Is christianity, or religion in general, a belief of convinience?

To a Believer, God can say this statement. The difference between a Christian Believer and others is the point of reference. A Christian by definition believes in a source higher than their own wisdom or any human wisdom. This is why no other "truth" appeals to a believer. To the others who have not let themselves accept an answer, the search itself is meaningful and indeed spiritual to them. They like looking for a truth that is better and better. To them, a Christian has sold out by accepting Christ and by ceasing to look for something "better." Indeed, what defines the standard?

Au Contraire...Christianity by definition is not found in gnostic self actualization ideals. Christianity involves denying yourself and allowing Gods Spirit to fill and guide you. This mistake...assuming that self awareness and self actualization leads to godliness--is a blatant one in Orthodox belief. You can call it your personal religious philosophy if you choose, but the fact is that it is NOT Christianity. Jesus denied himself and so must we. It need be His Spirit...not our own self actualized one.

If you are implying that all religions are essentially the same, you had better explain the concrete facts in order to convince any serious student of comparative religion. First, is the concept and definition of the "Creator" similar in the different religions? Is the relationship between God and man also defined similar? Finally, is man thought of as possessing similar character traits and given similar expectations in each faith? We are definitely NOT in agreement along the lines of what some would call "cafeteria theology," whereupon one merely selects the particularly favorable traits of each faith that one likes and brings to the table a relativistic belief. It is a serious thing to judge the heart of another truth seeker, and so, in fairness I will not proclaim Christians as the right way so casually. Of course the Church as a manmade institution has been quite corrupt throughout History. By definition, however, the Church as a body of believers imparted with a Spirit of Truth has been quite influential and effective throughout History. I believe that there is One Spirit and One Truth. I suppose that if we were to literally say that Christ is the ONLY way to God, (which He Himself said) than we could say that the spirit is exclusive to followers of Christ. I will not deny this truth concerning Christ as the only way,yet I will say that it all is a bit more complex. Take the Dalai Lama, for example. Some would say that he is a truly holy man. If the Dalai were to die, and IF what I said concerning Christs unique claim to Divinity is also true, the Dalai will have a direct opportunity to encounter Christ as he dies. THIS would be the test for the Dalai. Would this great religious man of another faith recognize the unique character of God within Christ, or would the two go seperate paths? I believe that the choice and the responsibility would be on the Dalai, and the power and authority of God would be through Christ.

My point is this:
Premise: Jesus is the only way to God. Reason? Bible says so, as does orthodox Christian Belief.
Refutation: Critics lambast Christian thought as narrow and exclusivist.
Premise: Jesus is God incarnate.
If so, the Dalai cannot relate to God without Jesus. My point is that IF Jesus is who He says He is,(which I believe, and which is the cornerstone of Christian belief) Then the Dalai will meet Jesus at some point. It is not enough that the Dalai has his own mystical god consciousness along with Jesus. This is a false premise. The true premise is that the Dalai will have an opportunity to accept Jesus for who He is, as will you, as will I. It is not narrow to declare One way to God if everyone has the opportunity to be drawn to this way and accept or reject it. To put it another way, how can any thinking person even want to reject it unless it is the very spirit of self deification within them disguised as freethinking??

In my opinion, Mike....NO. It is much more logical that a Creator has eternally existed rather than eternal creation UNLESS you lean towards a pantheistic quantum physics view of things in which case Steven Hawking may have a new rival ego on the horizon!

Well? Sleeping Dragon, do you have any comments on the matter?