Can all religions lead to God?

[Aupmanyav]

Sorry it's spelled kama sutra.

That is not the only thing you did. You limited it to sex positions.

The Kamma Sutta is a Hindu text about sex positions.

It is not only that.
"Attributed to Vātsyāyana, the 'Kāma Sutra' is neither exclusively nor predominantly a sex manual on sex positions, but written as a guide to the "art-of-living" well, the nature of love, finding a life partner, maintaining one's love life, and other aspects pertaining to pleasure-oriented faculties of human life." - Kama Sutra - Wikipedia

I don’t think so. But it may be that many religions have originated from same God, if they have the same message originally.

No evidence of any God, but people taking advantage of an old belief and coming up with new versions all the time for their own benefit.

 

[osgart]

Oh no, Osgart. No more revelations. We already got many from the time of Akhenaten or Zoroaster. What we need is more research from science.

I agree to that. I was thinking that revelations are impossible anyway; especially mankind's concoctions of revelations. The revelation would have to be from the so called source of all reality. Again a total impossible happening.

It's amazing how mankind has handed down story after story and built upon previous stories to convince other people that these stories are special knowledge.
It's trickery, and delusion.

I think our languages tell the actual stories of how us humans identify and conceptualize the world. We invent words to entertain, or for survival necessity, and it's interesting how we come up with useful meanings.

I see a pattern in human society of power, control, submission demands. I hope science can make people more honest, less delusional, and not become a dogmatic scheme.

I have a religious beliefs or two though sitting firmly in the realm of ' I don't know yet '. Past that I see very little need for our world's religions. There are some profound meanings mixed in with a lot of conjured up babblings.

Religious institutions need to adapt and humble themselves and need to discard a ton of bad ideas. If religion has any power and strength it's in their ability to organize, and their ability to communicate, and their ability to serve a purpose for people. Too bad about it's corruptions and falsehoods. Some of those institutions actually help people in a way.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which God?

There's only one true God, that one.

 

[Trailblazer]

He's known to us as YHWH.

Why does God have to have a name?
Don't you believe that God existed before that name was revealed to Moses?
What does everything have to be based upon the Hebrew scriptures?

 

[izzy88]

Why does God have to have a name?

Nothing and no one has to have a name; we just give things names so they're easier to talk about.

Don't you believe that God existed before that name was revealed to Moses?

Why are you even asking this question? Nobody has implied that God didn't exist until he had a name.

What does everything have to be based upon the Hebrew scriptures?

What does this mean? What is "everything"?

 

[Trailblazer]

All religions cannot lead to God directly, but all of them can certainly help us along the path, in my experience.

So, do you believe that only your religion leads to God directly?
The problem with that is that other people believe the same thing about their religion.'
How could you ever prove your religion is the direct path to God?

 

[Aupmanyav]

There's only one true God, that one.

Allah of Abraham, the one postulated by the 19th Century Iranian preacher. No, we do not have anything to do with him. We have our own Gods and Goddesses.

Why does God have to have a name?

Because there are many Gods and Goddesses and not one.

 

[Trailblazer]

but no more than one of them can be the actual destination, because there's only one truth.

Why is their only one truth?
What is the actual destination?

 

[izzy88]

Why is their only one truth?

Do you believe that truth is subjective or objective?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nobody has implied that God didn't exist until he had a name.

RigVeda, one of the oldest religious books, says that Gods came up after the creation of the universe.

"Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

Why is their only one truth?
What is the actual destination?

Your questions are not precise. Truth, wrt what? Destination, wrt what? Truth about God, truth about cars? Destination for my vacation, destination for my professional life?

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't like division either. However, what if there is only one way to God?

Let's lay our cards on the table. I already know that Christians "believe" that Jesus is the Only Way to God.
Why would an All-Loving and Merciful God arrange it that way such that 67% of the world's population have NO WAY to God?

 

[izzy88]

RigVeda, one of the oldest religious books, says that Gods came up after the creation of the universe.

"Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

I just meant nobody in this conversation, but that's very interesting so thanks for sharing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nothing and no one has to have a name; we just give things names so they're easier to talk about.

Okay, but what about people who do not believe in the God of the Hebrew scriptures?

Why are you even asking this question? Nobody has implied that God didn't exist until he had a name.

That was a silly question, intended to be a bit facetious.

What does this mean? What is "everything"?

I meant everything related to God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Allah of Abraham, the one postulated by the 19th Century Iranian preacher.

No, God was postulated long before that.

We have our own Gods and Goddesses.Because there are many Gods and Goddesses and not one.

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

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you believe that truth is subjective or objective?

Objective.

 

[izzy88]

Let's lay our cards on the table. I already know that Christians "believe" that Jesus is the Only Way to God.
Why would an All-Loving and Merciful God arrange it that way such that 67% of the world's population have NO WAY to God?

That may be the most misunderstood doctrine of the Church - so much so that it's even misunderstood by many Christians.

The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. Regarding the doctrine in question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: 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. (CCC 847)

Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spes teaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)

This teaching is consistent with Jesus’ own teaching about those who innocently reject him: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin” (Jn 15:22).

But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn 9:41). Paul taught likewise concerning the Gentiles:

When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16)

What “No Salvation Outside the Church” Means

 

[izzy88]

Objective.

Then it follows that two religions which make contradictory claims cannot possibly both be true, and virtually every religion makes contradictory claims to one another. This means that it's not possible for more than one of them to be true.

 

[Trailblazer]

That may be the most misunderstood doctrine of the Church - so much so that it's even misunderstood by many Christians.

The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation.

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

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: 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. (CCC 847)

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

Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spes teaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:

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

But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn 9:41). Paul taught likewise concerning the Gentiles:

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

 

[Trailblazer]

Then it follows that two religions which make contradictory claims cannot possibly both be true, and virtually every religion makes contradictory claims to one another. This means that it's not possible for more than one of them to be true.

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

 

[Deeje]

I actually support @A Vestigial Mote's position here - any kind of proselytizing whether it by JW's "witnessing" or Imam's trying to convert people is an insult to the person being addressed with the proselytizer arrogantly and smugly assuming that their way is the only way.

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

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

The Bible tells of an approaching apocalypse and Jesus has asked us to sound the warning and to give people the hope of something better to come. There is no coercion or attempt to belittle anyone in the process....no feelings of "I am right and you are wrong"...just genuine concern and a desire to help people to be safe when that disaster comes.

When Mount St Helens was about to explode, the emergency service workers sounded the warning door to door, for those in harm's way.....but some decided not to do anything about it. They did not believe that they would be harmed, and so they were obliterated with the mountain. Warnings are given for a reason.

I know enough about the major religions that if anyone tries that s*** on me I can put them in their place with ease - and I admit I take a perverse delight in doing so. Have had several conversations on RF where those I am addressing have run away declining to continue the conversation.

We are told to offer the message and to give people ample opportunity to see for themselves the meaning of the times in which we live....we are not told to harass people, or to Bible bash them. It is offered on a take it or leave it basis. There is no point in arguing because that is not what the message is about. If some clearly do not understand what the message means, I will elaborate, but running away is not what happens...its more about what Jesus said to do in Matthew 10:14....its not about us giving up on those who reject the message, but more about them giving up on themselves....IMO.

That is how I see it.