"Your deities did not die for your sins and rise after death"? || A Faulty Evangelistic Approach Christians should avoid!

Before You Criticize a Worldview, Understand It

A man holding a Bible speaks to a woman in a red shawl, who looks up thoughtfully; behind them, one side shows the crucifixion and an empty tomb, the other shows Krishna with a Bhagavad Gita verse.

I remember how I used to witness to my friends in college.

Whenever I had an opportunity to talk about Christianity, I would confidently say things like:

“Your gods didn’t even die for your sins.”

I thought I was making a strong Christian argument. Jesus died for our sins and rose again, while other gods did not. So, in my mind, the comparison was obvious.

But years later, after I began seriously reading about other religions and trying to understand their worldviews, I realized something uncomfortable:

I had been criticizing a worldview without actually understanding it.

And honestly, that realization embarrassed me.

Not because I had become less convinced about Christianity, but because I discovered that my argument had been based on a category that Hinduism itself does not necessarily possess in the way Christianity does.

That taught me an important lesson in apologetics:

Before you criticize another worldview, understand what that worldview actually claims.

The Krishna Example

Consider the statement I used to make:

“Krishna didn’t die for our sins and rise from death after three days.”

At first glance, this sounds like an argument for Christianity.

But there is an obvious question that I should have asked before making that statement:

Why should Krishna have died for our sins in the first place?

And another:

Why should Krishna have risen from death after three days?

Those aren’t neutral questions.

They already assume a particular theological framework.

Christianity has a particular understanding of humanity’s problem, sin, atonement, death, resurrection, salvation, and redemption. Within that framework, the death and resurrection of Jesus are absolutely central.

But if someone follows a Hindu worldview, particularly within traditions centered on Krishna, they may have a very different understanding of the human problem and the path to moksha.

So if I say:

“Krishna didn’t die for your sins!”

the Hindu could reasonably ask:

“Why was Krishna supposed to do that?”

If I haven’t understood the Hindu concept of sin, karma, moksha, dharma, and devotion, then I may simply be criticizing Hinduism for failing to provide something Christianity teaches.

That’s not necessarily an argument against Hinduism.

It may simply demonstrate that Hinduism is not Christianity.

And obviously, that isn’t a discovery.

The Binary and Decimal Illustration

Here’s a simple illustration that helped me understand the problem.

In ordinary decimal arithmetic:

1 + 1 = 2

But in binary:

1 + 1 = 10₂

Does binary mathematics therefore deny that one plus one equals two?

No.

Binary and decimal are different numeral systems with different ways of representing numbers.

In decimal:

2₁₀

represents two.

In binary:

10₂

represents the same quantity.

The representation has changed; the underlying quantity has not.

So it would be foolish to say:

“Binary is wrong because it doesn’t give 1+1 = 2.”

Binary isn’t supposed to represent two using the decimal symbol 2.

It has its own system of representation.

And this illustrates an important principle when comparing worldviews:

We shouldn’t assume that another worldview must express reality using the categories, terminology, or expectations of our own worldview.

That doesn’t mean every worldview is true.

It means we need to understand what the worldview actually says before evaluating it.

Key takeaway

A worldview using different categories than yours isn’t automatically wrong — it may just be representing reality differently, the way binary and decimal both correctly represent “two.” Understand the system before you judge it.

Don’t Confuse “It Isn’t There” With “It Is False”

This distinction is extremely important.

Suppose someone says:

“Christianity doesn’t teach reincarnation.”

That statement doesn’t refute Christianity.

Likewise, saying:

“Hinduism doesn’t teach that Krishna died as an atoning sacrifice for human sin and rose three days later”

doesn’t, by itself, refute Hinduism.

It simply tells us that the two systems have different theological structures.

The real apologetic questions come afterward:

What does Christianity claim?

What does Hinduism claim?

Why do they make those claims?

What evidence supports them?

Are those claims internally coherent?

What adequately explains human existence, morality, suffering, consciousness, sin, salvation, and our ultimate destiny?

Those are much more substantial questions.

Alert

Absence is not refutation. “Your worldview doesn’t teach X” is not an argument — it’s just an observation that two systems differ. The real work starts after you notice the difference, not before.

Understand Before You Compare

This doesn’t mean Christians should avoid comparing Christianity with Hinduism.

Quite the opposite.

We should compare them—but accurately.

If I want to compare Jesus and Krishna, I should first understand what each tradition actually teaches about them.

If I want to discuss salvation, I should first understand what each tradition means by salvation or liberation.

If I want to discuss sin, I should understand how each worldview understands the human problem.

If I want to discuss God, I should understand what each tradition means by God.

Otherwise, I might unknowingly create a version of Hinduism that no Hindu actually believes and then defeat my own imaginary version of Hinduism.

That isn’t apologetics.

That’s arguing against a straw man.

Key takeaway

Compare Jesus and Krishna only after understanding what each tradition actually teaches about them.
Define terms first — salvation, sin, and God can mean very different things across traditions.
Skipping this step risks arguing against a straw man instead of the real thing.

Read Their Sources

This is why Christians who want to engage other religions seriously should actually read their important texts and study their traditions.

For example, if you’re discussing Krishna with a Hindu, you should at least have some understanding of the Bhagavad Gita and the role Krishna plays within its theological framework.

Why do Hindus devote themselves to Krishna?

What does Krishna teach about dharma?

What does the Gita say about liberation?

