There are Christian theologians who say that because of their having different intent Christianity could live quite accommodatingly along side forms of Buddhism and Hindu thought.
And there are, equally, Christian theologians (and their Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and whatever else) who would maintain that any deviation from a particular path is heresy and cannot be abided. Unfortunately, given the lack of any reliable information, all those opinions are equally (in)valid.
Christianity I suppose can accommodate much of what is proposed theologically by Judaism and Islam......but of course Christianity has what the other two deny....added Christ....does rejecting the Christ proposition amount to a broader understanding, that God has delivered his word to humanity more organically in the person of Jesus?
Of course, that's a subjective interpretation - other paths might suggest that Christianity has polluted the idea of the divine by claiming that God sullied itself by manifesting as human, that man was made in God's image and not vice versa. You see Jesus as something 'added' to the whole to make it more, others see it as a stain.
....and of course Christianity has a more pessimistic view of humanity suggesting man needs God to reach God which, is only a bad addition in the eyes of the individual and collective egos which want to reach God by individual merit.
It does particularly jar for those of us who view individual liberty, responsibility and capacity as something to be both proud and wary of, yes. One of the reasons, in the modern world, that Christianity is slowly dying out, because it's fundamentally at odds with the idea of personal liberty, rights, freedoms and the like.
It is the denial of Christ where, I move a Christian disagrees with anyone.
Kind of by definition, I'd say.
Not, as I keep observing atheists accusing Christians of, a flat Dawkinsian dismissal of their deities, where the likes of Dawkins comes out with stuff like ''as an atheist I just reject one more god than you''.
Not really. Most of the Hindu deities are supposed to have incarnations that manifest on Earth, the myths of the Greek gods have terrestrial manifestations. As a Christian you accept one story of a deity manifesting, but dismiss all of the others - you do really reject one fewer god than the atheists do, it's a simple matter of maths. You like to think that there's something qualitatively different about the Jesus/God concept, but I've yet to see anyone demonstrate what that might be.
That limp playing to the gallery just betrays an ignorance of Christians and religion in general.
That depiction just demonstrates special pleading. Christianity isn't manifestly different, isn't qualitatively separate, it's just another variant of accepting supernatural claims - the specific claims might differ, but the nature of them doesn't particularly.
O.
