I grew up in a Methodist Christian household and adopted that faith more or less as a result. As I got a little older, some of it didn't sit right with me. As I questioned things, I realized it was more the institution than the faith that bothered me. I found a Baptist church that was far more agreeable and I chose to have myself baptized as an adult. I held very strong convictions to that faith while I went through a military college and I mostly attribute my success at that college to my faith. I've since stopped attending church but my faith has remained. I don't believe the Bible is inerrant anymore, but I do believe its message. I agree with the teachings of Jesus and I have reason to believe he existed. All through my life I've had experiences that convince me that the God I believe in is real.
TL;DR - Up until this point I've been a Christian with very strong convictions.
What happened to cause this change in me was the question "What happens to the people who never get a chance to hear about Jesus?" There are good people in other religions, certainly better people than me; why should they not be saved just because they didn't hear the correct message? I simply couldn't accept that a loving God would forsake most of the world just because of where they were born.
Well, from there I really started to think about the other major religions of the world. I admit I did a minimal amount of research, but at a glance they all appear to have the same central traits. There is always some form of salvation and a message akin to "love your neighbor as yourself." Further, I'm sure people of those faiths have had experiences like mine to convince them of what they believe. What makes them so different from me?
At this, I started to ask "What if it's all the same God and we just see it differently?" Perspective does play a large role in how we perceive things, so it makes sense to me that an indescribable, all powerful being could be seen in a variety of ways and begin a variety of religions with the same basic messages.
That's essentially as far as I've gotten. I'm still asking questions and doing little bits of research when I find the time, but really what I want is some dialogue. I need to talk this through with somebody and I don't have too many places to do that.
So, thoughts? Are any of you in the same boat as I am? How did you answer the questions I've been asking? Where do you see flaws in what I have here?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
this is a similar conclusion I came to a while ago, Any faith that claims to have an All loving god and at the same time threatens people who do not worship it with damnation or even simply NOT giving something they have an unlimited amount to people soley based on arbitrary things, makes no sense. These relgions are lying either their god is not all loving. OR their god is all loving and they just want your time/money. If god is so cold that he is willing to base eternal bliss entery on attendance (the easy part) over living like a good person (the hard part) he is not a very good all loving god.
Christianity claims that you MUST believe in Jesus and accept him as your savior.
He is the way, no one goes to the father except through him.
One God does not have reincarnation, while another God does. So what happens, do I go to heaven, or do I become someone else?
One God only rewards those who die in glorious battle, while everyone else sort-a just dies.
One "God" is actually several who move back and forth between being part of the whole, and a separate entity each running a different aspect of the world.
etc.
Furthermore,
Do you also believe in universal salvation? Does everyone go to heaven, no matter what, or do you believe there is still a good place, and a bad place? A place where all the good people universally go, and a place where all the bad people universally go?
So many Gods are not only inconsistent with each other, but even more so, opposed to each other.
In this way, even if we were painting different pictures of the same God - SOME people would still be painting a picture of a false God, or the wrong God, or a God that actually doesn't exist.
If Krishna is indeed the "same guy" as YHWH, we still have enormous problems.
There are specifics in worship, practice, and culture. People following the golden rule, isn't a convincing "catch-all".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I would recommend reading Benjamin Franklin and his Gods, it's a book about Franklin's spiritual journey and his own thoughts about religion. He was a complex person who thought deeply about things, and the book is a good study of his beliefs changing through his life.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
So, thoughts? Are any of you in the same boat as I am? How did you answer the questions I've been asking? Where do you see flaws in what I have here?
After the thinking you've done so far, why are you still left with the impression that there is an all-powerful being in existence at all? You reached the conclusion "maybe it's one God and we all see it differently" -- but on your path to that conclusion, how did you rule out "maybe it's zero Gods and the thing these religions are converging on isn't what would be properly called God at all?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Christianity claims that you MUST believe in Jesus and accept him as your savior.
He is the way, no one goes to the father except through him.
Not exactly. There is a verse in Romans that alludes to those who have not heard and are judged according to the law that is written on their hearts. I apologize, but I don't have the actual verse handy right now.
Also, Christianity as a religion has been heavily edited throughout history. Except for in John, Jesus does not even claim to be God. In fact, it is not Jesus that saves, but the Holy Spirit. If that's the case, why can't the Holy Spirit be active in other cultures, absent of hearing about Jesus?
