All Religions could be right

[Jumi]

If God had designed a set of clothes and hats for us to wear, they would grow on our heads and backs...

 

[james bond]

Religions are all man made with various rules set in place to ensure the followers please God.

What actually pleases God is not really knownà as every Religion differs slightly depending on the word of their prophet.

im sure we could agree that good moral behaviour would be pleasing to God.

If God or Gods are watching us would they really care what your wearing or what you do or dont eat.

would a God condemn you for simply eating something of coarse not.
Relious customs were defined by culture and regional practices of the times.

A Jew, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, hindu are all roaming the Earth, 4 individuals living a good moral life, would an intelligent loving God deny them the gifts of the afterlife and only accept one because he followed a few different customs.

surely a God that can see the hearts of each would welcome all 4 based on merit.

In my opinion and opinions vary so its mine i speak only the Religion does not matter its the indivuals behaviour that matters making all Religions capable of entering Gods Kingdom if such a place is real.

A God would surely base lifestyle over Religious choice after all God came before Religion.

All religions aren't man made. That's a faulty assumption, but you're entitled to believe what you will. I can't speak for all religions, but for Christianity, it's based on the word of God in the Bible.

I wouldn't agree that it's lifestyle over religious choice either. It's based on one's faith in God. That's not to say that good works, good moral behavior and what you mentioned aren't important, but it isn't the supreme point in Christianity. One can't buy with good deeds nor money their way into heaven.

 

[sealchan]

Religions are all man made with various rules set in place to ensure the followers please God.

What actually pleases God is not really knownà as every Religion differs slightly depending on the word of their prophet.

im sure we could agree that good moral behaviour would be pleasing to God.

If God or Gods are watching us would they really care what your wearing or what you do or dont eat.

would a God condemn you for simply eating something of coarse not.
Relious customs were defined by culture and regional practices of the times.

A Jew, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, hindu are all roaming the Earth, 4 individuals living a good moral life, would an intelligent loving God deny them the gifts of the afterlife and only accept one because he followed a few different customs.

surely a God that can see the hearts of each would welcome all 4 based on merit.

In my opinion and opinions vary so its mine i speak only the Religion does not matter its the indivuals behaviour that matters making all Religions capable of entering Gods Kingdom if such a place is real.

A God would surely base lifestyle over Religious choice after all God came before Religion.

Without personally agreeing with the literal sense that "God wants" or that there is an afterlife, I would agree overall with what you are saying. A religion is embedded in its culture and as such a person is likely to find it easier to find their way to morality through their native religion. Morality is, perhaps, the fruit of the tree that we can all see and with civility judge.

Regarding man-made, I agree mainly that a religion is an outgrowth of a human culture and understanding. However, as one looks at the various religions there are objective qualities to them that suggest a common, universal (human?) experience that points to what might collectively be called God, dharma, tao, Buddha-nature, etc...

 

[Twilight Hue]

Religions are all man made with various rules set in place to ensure the followers please God.

What actually pleases God is not really knownà as every Religion differs slightly depending on the word of their prophet.

im sure we could agree that good moral behaviour would be pleasing to God.

If God or Gods are watching us would they really care what your wearing or what you do or dont eat.

would a God condemn you for simply eating something of coarse not.
Relious customs were defined by culture and regional practices of the times.

A Jew, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, hindu are all roaming the Earth, 4 individuals living a good moral life, would an intelligent loving God deny them the gifts of the afterlife and only accept one because he followed a few different customs.

surely a God that can see the hearts of each would welcome all 4 based on merit.

In my opinion and opinions vary so its mine i speak only the Religion does not matter its the indivuals behaviour that matters making all Religions capable of entering Gods Kingdom if such a place is real.

A God would surely base lifestyle over Religious choice after all God came before Religion.

Well there's one thing wrong anyways, and that is not all religions are privy for employing a God.

All religions are definitely man-made though.

Right on target with that one. ;0)

 

[InChrist]

So imperfection warrants eternal torture? The Biblical god created us a certain way only to punish us for it? Before you say "It's humankind's fault for eating some fruit." If humans were truly "perfect" at the start then they wouldn't have given in to temptation in the first place. So if we humoring the notion that Genesis is literal, then humans were set up to fail so God would gratify his apparent torture kink.

