Isn't Christianity Like Every Other Major World Religion?

On the surface, it might appear as if every major world religion (Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam Judaism and Christianity)are pretty much the same. But, if one is care to examine the foundational doctrines of each of these religions, one will rightly see that these world religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam Judaism and Christianity) are worlds aparts!

What do I mean by the claim that "these major world religions are worlds apart" here?
What I take to mean by worlds apart is that, at the core, each of these religions make exclusive claims. Truth by definition is exclusive and to deny this is to prove it.

Let's examine some core doctrines of each religion noted above:

1)Solution To The Problem of Evil and Suffering

Buddhism:Siddhartha Gautama or now known as the Buddha in his Four Noble Truths reveals that the problem of evil and suffering lies within our "desires/cravings". So logically it follows that to get rid of evil and suffering, one must rid himself or herself from his/her "desires" for suffering to cease. Rightly so, in his Third Noble Truth, the Buddha indeed says that for suffering to stop, one has to stop desiring.

Hinduism: In the Hindu framework, which is a vast one in itself, actually see evil ultimately as the result from one's actions. In Hinduism, the Self (Atman) is eternal. Atman is Brahman (the Ultimate Reality). I need to be careful here though. Evil at times is only apparent. Look what Swami Krishnarupananda says about the Problem of Evil.

"That which appears good in one case may appear as evil when the conditions change and the results are different. The same fire may be called a giver of life and comfort and a bestower of happiness and a producer of good when it saves the life of a half-frozen man or when it cooks our food, but it will be called the producer of evil and a curse of God when it destroys life or inflicts injury on man and his property. Evil is good misconstrued; good poisoned with ignorance is evil; evil treated and cured of its poison when it regains its health, becomes good."

In Hinduism, one pretty much deals with evil and suffering by performing good deeds to outwage their negative karma hoping that in the next life, they can be free from suffering. My question here is: If every birth is a redeath (rebirth) what was one paying for in their first birth? And if the Self is eternal, does this not imply that evil originated within Brahman?

Islam & Judaism : Islam views evil and suffering just as closely as Judaism and Christianity. Within Islam and Judaism, evil and or suffering come as a result of either:
1- Punishment(natural disasters) of sin
2- Consequences of free will
3- Test of Faith

Islam's and Judaism's solution to the problem of evil is that God will ultimately handle every human affair justly and that in the next life (after resurrection in Heaven or so)everything will be much better.

Christianity: Jesus came to point that the problem of mankind lies within the heart. Jesus reached out to the outcast of society, he sat and had dinner with the belittled and disliked. Jesus came to make dead people live. At the Cross evil, good, love, hate, and grace met, and love triumphed which resulted as forgiveness. Jesus came to point that this world is broken and nothing we do in life will ever satisfy us apart from Him. Our pursuit of what is ultimate assumes that we find relevance in that belief. But the greatest disappointment in life is when what we thought would bring total satisfaction, fails us. Jesus does not dismiss the problem of evil and suffering, indeed He says that in this world His followers are going to suffer and be hated because of Him. In other passages in the New Testament, Jesus says that evil and suffering in general ought to be interpreted in light of the future glory that awaits people. This is the best possible world in light of morality because love can exist without being forced.

The Buddha said: Forsake everything and be your own light.
Krishna said: After you've paid your karmic debt you'll find the light.
Jesus said: Come to me as you are and I will give you rest.

What is truth?

"What is truth?" proclaimed Pontius Pilate (John 18:38) Although the answer to this question was left unanswered since Pilate left immediately after asking it, the question of about what is truth still haunts today in the hallways of academia. Truth in simple terms is what is says Ravi Zacharias in his book Can Man Live Without God. Truth does not rely on feelings or emotions or drives, it is what is regardless of the situation or setting.
In John 14:6 Jesus says that He is The Truth the Way and The Life, no one comes to the Father but through me. Truth by definition is exclusive. The Law of Non-Contradiction works always for detecting a false or true statement. For example, if Jesus says He is the Truth, and Muhammad says Allah is the Truth alone, one is mistaken or both are but both claims cannot be both true because they are both in conflict with each other. Either Jesus is right or He is not.
Truth is not relative, if it was, then no absolute truth would exist, since according to relativism, truth is a subjective matter, not an objective one. For a example. if truth was subjective, then Hitler did not do anything "wrong". Since he was operating on truth as subjective.
To summarize, truth is what is, absolute and unchanging. Truth is found in Jesus Christ, and in Jesus Christ alone.