One God does not have reincarnation, while another God does. So what happens, do I go to heaven, or do I become someone else?
I think you need to read about reincarnation, because the cycle does end when one has attained a high enough state. Salvation and Purgatory worded differently.
One "God" is actually several who move back and forth between being part of the whole, and a separate entity each running a different aspect of the world.
etc.
That sounds exactly like what I've been saying. God appears differently to different people.
Do you also believe in universal salvation? Does everyone go to heaven, no matter what, or do you believe there is still a good place, and a bad place? A place where all the good people universally go, and a place where all the bad people universally go?
I'm not really certain in what I believe at this moment. I am pretty sure that everyone got a piece of the truth. Maybe it was just what they perceived as the truth or it was all that was presented. I don't know and maybe I never will. I'm just open to other options at this point and, as I said, I cannot believe that an all loving God would forsake people who just never heard of Jesus, but were otherwise good people.
I would recommend reading Benjamin Franklin and his Gods, it's a book about Franklin's spiritual journey and his own thoughts about religion. He was a complex person who thought deeply about things, and the book is a good study of his beliefs changing through his life.
After the thinking you've done so far, why are you still left with the impression that there is an all-powerful being in existence at all? You reached the conclusion "maybe it's one God and we all see it differently" -- but on your path to that conclusion, how did you rule out "maybe it's zero Gods and the thing these religions are converging on isn't what would be properly called God at all?"
I haven't ruled that out; I suppose it's still a possibility. I think the answer here is that I still find the story of Jesus to be incredibly compelling. Maybe he wasn't the actual son of God and maybe he was just a prophet. Maybe he was misquoted and a distorted version of what he said was written down and a religion sprouted from that with certain officials taking advantage of it. Regardless, we know Jesus existed, had a message, had followers, and was crucified by the state for what he was doing.
I suppose it's possible that he just believed so much that we really needed to love each other that he was willing to die for it in such a horrible manner. Maybe there was no divine inspiration for his actions. I just don't see it that way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
Don't pick your beliefs based on what sounds the most warm and fuzzy.
The mental gymnastics required to twist all the major religions into being the same get pretty absurd. The alternative that none of them are true does a much better job of explaining the state of world religion.
I haven't ruled that out; I suppose it's still a possibility. I think the answer here is that I still find the story of Jesus to be incredibly compelling. Maybe he wasn't the actual son of God and maybe he was just a prophet. Maybe he was misquoted and a distorted version of what he said was written down and a religion sprouted from that with certain officials taking advantage of it. Regardless, we know Jesus existed, had a message, had followers, and was crucified by the state for what he was doing.
Along with who-knows-how-many other historical figures who fit those criteria and are not called divine.
If the personage of Jesus is central to your beliefs, then in what sense are you a universalist? Your seem to have arrived at the notion that world religions tend to converge on the same effective message -- even those that repudiate or haven't even heard the news of Jesus. Doesn't that make the personage and story of Jesus a superfluous quantity?
Christianity claims that you MUST believe in Jesus and accept him as your savior.
Kind of. Catholics, by far the largest denomination of Christians, don't believe that is strictly true. To be sure, if one has had the opportunity to hear about Jesus, then they do believe that. However, the Catholic Church actually teaches (or rather, it is the doctrine of the Catholic Church that)
Quote from CCC847 »
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation."
TL;DR - Up until this point I've been a Christian with very strong convictions.
What happened to cause this change in me was the question "What happens to the people who never get a chance to hear about Jesus?" There are good people in other religions, certainly better people than me; why should they not be saved just because they didn't hear the correct message? I simply couldn't accept that a loving God would forsake most of the world just because of where they were born.
Well, not every Christian accepts that. There are a great deal of differences between Christian denominations.
Which brings me to another important matter:
Well, from there I really started to think about the other major religions of the world. I admit I did a minimal amount of research, but at a glance they all appear to have the same central traits.
They don't.
That's an important point that needs to be made. Do not assume religions all say the same thing. Even the Abrahamic faiths differ greatly.
At this, I started to ask "What if it's all the same God and we just see it differently?" Perspective does play a large role in how we perceive things, so it makes sense to me that an indescribable, all powerful being could be seen in a variety of ways and begin a variety of religions with the same basic messages.
I do believe that we're all perceiving the same God.