The Bible states that God created us in His image, with a free will and the opportunity to choose to believe Him or believe lies.


Second, we distort God’s holiness. Not only do we refuse to come to grips with the enormity of human sin, but we also misunderstand the holiness of the God being sinned against. It hardly seems fair for God to inflict infinite suffering for a finite number of sins committed and accumulated over a few short years. That is, of course, until one considers the infinite Being that is sinned against.


The idea of viewing the severity of punishment in terms of the person offended against is common sense. When I explain this to students, I get them to imagine the consequences of punching their friend in the face. Their friend might punch them back, or stop being their friend, or even report them to the police. If they were to punch their teacher, they would be suspended, or even expelled from the school. If they strike a policeman, the punishment escalates even further. They will probably end up in a jail cell. Finally, if they attempt to punch the President of the United States, they are going to prison for a long time. Notice the crime was the same in each case; however, the punishment escalated based on the one the crime was committed against.


Clearly, we live by an established principle: the seriousness of a crime is measured not only by its inherent nature, but also by the one offended against. When we sin, who is the One being offended against? He is the Highest Authority, the blazingly holy God.


In our human courts, we judge crimes against animals as more heinous than crimes against plants. We judge crimes against humans as more heinous than crimes against animals. How much more should we judge the crimes against a Being of infinite goodness and holiness? Crimes against an infinite Being deserve an infinite punishment. Therefore, eternity in Hell is a punishment that both accounts for the inherent nature of the crime and the One whom the crime is committed against.
Is Eternal Punishment Just? | Stand to Reason

 

[Baroodi]

Religions are all man made with various rules set in place to ensure the followers please God.

What actually pleases God is not really knownà as every Religion differs slightly depending on the word of their prophet.

im sure we could agree that good moral behaviour would be pleasing to God.

If God or Gods are watching us would they really care what your wearing or what you do or dont eat.

would a God condemn you for simply eating something of coarse not.
Relious customs were defined by culture and regional practices of the times.

A Jew, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, hindu are all roaming the Earth, 4 individuals living a good moral life, would an intelligent loving God deny them the gifts of the afterlife and only accept one because he followed a few different customs.

surely a God that can see the hearts of each would welcome all 4 based on merit.

In my opinion and opinions vary so its mine i speak only the Religion does not matter its the indivuals behaviour that matters making all Religions capable of entering Gods Kingdom if such a place is real.

A God would surely base lifestyle over Religious choice after all God came before Religion.

are you sure all religions are made by man? what is your evidence? you have to differentiate between Cults and religions. a religion in our concept stem from One God, a revelation(not man written) and a prophet supported by signs and miracles.

 

[Father Heathen]

The Bible states that God created us in His image, with a free will and the opportunity to choose to believe Him or believe lies.


Second, we distort God’s holiness. Not only do we refuse to come to grips with the enormity of human sin, but we also misunderstand the holiness of the God being sinned against. It hardly seems fair for God to inflict infinite suffering for a finite number of sins committed and accumulated over a few short years. That is, of course, until one considers the infinite Being that is sinned against.


The idea of viewing the severity of punishment in terms of the person offended against is common sense. When I explain this to students, I get them to imagine the consequences of punching their friend in the face. Their friend might punch them back, or stop being their friend, or even report them to the police. If they were to punch their teacher, they would be suspended, or even expelled from the school. If they strike a policeman, the punishment escalates even further. They will probably end up in a jail cell. Finally, if they attempt to punch the President of the United States, they are going to prison for a long time. Notice the crime was the same in each case; however, the punishment escalated based on the one the crime was committed against.


Clearly, we live by an established principle: the seriousness of a crime is measured not only by its inherent nature, but also by the one offended against. When we sin, who is the One being offended against? He is the Highest Authority, the blazingly holy God.


In our human courts, we judge crimes against animals as more heinous than crimes against plants. We judge crimes against humans as more heinous than crimes against animals. How much more should we judge the crimes against a Being of infinite goodness and holiness? Crimes against an infinite Being deserve an infinite punishment. Therefore, eternity in Hell is a punishment that both accounts for the inherent nature of the crime and the One whom the crime is committed against.
Is Eternal Punishment Just? | Stand to Reason

The purpose of laws are to protect, so If god needs protected, he's not much of a god now is he (especially if it's "necessary" to destroy or torture souls for eternity in order to preserve his dainty feelings and fragile ego)?