In the account of Jesus and Pilate in the courtroom, the fundamental problem Jesus was exposing to Pilate and to the world is not the paucity of available truth; it is more often the hyprocrisy of our search. Truthfulness in the heart, said Jesus, precedes truth in the objective realm. Intent is prior to content. The most provocative statement Jesus made during that penetrating conversation was that the truthfulness or falsity of an individual's heart was revealed by the person's response to Him. What you do with Him reveals more about you than it does about Him

- R. Z. pp.98 Can Man Live Without God
Accordingly, we all long for truth, if not, ask any person in a courtroom being accused of a wrongdoing he or she never committed. Truth is important. Truth matters.

How To Choose A Worldview.

What is a worldview? What are the objectives and or ramifications of choosing an incorrect worldview? Why does it matter anyway? These are all questions that many of my friends at my ancient philosophy course have, actually, I am more than sure most, if not all students across the world have as well. In his book, Can Man Live Without God and The Real Face of Atheism, apologist Ravi Zacharias gives a thorough explanation of how one can choose a worldview.
A worldview in simple terms is, a philosophy by which one lives. It's the framework by which one gets his answers to life's questions and implications for any given-setting.
There are four basic questions of life that any worldview has to answer.
1) Origin
2) Meaning
3) Morality
4) Destiny

And the answers to these questions have to correspond to reality and be coherent with each answer.
A worldview has to be able to pass the three tests for truth. Is it:
1) Logically Consistent
2) Empirically Relevant
3) Existentially Adequate

Are the four questions to life logically consistent with life? Are they empirically relevant and existentially adequate? Life is too short to make mistakes that will greatly affect our future. The ramifications of espousing an incorrect worldview are ever-unchanging. There is no going back after one leaves this world.

Did God create the earth before the sun and moon?

God, Evil and Suffering

"How can a loving God allow evil and wickedness to go about?" exclaim skeptics and the like.
The answer to this question is simple, yet, complex is the process in explaining it. It's a very good question though.
When evil is asserted, one must also assume goodness. If there is evil and good, one must posit a moral law so that one can differentiate between good and evil. If there is a moral law, there must be an objective moral law Giver.
This jump in philosophy is a tough leap in the line of argument, but think about the alternatives. Who does give that objective moral law? Which culture gives that moral law? How does naturalism even arrive at a moral law? Richard Dawkins has said, ‘The universe we observe has… no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.' Prominent atheist, Kai Nielson said it well:

We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that really rational persons unhood-winked by myth or ideology need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me...Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of facts, will not take you to morality. (Kai Nielson, "Why Should I Be Moral? American Philosophical Quarterly 21, 90.")

The very basis of naturalism will tell you that the only reason we are even here is because we got rid of the weaker elements. The alternative theories cannot arrive at an objective moral source. The philosophers that have wrestled with this issue significantly, people like, Sarte, Camu and Nietzche, they were honest enough to admit that there is no basis for a moral law in humanity's closed system, there has to be something outside of us--a transcendent moral law. And the transcendent moral law can only come on the basis of somebody who is self-existent and morally pure not morally corrupt as we are.
If humanism had only one ethic emerging it would be fine. But, humanism doesn't. There are six or seven various forms of humanistic ethic, from the Immanuel Kant one of the categorical imperatives to the Bentham/Mill Utilitarianism ethics, to the Joseph Fletcher's Situation Ethics. So the humanitarian options are ultimately not self-evident.
The only way the moral law can be justified is if there is a transcendent order that sits over and above us.There is no way to posit an absolute moral law unless there is an absolute source of that authority. If there is no moral law Giver, there is no moral law, if there is no moral law, there is no good and evil, so the question about evil and how God can exist self-destructs unless God is posited in that paradigm.
The Cross of Calvery is where evil, suffering, mercy and love came together to reveal the purpose of the Cross, which is to repair the irreparable.

What is Christian Apologetics?

The term apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia, which literally means, "a reasoned statement or a verbal defense." The task or science of Christian Apologetics is primarily concerned with providing an intellectual defense of the truth claims of the faith.

The work of Apologetics rests upon a biblical command. We find a mandate in Scripture to defend what we believe. "But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect..." 1 Peter 3:15