Can all religions lead to God?

[izzy88]

What makes a person "innocently ignorant?" What if they have been told, but they do not believe the doctrine? What if they believe in Jesus and that Jesus was sent by God but they do not believe in the Church doctrine of salvation?

Pretty much everyone ion the world had heard the gospel message by the mid-19th century so they know it, so it would have to be their fault if they did not accept it as true.

Who said anything about salvation? I am not interested in salvation because I do not believe there is anything to be saved from. All I care about is the truth.

If they believed that the gospel message was the truth they would not reject it, so all of the 67% of non-Christians in the world who do not believe it is the truth are culpable.

You're really missing the point, so I'll put it very simply: Jesus's entire message was love.

As it says in Matthew 22:

37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

Because God is love, truth, justice, goodness, etc. it means that to love God above all else is to make these things your highest ideal. If you genuinely strive to live a life of love and virtue, then whether you believe in Christ or not you're still a member of his Church - his family - which means you can be saved.

All the details of Christianity are meant to help us achieve this way of living, but the Church recognizes that it's certainly possible for people to live a virtuous life without direct knowledge or understanding of or belief in the historical Christ. If a person has heard the Gospel and genuinely doesn't believe Jesus was God - even doesn't believe in God at all - as long as they're trying their best to live a life of love, they can be saved, because they are members of Christ's Church - even if it's unknown to them.

 

[izzy88]

That's true, so where does that leave us?

Well, this line of discussion began when you asked me why there is only one truth - which it seems we've settled.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, this line of discussion began when you asked me why there is only one truth - which it seems we've settled.

So now what?
How do you think anyone can know what that truth is? If all believers can do is believe it is the truth, that is subjective truth, not objective truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

All the details of Christianity are meant to help us achieve this way of living, but the Church recognizes that it's certainly possible for people to live a virtuous life without direct knowledge or understanding of or belief in the historical Christ.

Then why do we need the doctrine of salvation?

 

[izzy88]

If all believers can do is believe it is the truth, that is subjective truth, not objective truth.

The truth is the truth regardless of who believes it, that's kinda the whole concept of truth.

How do we know whether what we believe is true? Well, in short, what's true is what works in practice. For something to be true means for it to correspond to reality, and when what we're doing corresponds to reality things will work out well for us and the people around us. That doesn't necessarily mean in a material sense - this isn't like a Prosperity Gospel thing - but in the sense that life will make sense and be truly meaningful.

The only way to discover truth is through experience; we all have to try things out, try living in certain ways to see how it works. If you're following a religion that's making your life more meaningful and improving you as a person and helping the people around you, you should continue living it as long as it works, because that's really all we can do. And if someday you feel like it's not enough, or like it's not working anymore, it might be a sign that you haven't yet found the truth. So then you keep moving. I moved through several religions and worldviews before coming to Catholicism, because I thought each one was true at the time. Now I've come to believe that Catholicism is true, and it's been almost a year and it's still working great and making my life as meaningful as it's ever been. But if someday it stops working for me and it no longer seems true, if there's something about it that I can't reconcile, then I'll just have to move on again and keep searching.

We really can't know for certain whether we've found truth; all we can do is follow it wherever we think it's leading. And we need to care more about truth than about just being attached to some specific ideology. If people cared more about searching for truth than just holding onto their beliefs, I think the world would be a much better place.

 

[izzy88]

Then why do we need the doctrine of salvation?

I don't know what you mean.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know what you mean.

If everyone who lives a good life and does good works is saved as you said why do we need a doctrine to tell us that?

 

[Trailblazer]

The truth is the truth regardless of who believes it, that's kinda the whole concept of truth.

Yes, the truth is what exists in reality, not what people believe about reality, because people can be wrong.

How do we know whether what we believe is true? Well, in short, what's true is what works in practice.

The problem with that as I see it is that many beliefs lead to good practices but these beliefs contradict each other, so how can they all be in accordance with reality? There is only one reality, since reality is what exists; e.g. Jesus was either a manifestation of God or not. There is more to reality but my point is that reality is everything that is real, everything that ever existed or exists now. Anything that is not reality is fantasy, something people imagine to be real.

We really can't know for certain whether we've found truth; all we can do is follow it wherever we think it's leading. And we need to care more about truth than about just being attached to some specific ideology. If people cared more about searching for truth than just holding onto their beliefs, I think the world would be a much better place.

If a person has absolute certitude of reality, they can know for certain that they have found the truth.
The caveat is that they could be wrong, because religious beliefs can never be proven to be the truth.