 

[Father Heathen]

It's not everlasting punishment. But a lifetime of a lifetime of sin accumulates going unchecked, then yes that means a possible punishment. Whatever punishment there is or is not is in between you and God. But if your not going to give Him a chance can you blame Him for not being lenient?

You do realize that my criticisms are not directed at the notion of god, but rather at how god is portrayed by the bible, right? If there is such an entity, I imagine that "he" would be a being of pure love and pure logic. Therefore anything devoid of compassion or reason cannot be of god, thus the bible has little use beyond toilet paper.

 

[Ubon]

To answer

Isaiah 64:6

6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Moral behavior while good and righteous is not good enough on its own. If some hypothetical person lives there whole life morally and never slipped up even once, maybe. But we are human and imperfect. We make mistakes. I have made many mistakes myself, so living the rest of my life a perfect moral beacon of society is not good enough on its own merit.

Sorry to interrupt. Just thought I'd add that in there.

you quoted a text from the Bible, it is a text written by a man.
What makes his any more right or wrong then any mans.
your assuming God gave him those words as a Christion.

 

[Ubon]

Sorry to disappoint the OP, but romantic as the thought may be, the practical problems are just too overwhelming.

For one thing, there is no such thing as "all religions" that can be somehow reconciled. Far too many of the movements that claim to be religions are unsuitable for such a goal. Some are all-out insane, even outright destructive, and at some point we have to acknowledge that.

As for mentioning gods - well, that is just never helpful in deciding what should be considered valid.

my point was if a Religion makes a man moral it should be ok, I dont feel God would have any interest in a persons Religion.
if its a religion that makes a man immoral then he would surely upset God by his actions.

 

[Ubon]

I don't know about God @Ubon, but I do know Buddhism teaches that what people eat, wear, and such does matter because of non-violence. Not all religions teach non-violence as ideal, so they can't all be right/correct from our perspective.

On the subject of what people eat: I know that many lay Buddhists believe that because we can buy and prep meat, that equates to should. However, the Blessed One didn't believe it ideal that any followers of his buy or keep animals for slaughter. The exception is if vegetables are scarce and meat is abundant- like with Japan historically and it's population issues. If the Blessed One really thought it was preferred that any of his followers buy or consume meat- why chant from the Four Immeasurables: 'may all sentient beings be free from suffering and it's causes'?

The Tathagata intended his community to spread vegetarianism, ideally speaking. Where Buddhists are in a good position to be vegetarian- we ought to be. Religions that teach people otherwise are, again- clearly not right from our view in Buddhism.

As for rather all religions contain truth or not- I think they do in differing degrees. However, if the suggestion is they're all actually teaching and driving at the same thing- that's clearly not true.

Buddhism is not teaching what Islam does, as an example- that there is one God, and your eternal destiny in paradise or hell hinges on that assertion.

Buddhism is also not about pleasing God. It's about alleviating the suffering of all beings and release from Samsara.

Buddha ate meat.
God is not important in Buddhism what is important is righteous behaviour and that frees us from suffering, if God is out there that would be pleasing to a logical God.
Any man of any Religion would be pleasing if moral to a God, A logical God would not expect perfection but he would surely accept those who are generally good.

 

[InChrist]

The purpose of laws are to protect, so If god needs protected, he's not much of a god now is he (especially if it's "necessary" to destroy or torture souls for eternity in order to preserve his dainty feelings and fragile ego)?

I'm sure God's laws are not for His sake, as if God needs any protection or even needs anyone in His presence for eternity. Laws are for the sake of His creation, especially humans who are the ones who so often choose to do the most damage.

 

[Enoch07]

You do realize that my criticisms are not directed at the notion of god, but rather at how god is portrayed by the bible, right? If there is such an entity, I imagine that "he" would be a being of pure love and pure logic. Therefore anything devoid of compassion or reason cannot be of god, thus the bible has little use beyond toilet paper.

Everyone has an opinion.

Also objectively speaking the Bible would not make good toilet paper. It's not even 2 ply!

 

[InChrist]

You do realize that my criticisms are not directed at the notion of god, but rather at how god is portrayed by the bible, right? If there is such an entity, I imagine that "he" would be a being of pure love and pure logic. Therefore anything devoid of compassion or reason cannot be of god, thus the bible has little use beyond toilet paper.

