• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

All roads lead to the same God ?

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
No, polytheistic Religions lead to the Gods. Not God.

When I commune, it is with my Gods, not a
singular God, like the Bible.

I can commune with a single God and often do (Typically Wodan), but I also work with the many as well.

Did you read what I wrote earlier?

I wrote
:
I believe in one God/source/spirit of the universe. And maybe God in reality is many Gods. Maybe i am wrong.

People try to understand and get a realationship with the source/spirit/God/gods of the universe. Some people (polytheist) believe this source is many sources (many gods). And some people (monotheists) believe this source is one source (one God)

So all religious people (both polytheist and monotheist) try to understand the source/sources/God/gods of the universe. We just believe different about if this source/sources is just one or many.
 

Yazata

Active Member
Some seem to object to the exclusive claims of Christianity.

Yes, that's one of Christianity's less attractive aspects in my opinion.

That the Gospel is the ONLY way ,that Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven ,that by believing that he died for all our sins , was buried and rose again . That this alone is the only option there is to heaven and eternal life .

I don't really have much problem with other people believing those kind of things, provided that they keep their personal beliefs out of my face.

As for me, I don't think that all religions have the same goal. Some of them aren't about moving to some wonderful paradisical place in the sky after we die. Some aren't focused on being 'paths to God' at all. (Historically, not all religions have been monotheist in quite that way.) If religious participants can have different goals and purposes when practicing their religion, then it's reasonable to assume that there can be more than one religious path.

But I believe all our claims are exclusive .

I suppose that it's possible to argue that religions in general all point people towards some ineffable psychological state that we call 'spirituality' or whatever. It's hard to describe but many of us can recognize it when we encounter it. And I think that it's undeniable that adherents of very different traditions can all display it, despite their believing in very different doctrines.

I have to say that I'm viscerally put off by Islam, but that being said, some of the most 'spiritual' people what I've ever met were Muslim Sufis. I've encountered it in some (not all) Buddhist monks, in Catholic contemplatives, in representatives of a whole variety of traditions.

Even the claim ' all roads lead to the same God " claim ,this is exclusive and rules out the individual claim of another .
Often its made to sound ' tolerant ' ( The new fashionable, buzz word )

Yes, I'm with you there. The ones who wear their "tolerance" on their sleeves are often the least tolerant people imaginable.

" All truth is relative " again, another exclusive truth claim.
" Thats true for you , but not true for me " hmmm lol ?

I suspect that we might disagree there. It's true that faith in Jesus is probably the only way to be saved by Jesus and receive whatever the payoff of that rather Protestant-style Christianity is supposed to be. But that's all relative to one's belief in that sort of Christian religious doctrine.

Somebody practicing Zen might adhere to a radically different belief system and might have very different goals in mind when engaging in his/her own religious practice. And practicing Zen in the traditional way might indeed be the best path to realizing the goals of Zen (assuming that Zen even has goals).

I used to believe that all religions were just ' sign posts ' to the same goal . Just different ways to express or reach the same goal " Again this is a exclusive claim.
Thoughts?

I'm inclined to think that they are all 'signposts' as you put it, but that they don't necessarily all have the same goal. I think that each of them can arguably be true in its own context, hence the relativism that I expect that you reject.

I am inclined to suspect that reality is indeed one and that there's some underlying psychological state that many/most/all of the religious traditions are reaching towards and want to maximize regarding our relationship with that fundamental reality, but I don't actually know this. So to that extent I have some sympathy with the 'perennial philosophy' ideas. I like them, but can't say that I fully believe all of the things said by champions of this sort of philosophy.

Perennial philosophy - Wikipedia
 

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
To your God.


This seems just as exclusionary as all the other religions you're complaining about, only with an added weird wrinkle: not only are you saying that their beliefs are false, but you also say that their god is a "wrong" version of your god.

I have not said their belief is false.

I have just said what I believe is true

I wrote earlier:

I believe in one God/source/spirit of the universe. And maybe God in reality is many Gods. Maybe i am wrong.

