Many paths...one God?

[Meriweather]

Yes. Why are the gods such incompetent designers? Didn't they know that their godly designed rotation and tilt of the planet along with convection currents would cause tornadoes and hurricanes?

There are no benefits from tornadoes and hurricanes? (There are, so rhetorical question.)

 

[DrLove]

How about we just leave it as ‘Many Paths’
Some need to define what God is or is not.
To me, a ginormous waste of time.

 

[Coyote]

I agree that there are some common threads in all faiths, but if we look at the major world religions, at their core they teach very different things about God and the way to God / salvation.

I'll get back to that point a little later to explain why I believe that is important.




Yes, I definitely agree that we would be a better society if people followed the Golden Rule, but how many people actually follow it? How many people actually live their life treating others as they would like others to treat them, and not doing things to others that they wouldn't want done to them?

Agree, a lot don’t follow it or...pick and choose how they apply it, but it is the best rule we h ave to live by.

One of the many reasons why I believe in Christianity is because what I can see with my own eyes about this world and human nature matches with what the Bible says. The Bible says that we all fall short, we all miss the mark.

But that too is a commonality in many religions.

It also says that ultimately the only standard that matters is God's, and God's standard is perfection. And that is precisely why everyone needs God, because only with God's forgiveness and spiritual birth can we be reconciled to God, become the person we were truly meant to be, and attain salvation.

The problem I have with Christianity in that regard is the concept of original sin. We are all born imperfect (another commonality) but. The idea that we are all born in sin, that woman is forever to blame (and subsequently forever the lesser sex), that the pain of childbirth is God’s punishment upon her, that an innocent baby is born sinful, not because of anything he did but by the simp,e act of being.

OK, there are some commonalities, but you seem to be ignoring something far bigger and more important.

As someone else said early on in the thread, it is illogical to say that all religions are true or that all religions lead to God. (if by "lead to God" you mean reconciliation with God or going to heaven) because the world religions teach very different things about God and the way to God.

One of the most basic laws of logic, the law of non-contradiction, states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.

So if you have two religions that are saying diametrically opposed things about God, then obviously they both can't be true, one of them must be true and one of them must be false. OR they can both can be false, but they both can't be true.

I think they all CAN be true if you start out with the premise that none of them are capable of seeing or understanding The Whole (the blind men and the elephant). Contradictions are the result of incomplete knowledge.

As a few others have stated, the Bible makes it very clear that there is one way to God, and this is what Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6)

What Jesus said actually goes along with the nature of truth itself. Truth, by nature, excludes what is false.

Unfortunately, though, multiple religions have made that claim. It isn’t a matter of truth but a matter of faith.

For example, 2+2 = 4. We can't say "oh I think 2+2 is whatever we want it to be!" We can believe that if we want, but we would only be shooting ourselves in the foot because it is not the truth. And truth is not dependent on us at all, truth simply is what it is. That is why it's so important to find the truth and follow it.

BTW, here is a good video on this topic. It's less than five minutes so for anyone who is interested in this topic, I hope you watch it!

Thanks! And thanks for a really informative response

 

[Coyote]

Maybe hurricanes and such are God’s form of pest control

 

[BreezeWood]

I agree that there are some common threads in all faiths, but if we look at the major world religions, at their core they teach very different things about God and the way to God / salvation.

I'll get back to that point a little later to explain why I believe that is important.




Yes, I definitely agree that we would be a better society if people followed the Golden Rule, but how many people actually follow it? How many people actually live their life treating others as they would like others to treat them, and not doing things to others that they wouldn't want done to them?

One of the many reasons why I believe in Christianity is because what I can see with my own eyes about this world and human nature matches with what the Bible says. The Bible says that we all fall short, we all miss the mark.

It also says that ultimately the only standard that matters is God's, and God's standard is perfection. And that is precisely why everyone needs God, because only with God's forgiveness and spiritual birth can we be reconciled to God, become the person we were truly meant to be, and attain salvation.




OK, there are some commonalities, but you seem to be ignoring something far bigger and more important.

As someone else said early on in the thread, it is illogical to say that all religions are true or that all religions lead to God. (if by "lead to God" you mean reconciliation with God or going to heaven) because the world religions teach very different things about God and the way to God.

One of the most basic laws of logic, the law of non-contradiction, states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.

So if you have two religions that are saying diametrically opposed things about God, then obviously they both can't be true, one of them must be true and one of them must be false. OR they can both can be false, but they both can't be true.

As a few others have stated, the Bible makes it very clear that there is one way to God, and this is what Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6)

What Jesus said actually goes along with the nature of truth itself. Truth, by nature, excludes what is false.

For example, 2+2 = 4. We can't say "oh I think 2+2 is whatever we want it to be!" We can believe that if we want, but we would only be shooting ourselves in the foot because it is not the truth. And truth is not dependent on us at all, truth simply is what it is. That is why it's so important to find the truth and follow it.

BTW, here is a good video on this topic. It's less than five minutes so for anyone who is interested in this topic, I hope you watch it!

