acceptable?
Probably, if people really thought about this question seriously, they would answer, "No." Those who think the answer should be an unqualified, "Yes," need to be reminded that many pagan religions sacrificed their children in fire to their deities. And what if it were part of a religion to practice Cannibalism? Would we still maintain that all religions are equal? Someone might respond by saying, "Well, of course not. Use some common sense, man. We can't approve of such barbarous behavior." True, but the rejection of even one religion means that we have the right to examine all religions and reject some on valid grounds, which means they are not all equal.
People like to repeat the idea that all religions are equal because it makes them sound so fair-minded and magnanimous. But the principle is greatly flawed and collapses under even a little investigation. On April 30, your congenial columnist, received an e-mail from Clarence (not his actual name). He took issue with something I had written 20 years ago. Below are a few sentences from his long opening paragraph:
I come from a heavy Catholic influence, but have had the opportunity to study other religions in my lifetime…. I understand that you are a Christian man, so we definitely hold some of the same ideals. he are are two completently different things. Religion is used as a segue for people to have faith. If you are a devout follower of any religion, you have faith, but you don't need religion to have faith. …people come from different backgrounds and hold a different set of ideals. For instance, Islam and Christianity are viewed as two completely different religions, but hold many of the same ideals at the core. Every major religion believes in the existence of a higher power. But who are we to say that what we believe is right and what people in the Middle East believe is wrong?
Anyone who has trouble following this line of reasoning is probably normal. The prophets of Baal believed in a higher power. Why is that advantageous if the higher power someone believes in is not true? In other words, what value exists in believing in a Higher Power if that Power is undefined or clearly false? Clarence seems to think that religions are different based on "different backgrounds" and "different ideals," but Christianity spread to all cultures and backgrounds within the first century. Every world religion started somewhere. Islam spread, also (centuries later), and continues to make inroads in cultures totally foreign to its origin. So where a religion began is irrelevant. The questions that should be asked are: "Is it from God or man?"; "Is it true or false?"; and "What is the evidence for the claims that it makes?" I did not address this point because he wrote even worse errors.
We are still in Clarence's opening paragraph of 27 lines. He next attacked the idea of inspiration.
The Bible was not written by God and was not written in English, just as the Qur'an was not written by Allah and not written in English. These were inspired works from people that had 'faith' in their God and believed it was their duty to spread these teachings. Key word is 'inspired' works of God, written by humans. Have you ever heard of a perfect human being?
It is undoubtedly news to few that the Bible was not written in English and therefore needed to be translated. Even though the New Testament was written in Greek, which was a universal language in the first century, it was still translated into dozens of other languages used in various parts of the world. Clarence claims that anything written by humans is fallible because human beings are not perfect. I responded:
1. The Bible is not inspired. It claims to be. Have you not read 2 Timothy 3:16-17? This is the Bible's claim, but you simply dismiss it. Who gave you this right? Not God. Human beings are fallible and imperfect, but Almighty God does not fall into this category. Do you not think that the One Who created the earth and all that is in it in 6 days could see to it that His Word is recorded and translated correctly? If not, why not?
Clarence was not done talking about translation, but while he was on the subject of imperfect human beings, he added: "No, not even Jesus was perfect. No one is perfect and we all make mistakes." Such a flagrant statement could not be overlooked.
2. Jesus was not perfect. He once asked His enemies, "Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell you the truth, why do you not believe Me?" (John 8:46). They could not name a single sin of which He was guilty, and neither can you. You might want to rethink what you tell people. You are guilty of blasphemy. If Jesus was not perfect, He could not be the perfect sacrifice for man's sins. You say you have faith. In what? Why? By the way, did Muhammad do anything like this? Hmm.
Of course, the last remark demonstrates that Jesus and Christianity are different than every other religion in that Jesus is the only One Who paid the price for our sins. After rambling on a bit more about translations, he finally got to his second paragraph. Chances are that Christians who read his next sentence will be shocked, but it is the case that he actually wrote it: "Trusting in your own heart holds much more value than what a mass manufactured book says." I replied:
3. Trusting in your own heart. I'm fairly certain that you do not know the Bible at all, or you could not: 1) cast aspersions on Jesus' character; and 2) directly contradict what the Scriptures teach. "He who trusts in his own heart is a fool" (Proverbs 28:26).
