I don't know if this is necessarily true. Certainly some do.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to propose that "Most religions don't believe you will be punished horribly if you happen to choose the wrong religion."

To sum up this entire post:
Proposition A: Christianity suggests that it is the only way to God.
Proposition B: Most religions believe ALL religions lead to God (or gods).

My post isn't trying to prove that Proposition A is true. Instead I am proving that Proposition B can't be true.

And that is what I mean by intolerance.

So much fun when we never have the same definitions, isn't it?

"I just want to clarify that we are talking about tolerance in the sense that all religions are equally valid right"

And no. When I say tolerance, I mean allowing other points of view to exist, even if they are untrue. And 'allowing' doesn't mean you don't have to argue with them, or try to convince people if you think they're wrong. It just means that you don't force them.

"It’s evidence that that religion is false."

Here I would disagree.

It's an indication that they don't full believe in their religion. But belief in something isn't evidence of that thing's truth or falsehood.

And I have no problem with Christians believing what they want, or being tolerant or intolerant of others. My only concern is when actions are taken that force or harm others.

Some people, I think, are confused about what it means to be tolerant and intolerant.

For example, I have no problem with you holding the opinion that homosexuality is wrong and they shouldn't be allowed to be married. (Assuming you hold that opinion, you may not.) But I do have a problem when you try to force that opinion on anyone outside your religion. (And again, not saying that YOU do, this is just an example.)

So hopefully I'm more clear this time.

"“There is no absolute truth!”

It depends on what you mean by the word 'absolute', and what kind of truth you're talking about.

I would say there is definitely objective truth. For example, when a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, it does make a sound. That is objectively true. The presence of a listener doesn't change the fact that a falling tree vibrates air molecules (not to mention the ground) and creates sound.

If you're talking about morality, it again depends on your definition of 'absolute'. Not to jump into the middle of another conversation, of course. But it always occurred to me that a system that teaches that sometimes it's okay to kill and sometimes it isn't (when god does it, or says it's okay, for example) can't, by definition, be called 'absolute'.

But that may be another conversation for another time.

Logic demands that not all religions are equally valid and I've demonstrated that by saying not all religions can be true…some have to be false. I haven't said anyone has to believe the way I believe, I just don't appreciate when people reject my beliefs because somehow the religion of tolerance is somehow more noble.

The danger of your "verbal paradox" is that intolerance is condemned and "tolerant" people tend to go on a witch hunt to root out intolerance wherever it may be found. Christianity is unacceptable to "tolerant" people and so the only people who aren't free to worship as they choose are Christians. I have a conviction about my beliefs that they are true! If other religions want to water down their beliefs and say "we are all on different paths up the same mountain to the same God" then that is an indication that they don't believe what their religion teaches. It's evidence that that religion is false. If it were true and they knew it were true they would be standing firm in their beliefs. If it were true then that would mean other religions are false based on the Law of Noncontradiction. So, Christians believe their "religion" is true…and that's such a bad thing? This is what G.K. Chesterton is talking about (quoted above).

Now, I know you tolerate me, because you said so earlier. So this comment isn't against you but it is concerning the ideal of tolerance that so many hold. There are a lot of people who want Christianity to go away quietly because they just don't like it. That's why I say, I'm glad you recognize the contradiction. People who don't recognize the contradiction are militantly opposed to Christianity in the name of "tolerance" and they don't even realize they are virtually saying "your religion is not valid because of your intolerance, we need to eliminate your religion because we believe all religions are equally valid." I, on the other hand, don't believe all religions are equally valid, I wouldn't be a Christian if I did. Therefore, I have no problem saying there are some religions that are false and the people worshiping in that way are misguided, or ignorant, or unfortunate. That's intolerance to some, it's truth to me.

Which raises the other "verbal paradox" that most "tolerant" people swear by: "There is no absolute truth!" Except for that one, of course.

poppies – I can't give you universal proof. My experience of God, my observation of miracles won't be admissible in your court. I can actually give you dozens of stories of God's miraculous intervention in my life and in the lives of people close to me and it probably wouldn't make a difference to you.

But, that's not what this post is about. I'm trying to make one main point before I can move on to other points and that is that in the name of tolerance we are allowing ALL religions to coexist as if they were all equally valid. I'm trying to suggest that some religions MUST be false. For example, if polytheism is false then all polytheistic religions are false. People can be sincere in their worship but they can also be sincerely wrong. I'm asking the three of you who are reading this blog to either reject that line of logic or accept it. If you accept it then I can move on to another post that builds off of this one. If you reject it, I would like to know on what basis you reject it. Am I missing something? Let me know your thoughts on that matter.