.

As a few others have stated, the Bible makes it very clear that there is one way to God, and this is what Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6)

.
the very reason that is false and was never spoken is the fact the christian bible is mortal and when abandoned what is the true religion will not be altered. and christianity will be forever forgotten.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Some need to define what God is or is not.
To me, a ginormous waste of time.

I tend to agree with this completely. Not only a waste of time, in my view, but seems to largely serve as a roundabout way of avoiding responsibility for who we are. Or ignorance to who we are, more clearly. It's all based on ego, really.

I had thought about responding to this thread last night, but then changed my mind.

Might start a new thread to avoid conforming to the direction the thread has taken. Depends on my mood.

I'm more interested in discussing things from the perspective of a transcendent experience. That's where commonality truly exists. And it takes us back to defining process rather than deities. Unity, brotherly love and all of that happy stuff. As I'd briefly mentioned previously, core vs culture...

 

[DrLove]

I tend to agree with this completely. Not only a waste of time, in my view, but seems to largely serve as a roundabout way of avoiding responsibility for who we are. Or ignorance to who we are, more clearly. It's all based on ego, really.

I had thought about responding to this thread last night, but then changed my mind.

Might start a new thread to avoid conforming to the direction the thread has taken. Depends on my mood.

I'm more interested in discussing things from the perspective of a transcendent experience. That's where commonality truly exists. And it takes us back to defining process rather than deities. Unity, brotherly love and all of that happy stuff. As I'd briefly mentioned previously, core vs culture...

As an Agnostic, I’ve always thought it to be a fool’s errand to attempt to define what God is or is not.

As Coyote points out, this a matter of faith as opposed to “truth”. None of us know .. not a one.

 

[Natural Citizen]

As an Agnostic, I’ve always thought it to be a fool’s errand to attempt to define what God is or is not.

As Coyote points out, this a matter of faith as opposed to “truth”. None of us know .. not a one.

As I said, I'd rather just start a new discussion about it, doc. The terms of controversy are far deeper and better served that way, in my view. I find this one to be too limited to the human experience. Again, that's a consequence of the culture of religion versus the core of all religions. When I say core, I'm talking about process here.

Point noted, though. And germane, actually.

 

[Natural Citizen]

None of us know .. not a one.

Just as an aside, it certainly takes a great deal of humility to admit that we do not have all of the answers and that more questions need asked.

I find this to be lacking within culture of religion which tends to forward the idea that it has all of the answers and that no more questions need asking.

 

[Meriweather]

As an Agnostic, I’ve always thought it to be a fool’s errand to attempt to define what God is or is not.

I agree we cannot accurately define God. However, while He cannot be fully described, I think we can grasp some of His traits.

 

[BreezeWood]

As an Agnostic, I’ve always thought it to be a fool’s errand to attempt to define what God is or is not.

As Coyote points out, this a matter of faith as opposed to “truth”. None of us know .. not a one.

.
if that is all there is to agnosticism, defining a deity then good luck -

faith that accomplishes fruition -

as for spiritual survival beyond the physiological understanding that process is of far more value that eventually would reconcile the existence of divinity as the means to accomplish the task set forth of eventually joining them. in the Everlasting.

 

[buttercup]

But that too is a commonality in many religions.

Yes, but the teachings on the solution to that problem are different. And when I said that one of the reasons I believe in Christianity is because what I see in the world and in human nature matches up with what the Bible says, that was just one reason. There are many other things that I can see happening in the world that go along only with a biblical worldview.

The problem I have with Christianity in that regard is the concept of original sin. We are all born imperfect (another commonality) but. The idea that we are all born in sin, that woman is forever to blame (and subsequently forever the lesser sex), that the pain of childbirth is God’s punishment upon her, that an innocent baby is born sinful, not because of anything he did but by the simp,e act of being.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but respectfully, I think you misunderstood that part. The Bible is clear that it was BOTH Adam and Eve who sinned, and of course the spiritual enemy of God who tempted them into sinning who is also to blame. So the woman is not singled out, it is mankind in general, and satan.

The woman is not lesser in value, all people have equal value... and the changes that came about because of the fall are not permanent, they are just for this age in this fallen world.

I think they all CAN be true if you start out with the premise that none of them are capable of seeing or understanding The Whole (the blind men and the elephant). Contradictions are the result of incomplete knowledge.

I agree that we can't see the whole, meaning of course we don't understand everything about God, that is not only intuitive but it's what the bible says too. And I don't know any Christians who claim that we know everything about God, on the contrary, we're always wanting to learn more.

But just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we can't know some things and I think God WANTS us to know things, the things that are most important.

Unfortunately, though, multiple religions have made that claim. It isn’t a matter of truth but a matter of faith.