So how does "pure love" forgive someone bent on malicious behavior which harms others, someone who admits no wrong? Should this god of "pure love and logic" forgive and have compassion on someone who insists there is nothing which needs forgiveness? Is this god"of pure love and logic" simply to pass over human evil? Would this be compassionate to the victims of those who practice harmful behavior? Wouldn't a god like this be condoning and encouraging evil behavior and enabling those who abuse and harm others? Would you have this god of "pure love and logic" allow the destructiveness of sin to go on for eternity?

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm sure God's laws are not for His sake, as if God needs any protection or even needs anyone in His presence for eternity. Laws are for the sake of His creation, especially humans who are the ones who so often choose to do the most damage.

God: "I'll burn you if you don't follow these rules."

Man: "These rules seem rather arbitrary. What purpose do they serve?"

God: "They keep me from burning you!"

 

[Father Heathen]

So how does "pure love" forgive someone bent on malicious behavior which harms others, someone who admits no wrong? Should this god of "pure love and logic" forgive and have compassion on someone who insists there is nothing which needs forgiveness? Is this god"of pure love and logic" simply to pass over human evil? Would this be compassionate to the victims of those who practice harmful behavior? Wouldn't a god like this be condoning and encouraging evil behavior and enabling those who abuse and harm others? Would you have this god of "pure love and logic" allow the destructiveness of sin to go on for eternity?

For one, if there is a god he clearly doesn't intervene, interact, or interfere with the world, so he already allows the "destructiveness of sin to go on". If god wanted to stop "evil" and "sin", he would've done so, or better yet not allowed for it to occur in the first place. But if it boils down to dealing justice in the afterlife, the punishment would have be proportionate to the offense, and since no human is capable of anything that's equivalent to eternal torment, that would clearly be unjust and the most vile evil of all. Punishment is supposed to be a learning experience and a deterrent to others. We wouldn't execute people or pull their fingernails out with pliers for parking violations, now would we? Eternal torture would be infinitely excessive and serve no purpose other than the sadistic gratification of a purely evil and demented god.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Buddha ate meat.

I don't deny it, but that doesn't mean he wanted to. Be more specific if you would please

When and why did he eat it? Under which circumstances?

I also eat meat- in those cases the Buddha thought it wasn't immoral for anybody (monks or lay) to eat it. When it's a gift of generosity I didn't ask for, and I don't gorge myself on it. I eat just enough to not offend the virtue of generosity because another person did that for me in good will- and otherwise the animal's life is wasted on my account.

God is not important in Buddhism what is important is righteous behaviour and that frees us from suffering, if God is out there that would be pleasing to a logical God.

Thank you for this clarification, and I agree.

 

[james bond]

Here's what I learned from Buddhism. If I can't find God in the myriad of kalpas of this world, then which world am I going to find him?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@james bond

Believe it or not, Buddhism traditionally and historically believes in deities, but not one like monotheists accept. We believe in the Devas, but our views can vary about them. Some schools think the deities are good. Some think most of them are good, or otherwise malevolent. Some schools are indifferent about them, but believe being kind to them is still good karma.

Historically, my school believes deities are not only good in their true nature, but are pure light beings manifested by the Buddha. I don't usually go quite that far, but I do believe most gods are at least good by intention. I also believe some of them are Bodhisattvas and took refuge in the Triple Gem, like Indra and Rudra/Shiva.

 

[InChrist]

For one, if there is a god he clearly doesn't intervene, interact, or interfere with the world, so he already allows the "destructiveness of sin to go on". If god wanted to stop "evil" and "sin", he would've done so, or better yet not allowed for it to occur in the first place. But if it boils down to dealing justice in the afterlife, the punishment would have be proportionate to the offense, and since no human is capable of anything that's equivalent to eternal torment, that would clearly be unjust and the most vile evil of all. Punishment is supposed to be a learning experience and a deterrent to others. We wouldn't execute people or pull their fingernails out with pliers for parking violations, now would we? Eternal torture would be infinitely excessive and serve no purpose other than the sadistic gratification of a purely evil and demented god.

So are you basically saying that if there is a God, with things the way they are or if eternal torment is the consequence for sin then you can't believe in or accept such a God as good or even exists?