Can All Roads Lead to God?

[Revoltingest]

At least a human produced you. Maybe you wouldn't use the word invented.

That word works for some things.
Not for others.

 

[metis]

I am of the perspective that it makes more sense to let God speak for Himself rather than let all religions speak for or about God.

Then you have to chuck your Bible into the garbage as it is such people who wrote the books. The Bible is about God but is not God.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The end result is that religions who teach a perennial philosophy, such as Theosophy, Anthroposophy, Thelema, much of Hermeticism, and the New Age Movement all end up creating their own paths that have little to do with the religions they claim kinship with.

This isn't a blow to the concept that all religions have a Theosophical or Hermetic core to them, but I think it's important to keep in mind that whenever we discuss whether "all roads can lead to God" we're actually discussing the validity of a particular road, not all of them.

This is true because when reading the books based on these religions. They tend to have an arrogant know it all perspective as if they know a secret that the normal religions are too ignorant to figure out. But all this begs the question. These new age religions and new religious movements seem to me to retcon other religions and be speaking a whole lot of unproven nonsense.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Thank you for sharing this informative perspective. I do understand that many have this viewpoint and I consider it to be rather like a smorgasbord or buffet table approach to God, where each person chooses according to their preferences. Yet, I wonder what God thinks about that. You are right though, one’s worldview influences a person’s perspective and approach to God.

Depends on the god really.

Worldview really does play a major role in the perspective of God. That is why the monotheistic religions find it difficult to make inroads in cultures of the east.

An example:

Christians try to convert Hindus in India by preaching about Jesus Christ to them. The Hindus gladly say "Oooh, this god sounds cool. We will worship him. Lets include him among our other gods."

 

[rational experiences]

The destroyer holy book teaching.

Men.

Men who want to own in science conditions as just humans. Man as babies wanting the holy father as men babies living in with father's state in our heavens. Life image voice of a once lived human. True father.

Father first as first only adult human man. Not nor ever was man first as his brother. As all men the exact same role.

One of baby man...was brother to brother as his lies.

Man hurt as brother to brother cause said himself human sex was evil and a sin and if I were just father now I'd be only in heavens state. Heavens only not being human...men who want to be just father. But in machine theories.

The two comparisons ludicrous.

Not suffering now in life by my brother's nuclear technology fall of man...fall out.

All Reasoning he said what he had.

The state to record is one system only. Recording a state. A type a cause one..once. told. One only once so it's now natural cause as it happened once.

He thinks about his behaviour as brothers as lots of evil men. He then thinks it's recorded on a level. It's just recorded as type of men behaving badly. He knows other lovelier healthier better thinkers humans are recorded just as they live lovingly by choice human behaviour.

Thinks they're on a higher level. Lying. Everyone is only a human. Conscious aware only advised about behaviour.... he lies.

Lies about anything he thinks about.

Says if a human believes a human began as one only and single cells in just heavens mass. A spirit. And to him theorising that the cells had a chemical bio response he names it electricity. How it grew into the human spiritual body and he lies.

As he only wants a new thesis how to get a machines life...can't be without his machine partner he says...machines made him super rich machine man. Electricity.

Yet in reality the self who thinks it is the cult selves who believe it in and via just by their personal thoughts only. We say only you believe it and claim it real.

Why don't you have its terms as human reality lying. Your reality each self who believes should have it only.

Why scientists despise religious cult mentality just what self wants. In science conditions.

In full knowledge Awareness they say to themselves as the thinker....if I claim it my owned self position as life no I'll be destroyed.

So they are in full human awareness of the terms of thinking as the want yet outright lying. About family life they bio experiment on claiming I'll be taught how to obtain it...as no man is a God inventing creating biology.

I'll find it he says. I'll attack study and find.

The heavens owns it he says. Which puts it not with any human body within as heavens also surrounds the body.

They however pretend as just a man and human they are the creator. By invention machine inner want reactions.

It's why they try to convince humans by cult force the group to believe a sun machine alien is a reaction inside a mass and is human beginnings above.

Yet a reaction in a machine is a Resource the body type a man puts inside machine himself.

It's why legal used to just throw theists of science in gaol. By types of Inferred themes or design. As they personally chose as human identification not to accept families legal position a human.

As our parents human body as human were our God. Just as we always taught. Human parents the God of human babies was a teaching only not a thesis. From human micro cells.

And there is no scientific thesis machine in creation. It was only thought about in man's position civilisation trade...not our parents not nature's support.

Life has nothing to do with anyone in a human theory but life's destroyer.

Greedy lying coercive rich men brothers. Their warning brother destroyed brother.

The human warning.

They change heavens via science causes man's machines. God remains as God above in law..the God who destroys life was sun god. And it is not our God. Told.

