Prayer and Revelation - Online Christian Library

interpretation of Christianity, then at least you must refute me. 9 It is dishonest andirrational to dismiss this view just because you do not like it – suppressing the truth is oneof the major sins by which countless individuals will be condemned forever (Romans1:18-19). Maybe you agree with what I have said, but you do not think that it should bestated so bluntly. If this is what you think, then you must also offer arguments to establishyour claim.There are those who insist that all religions are essentially the same. They do not say thatall the beliefs of all the religions are identical, but they are saying that they are similarenough on the most important matters so that it is at least possible for different religionsto unite, that one religion should not challenge another one as false, and that no religionshould claim to be exclusively true so that all the others are false. I will mention onlyseveral problems with this view.It is impossible to define religion in a way that includes all the thought systems that thesepeople want to include, or exclude those that they want to exclude. For example, if Idefine religion as "the service or worship of God or the supernatural," 10 then this mayexclude some forms of Buddhism. But those who say that all religions are essentially thesame usually want to include Buddhism.I may change my definition to, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardorand faith," 11 which should be broad enough to include Buddhism, but then I cannotexclude communism. Another dictionary gives a similar possible definition: "any systemof beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc.," 12 and with this gives humanism as an example.But if we include communism and humanism as religions, then we must also includetotalitarianism and democracy. But are communism, totalitarianism, and democracyessentially the same? And are all these essentially the same with Buddhism andChristianity?For the sake of simplicity, I have given examples only from the dictionaries. Althoughtexts on the philosophy of religion are more detailed in their attempts to define religion,their efforts fail to overcome the difficulties illustrated. The point is that no matter howour opponents define religion, the definition is either going to be too narrow or too broadfor their purpose – they are going to include certain systems that they want to exclude, orthey are going to exclude certain systems that they want to include. The difficulty existsbecause the various religions are not essentially the same; they contradict one another onmany essential points. The implication is that not all of them can be correct, and thus it isimpossible to unite them. 13 A more productive project would be to identify and clarify the9 Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology and Ultimate Questions.10 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition; "religion."11 Ibid.12 Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition; "religion."13 Someone said to me that she thought religion was about unity, and she meant the unity of the humanrace. But this is precisely what the Tower of Babel was about. No, religion is not about unity, at least this isnot what Christianity is about. Christianity is about revealed truth, and if enough people affirm the truth tounite around it, then all the better.7