Thanks! And thanks for a really informative response

Yes, there are other religions that claim exclusivity, but also some don't. I don't think that the right response is to just throw our hands up in the air and say "oh well, might as well not bother trying to find the truth because they all say they're true!" (I'm not saying you're doing that, BTW)

There are many compelling reasons to believe Christianity over any of the other world religions. I'm not the type who believes just because someone told me to the believe, I'm skeptical by nature, I take after my Dad in that way (he was an atheist) so I have to have valid, compelling reasons to believe. I wouldn't be a Christian today if I wasn't convinced that the Gospel is true and Jesus is the true power of this world. Thanks for the reply, Coyote!

 

[GMCGeneral]

And that is Faith. Problem is...a lot of religions insist that theirs is the only path.

ONLY Christ made the Absolute claim to be G-d Almighty in the Flesh. The Sovereign G-d of Creation (Jn 8:58).

 

[sear]

"The Bible is clear that it was BOTH Adam and Eve who sinned" bc #252

Oh?
I don't recall that passage. Please quote it, chapter & verse if you please.

Meanwhile, seems like even in Paradise god applied -guilt by association-.

Adam was guilty of what exactly?

 

[DrLove]

As I said, I'd rather just start a new discussion about it, doc. The terms of controversy are far deeper and better served that way, in my view. I find this one to be too limited to the human experience. Again, that's a consequence of the culture of religion versus the core of all religions. When I say core, I'm talking about process here.

Point noted, though. And germane, actually.

We could start a new discussion 100%
I’ll let you get it off the blocks .. Give it focus & we may have a winner.

IMHO the closer we can keep it leaning towards philosophy and personal experience as opposed to religion, the better.

Religion often becomes too damn weepy/ preachy/ ego driven for my blood.

I read many of the OPs here and lose patience (great thread here though Coyote).

Also, what does Religion have to do with Ethics? Not suggesting that one who’s deeply religious can’t also be ethical.

But in my mind it makes about as much sense as a forum called Religion and Bowling

 

[DrLove]

.
if that is all there is to agnosticism, defining a deity then good luck -

faith that accomplishes fruition -

as for spiritual survival beyond the physiological understanding that process is of far more value that eventually would reconcile the existence of divinity as the means to accomplish the task set forth of eventually joining them. in the Everlasting.

So what is “the Everlasting”? Sitting on a cloud playing a harp? That’d get old real quick even if the food was amazing.

Agnostics are simply humble enough to admit that they do not know the precise meaning of life, what happens after they die, or whether there exists a definable “deity”.

One thing for sure, there is meaning and this is no accident. But boy oh boy, among the deeply religious there are bound to be a lot of very disappointed people!

 

[Blues Man]

Once again, to come to this conclusion, one must use subjective, modern language from a Western perspective. A more accurate description are parents with a teen who delights in putting a toe over the line--more if he thinks he can get away with it.

Parents who are disturbed by this are not necessarily exhibiting vengeful anger. When their child's behavior ends in arrest and Juvenile Hall, this is not considered wrathful vengeance, but consequences of the behavior that disturbed them.

In the same way, the behavior we see every time God is disturbed, it is over extremely poor behavior and He knows consequences will follow--not brought on by Him, but by their own behavior. They have been weakening themselves.

The bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek arguably two of the best know languages of the ancient past.

Countless linguists with a far better grasp of these languages than you or me over thousands of years have translated countless works of literature from Greek and Hebrew and they use the translations they do based on this history.

And why are you comparing a god to mere mortals? There is no comparison to between a mortal and an eternal omnipotent, omniscient god.

 

[Blues Man]

That is today's definition. As I mentioned in previous posts, there have been variations over the centuries. And, of course there is the fact the word didn't even come into play until thousands of years after the Hebrew "nostrils flared". We know God was greatly disturbed by unjust behavior.

Again, serious question: Why so doggedly determined to see God as vindictive and vengeful, waving away any consideration to the behavior that was causing the emotion?

Why do you insist that a god is subject to human emotions?

 

[Blues Man]

Grin. You want me to write a dictionary for you? What's wrong with you doing the same research I did if what I have presented here is unworthy of acceptance?

Why are you settling on modern English when most of the Bible was written in Hebrew? Another quirk of mine is the etymology of the English language. Etymology has probably bored any number of people to tears, but it roots and etymology have always fascinated me.

Seriously, you readily dismiss all the information I have presented in discussion form, but if I wrote a dictionary, you would give me credence? I suspect, you would never even order the book, let alone open it.
And, who knows, perhaps a Hebrew scholar already has written such a dictionary.

Countless linguists with a far better grasp on ancient languages than you have already done that.

You want to tell me that these linguists are wrong

 

[Blues Man]

In fact, I do not.

To clarify: The discussion was about the accusation that God vengefully kills. I pointed out it was natural disasters or in the case of the Babylonians, a war between nations--not God sending an army to kill. Then came the discussion that God, as creator, is responsible for all deaths no matter how they come about, because everything is allowed solely by the will of God.

I pointed out that in modern times, we do not rule any death as an act of God, but assign the cause of death to the direct cause of death, be it natural disaster, illness, accident, old age, etc.

Any further questions?

So god kills but not out of retribution.

He kills because people hurt his feelings right?