People try to understand and get a realationship with the source/spirit/God/gods of the universe. Some people (polytheist) believe this source is many sources (many gods). And some people (monotheists) believe this source is one source (one God)

So all religious people (both polytheist and monotheist) try to understand the source/sources/God/gods of the universe. We just believe different about if this source/sources is just one or many.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Some seem to object to the exclusive claims of Christianity. That the Gospel is the ONLY way ,that Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven ,that by believing that he died for all our sins , was buried and rose again . That this alone is the only option there is to heaven and eternal life .
But I believe all our claims are exclusive .Even the claim ' all roads lead to the same God " claim ,this is exclusive and rules out the individual claim of another .
Often its made to sound ' tolerant ' ( The new fashionable, buzz word )
" All truth is relative " again, another exclusive truth claim.
" Thats true for you , but not true for me " hmmm lol ?
I used to believe that all religions were just ' sign posts ' to the same goal . Just different ways to express or reach the same goal " Again this is a exclusive claim.
Thoughts?
Several roads lead to God. That is my view.
It's not an exclusive claim in the sense it includes several different paths as legitimate.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
I believe in one God/source/spirit of the universe. And maybe God in reality is many Gods. Maybe i am wrong.

I did not, I must have missed it.

I too believe in One source. But I don't think this One source is God. I think Gods are a manifestation of varying aspects of this Source.

I see the Source as an energy, like Mana or Chi. :)
 

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
I too believe in One source. But I don't think this One source is God. I think Gods are a manifestation of varying aspects of this Source.

I see the Source as an energy, like Mana or Chi. :)

I believe what you call Source is God.

God is energy, life, force, spirit
 

John1.12

Free gift
Yes, that's one of Christianity's less attractive aspects in my opinion.



I don't really have much problem with other people believing those kind of things, provided that they keep their personal beliefs out of my face.

As for me, I don't think that all religions have the same goal. Some of them aren't about moving to some wonderful paradisical place in the sky after we die. Some aren't focused on being 'paths to God' at all. (Historically, not all religions have been monotheist in quite that way.) If religious participants can have different goals and purposes when practicing their religion, then it's reasonable to assume that there can be more than one religious path.



I suppose that it's possible to argue that religions in general all point people towards some ineffable psychological state that we call 'spirituality' or whatever. It's hard to describe but many of us can recognize it when we encounter it. And I think that it's undeniable that adherents of very different traditions can all display it, despite their believing in very different doctrines.

I have to say that I'm viscerally put off by Islam, but that being said, some of the most 'spiritual' people what I've ever met were Muslim Sufis. I've encountered it in some (not all) Buddhist monks, in Catholic contemplatives, in representatives of a whole variety of traditions.



Yes, I'm with you there. The ones who wear their "tolerance" on their sleeves are often the least tolerant people imaginable.



I suspect that we might disagree there. It's true that faith in Jesus is probably the only way to be saved by Jesus and receive whatever the payoff of that rather Protestant-style Christianity is supposed to be. But that's all relative to one's belief in that sort of Christian religious doctrine.

Somebody practicing Zen might adhere to a radically different belief system and might have very different goals in mind when engaging in his/her own religious practice. And practicing Zen in the traditional way might indeed be the best path to realizing the goals of Zen (assuming that Zen even has goals).



I'm inclined to think that they are all 'signposts' as you put it, but that they don't necessarily all have the same goal. I think that each of them can arguably be true in its own context, hence the relativism that I expect that you reject.

I am inclined to suspect that reality is indeed one and that there's some underlying psychological state that many/most/all of the religious traditions are reaching towards and want to maximize regarding our relationship with that fundamental reality, but I don't actually know this. So to that extent I have some sympathy with the 'perennial philosophy' ideas. I like them, but can't say that I fully believe all of the things said by champions of this sort of philosophy.

Perennial philosophy - Wikipedia
But what some see as less attractive ( Jesus being exclusively the only way ) Should, if we thought about it , be what we really want. Why would we want something to be true but contradictory? Or the One way but there's also other ways . How trust worthy would this be with such arbitrary possibilities,answers and ideas , direction , and ways . How could we have any assurance?
 

John1.12

Free gift
Several roads lead to God. That is my view.
It's not an exclusive claim in the sense it includes several different paths as legitimate.
Yes this is very popular . On the surface it sounds noble and virtuous. But it cannot be true . Could you list these ' roads ' that lead to God ? I guarantee their teachings , commands , directives and description of thier god will completely contradict each other .
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes this is very popular . On the surface it sounds noble and virtuous. But it cannot be true . Could you list these ' roads ' that lead to God ? I guarantee their teachings , commands , directives and description of thier god will completely contradict each other .
Will your God reject a person entry into Heaven just because he or she doesn't believe in him, but may have helped hundreds of orphans and animals throughout his or her life?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Several roads lead to God. That is my view.
It's not an exclusive claim in the sense it includes several different paths as legitimate.
IMO, arguing that core beliefs of a path (e.g. that it's the only way to God) are illegitimate and recognizing the path as legitimate are mutually exclusive.

Are you sure you aren't recognizing the legitimacy of a caricature version of the other religion? Something that isn't the actual path, but that's been modified by you to fit your notions of what it ought to be?