The next issue dealt with by Clarence involved what God would say to us "if he had a human voice and could verbally communicate with us humans down on Earth." My flabbergasted response was:
4. If God could talk to us. IF??? Jesus was God in the flesh (John 1:1-3, 14). God was in the flesh, and He did talk to us. You just don't know what He said.
Is it not always amazing that people who claim to have studied world religions seem to know so little concerning what they believe? How can anyone purporting to know anything about Christianity have failed to miss: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"? While some sentences in the Scriptures are lengthy and sometimes complicated, this one is not. And it translates easily into difference languages. Clarence's comments border on the absurd. He concluded his second paragraph with the following "wisdom":
…numbers tell me that the main message of the Bible, Qur'an, Shreemad Bhagavad, Tripitakas, etc. is that helping your fellow humans to be better off than how you found them is more important than the historical factualness of any book. These books are meant to be used for guidance, not history.
My answer on this point was brief. The comments in brackets are added at this point.
5. Bible is not history. God was the very first historian. Have you read Genesis? [Do I leave someone better than I found them if I leave them untaught and in error? Jesus said that He came to bear witness of the truth (John 18:37). Shall we not do the same? For this reason I have supplied Scriptures to show you the truth—so that you will know these are not just my thoughts and opinions. Incidentally, that is all you have been offering—your opinions. You have no authority to appeal to because in your mind you are the authority. What is reasonable to you should be accepted by all others. Such a subjective system is not valid.]
Somewhere in the second paragraph, Clarence also offered these comments:
A Christian is simply a follower of Christ. Someone who strives to be more like Christ. Just because you know your scripture doesn't make you a prophet.
Considering these words and a few others he had written, I answered thus:
6. A Christian is simply a follower of Christ. There is nothing simple about it. Jesus said that if you continue in His Word, you shall know the truth, and the truth would set you free (John 8:31-32). Faith is not just believing something with or without evidence. Jesus provided the evidence for His teachings with His miracles, and on that basis people believed the truth He taught. (What did Muhammad provide?)
People from Muslim countries do not have liberty. The Bible and Christianity are banned. The leaders who make those laws will be judged severely. Communist countries have also tried to suppress the Scriptures. Here we have them, but then you come along and try to undermine them. Are you better than they? You might want to re-evaluate your position while you still have the opportunity.
The reason for the comparisons between Christianity and Islam is to show that they are not the same. The God is not the same, the principles of each are not the same (although a few are), and the techniques for evangelism differ greatly. Christianity grew by the preaching of the gospel of Christ accompanied by miracles; Islam spread by the sword. The two are poles apart in many respects.
Although my reactions to Clarence were direct and frank, it is doubtful that they contained much of an impact. He has been indoctrinated by religious philosophy, which is nothing more than the "wisdom" of men. This philosophy seeks to make all religions equal and to find common principles to help one's fellow man. It causes one to recall the words of John Lennon's misguided song, "Imagine," which was a key word in Clarence's third paragraph. Lennon imagined "a brotherhood of man"—one in which "all the people" shared "all the world." He apparently thought that if we all lived in houses made of ticky tacky that all looked the same, the world would have harmony and unity and peace. Hah!
Yes, he was a dreamer, all right. People will not be united based on an equality of possessions and property, which are only outward circumstances—especially since Lennon also thought Utopia would be achieved without religion, which is what is needed to transform the inner man. The only difference between Clarence and Lennon is that the former thinks religion has value, but a nebulous wishy-washiness will not help. Why should people love each other and live at peace with all men? The answer is that these principles are taught in the Bible—not Islam or any other religion. Only truth which is objective (coming from God and not the mere thoughts of a human being) will set us free from the misconceptions we have about life, the world, and each other—only truth can lead to the forgiveness of sins (John 8:31-32; cf. Acts 2:38). I answered Clarence's e-mail the same day he sent it; no reply from him has been forthcoming.