When people say that the true religion was started by God, is this an example of eurocentrism,?

Question

Is it inevitable that everyone who believes in a religion, believes that their religion is the true religion, and that all other religions are false? Is this just the ineviable battle of my God is real and yours is not?

Is this what Romans and Greeks did? Jupiter is real and Zeus is false God, Zeus is manmade religion?

Answer 1

It is Ethnocentrism, as the Christian God isn't really a European God. He killed off the European Gods. (Sorry WASPS it's true)

And no, this is not what the Greeks and Romans did. When the Greeks went into Egypt (There are writings still surviving) they said things like "There they call Demeter Isis" (Which was inaccurate, but that's not terribly relevent) and so they went ahead and worshipped her, and some called her Isis, and some called her Demeter. Likewise with the Romans, they said, "They also worship Jupiter, but they call him Zeus." They didn't run around saying "You have to call him Jupiter now, because Zeus is false." The folks who wanted to call him Zeus called him Zeus, and the folks who wanted to call him Jupiter called him Jupiter, but he was recognized as being the same guy.

And for the record Mr. The-Bible-is-real-because-it's-got-real-places-in-it, there are lots of people, places and things that are verifiable by Archaeological and written historical evidence of the mythology of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, etc. So find yerself another argument.

Answer 2

If God started any religion, it would be necessity be the true religion.

The question is, how would one go about investigating?

I'd say the religion that comes out on top when measured by evidence and history would be worth looking into further.

There is real suspicion that the gods of the Greeks and Romans were created in the image of men. They show all the faults of men: they suffer from anger, jealousy, revenge, lust, betrayal, etc. And there is no historical evidence that can corroborate any of these gods' dealings with mankind.

The religions of the eastern world revolve more around philosophy than any tangible god, per se, and so cannot be defended by any evidence or history.

Islam has some fragmentary history behind it, but the pages of the Koran offer little in the way of events that can be verified by archeology, etc.

The Judeo-Christian scriptures, on the other hand, are steeped in history and evidence that can actually be weighed. Place names, names of kings, cultures, specific people and actions, archeological digs that point to lifestyles of people, etc. This is unique in the world of comparative religion. Although it doesn't prove the theological claims of, for examples, an actual Jehovah or the divinity of Jesus outright, it does offer a concrete context that rings with an authenticity other scriptures lack, and which can actually be examined, studied, and verified. This fact puts the credibility of a Judeo-Christian God head and shoulders above that of any other religion in the ancient world, and makes it worth further consideration and study.

Sorry, Zeus, we hardly knew ye.

Answer 3

No, because Jesus was not European.

If Christianity were Eurocentric, the Church would have found a European Messiah to form the basis of it.

Answer 4

It is. Mine is always better if there is no real way to compare the two.