... because that's a Potemkin Village version of inclusivity and not actually inclusive at all.
 

John1.12

Free gift
Yes, that's one of Christianity's less attractive aspects in my opinion.



I don't really have much problem with other people believing those kind of things, provided that they keep their personal beliefs out of my face.

As for me, I don't think that all religions have the same goal. Some of them aren't about moving to some wonderful paradisical place in the sky after we die. Some aren't focused on being 'paths to God' at all. (Historically, not all religions have been monotheist in quite that way.) If religious participants can have different goals and purposes when practicing their religion, then it's reasonable to assume that there can be more than one religious path.



I suppose that it's possible to argue that religions in general all point people towards some ineffable psychological state that we call 'spirituality' or whatever. It's hard to describe but many of us can recognize it when we encounter it. And I think that it's undeniable that adherents of very different traditions can all display it, despite their believing in very different doctrines.

I have to say that I'm viscerally put off by Islam, but that being said, some of the most 'spiritual' people what I've ever met were Muslim Sufis. I've encountered it in some (not all) Buddhist monks, in Catholic contemplatives, in representatives of a whole variety of traditions.



Yes, I'm with you there. The ones who wear their "tolerance" on their sleeves are often the least tolerant people imaginable.



I suspect that we might disagree there. It's true that faith in Jesus is probably the only way to be saved by Jesus and receive whatever the payoff of that rather Protestant-style Christianity is supposed to be. But that's all relative to one's belief in that sort of Christian religious doctrine.

Somebody practicing Zen might adhere to a radically different belief system and might have very different goals in mind when engaging in his/her own religious practice. And practicing Zen in the traditional way might indeed be the best path to realizing the goals of Zen (assuming that Zen even has goals).



I'm inclined to think that they are all 'signposts' as you put it, but that they don't necessarily all have the same goal. I think that each of them can arguably be true in its own context, hence the relativism that I expect that you reject.

I am inclined to suspect that reality is indeed one and that there's some underlying psychological state that many/most/all of the religious traditions are reaching towards and want to maximize regarding our relationship with that fundamental reality, but I don't actually know this. So to that extent I have some sympathy with the 'perennial philosophy' ideas. I like them, but can't say that I fully believe all of the things said by champions of this sort of philosophy.

Perennial philosophy - Wikipedia
Would you agree that if the claims of Jesus are true in that He is the only way to heaven. By believing in him , his death , burial and resurrection for our sins according to the Scriptures..If this is true ,this means all and every other religion and forms of spirituality are false and potentially harmful, as they lead away from God and the truth of the bible. If its all true mind .
As an aside, your comment is awesome and I appreciate the well thought out response.
 

John1.12

Free gift
Will your God reject a person entry into Heaven just because he or she doesn't believe in him, but may have helped hundreds of orphans and animals throughout his or her life?
Its more to the point that the ONLY way to be in heaven is to be glorified . Our ' condition ' currently if you like means its not possible to enter heaven without this ' change ' . This ' change ' was made possible by what Jesus did on the cross, dying for our sins , and reconciliation , forgiveness of sins and ultimately through the resurrection we are given the Holy Spirit. Now once a person receives Jesus he's immediately ( After believing on Jesus, the message we've all heard a million times) ' changed ' and WILL be glorified upon the return of Jesus for us ( if we are his ) . So yes God requires everyone to believe this in order to be saved and be glorified when we die ,in order to be in heaven . There's no other option, way , path, road ect . But God has made the way simple . Believe. Can anyone have an excuse with this command today?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Its more to the point that the ONLY way to be in heaven is to be glorified . Our ' condition ' currently if you like means its not possible to enter heaven without this ' change ' . This ' change ' was made possible by what Jesus did on the cross, dying for our sins , and reconciliation , forgiveness of sins and ultimately through the resurrection we are given the Holy Spirit. Now once a person receives Jesus he's immediately ( After believing on Jesus, the message we've all heard a million times) ' changed ' and WILL be glorified upon the return of Jesus for us ( if we are his ) . So yes God requires everyone to believe this in order to be saved and be glorified when we die ,in order to be in heaven . There's no other option, way , path, road ect . But God has made the way simple . Believe. Can anyone have an excuse with this command today?
So what about everyone before Jesus?

What about badly behaved Christians?

What about babies and mentally deficient folks?

What about animals?

