Is Christianity is the ONLY way to God?

In one sense at least, Christianity claims to be the ONLY true religion. I am not sufficiently familar with Islam to be able to say whether it makes an identical claim.

Evangelical Christians are preoccupied with the concept of salvation (eternal life with God and Christ or eternal suffering in hell).

This obsession with salvation seems to take priority over living the Christian life.

How accurate is my assessment that Christianity claims to be the ONLY true religion and the ONLY way to avoid eternal damnation?

Hi, intrepidlover, and welcome. I would say it depends on the particular Christian you’re talking to. Christianity is huge and means many things to many Christians.

The Gospel of Thomas is not in the Christian canon or the Apochrypha.

Therefore it would not represent a legitimate Christian viewpoint.

What does “legitimate Christian viewpoint” mean?

Any monotheistic religion claims to the be only true religion.

case closed.

Does the religion claim it, or do certain representatives of the religion claim it?

I think the case is still open.

Arn’t ‘certain representatives’ the creators of said religion?

Maybe of a religion, but not of the institutions that a religion spawns.

I don’t see where you’re going with this.

Moses and Jesus claimed there can be more than 1 god… but the vatican had other plans?

Well there’s a difference between speaking of God and speaking of one, true path to God. I’m not clear as to why you’re bringing polytheism into this. Moses and Jesus interpreted God. Their interpretations have spawned countless ways to view the universe and assess things like ethics and salvation and all the various and sundry aspects that we think of when we think of religion. One person might claim that his assessment is the one true path, another might not be so sure. In the case of Jesus, all of the various opinions might fall under the umbrella we call “Christianity.” It’s a pretty big umbrella. That’s the point I’m apparently not making very well.

The only thing I don’t understand is your reasoning.

If the Christian God is how it is described in the bible, and by christians, then it is most certainly not the same as the pizza eating ninja turtle God that joe smith believes in.

Thus, Christianity claims to be the only true religion.

I understand your reasoning just fine:

All Christians define God in the same exact way.
All Christians define the path to that God in the same exact way.
All Christians believe the path as they’ve defined it is the only true path.

Got it.

(I’m just disagreeing with it).

I’m not arguing with you about the paths, I’m arguing about the God.

How can this not be a polythiestic issue?

Because we’re not discussing whether a polytheist (who believes in a multitude of Gods) believes his way is the only true “religion.” (I’m wondering suddenly if you know what polytheism means). We’re discussing whether or not there exist different definitions of the concept “God.” If so, it seems reasonable that people - even within the same religion - might believe there are different paths to that God. Some might indeed claim theirs is the one true way. Others might not. The point (again) is that the religion (any major religion) is too broad to make sweeping generalizations such as “This religion claims to be the ONLY true religion.” There may be some people within the religion that make such a claim and so a better way to put it might be, “Some Christians believe their religion to be the ONLY true religion.”

You keep saying this like you pray to a concept. Take whatever path you like, I don’t care, but you’re still striving towards one God that you apparently believe in, not some extension of a concept you’ve molded and made your own.

I’ve lost your point. Yes, I’m striving towards God as I understand God. There are many understandings. If you think you truly understand God then you’re probably not even close. Other people strive likewise. Some claim their understanding is the only understanding. My only point is that those people do not speak for an entire religion.

The communication problem here is no doubt a failure of mine. Sorry. This might be a good time for you to give up on me.

If you say the bible is a constant, or at least has a constant at its roots (i.e. a ‘truth’) and that the bible is the major evidence and explanation of this thing ‘God’ then you must therefore conclude that all Christians define God in the same way, else they are not Christians. Equally for the ‘path to’ this thing ‘god’. The third part is of course not true as it relies on interpretations that could be grossly unassociated with the roots of the ‘truth’.

Would you say there is a difference bewteen a Christian mystic and a Christian fundamentalist?

Sorry Jerry, I don’t really know how I might define a ‘Christian mystic’. It suggests to me a sort of astrology-type interpretation of Christian gospel? Please explain.

How much time have you got?