The uniqueness of Christianity; as evidence for its veracity

The popular atheists of our day like to lump all religions (and revelations) together, and so confuse the issue of Christianity's uniqueness.

Quotes and comments;

1. "Nowhere else in human literature, we believe, is the concept of an absolute God presented. And this fact is once more intimately related to the fact that nowhere else is there a conception of sin, such as that presented in the bible.'' [1.]

- Despite the attempts of non-Christians to confuse the matter, the God of the bible is utterly unique; as are other doctrines that concern; creation, sin, the Fall, dominion, redemption, antithesis, evil, special revelation, natural revelation, prophecy, miracles, the incarnation, the atonement, the final judgment, etc.

Other worldviews may appear to have some of these elements, but they turn out to be partial imitations at best. In the biblical view this is evidence for the claim Christianity is both a revealed religion, and the only revealed religion. Neither its God or its main doctrines are appealing to the natural man, so it would appear to be absurd to claim they are human inventions.
Doesn't the hatred these doctrines have been subjected to negate the idea they are human inventions? Why would men invent doctrines they hate?

The answer the non-Christian (e.g. materialist) will make, is that it's very true they weren't invented by reasonable men (e.g. atheists), but were instead invented by men who delighted in their irrationality and perversity. It's my contention that no natural man (and these are the only kind there are if the materialist is correct) would invent such doctrines.

Only after men have received grace do they find any of these doctrines appealing - and even so, its mainly their perceived need that moves them to do so, not their obvious attractiveness or beauty. e.g. the convert to Christianity doesn't see Christ on the cross (atoning for the sins of the annointed) a beautiful thing, but a necessary thing.

If he's a true Christian his heart will break at the thought such a horrific thing had to happen, be reminded of his guilt and thankful for his salvation. (The atheist finds the atonement offensive because he doesn't believe it was necessary.)

2. ''According to the bible, sin has set man at enmity against God.'' [1.]

- To the best of my knowledge the bible is the only book that tells us man is an enemy of God. When people like Richard Dawkins present themselves as enemies of god (and religion), what they mean is that they are enemies of these (false) notions of God. Since they don't believe God exists, they can hardly be (in their minds) his enemies. They thus deny (or reject) the Bible's claim that they are (in reality) enemies of God.
This difference is crucial, as we can hardly expect that the natural man invented a doctrine that claimed he was an enemy (in reality) of God. (i.e. the God who exists)

The fact atheist types deny God exists rather than announcing their rebellion to the living God, is ample evidence this doctrine was not invented. The natural man after all wants to present himself as fair minded, willing to go where the evidence leads - and he can hardly do this if he admits God exists, but then rejects him in rebellion.

Notes;
1. Van Til's apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p. 517.
2. The atheist believes that he can save himself, and thus (or so he claims) finds the atonement offensive.