How are karma and moksha understood?

What does devotion mean?

These questions matter.

You don’t have to agree with the answers.

You don’t even have to think the worldview is ultimately correct.

But you should know what you’re disagreeing with.

Alert

Secondhand summaries of another religion — heard from another Christian rather than read from the tradition’s own sources — are the most common way strawmen get built. Go to the primary texts before you argue against them.

Find the Common Ground

Once we understand another worldview properly, we can begin looking for genuine points of contact.

Christianity and Hindu traditions certainly don’t teach the same theology. Their concepts of God, humanity, sin, salvation, liberation, and ultimate reality can differ profoundly.

But that doesn’t mean there is nothing to discuss.

People across religious traditions wrestle with questions such as:

Why are we here?
What is wrong with humanity?
Why do people suffer?
What is the ultimate reality?
What is the purpose of human life?
How should we live?
What happens after death?
How can human beings attain their ultimate destiny?
Is there a divine reality?
Can human beings know God or ultimate reality?

Those questions provide genuine places for conversation.

Instead of immediately attacking someone else’s beliefs, we can begin by asking:

“What do you actually believe?”

Then:

“Why do you believe that?”

And then:

“What evidence or reasoning supports it?”

Now we’re actually doing apologetics.

My College Mistake Taught Me Something Important

Looking back, I wish someone had challenged me when I was evangelizing in college.

I was sincere.

I genuinely wanted people to know Christ.

But sincerity doesn’t automatically make an argument accurate.

I had a Christian answer and was trying to force everyone else’s worldview into the framework of that answer.

Later, when I started reading about other religions, I realized how little I had actually understood.

That was embarrassing.

But it also became an important lesson.

I don’t want to repeat that mistake.

If I am going to tell someone that their worldview is wrong, I should at least be able to explain their worldview accurately enough that they can say:

“Yes. That’s actually what I believe.”

Only then can I meaningfully respond.

This Doesn’t Mean All Worldviews Are Equally True

Understanding another worldview does not mean accepting it.

Respecting someone’s beliefs does not mean saying all religions are true.

Finding common ground does not mean ignoring fundamental differences.

And studying another religion does not require abandoning Christianity.

In fact, careful study can make your own convictions more informed.

There is a huge difference between saying:

“I believe Christianity is true because I’ve never seriously examined anything else.”

and saying:

“I have tried to understand competing worldviews fairly, I know what they actually claim, I recognize where they differ from Christianity, and I have reasons for believing the Christian account is true.”

The second position is far more intellectually responsible.

Key takeaway

Understanding a worldview is not the same as endorsing it. You can study Hinduism seriously, find genuine common ground, and still hold that the Christian account is true — and hold it more responsibly for having done the work.

The Goal Is Not Merely to Win

Apologetics can easily become a competition.

Who answered the question faster?

Who found the better verse?

Who made the cleverer argument?

Who embarrassed the other person?

Who “won” the debate?

But if the person walks away thinking:

“That Christian doesn’t even understand what I believe,”

then what exactly have we accomplished?

Christian apologetics should be concerned with truth.

And truth requires intellectual honesty.

If someone misunderstands Christianity, we should want them to understand Christianity correctly—even if that makes their criticism stronger.

Likewise, if we are criticizing Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, atheism, or any other worldview, we should want to understand those positions accurately before responding.

Because if Christianity is true, it doesn’t need a distorted version of another religion in order to survive.

We can afford to understand people fairly.

From “Attacking” to “Investigating”

This is perhaps the biggest change in my own thinking.

I once approached apologetics primarily as:

“How do I prove that they are wrong?”

Now I increasingly see it as:

“What exactly are they claiming, and is it true?”

That changes everything.

You begin asking questions instead of making assumptions.

You investigate definitions.

You examine historical claims.

You study texts.

You identify the actual disagreement.

You distinguish what someone really believes from what you assume they believe.

And only then do you evaluate the evidence.

That is much closer to the work of an investigator.

A Simple Rule for Christian Witness

So, before telling someone:

“Your god didn’t do X.”

perhaps ask:

“Does your religion actually teach that your god was supposed to do X?”

Before saying:

“Your religion has no answer to Y.”

ask:

“How does your religion actually answer Y?”

Before criticizing:

“Have I understood their position from their own sources, or am I simply repeating something I heard from another Christian?”

And before trying to win:

“Am I seeking truth, or am I merely seeking victory?”

These questions can save us from a lot of embarrassing mistakes.

I know because I made one myself.

And I’m actually grateful that I did.

Because it taught me something I probably wouldn’t have learned otherwise:

You cannot fairly critique a worldview you have never seriously tried to understand.

Major highlights

Saying another god “didn’t die for your sins” only lands as an argument if that worldview claims its god was supposed to — check the claim before making the criticism.
Different worldviews can use different categories to represent reality, the way binary and decimal both correctly represent the same quantity.
“It isn’t there” is not the same as “it is false.” Difference is not automatically refutation.
Read primary sources — like the Bhagavad Gita for Krishna — before arguing against a tradition’s claims.
Understanding a worldview does not mean agreeing with it; it means your eventual disagreement is actually with what they believe.
The goal of apologetics is truth, not just winning — and truth can afford to be fair.

Understand first.
Then compare.
Then investigate.
Then evaluate.

And if we are convinced that Christ is the truth, let us present Christ on the strength of what Christianity actually claims—not on the weakness of a caricature we created of someone else’s religion.