Will we know if our belief was true after we die? I am not certain of that, but it makes sense to me that if our belief was true we will know, but that does not mean that others will know that their belief was false, but might still go on believing it for eternity.

 

[izzy88]

If everyone who lives a good life and does good works is saved as you said why do we need a doctrine to tell us that?

I really don't understand what you're asking.

It's like asking "if objects with less mass are drawn towards objects with greater mass, why do we need the theory of gravity?"

It seems like an incoherent question to me. You're asking "if this doctrine is true, why do we need the doctrine?" I don't know how to answer that because the question doesn't make sense. If it's true, it's true. What else is there to say?

 

[PearlSeeker]

If everyone who lives a good life and does good works is saved as you said why do we need a doctrine to tell us that?

Because some people think that other things are more important and decisive in life. Because work/difference is done first in the heart. "First clean the inside of the cup." This reminds me of lyrics of a song: "the way your heart sounds makes all the difference in learning to live."

 

[Trailblazer]

I really don't understand what you're asking.

It's like asking "if objects with less mass are drawn towards objects with greater mass, why do we need the theory of gravity?"

It seems like an incoherent question to me. You're asking "if this doctrine is true, why do we need the doctrine?" I don't know how to answer that because the question doesn't make sense. If it's true, it's true. What else is there to say?

No, it is not like that.

We do not NEED a theory of gravity, because we know that gravity exists. All we have to do to test it is jump off of a tall building.

You are trying to draw a comparison to the Christian doctrine of salvation but these are not comparable because there is no way to test that doctrine and prove it is true.

No, I was not asking: "if this doctrine is true, why do we need the doctrine?" My original question was why we need a doctrine that states who is saved and who is unsaved, if all people are saved as long as they do good works? But that is not what the doctrine states. It does not state that all people who do works are saved. Salvation is much more involved and that is why a written doctrine is necessary.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because some people think that other things are more important and decisive in life. Because work/difference is done first in the heart. "First clean the inside of the cup." This reminds me of lyrics of a song: "the way your heart sounds makes all the difference in learning to live."

That still does not tell me why we need a doctrine if all people who do good works are saved.

 

[izzy88]

No, it is not like that.

We do not NEED a theory of gravity, because we know that gravity exists. All we have to do to test it is jump off of a tall building.

You are trying to draw a comparison to the Christian doctrine of salvation but these are not comparable because there is no way to test that doctrine and prove it is true.

No, I was not asking: "if this doctrine is true, why do we need the doctrine?" My original question was why we need a doctrine that states who is saved and who is unsaved, if all people are saved as long as they do good works? But that is not what the doctrine states. It does not state that all people who do works are saved. Salvation is much more involved and that is why a written doctrine is necessary.

Alright, I think I've been pretty patient in this conversation, considering that half of what you say is incoherent, but this is just ridiculous.

I tried explaining the doctrine to you in detail, and you didn't understand it at all. So, to help you, I simplified it as much as I possibly could (and you've just demonstrated that you evidently didn't actually understand the dumbed-down version, either). And now you're arguing with me that the doctrine can't be as simple as that - that it must be more complex or the doctrine wouldn't be necessary. Setting aside the fallacious implication you're making that a doctrine cannot be simple, I tried explaining to you what the doctrine actually says and it was too complicated for you to understand. How are you going to then argue with me that it must be more complicated than my simplified explanation that I was only giving to try to help you understand, after I already gave you the more detailed explanation?

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous and I'm done.

 

[Trailblazer]

I tried explaining to you what the doctrine actually says and it was too complicated for you to understand. How are you going to then argue with me that it must be more complicated than my simplified explanation that I was only giving to try to help you understand, after I already gave you the more detailed explanation?

Thanks for trying to explain it, but I do not need anyone to explain the doctrine of salvation. All I need to do is look it on the internet and I will find the various Christians understandings of that doctrine, which are different for Protestants and Catholics. However, none of those explanations say non-Christians can be saved. I looked and looked and I could not find one. But I did find this:
Can Non-Christians Be Saved?
It sure does not sound to me like salvation is as straightforward as 1-2-3.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous and I'm done.

Okay.

 

[PearlSeeker]

That still does not tell me why we need a doctrine if all people who do good works are saved.

Because the second part of my post defines good works. Some doctrines have been teaching for example:

• what distance are you allowed to walk on certain day is important,
• you will go to hell because of false beliefs despite being good person in heart,
• you will burn in hell because showing hair in public despite ...

 

[Trailblazer]

Because the second part of my post defines good works. Some doctrines have been teaching for example:

• what distance are you allowed to walk on certain day is important,
• you will go to hell because of false beliefs despite being good person in heart,
• you will burn in hell because showing hair in public despite ...

