Before we start, I must note that this may be an extensive post. It will be VERY long, and I encourage you to read the entire post, or simply skip over it. I say this because of the continuity of the logic in this post. In basic terms, you wont understand what is being said unless you read the post in its entirity... aka: dont skip around, cause you might get lost... and you may become lost anyways. Sound like fun?! Lets go...
In my life I have experienced many people who take religion to separate, unhealthy extremes. I have met Chritians throughout my life who I would define as "legalistic" in philosophy. When I say legalistic I mean they are too focused on the specific rules of Christianity without regard to the grace and freedom with have in Christ. Many of us have been hurt by Christians who seem to be so consumed with rules that they may forget to see their own downfalls until its too late. Thus many times people label Christians as hypocritical individuals. It is sad, but many times we think of "legalistic" Christians when we hear of christians being cast as hypocrits in the national news. Our perspective on Christianity becomes dark and gloomy, because we have this thought that Christians must be perfect.
The other side of this unhealthy extreme which I would like to talk about, is the growing amount of individuals who believe that all religions point to our true creator, and therefor we need to open our minds to accepting all religions on holding absolute truth. I try not to be stereotypical in my descriptions, but this is the persons who would argue that in many ways Christ was a great man, but nonetheless just a good moral teacher to help us see God; similar to that of Muhutma Ghandi, Muhummand, and others.
Which brings me to the question I intend to provide some sort of clearity to: Why believe in Christ only? If the Jews, Muslims, and Christians all serve the same God, why cant we find some moral ground to serve the same God? Let us focus on that question. We can come back to pantheistic world views later (i.e. Hindu, Buddhism, Greek philosophy), right now lets focus on Allah, God, Jehovah, Yahweh, the God that seems from the outside to be the same in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
And I know of no better way to answer this question than to look at a few pages from C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity." I foundationally believe this excerpt is one of the most powerful passeges of apologetics ever written, and my thought is "why re-write something as powerful as this." Keep in mind that this man writting this passage, Lewis, was an athiest for much if not most of his life. I will spare you the exciting details of C.S. Lewis for another time, but here is response to "Why Christ":
"God made us: invented us as a man invents an engine. A car is made to run on gas, and it would not run properly on anything else. Now God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. That is why it is just no good asking God to make us happy in our own way without bothering about religion. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.
That is the key to history. Terrific energy is expended-civilisations are built up--excellent institutions devised; but each time something goes wrong. Some fatal flaw always brings the selfish and cruel people to the top and it all slides back into misery and ruin. In fact, the machine conks. It seems to start up all right and runs a few yards, and then it breaks down. They are trying to run it on the wrong juice. That is what Satan has done to us humans.
And what did God do? First of all He left us conscience, the sense of right and wrong: and all through history there have been people trying (some of them very hard) to obey it. None of them ever quite succeeded. Secondly, He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and by his death, has somehow given new life to men. Thirdly, He selected one particular people and spent several centuries hammering into their heads the sort of God He was--that there was only one of Him and that He cared about right conduct. Those people were the Jews, and the Old Testament gives an account of the hammering process.
Then come the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Hindus, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world, who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.
One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.
Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less so unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is 'humble and meek' and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
Thoughts, comments, questions?
*Points of Interest in Scripture:
"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." Luke 12:51
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 7:13-14