However, again, do not make the mistake of ignoring details in order to make everything fit harmoniously into the package you want them to. This is what people do in trying to argue that all the Gospels say the same thing, and this is what people do in trying to argue that all religions say the same thing. Neither of these statements are valid because they require ignoring the myriad details that separate the two.
That's essentially as far as I've gotten. I'm still asking questions and doing little bits of research when I find the time, but really what I want is some dialogue. I need to talk this through with somebody and I don't have too many places to do that.
Recognize that asking questions is a good thing. It's making a claim to know answers that you don't that is dangerous.
So, thoughts? Are any of you in the same boat as I am?
Well, Universalism has been around for quite a while, so you're by no means alone in your thoughts. Many others have come before you.
How did you answer the questions I've been asking? Where do you see flaws in what I have here?
Honestly, the best advice I can give you is go out and live, and in doing so learn what you believe through that.
I think you need to read about reincarnation, because the cycle does end when one has attained a high enough state. Salvation and Purgatory worded differently.
No. Reincarnation is nothing like the Christian view of the afterlife.
In fact, they're closer to complete opposites. For example, Buddhism views the problem of mankind as the fact that we're continuously being reborn, and a Buddhist practitioner (depending on sect) seeks to end the cycle of reincarnation and to liberate oneself from existence.
Christianity, on the other hand, seeks eternal life. The problem according to Christianity is that mankind chose sin, which is the way of death, but through Jesus, who offers eternal life, we may live forever.
I think you're alluding to the Viking religions here, else some perversion of Islam. These are not the religions I'm talking about.
Yes, he's talking about the Viking religion (well supposedly. I believe Valhalla is a later Christian-influenced tradition based around the Christian view of the afterlife.)
That sounds exactly like what I've been saying. God appears differently to different people.
Do you acknowledge the possibility that certain religions may be wrong to varying degrees, or do you believe that they are all fully true?
Because recognize that a lot of contradictory claims are being made here, and even denominations amongst the same religion do not agree with each other on major issues. The difference between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, for instance, is huge.
I'm not really certain in what I believe at this moment.
Which, I will stress, is perfectly fine. Above all else, take that away.
However, again, do not make the mistake of ignoring details in order to make everything fit harmoniously into the package you want them to. This is what people do in trying to argue that all the Gospels say the same thing, and this is what people do in trying to argue that all religions say the same thing. Neither of these statements are valid because they require ignoring the myriad details that separate the two.
I think I've misrepresented myself. I'm not ignoring the details or even trying to make everything fit harmoniously. I recognize that all religions have a lot of different things to say. I'm just seeing those two commonalities.
No. Reincarnation is nothing like the Christian view of the afterlife.
In fact, they're closer to complete opposites. For example, Buddhism views the problem of mankind as the fact that we're continuously being reborn, and a Buddhist practitioner (depending on sect) seeks to end the cycle of reincarnation and to liberate oneself from existence.
Christianity, on the other hand, seeks eternal life. The problem according to Christianity is that mankind chose sin, which is the way of death, but through Jesus, who offers eternal life, we may live forever.
These religions do not say the same thing.
I don't care about the mechanics of it or how it's described. Either way, the Liberation is a reward to a life lived properly, just like Salvation of eternal life offered by Christianity. I make the comparison to purgatory where in Buddhism views the reincarnations as a continued punishment of sorts for not living properly.
This is the similarity I see, and it's no more than that.
I'm not claiming that they all say the same thing. I'm noticing two central traits: The right way to live and the reward for doing so.
Except, beyond, "If you do the right things, generally something more positive will result than if you do bad ones, usually," what similarities do you actually see there?
I don't care about the mechanics of it or how it's described.
Apparently not.
Either way, the Liberation is a reward to a life lived properly, just like Salvation of eternal life offered by Christianity. I make the comparison to purgatory where in Buddhism views the reincarnations as a continued punishment of sorts for not living properly.
Except, again, that's not an accurate comparison.
And it's definitely not "Salvation and Purgatory reworded."
If you believe that Mankind is capable of living morally in the absence of God, ultimately you will be an atheist.
If you believe that Mankind is only capable of living morally under the supervision of a deity, but you believe that deity to be truly benevolent, you will become what you call a universalist.
If you believe that Mankind is only capable of living morally under the supervision of a deity, and you believe that deity to also be immoral, you will become religious (Christianity, Hindu, whatever). (Pascal's Wager, and similar arguments really only hold for immoral deities).