How is anyone supposed to know how to attain salvation when every Christian has a different version.

 

[PearlSeeker]

How is anyone supposed to know how to attain salvation when every Christian has a different version.

Use your discernment.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Define the difference between ultimate reality and reality, please.
In what way is reality a god?

Ultimate Reality is usually defined as fundamental, eternal and unchanging.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, God was postulated long before that.

All these Gods of Abraham are different Gods. Do not make the mistake of taking them as the same.
Your God of Abraham does not have Jesus as his son. Your God of Abraham does not have Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Mahdi. Mohammad's God of Abraham does not have any manifestations.

You can believe whatever you want to, that is why God gave you free will.

It is not a question of free will. It is about arbitrariness and credulity. Jesus says he is the son of Allah and you do not accept it. Mohammad says he is the last messenger, and you accept it (because not accepting it would have meant annihilation of Bahaollah and his creed in Middle East). You do not accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad when he says that he is the Mahdi. But you accept when Bahaollah says that he is a manifestation in an absolutely arbitrary manner. Not that Bahaollah provides you any better evidence of his Allah or his being the manifestation (except, of course, his vision of the 'Maid of Heaven'). And for proof, what you have is volumes of 'word salad' written by Bahaollah, which have been translated in 'Olde English' carrying hardly any meaning. That shows your credulity.

Jesus's entire message was love.

Tell me just three things: 1. Was he the son of God? 2. Did he resurrect after death? 3. Is the doctrine of salvation a farce?

Then why do we need the doctrine of salvation?

If everyone who lives a good life and does good works is saved as you said why do we need a doctrine to tell us that?

Why do you then, need even the Bahai doctrine, not just the Christian doctrine? Saved from what? What is the proof that one needs to be saved from something? What is the proof of even the God or Allah? What is the proof of people being prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis of God or Allah?

Will we know if our belief was true after we die? I am not certain of that, but it makes sense to me that if our belief was true we will know, but that does not mean that others will know that their belief was false, but might still go on believing it for eternity.

After death, there is no 'you' or 'me' to know anything. It makes no sense at all to claim something will happen after death. What we know for sure is that there will be disintegration of what constitutes our body and its obsorption in millions/billions of living and non-living things. It is basically chemical recycling.

 

[ManSinha]

Allow me please to address this point.....what is proselytizing? It can mean to try and "convert people from one religion to another" but it can also mean to..."advocate or promote (a belief or course of action)." Christian evangelism is all about advocating and promoting a belief or action. Its not trying to make converts for the sake of getting others to wear our label.....but simply offering a message and allowing the receiver to accept it, or to reject it as they wish.

Why would you even offer a message about your religion unless you believed that the other was inferior or needed to be saved? That is the arrogance I am referring to.

If emergency service workers were to knock on your door and warn you of an approaching disaster, and to recommend a course of action in order for you to get to safety, would you accuse them of proselytizing.....because that is what JW's are trying to do in their door to door work. (pre-covid 19)

That is a false comparison - emergency workers may have actual knowledge of coming hurricanes or tornadoes or a virus outbreak. All you have are theories and conjecture - absolutely nothing concrete. I have seen you again and again on RF make reference to "Oh they will know in the end....." or something similar without offering to specify when said end is coming. If you do not know - better educate yourself first before purporting to tell others. You got nothing IMHO.

its more about what Jesus said to do in Matthew 10:14....its not about us giving up on those who reject the message, but more about them giving up on themselves....IMO.

That is how I see it.

And what did "Jesus say" about those whose message is superior to yours? Or do you not even acknowledge that? If not that is your hubris. I am putting Jesus in quotes because in reality you know nothing of what he said or did not. All you have is stuff made up and written down decades or centuries later. Let us revert to the facts as we know them.

Let me give you an example of what Lord Krishna said - supremely confident and beats anything you got IMHO if we are comparing scriptural truths

Gita 7:6
etad-yonīni bhūtāni sarvāṇītyupadhāraya
ahaṁ kṛitsnasya jagataḥ prabhavaḥ pralayas tathā

Know that all living beings are manifested by these two energies of mine. I am the source of the entire creation, and into me it again dissolves.

Gita 7:7
mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñchid asti dhanañjaya
mayi sarvam idaṁ protaṁ sūtre maṇi-gaṇā iva

There is nothing higher than myself, O Arjun. Everything rests in me, as beads strung on a thread


So no, thank you very much. I have my own writings that tell me who the Lord really is. Don't need anyone else "offering to share" what I consider are inferior beliefs and practices