Actually, I wouldn't say that Islam and Judaism do share the same core as Christianity. The core of the Christian faith is Christ (thus the name, Chrisitianity). Mainstream Judaism (though not all Judaism*) rejects Christ, and Islam, while granting him a position of minor honor among their hallowed prophets, do not hail him as Lord. So the essential problem there is that between these three major religions, while they share a common root, do not share a common core.
* we Christians would contend that Christ is a major part of the Jewish faith as God intended, but that mainstream Judaism fails to recognize this. However, there is a sect of Judaism, known as Messianic Judaism, that does recognize Jesus of Nazareth as Lord.
As far as differences in denominations go, I would contend that that is the failure of human beings to submit themselves to the authority of the Scriptures. There seems to be a long history of various "Christians" who for different reasons prefer their own ways of thinking over what the Word actually says. We call these divergent ideas "heresies." And I would contend that a heresy is no more evidence against God than counterfeit money is evidence against real money. If anything, the counterfeits only show that there must be something real.
The reason I feel Christianity is correct is for this reason: it is a religion that is both historical and miraculous. Pagan religions abound in mythical stories of remarkable happenings, but just try to identify the places or times that those things happen. Where did Odysseus encounter the Cyclops? Where did Balder get killed by the Mistletoe? We do know where Jesus of Nazareth was born, where he was crucified, and where almost every major event in his life took place.
Yes, there are other historical religions; Islam and Buddhism* for example. But other than apocryphal accounts, we don't really have a whole lot of miraculous testimony to solidify them. What seems most important to their faith is not anything miraculous, but rather the philosophical and moral teachings of those religions.
* if you can even call Buddhism a religions - some adherents take exception to that, saying that Buddha himself was not really concerned with religion, only with establishing a way for humans to live in this messed up, meaningless world.
But for Christianity, the miraculous nature of it is of primary importance. If this Jesus of Nazareth is not truly Lord, then his teachings are fairly pointless. Oh, they may offer a good way to live, but if there is no resurrection of the body, then what's the point? And since his followers already had the laws of Judaism, what would he have to add to them, unless he actually had authority to proclaim a new faith? This is why the miraculous nature of Christianity is so important to the Christian: if it weren't, we'd have no way of knowing that this Jesus was who he claimed to be, and no reason to follow him.
As for God being "programmed" into people's brains, that's an interesting idea. The problem there is that, since humanity's fall, human beings do not retain it anymore. It's all in Romans 1. Humanity knew God, but decided we didn't care to follow him, but instead turned away. At that point, God withdrew, allowing fallen humanity to go his own way until such time as he was ready to recognize his deepest need. It's like the story of the Prodigal Son. The father allowed the son to go away. The son squandered the father's gift to him, and was left completely and utterly helpless. At that point, all he could do was return to his father as a wretched and destitute being. But when he returned, the father, instead of making him a slave, embraced him as his son again, restoring him to the family. This, I feel, is the love of God at work, that he does allow us at times to suffer the consequences of leaving him, only so that we can learn just how much we need him, and so that he can embrace us as his dear children when we return.
But part of that consequence is that human beings are not what he created us to be anymore. Had mankind not fallen, I think that programming would be intact. But as it is, the hardware itself (that is, our fallen human nature) keeps causing the program to crash. Thus, although God did make (and does make) himself known, we miserable creatures do not see clearly and thus turn away. It's all in Romans 1.
But the evidence I spoke of is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God's means of entering into this meaningless messed-up existence and effecting some treatment for our fallen condition. I say that it is evidence because you'd be hard pressed to offer another explanation of those extraordinary events. If Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, then how would you explain it without reference to God's power?
Oh, there have been attempts to explain it away, but under examination, all of them are just as improbable as the resurrection itself. So I would contend that simply saying, "It couldn't possibly happen at all," is a closed-minded assessment based on faulty assumptions. And let's face it, that's the only reason these other attempts to explain it even exist: there's no evidence to point to any alternative except that he did indeed rise.
So there you have it. The ultimate "I told you so!" from the grave. Only in this case, it is spoken by a person who really did rise from the grave, and the "I told you so!" centers around these very words that were spoken at another grave, "I am the Resurrection and the Life." Jesus makes some outlandish claims, but then goes on to show that those claims were true.
_________________
|