If you believe that Mankind is capable of living morally in the absence of God, ultimately you will be an atheist.
If you believe that Mankind is only capable of living morally under the supervision of a deity, but you believe that deity to be truly benevolent, you will become what you call a universalist.
If you believe that Mankind is only capable of living morally under the supervision of a deity, and you believe that deity to also be immoral, you will become religious (Christianity, Hindu, whatever). (Pascal's Wager, and similar arguments really only hold for immoral deities).
Except that isn't true. At all. Because I believe that mankind is inherently sinful (aka, left to its own devices would be immoral), and I believe that God (aka the deity in your example) is truly benevolent.
And yet, I am a Christian.
Clearly your statements are not factually correct.
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation."
I encountered a serious logical problem with this sentiment. If this is how it really works, then the worst thing you could do to a good person is to preach the Gospel of Christ to them, especially if you are not a charismatic person and you screw it up.
Imagine a generic good dude who qualifies for the salvation above. If you tell that guy about Christ, there's at least a chance he'll reject Him and lose his salvation, even though he remains a good person.
If the above is true, then our best course of action if we want the world to be saved is to take our Bibles and burn them and hide the ashes. We shouldn't tell anyone about Jesus. That way, all the good people will be saved.
I'm not claiming that they all say the same thing. I'm noticing two central traits: The right way to live and the reward for doing so.
Except, beyond, "If you do the right things, generally something more positive will result than if you do bad ones, usually," what similarities do you actually see there?
Specifically, it's "if you love your fellow man, you will achieve some eternal reward."
Actually, do you mind if I turn the questions around for a bit?
You said that you believe we all perceive the same God. Why do you believe that if you also seem to think that our perceptions are so radically different?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
You can always think of Hell in the way that Dante did: specifically that the first circle is reserved for "Virtuous Pagans" - people that lead decent lives but didn't or couldn't accept Christ. It's basically like "Heaven Lite": a generally nice upper-middle class eternity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
You said that you believe we all perceive the same God. Why do you believe that if you also seem to think that our perceptions are so radically different?
If I may jump in, this is most likely due to human limitations on our understanding, and how we color all our understanding based on our perceptions, experiences and our environment.
You have to trace back the idea of 'God' beyond the modern religions back to humanity's more primitive roots. There are ancient records dating back thousands of years that indicate that humanity has always had a perception of some kind of divine force -- or perhaps, have always needed some kind of divine force. How that divine force was perceived and personified had a lot to do with the circumstances those people were living in. Many ancient religions understood their god(s) to be malevolent, a reflection of the difficulties they faced in day to day living. Why else would they suffer so much, if not for a god actively needing appeasement and sacrifice?
Other cultures promoted views of god and religion that either supported or defined the social structure that dominated their day to day lives. Confucianism and Hinduism both demonstrate strong tenets of structure and divine order, which in turn justified the social striefication and caste systems used to organize their populations. Even the concept of a pastoral Shepherd in Jesus Christ, of a humble God that suffered for the sake of His children, can be linked to the sense of persecution and displacement suffered by the early Christians.
It is my opinion that we shape our perception of God to fit with our needs. We create the Gods we want to follow.
I'm not speaking explicitly in the individual sense; people aren't running around thinking up their own personal divinity, per se. But we do interpret the idea of God on a very personal level. Even within Christianity, it's pretty common for believers to have their own picture of God in their heads, often cherry-picked from the available definitions and traits. It's why you can have extremists like the Westboro Baptist Church and more moderates like the Methodists coexisting under the same grand umbrella that is Christianity. Islam is the same way.
So what does all that mean? I guess what I'm getting at, in the end, is that humanity needs God because it's tremendously difficult to persist without the idea of a divine force. We are intelligent beings, we have awareness of ourselves, and we have awareness of our mortality. We are designed to look for patterns and organize events, as a survival tool. When faced with the stark reality that we are merely organisms in a vast, endless, and almost-eternal universe, the idea of our frailty and utter impotence against the unknown drives us to the idea of God. Perhaps it's not quite that bleak, many people come to heartfelt perceptions of the divine through far more joyful avenues (the birth of a child, etc), but part of that certainly has to be the desire for some order to the chaos of existence. Some means of petitioning for aid from a being that can influence the forces we cannot.
