This has become a common idea that sounds very polite and tolerant, appealing to a society that avoids offense and values inclusivity. However, does this popular opinion hold any water and how do some of these religions answer this question?

Different religions make no shortage of contradictory claims about reality: the nature of God, the nature of man, the prescription for salvation, and even salvation's destination. These are fundamental differences with exclusive truth claims which cannot all be true at the same time, nor are such religions quiet on the issue.

For example, Islam teaches in the Qur'an:

"Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be among the losers." (Qur'an 3:85)

Christianity makes a similar exclusive claim through Jesus:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

What about sincerity? While sincerity may be admirable, it doesn't form reality. Arguing it does, at the expense of truth, would only lead to a position of indefensibility. To claim "only sincerity matters" is itself a truth claim, employing the reason and objective truth it denounces.

Within Christianity, while God may love the world, it does not mean each path on it leads to Him. One things that distinguishes it from others is it is the path of grace. It is not about doing enough, being good enough, or your good deeds outweighing your bad. Rather, God loves us so much that He provided the means of our salvation through His Son. It is not earned, it's a gift given to all those who place their trust in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God.

Some may say, how could you be so cold or exclusive, but truth, by its very nature is exclusive. It's cruel and a lie to tell a patient any type of treatment will bring healing. And ironically, claiming that all religions are right is itself exclusive - it excludes anyone who disagrees.

Have you ever heard people say, "that's my truth," or "there's no such thing as truth?" Maybe you've contemplated it or said it yourself.

Some espouse that truth is subjective, which is to say truth is no more than a belief of an individual, such as a preference that may vary from person to person. However, is that idea sound?

If truth were purely subjective - claims like "racism is wrong," and "the Holocaust was evil," would lose authority. Even saying, "truth is subjective" undermines itself, for it's an objective truth claim. In fact, every argument against objective truth depends on logic, evidence, and reason - tools that only function if truth exists independently of individual belief. We argue, present evidence, correct errors, and hold one another accountable because we believe some things are truly right or wrong, regardless of opinion.

Sure, some may argue that there's often differing perspectives from one person or culture to another, but that doesn't negate objective truth, it only describes how we experience or interpret it. Even our commitment to truth is telling because it doesn't always provide survival utility.

These things said, Christianity best explains our experience by offering a grounding for objective truth in the very nature of God. It does not deny human limitation, bias, and error. It doesn't root reality in perception or culture, but rather a rational source. It affirms our innate value of truth and our responsibility to it.

Follow up questions:

• How does your worldview account for logic and truth?
• Does objective truth make us responsible to it? Why/why not?
• What would it mean for you if some things were objectively true?

We use the word 'progress' constantly - especially in moral, social, and political conversations. But, when we talk about moral progress, we're often assuming more than we realize. Progress implies direction, and direction implies a standard - something we move toward or regress away from.

In other words, moral progress assumes an objective measure of good and evil that exists independently of personal opinion or cultural preference. When we say society ought to improve, or that something is better or worse, we are appealing to a moral standard that obligates humanity - not just taste. That standard is often taken for granted.

If morality was purely relative, progress would be meaningless - things would only change, not improve. There would be no better or worse, only difference. Christianity offers a better explanation for this inherent sense of progress by grounding moral goodness in God's nature and human dignity in being made in His image. We may disagree about direction, but we nearly all agree that a better way exists.

Follow up questions:

• What do you say best explains our beliefs in good and evil?
• Do you believe objective morals and duties exist? Why/Why not?
• Is murder or rape wrong? (According to who?)

Many people think and speak highly of Jesus Christ whether they are committed to Him or not. He is often described as a great moral teacher or simply an inspiring example of love and compassion. But when we look at what Jesus actually claimed about Himself, that option becomes difficult to maintain.

Jesus not only taught moral principles - He made extraordinary claims. He forgave sins, spoke with divine authority, accepted worship, identified Himself as the divine Son of Man (see Daniel 7) and ultimately and uniquely with God Himself (see passages like John 8:58 and John 14:6). It's no question His contemporaries knew what He was claiming - both His apostles and His enemies give us examples (John 1:1-3, 5:5:18, 20:28, Mark 2:7, etc.). Jesus' claims are not the kinds of claims a person can make while remaining simply a wise moral teacher.

As C.S. Lewis famously argued, a person who makes such claims leaves us with limited possibilities. If Jesus knew these claims were false and said them anyway, He would be a liar. If He believed them but they were not true, He would be severely mistaken - something like a lunatic. But if His claims were true, then He is who He said He is: the Lord.

It would be a mistake to reduce Jesus to merely a good teacher while ignoring the radical things He said about Himself. His claims themselves prevent us from placing Him safely in the category of "just a moral guide," leaving each person with a question to consider: Who is Jesus really? Perhaps Jesus is who He said He was - not merely a teacher pointing toward truth, but the very embodiment of it - God entering history to reconcile humanity to Himself.

Follow up questions:

• What do you think Jesus meant when He claimed... (to be the Son of Man or the great "I AM", etc.)?
• If Jesus is who He said He was, what would that mean for your life?

The idea that the universe came from "nothing" is often assumed or overlooked, but nothing has no properties, no laws, and no power to create. If the universe began to exist - as both philosophy and modern cosmology suggest - then it cannot be self-caused or arise from nothing. From nothing nothing comes.

Science explains how the universe behaves once it exists, but it cannot explain why there is a universe or why the laws of nature exist. If everything that begins to exist has a cause, then the universe points beyond itself to a cause spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Christianity identifies this cause as God - the necessary and rational source of all that exists.

Follow up questions:

Where do you think the universe came from? Why?

Do you know of any examples of something coming from nothing?

Although worship is often perceived with a religious association, that's not all its defined as. We often give our time, resources, and devotion to many things in search of meaning, identity, or security, which cannot fulfill or sustain. These pursuits sometimes turn into ritual and practice that shape our day to day lives and ultimately resemble worship. And, whether we like it or not, they often bear a cost or are unsustainable. So, the question isn't if we worship, but what we worship. Christianity enters, suggesting the problem isn't devotion itself, but misdirected devotion. We were created for an active relationship with God, Who alone is capable of providing lasting meaning, security, identity, and purpose.

Follow up questions:

• What do you give your time, energy, and/or resources to? Why?
• What do you fear losing most?
• What defines your sense of worth?

Whether someone believes Jesus is the Messiah or not, many still respect Him and take His words into account. That shared respect can be a bridge to meaningful conversation. A simple, non-confrontational way to engage is by asking follow up questions like, "What do you think Jesus meant when He said...?" or "Why do you think He would say that?" These questions invite reflection. Likewise, when Scripture is part of your daily life, even casual interactions can open doors. If someone asks, "How are you?" you might respond, "I've been reflecting on something Jesus said--'...'-- What do you think about that?" Sharing naturally, God's Word becomes an invitation to dialogue.

• Ask follow up questions

• Beliefs come in all different shapes and sizes so be careful of your assumptions - instead ask and listen.

• It's easy to critique, but difficult and thought-provoking to have alternatives with better explanatory power. Put the ball in their court by asking them their alternative.

• Have empathy and patience

• "Think-time" is important and may appear as"awkward silence," but offer it and allow it.

• Prioritize arguments appropriately - If you could have them walk away with one thing what would it be?

• You can always ask, "if Christianity is true, what would it mean for your life?"