Told.... warned....as it's the lizard government....scientific theists in cult behaviour who lie about lizards. As lizards are miniature dinosaurs now..hence evolution creationist theists are proven liars.

Are the humans who cause life's destruction now.

Already doing it as occult machine practices and already agreed to cause it.. in full aware human knowledge. Exactly told already why they are not aliens.

Reason old spiritual man's legal Jesus position forbade man's beginning of science Alchemy. Ban alchemy so men cannot practice Satanism. Was recorded as the choice.

As invention needed Alchemy allowance to begin practice. If it's re practiced it has led back to satanic science takeover.

To reason. Suns star mass not aliens had hit earth caused tunnels sin holes.

No alien in a Cloud image. Metal cooling of suns mass was going away. First teaching about lying machine men. Suns type.

Sun owned only dust mass above burning outside in space law.. where sun mass belongs in law. Out in space.

Vacuum void pulled it away stopped it's movement attack on all planet bodies.

The sun mass is changed it's amount above when star fall comes. Pushed extra mass into biologies spirit only heavens.

We live as humans we see it and life is attacked by it witnessed multi times.

Man scientists know it came from sun yet lie about alien theories.

Only man's machine caused transmitters to destroy our human images in heavens via earths mass machines.... to cause the alien effect. It is a proven not any human or earth life image.

Even before modern man rebuilt evil technology sun mass fallout above was occurring. It was still present. Not owned by human machines first the proof. Paintings proved it was witnessed in a non technology human life no practice.

Destroyer humans pretended the image of man emerged in clouds after the alien type. The alien type emerged in the clouds as alien...they lied.

As dinosaur images are seen in clouds also the warning..... and modern day animals and human images seen above. Maybe a brain defected life thinks dinosaurs still live now. If clouds created life says a human not a cloud.

And it might be why they depicted dinosaurs invading America as a warning. In a movie. Clouds burning fall by science human theists egg theories. About dinosaurs not being aliens first.

It was always man of science life's destroyer on earth. Theories and cult behaviour. Known and ignored.

Why natural humans disliked the family in cult behaviours....religious sciences.

And said if we are forced into man's greedy AI civilisations status then family needs new self control edicts about their cult behaviour. And governing should not be controlled by science.

 

[InChrist]

Then you have to chuck your Bible into the garbage as it is such people who wrote the books. The Bible is about God but is not God.

Are you saying the biblical scriptures are God’s Word?

 

[InChrist]

Depends on the god really.

Worldview really does play a major role in the perspective of God. That is why the monotheistic religions find it difficult to make inroads in cultures of the east.

An example:

Christians try to convert Hindus in India by preaching about Jesus Christ to them. The Hindus gladly say "Oooh, this god sounds cool. We will worship him. Lets include him among our other gods."

Yes, you’re correct and your example is very accurate. That does seem to be an issue or difficulty faced by many throughout the Bible; Moses in Egypt, Paul in Athens, among others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

so then the question remains -- are all gods the same?

In my experience, every person's god is unique... even in the same religion/denomination/whatever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At least a human produced you. Maybe you wouldn't use the word invented.

What is wrong with that? When a God has human failings that is an indication that that God was made by man. It is the reason that I reject just about all religions. They all appear to be man made.

 

[InChrist]

I believe that saying is not being quoted by your source correctly. The correct quote, which comes from a 14th century Zen poet monk, is, "Many paths lead from the foot of the mountain, but at the peak we all gaze at the single bright moon." It does not say "all paths". It says "many". And this I do believe is truth.

There is no one-size fits all path. Not all people are trying to reach Chicago coming from Indianapolis, some coming from New York, others from Bismarck. Clearly, there are different roads different people must travel. We don't all start at the same geographical location. So therefore, there may be different requirements, such as driving through the mountains, or across a desert.

But most clearly not "all roads" will lead to God. There are many roads that lead to destruction. Some take you into Death Valley instead of Chicago. Hate is not a road that leads to God. Envy is not a road that leads to God. Negative outlooks on life do not lead to God. Lying pathologically is no a road that leads you to God, and so forth.

But those who wish to find God, will, if their hearts are true and are willing to make that journey. The path up the side of the mountain for them, may be different than it is for someone else, but at the peak, they all gaze at that single bright moon.

So no, all roads can't lead to God. But yes, there is more than just one path to God. Each person has a different path they have to take, which may be through a different religion, or through none. But the Destination is the same.

Thank you for the correct quote.
I definitely agree that people come to God from a wide variety of places and I also understand that each person’s journey is unique. Yet, I think if there is a specific Creator God (which I believe there is) then this God would have and provide the specific way, direction, or door through which He may be reached so those seeking don’t get lost, confused, disoriented, or fall off a cliff.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

In my experience, every person's god is unique... even in the same religion/denomination/whatever.

You are more correct on this than you may realize.