Likewise, the idea of salvation or life after death, a heaven, whatever, seems to me to be more a reflection of our innate need to survive -- even after we die. It helps us live in a world that otherwise might seem very hostile, or if not hostile, then at least ambivelent, to our personal circumstances.
Specifically, it's "if you love your fellow man, you will achieve some eternal reward."
And what does "love your fellow man" mean exactly? Notice how it means different things to different religions.
What does "achieve some eternal reward" mean exactly? Not only does that mean different things to different religions, it also isn't true. Judaism, for example, does not necessarily involve an afterlife, and the traditional Sheol is similar to Hades, a dark place where all dead go regardless of virtue or vice. I also hesitate to call what Theravada Buddhists seek an "eternal reward." They want release from samsara. What they're looking for is closer to finality than eternity.
Differences matter.
You said that you believe we all perceive the same God. Why do you believe that if you also seem to think that our perceptions are so radically different?
Why do you believe in the same earth if people's perceptions are so radically different?
Same deal.
To clarify: I believe we all perceive the same God. I did not say we all believe in the same God. Big difference.
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation."
I encountered a serious logical problem with this sentiment. If this is how it really works, then the worst thing you could do to a good person is to preach the Gospel of Christ to them, especially if you are not a charismatic person and you screw it up.
Imagine a generic good dude who qualifies for the salvation above. If you tell that guy about Christ, there's at least a chance he'll reject Him and lose his salvation, even though he remains a good person.
If the above is true, then our best course of action if we want the world to be saved is to take our Bibles and burn them and hide the ashes. We shouldn't tell anyone about Jesus. That way, all the good people will be saved.
I'm not claiming that they all say the same thing. I'm noticing two central traits: The right way to live and the reward for doing so.
Except, beyond, "If you do the right things, generally something more positive will result than if you do bad ones, usually," what similarities do you actually see there?
Specifically, it's "if you love your fellow man, you will achieve some eternal reward."
Actually, do you mind if I turn the questions around for a bit?
You said that you believe we all perceive the same God. Why do you believe that if you also seem to think that our perceptions are so radically different?
Actually, yes, even going by the Bible, telling someone about Jesus is the worst thing you can do to someone, if Jesus is the only way into heaven. If they reject Jesus right there, they are destined to go to hell until they die or accept him later. I know there's a passage in the Bible about people who have never heard of Jesus, but I don't remember which book/verse it is specifically. Basically, if they haven't heard of Jesus to even reject him, then that person will be judged on their works.
And if you are someone who has accepted Jesus as your savior, there's no telling if you're going to go to heaven because you will be judged by your works too. And if you do anything good, it will not mitigate you (it is not by our works in which we are saved) but anything bad you do will count against you. And that's not fair. If God is really all loving, do you really think he would send you to hell just because you forgot to repent for stealing a candy bar when you were six years old?
Here are two verses that are worth considering when it comes to the idea of Universalism:
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21
"And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, 'If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.'" - Revelation 14:9-11
Actually, yes, even going by the Bible, telling someone about Jesus is the worst thing you can do to someone, if Jesus is the only way into heaven. If they reject Jesus right there, they are destined to go to hell until they die or accept him later. I know there's a passage in the Bible about people who have never heard of Jesus, but I don't remember which book/verse it is specifically. Basically, if they haven't heard of Jesus to even reject him, then that person will be judged on their works.
I never read anything of this sort. My Bible says the opposite:
"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!'" - Romans 10:14-15
"And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.'” - Matthew 28:18-20
Not exactly. There is a verse in Romans that alludes to those who have not heard and are judged according to the law that is written on their hearts. I apologize, but I don't have the actual verse handy right now.
You are correct to a certain extent. The problem, however, lies with human nature.
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.” - Romans 3:11-18
People don't go to hell because of their unbelief. People go to hell because of their works. Unbelief is simply a scrap of garbage sitting on top of the entire dumpster of garbage that is our works. That is what the Bible teaches.
Actually, yes, even going by the Bible, telling someone about Jesus is the worst thing you can do to someone, if Jesus is the only way into heaven. If they reject Jesus right there, they are destined to go to hell until they die or accept him later. I know there's a passage in the Bible about people who have never heard of Jesus, but I don't remember which book/verse it is specifically. Basically, if they haven't heard of Jesus to even reject him, then that person will be judged on their works.
I never read anything of this sort. My Bible says the opposite:
"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!'" - Romans 10:14-15
"And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.'” - Matthew 28:18-20
Did you read the rest of my post? Have you been reading the thread?