Really? Do you have proof of this?

As am I. Particularly as I view certain religions to be legitimately harmful to individuals and society.

One of the great contradictions of my form of tolerance is that I cannot tolerate intolerance.

The definition you give is the exact definition, but that's not how it's used in practice. I'm all for allowing people to live their own lives. You of all people know that I've never forced my beliefs on you or other members of the family. In that regard, I'm a very tolerant person.

However, let me explain how tolerance towards Christians is a very different thing. The definition in practice is "all values, all beliefs, all lifestyles, all truth claims are equal." I assume, including that one. As a result, if someone suggest that their "truth claim" or "belief" is not equal to another religion, that is intolerance. Again, that may not be the Webster's definition of "intolerance" but that is the attitude people have.

What I'm talking about is the ideal of tolerance, which I outlined in the post. Tolerance as an ideal has as its desire to remove all those aspects of religions that are different from other religions. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that the only commonality of all religions is that we are to be selfless. Tell that to John Galt (a fictional character that embodies the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand).

We can't agree on God, no God, many gods, and the majority of people never will. My point is that we are approaching the subject from the wrong direction: OUR perspective. That's why I raised the question "Is it likely that god might have something to say about the matter?" The good news is that He does.

Religion is humanity's attempt to know God, be god, or destroy god. Most people agree with the idea that religions are like paths that all lead to the same God. We are all simply on other paths but we are on the same mountain. The image in my mind is some old white guy with a long white beard sitting cross-legged at the top of a mountain. I guess he's passively up there waiting on everyone to figure it all out.

Christianity tells a different story. It is the ONLY "religion" that describes things in this unique way. That is, that God is not a passive God waiting at the top of some mountain like it's some game of "Amazing Race". When someone attains Nirvana, or has a spiritual experience he's ready to say, "Welcome to the top of the mountain." Interestingly, Gandhi believed in this multiple paths to the same God metaphor. At the end of his life he said he never found God. Sad that such a great man and one who I have tremendous respect for never experienced God.

Instead, the Bible suggests that we can't know God. We are enemies of God. Everything we do is destructive to His creation, to ourselves, to each other, but ultimately, because people reject Him, we've destroyed our relationship with Him. Wars are sometimes fought over religious intolerance (as you rightly suggested) but there is a deeper reason: humanity is corrupted because it has rejected God. Christianity (as a religion) is not exempt from this sort of corruption. I'm certainly aware of all the injustices that have been done globally in the name of Christianity. But, having read the life of Jesus many times, I can safely and confidently say, they were not doing those things on His behalf!

There was nothing that could be done for us to be restored to God. We can't pray five times daily and make a pilgrimage, we can't rub a Buddha belly, we can't venerate cows, we can't expect God to love us because we refuse to murder a bug or because we've taken a vow of silence or poverty or vegetarianism. Even if we come up with a cure for cancer or eliminate environmental degradation, none of that will restore us to God. It's impossible.

That's what's different about Christianity. Every other religion says here's something you can do. Christianity (I should say, "The Bible") says you can't do anything. Every other religion says we are all on the different paths to the same God. The Bible says there's only one path. Every other religion says it's up to you to find a path. The Bible says the path has already been provided…for everyone! Every other religion implies that God is passive. The Bible records the history and the promises of a God who is active and is acting lovingly to restore people to Himself.

So, though I may not have done a good job of explaining what I meant by tolerance, I think you can see where I'm going with all of this. My larger point was to suggest that it is impossible to state that all religions are the same or equally valid. My point made above is that we have to realize that some religions are simply wrong. I'm not trying to be intolerant. If people choose to live their lives ignoring Truth fine. But for those people who sincerely want to know God I'm trying to help them see the Truth that they desperately seek.

But I understand the frustration…it's not like God is leading people with pillars of fire and clouds (as He did with the Israelites thousands of years ago). However, that's not to say that He never intervenes. I wouldn't claim to know all of God's motives but I suspect that since the resurrection of Jesus almost 2,000 years ago there isn't anything more astonishing or any message more vivid than that (though miracles are still part of His playbook whether or not you've seen one personally).

God has already given us everything necessary for entering into a relationship with Him. That's why this blog post is encouraging my readers to consider the life of Jesus. I recommend the Book of Mark. Tell me what you think.