Sola Fide theology makes no sense at all. It's unfair and it's senseless. It doesn't reward good behaviour and punish bad; it goes against everything found in the Tanakh. It goes against every single human culture and justice system ever made. Rewarding good and punishing bad is a fundamental aspect of ethics. Belief isn't a tangible thing and one can't even be assured in their beliefs, since religious belief deals with just that - belief. Many Jews, Muslims, Bahai's, Sikhs, Heathens, Kemetics, Hellenics and others are just as confident in their beliefs as you are in yours. That's without mentioning the sheer amount of different christologies, atonement theologies, views of Torah etc., that exist within Christianity.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Its more to the point that the ONLY way to be in heaven is to be glorified . Our ' condition ' currently if you like means its not possible to enter heaven without this ' change ' . This ' change ' was made possible by what Jesus did on the cross, dying for our sins , and reconciliation , forgiveness of sins and ultimately through the resurrection we are given the Holy Spirit. Now once a person receives Jesus he's immediately ( After believing on Jesus, the message we've all heard a million times) ' changed ' and WILL be glorified upon the return of Jesus for us ( if we are his ) . So yes God requires everyone to believe this in order to be saved and be glorified when we die ,in order to be in heaven . There's no other option, way , path, road ect . But God has made the way simple . Believe. Can anyone have an excuse with this command today?
Are you speaking on behalf of the God and Jesus you believe in? or are you speaking from your own understanding of the teaching?
 

KerimF

Active Member
I find it weird that you call Jesus an idol.

Sorry, it happens that, in my vocabulary, any entity/person that humans are supposed to worship, praise and obey is called an Idol or a Supernatural Idol if you like. So I personally don't see in Jesus an Idol because Jesus didn't come to be so; this is clear on the Gospel, to me on the least. In other words, True Love (that Jesus revealed very clearly) has nothing to do with worshiping and praising (in public), also obeying (as in the army). Jesus came to reveal the final update image of God so that a human (having also a living soul... sorry this is another topic) can, if he wants to, be a real image of God; therefore he won't be of this world anymore. But while the human race was evolving, God's image was introduced first via Moses in its simplest form while Paganism was the norm. Even Mohammad Al-Kuraishi (founder of Islam, a smart man) used this simple image but he also assumed that Moses' God (Allah) has to be just One Supernatural Being on whom he created, in the name of Allah, the first Islamic ruling system (now there are many). So God's image as revealed by Jesus is seen today as a serious blasphemy against Allah and Moses' God as well (as you know, because of it, Jesus was condemned to die on a cross as a criminal, infidel, by the honorable Jewish Elders of His time).

What I liked to point out from the beginning is that while the majority on earth talks about God, actually each human refers to the God that suits best his nature... also for his survival (by belonging to a certain group of believers or the like). It happens that, after I knew Jesus, I didn't need to belong to any formal group; social, sportive, religious or political. Jesus didn't need this either :)
 

John1.12

Free gift
Will your God reject a person entry into Heaven just because he or she doesn't believe in him, but may have helped hundreds of orphans and animals throughout his or her life?
So to answer briefly again. We CANNOT be in heaven without Glorification ( Spiritually made new , fit for heaven ,if you like, for want of a better phrase) Helping orphans and animals is not how we are glorified. We have to receive Jesus. So in many ways ,the prerequisite is far easy than trying to feed orphans and help animals .( Whilst that is of course a good thing) its far easier than laying on beds of nails , fasting, praying , meditation, Praying 5 times a day , pilgrimages , fladulation , Self denial , asceticism, ascending through an evolutionary leap , relinquishing all desires, ect ect . Whilst some of those things may give you the warm and fuzzies they don't do anything to enable you to be with God . Where there can be no sin or sinful flesh ect . Thats why Jesus came . To offer eternal life and a place in heaven for eternity, through the only means possible. Through Jesus.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
So to answer briefly again. We CANNOT be in heaven without Glorification ( Spiritually made new , fit for heaven ,if you like, for want of a better phrase) Helping orphans and animals is not how we are glorified. We have to receive Jesus. So in many ways ,the prerequisite is far easy than trying to feed orphans and help animals .( Whilst that is of course a good thing) its far easier than laying on beds of nails , fasting, praying , meditation, Praying 5 times a day , pilgrimages , fladulation , Self denial , asceticism, ascending through an evolutionary leap , relinquishing all desires, ect ect . Whilst some of those things may give you the warm and fuzzies they don't do anything to enable you to be with God . Where there can be no sin or sinful flesh ect . Thats why Jesus came . To offer eternal life and a place in heaven for eternity, through the only means possible. Through Jesus.
The easy way is always the way to least self improvement. The path you're suggesting is all about Heaven and not about improving humanity. Your vision would lead to lots of selfish people.
 
Top