TL;DR - Up until this point I've been a Christian with very strong convictions.
What happened to cause this change in me was the question "What happens to the people who never get a chance to hear about Jesus?" There are good people in other religions, certainly better people than me; why should they not be saved just because they didn't hear the correct message? I simply couldn't accept that a loving God would forsake most of the world just because of where they were born.
Well, from there I really started to think about the other major religions of the world. I admit I did a minimal amount of research, but at a glance they all appear to have the same central traits. There is always some form of salvation and a message akin to "love your neighbor as yourself." Further, I'm sure people of those faiths have had experiences like mine to convince them of what they believe. What makes them so different from me?
At this, I started to ask "What if it's all the same God and we just see it differently?" Perspective does play a large role in how we perceive things, so it makes sense to me that an indescribable, all powerful being could be seen in a variety of ways and begin a variety of religions with the same basic messages.
That's essentially as far as I've gotten. I'm still asking questions and doing little bits of research when I find the time, but really what I want is some dialogue. I need to talk this through with somebody and I don't have too many places to do that.
So, thoughts? Are any of you in the same boat as I am? How did you answer the questions I've been asking? Where do you see flaws in what I have here?
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Some problems with universalism...
Christianity claims that you MUST believe in Jesus and accept him as your savior.
He is the way, no one goes to the father except through him.
One God does not have reincarnation, while another God does. So what happens, do I go to heaven, or do I become someone else?
One God only rewards those who die in glorious battle, while everyone else sort-a just dies.
One "God" is actually several who move back and forth between being part of the whole, and a separate entity each running a different aspect of the world.
etc.
Furthermore,
Do you also believe in universal salvation? Does everyone go to heaven, no matter what, or do you believe there is still a good place, and a bad place? A place where all the good people universally go, and a place where all the bad people universally go?
So many Gods are not only inconsistent with each other, but even more so, opposed to each other.
In this way, even if we were painting different pictures of the same God - SOME people would still be painting a picture of a false God, or the wrong God, or a God that actually doesn't exist.
If Krishna is indeed the "same guy" as YHWH, we still have enormous problems.
There are specifics in worship, practice, and culture. People following the golden rule, isn't a convincing "catch-all".
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
After the thinking you've done so far, why are you still left with the impression that there is an all-powerful being in existence at all? You reached the conclusion "maybe it's one God and we all see it differently" -- but on your path to that conclusion, how did you rule out "maybe it's zero Gods and the thing these religions are converging on isn't what would be properly called God at all?"
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Not exactly. There is a verse in Romans that alludes to those who have not heard and are judged according to the law that is written on their hearts. I apologize, but I don't have the actual verse handy right now.
Also, Christianity as a religion has been heavily edited throughout history. Except for in John, Jesus does not even claim to be God. In fact, it is not Jesus that saves, but the Holy Spirit. If that's the case, why can't the Holy Spirit be active in other cultures, absent of hearing about Jesus?
I think you need to read about reincarnation, because the cycle does end when one has attained a high enough state. Salvation and Purgatory worded differently.
I think you're alluding to the Viking religions here, else some perversion of Islam. These are not the religions I'm talking about.
That sounds exactly like what I've been saying. God appears differently to different people.
I'm not really certain in what I believe at this moment. I am pretty sure that everyone got a piece of the truth. Maybe it was just what they perceived as the truth or it was all that was presented. I don't know and maybe I never will. I'm just open to other options at this point and, as I said, I cannot believe that an all loving God would forsake people who just never heard of Jesus, but were otherwise good people.
Thanks, I'll have to look into this.
I haven't ruled that out; I suppose it's still a possibility. I think the answer here is that I still find the story of Jesus to be incredibly compelling. Maybe he wasn't the actual son of God and maybe he was just a prophet. Maybe he was misquoted and a distorted version of what he said was written down and a religion sprouted from that with certain officials taking advantage of it. Regardless, we know Jesus existed, had a message, had followers, and was crucified by the state for what he was doing.
I suppose it's possible that he just believed so much that we really needed to love each other that he was willing to die for it in such a horrible manner. Maybe there was no divine inspiration for his actions. I just don't see it that way.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
The mental gymnastics required to twist all the major religions into being the same get pretty absurd. The alternative that none of them are true does a much better job of explaining the state of world religion.