I am part of a NRM called Earthseed. Earthseed's first basic belief is that God is change. The second is to shape God. The way that I interpret this is that human evolution is creating Gods within ourselves, our environment and in nature itself. I don't really know a single person who has put extropy on a pedestal as high as this - besides maybe the inventor of the word, Max More.

The God I believe in is the God of science, the God of technology, the God of change and I've talked to many atheists who reject the traditional 'old man with a beard' but have on numerous times caved on my conception of God. God comes to me before anything else, because God includes everything else. We're all changing ourselves, our environment and nature to suit our desires.

And I have yet to meet a single person, whether it be a syntheist, Earthseed shaper or otherwise who has that exact view of God.

 

[InChrist]

Anyone who has travelled and encountered different religions cannot fail to be struck by features they have in common (care for others, control of bodily urges, asceticism and monasticism, afterlife etc), even though their detailed doctrines are quite different. Yet so many of them seem to claim that their way is the only way. On what basis, then, can one decide that one is true and all the others must be totally false?

In my case it was time in the Middle East, and visiting Buddhist temples in Thailand, that made me ask these questions. The only rational answers I came up with are that either all of them are groping towards the same understanding - "Now we see through a glass, darkly." as St. Paul says - or all religions are merely human constructs, resulting from a common psychological and sociological urge in humanity.

What is obviously absurd is to say because my holy book says my religion is the correct one, then all the others must be quite wrong, even though their holy books say that theirs is true!

Yes, it’s true that many religions have some features in common, as you pointed out. Yet, when it comes to the Nature or Qualities of God they are vastly different. For example, while there are various schools of Buddhist, the overall concept of God is impersonal. Hinduism has many gods. Then there’s biblical Christianity with One Personal God. So I find it difficult to reconcile the idea that all roads would or could lead to God since all the gods/ God the various roads lead to are completely different.

 

[InChrist]

In other words, you’ll just change the analogy to fit your own preconceived notions. Got it.

Not changing it, just trying to clarify.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yes, it’s true that many religions have some features in common, as you pointed out. Yet, when it comes to the Nature or Qualities of God they are vastly different. For example, while there are various schools of Buddhist, the overall concept of God is impersonal. Hinduism has many gods. Then there’s biblical Christianity with One Personal God. So I find it difficult to reconcile the idea that all roads would or could lead to God since all the gods/ God the various roads lead to are completely different.

Regarding the many gods idea, many of these seeming polytheistic religions have an originator god. In Hinduism, there are branches the ultimate goal in certain viewpoints is that ultimately all the Gods are just aspects of one God. Some even go so far as to say that everything is one god, even us, and that our goal as humans is to realize that everything is god and the seperation from everything else and it is an illusion. This God that everything is apart of is called Brahman. (I apologise to all the hindus for butchering your religion as I probably got a few things wrong already).

This is an example of misunderstanding from us westerners when it comes to foreign viewpoints. When we say that hinduism is polytheistic, that viewpoint is already throwing us onto the wrong track. We see many gods, and we think that they are the equivalent of the Roman or middle eastern gods which the biblical viewpoint addresses, which is that they are separate individual entities. Go to the east and the viewpoint changes so much.

Even the whole concept of idolatry in the bible is wrong. Religions, such as the egyptian religion, don't have the followers worshipping the idols as if manmade objects in and of themselves have power. They believed that part of the God manifested in the object, so they worshipped the manifestation of the god at certain points but knew that the idol itself has no power of its own. The idol wasnt alive but it was just a vessel for the god. I think that the same is true in hinduism.

 

[YoursTrue]

What is wrong with that? When a God has human failings that is an indication that that God was made by man. It is the reason that I reject just about all religions. They all appear to be man made.

You were produced not by yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You were produced not by yourself.

Correct, I was produced by my parents.

So what?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, you’re correct and your example is very accurate. That does seem to be an issue or difficulty faced by many throughout the Bible; Moses in Egypt, Paul in Athens, among others.

You're right about that. Moses had a difficulty, both with Pharaoh and his men, then later even with those who escaped with him from bondage. But the history remains.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're right about that. Moses had a difficulty, both with Pharaoh and his men, then later even with those who escaped with him from bondage. But the history remains.

That is not history. It is legend at best. History consists of events that actually happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

Correct, I was produced by my parents.

So what?

Glad to know we agree on something. So let's be honest -- you were not before your parents got together and your mother became pregnant with you, more or less -- or how is it? I doubt that zygotes think. So that zygote developed into a baby, you learned to speak, eat, dress yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Glad to know we agree on something. So let's be honest -- you were not before your parents got together and your mother became pregnant with you, more or less -- or how is it? I doubt that zygotes think. So that zygote developed into a baby, you learned to speak, eat, dress yourself.

Please try to make a coherent argument. Right now you are making a "So what?" argument.