Along with who-knows-how-many other historical figures who fit those criteria and are not called divine.
If the personage of Jesus is central to your beliefs, then in what sense are you a universalist? Your seem to have arrived at the notion that world religions tend to converge on the same effective message -- even those that repudiate or haven't even heard the news of Jesus. Doesn't that make the personage and story of Jesus a superfluous quantity?
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Kind of. Catholics, by far the largest denomination of Christians, don't believe that is strictly true. To be sure, if one has had the opportunity to hear about Jesus, then they do believe that. However, the Catholic Church actually teaches (or rather, it is the doctrine of the Catholic Church that)
(CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church)
Well, not every Christian accepts that. There are a great deal of differences between Christian denominations.
Which brings me to another important matter:
They don't.
That's an important point that needs to be made. Do not assume religions all say the same thing. Even the Abrahamic faiths differ greatly.
I do believe that we're all perceiving the same God.
However, again, do not make the mistake of ignoring details in order to make everything fit harmoniously into the package you want them to. This is what people do in trying to argue that all the Gospels say the same thing, and this is what people do in trying to argue that all religions say the same thing. Neither of these statements are valid because they require ignoring the myriad details that separate the two.
Recognize that asking questions is a good thing. It's making a claim to know answers that you don't that is dangerous.
Well, Universalism has been around for quite a while, so you're by no means alone in your thoughts. Many others have come before you.
Honestly, the best advice I can give you is go out and live, and in doing so learn what you believe through that.
No. Reincarnation is nothing like the Christian view of the afterlife.
In fact, they're closer to complete opposites. For example, Buddhism views the problem of mankind as the fact that we're continuously being reborn, and a Buddhist practitioner (depending on sect) seeks to end the cycle of reincarnation and to liberate oneself from existence.
Christianity, on the other hand, seeks eternal life. The problem according to Christianity is that mankind chose sin, which is the way of death, but through Jesus, who offers eternal life, we may live forever.
These religions do not say the same thing.
Here's a good link. Stephen Prothero explains how the different religions are different, Stephen Colbert is funny, everyone wins: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/312500/june-14-2010/stephen-prothero
Yes, he's talking about the Viking religion (well supposedly. I believe Valhalla is a later Christian-influenced tradition based around the Christian view of the afterlife.)
Do you acknowledge the possibility that certain religions may be wrong to varying degrees, or do you believe that they are all fully true?
Because recognize that a lot of contradictory claims are being made here, and even denominations amongst the same religion do not agree with each other on major issues. The difference between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, for instance, is huge.
Which, I will stress, is perfectly fine. Above all else, take that away.
I'm not claiming that they all say the same thing. I'm noticing two central traits: The right way to live and the reward for doing so.
I think I've misrepresented myself. I'm not ignoring the details or even trying to make everything fit harmoniously. I recognize that all religions have a lot of different things to say. I'm just seeing those two commonalities.
I don't care about the mechanics of it or how it's described. Either way, the Liberation is a reward to a life lived properly, just like Salvation of eternal life offered by Christianity. I make the comparison to purgatory where in Buddhism views the reincarnations as a continued punishment of sorts for not living properly.
This is the similarity I see, and it's no more than that.
I'll watch this and get back to you.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Except, beyond, "If you do the right things, generally something more positive will result than if you do bad ones, usually," what similarities do you actually see there?
Apparently not.
Except, again, that's not an accurate comparison.
And it's definitely not "Salvation and Purgatory reworded."
If you believe that Mankind is only capable of living morally under the supervision of a deity, but you believe that deity to be truly benevolent, you will become what you call a universalist.
If you believe that Mankind is only capable of living morally under the supervision of a deity, and you believe that deity to also be immoral, you will become religious (Christianity, Hindu, whatever). (Pascal's Wager, and similar arguments really only hold for immoral deities).
Except that isn't true. At all. Because I believe that mankind is inherently sinful (aka, left to its own devices would be immoral), and I believe that God (aka the deity in your example) is truly benevolent.
And yet, I am a Christian.
Clearly your statements are not factually correct.
I encountered a serious logical problem with this sentiment. If this is how it really works, then the worst thing you could do to a good person is to preach the Gospel of Christ to them, especially if you are not a charismatic person and you screw it up.
Imagine a generic good dude who qualifies for the salvation above. If you tell that guy about Christ, there's at least a chance he'll reject Him and lose his salvation, even though he remains a good person.
If the above is true, then our best course of action if we want the world to be saved is to take our Bibles and burn them and hide the ashes. We shouldn't tell anyone about Jesus. That way, all the good people will be saved.
Specifically, it's "if you love your fellow man, you will achieve some eternal reward."
Actually, do you mind if I turn the questions around for a bit?
You said that you believe we all perceive the same God. Why do you believe that if you also seem to think that our perceptions are so radically different?
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
If I may jump in, this is most likely due to human limitations on our understanding, and how we color all our understanding based on our perceptions, experiences and our environment.
You have to trace back the idea of 'God' beyond the modern religions back to humanity's more primitive roots. There are ancient records dating back thousands of years that indicate that humanity has always had a perception of some kind of divine force -- or perhaps, have always needed some kind of divine force. How that divine force was perceived and personified had a lot to do with the circumstances those people were living in. Many ancient religions understood their god(s) to be malevolent, a reflection of the difficulties they faced in day to day living. Why else would they suffer so much, if not for a god actively needing appeasement and sacrifice?
Other cultures promoted views of god and religion that either supported or defined the social structure that dominated their day to day lives. Confucianism and Hinduism both demonstrate strong tenets of structure and divine order, which in turn justified the social striefication and caste systems used to organize their populations. Even the concept of a pastoral Shepherd in Jesus Christ, of a humble God that suffered for the sake of His children, can be linked to the sense of persecution and displacement suffered by the early Christians.
It is my opinion that we shape our perception of God to fit with our needs. We create the Gods we want to follow.
I'm not speaking explicitly in the individual sense; people aren't running around thinking up their own personal divinity, per se. But we do interpret the idea of God on a very personal level. Even within Christianity, it's pretty common for believers to have their own picture of God in their heads, often cherry-picked from the available definitions and traits. It's why you can have extremists like the Westboro Baptist Church and more moderates like the Methodists coexisting under the same grand umbrella that is Christianity. Islam is the same way.
So what does all that mean? I guess what I'm getting at, in the end, is that humanity needs God because it's tremendously difficult to persist without the idea of a divine force. We are intelligent beings, we have awareness of ourselves, and we have awareness of our mortality. We are designed to look for patterns and organize events, as a survival tool. When faced with the stark reality that we are merely organisms in a vast, endless, and almost-eternal universe, the idea of our frailty and utter impotence against the unknown drives us to the idea of God. Perhaps it's not quite that bleak, many people come to heartfelt perceptions of the divine through far more joyful avenues (the birth of a child, etc), but part of that certainly has to be the desire for some order to the chaos of existence. Some means of petitioning for aid from a being that can influence the forces we cannot.
Likewise, the idea of salvation or life after death, a heaven, whatever, seems to me to be more a reflection of our innate need to survive -- even after we die. It helps us live in a world that otherwise might seem very hostile, or if not hostile, then at least ambivelent, to our personal circumstances.
And what does "love your fellow man" mean exactly? Notice how it means different things to different religions.
What does "achieve some eternal reward" mean exactly? Not only does that mean different things to different religions, it also isn't true. Judaism, for example, does not necessarily involve an afterlife, and the traditional Sheol is similar to Hades, a dark place where all dead go regardless of virtue or vice. I also hesitate to call what Theravada Buddhists seek an "eternal reward." They want release from samsara. What they're looking for is closer to finality than eternity.
Differences matter.
Why do you believe in the same earth if people's perceptions are so radically different?
Same deal.
To clarify: I believe we all perceive the same God. I did not say we all believe in the same God. Big difference.
And if you are someone who has accepted Jesus as your savior, there's no telling if you're going to go to heaven because you will be judged by your works too. And if you do anything good, it will not mitigate you (it is not by our works in which we are saved) but anything bad you do will count against you. And that's not fair. If God is really all loving, do you really think he would send you to hell just because you forgot to repent for stealing a candy bar when you were six years old?
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21
"And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, 'If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.'" - Revelation 14:9-11
I never read anything of this sort. My Bible says the opposite:
You are correct to a certain extent. The problem, however, lies with human nature.
People don't go to hell because of their unbelief. People go to hell because of their works. Unbelief is simply a scrap of garbage sitting on top of the entire dumpster of garbage that is our works. That is what the Bible teaches.
Did you read the rest of my post? Have you been reading the thread?