Can all religions lead to God?

[Trailblazer]

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

There is only God. How could there be more than one God IF God is omnipotent and omniscient?

How I would rephrase that is as follows:
All these religions are different religions. Do not make the mistake of taking them as the same.
The Jewish faith does not have Jesus as his son. The Jewish faith does not have Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Mahdi. Islam does not have any manifestations.

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

I have told you many times that the neither the Maid of Heaven nor the Writings of Baha’u’llah are the evidence. I just posted the ‘categories’ of evidence for Baha’u’llah to izzy88 in this post: #139

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

Baha’is have no doctrines, all we have are the Writings of Bahaullah, Abdu’l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi. Baha’is do not believe in original sin so we do not believe there is anything to be saved from. There is no proof that God exists, only evidence that indicates that. There is no proof that Messenger of God exist, only evidence that indicates that.

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

I do not claim that there is an afterlife, I believe it. I cannot claim it because I cannot prove it. Yes, we know that the physical body dies and decomposes, but I believe that the soul (spirit) passes into another world. This quote explains what I believe happens after we die. It was written by a well-informed Christian who lived long before Baha’u’llah was born, so what he wrote in his book has to take that into consideration.

421. When the body is no longer able to perform the bodily functions in the natural world that correspond to the spirit’s thoughts and affections, which the spirit has from the spiritual world, man is said to die. This takes place when the respiration of the lungs and the beatings of the heart cease. But the man does not die; he is merely separated from the bodily part that was of use to him in the world, while the man himself continues to live. It is said that the man himself continues to live since man is not a man because of his body but because of his spirit, for it is the spirit that thinks in man, and thought with affection is what constitutes man. Evidently, then, the death of man is merely his passing from one world into another. And this is why in the Word in its internal sense “death” signifies resurrection and continuation of life. Heaven and Hell, p. 351

 

[Trailblazer]

Interesting. And on what are you basing your criteria for the characteristics a Messenger of God would possess? How do you know what a Messenger of God would be like, enough to be able to judge that this man met the right criteria?

We would not be able to judge solely upon His human characteristics. We would need to be able to see both His human station and the divine station just as 'some people' can see both of those in Jesus. However, the divine station is not clearly visible, although those who have 'eyes to see and ears to hear' can see glimmerings of it.

It is not easy for most people to recognize Baha'u'llah based only upon His characteristics, and that is why He offers other evidence to back up His claim, as well as leaving evidence in His wake.

There is a reason why the the divine station of Baha'u'llah was not fully revealed to the eyes of men but that is rather involved. I recently explained it to two atheists on this forum with an accompanying quote that explained it in greater detail. I will tell you if you want to hear it.

 

[izzy88]

We would not be able to judge solely upon His human characteristics. We would need to be able to see both His human station and the divine station just as 'some people' can see both of those in Jesus. However, the divine station is not clearly visible, although those who have 'eyes to see and ears to hear' can see glimmerings of it.

It is not easy for most people to recognize Baha'u'llah based only upon His characteristics, and that is why He offers other evidence to back up His claim, as well as leaving evidence in His wake.

There is a reason why the the divine station of Baha'u'llah was not fully revealed to the eyes of men but that is rather involved. I recently explained it to two atheists on this forum with an accompanying quote that explained it in greater detail. I will tell you if you want to hear it.

That's alright, but thanks for offering. You didn't really answer my question, though. Regardless of how many people can see them clearly, what are the divine characteristics, and how do you know that these characteristics are divine?

 

[MonkeyFire]

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?

YHWH is a special name.

 

[MonkeyFire]

If you want to spell out your ignorance and unwillingness to learn on the internet - that is fine with me
As for me being pathetic - you know nothing about me - that is simply a diversion from your poorly worded and ignorant posts about Hinduism - get a life - calling others names without justification does not get one anywhere - I called your knowledge pathetic and you are doing ad hominem attacks - sure bring it on let us see how far you get

I notice you have no counter to the first part of my post - perhaps truth striking home got you upset?

You said I was pathetic, so you started it pal.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Islam does not have any manifestations.

I have told you many times that the neither the Maid of Heaven nor the Writings of Baha’u’llah are the evidence. I just posted the ‘categories’ of evidence for Baha’u’llah to izzy88 in this post: #139

There is no proof that God exists, only evidence that indicates that. There is no proof that Messenger of God exist, only evidence that indicates that.

I do not claim that there is an afterlife, I believe it. It was written by a well-informed Christian ..

Christianity also does not have manifestations; nor does any other religion recognizes that uneducated 19th Century Iranian preacher in any way.

You are yourself saying that there is no proof of either any Allah nor of this Iranian preacher to be a manifestation of Allah, so why should I or anyone else accept that? The evidence that you provide in #139 is totally inadequate.

If people are to be accepted as messengers/manifestations of Allah based only on their assertion or the assertion of their followers, then what is wrong with accepting Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also as a manifestation of Allah?

People may believe in all sort of foolish things, people with science education should not accept superstitious things which have no evidence. That this Christian person (Swedenborg) wrote all this BS shows that he was not at all well-informed, not even for his age (18th Century). Even the Greek and Indian philosophers prior to the Christian era were much wiser than that.

 

[Trailblazer]

YHWH is a special name.

Why is it so special?

 

[Trailblazer]

That's alright, but thanks for offering. You didn't really answer my question, though. Regardless of how many people can see them clearly, what are the divine characteristics, and how do you know that these characteristics are divine?

I see those divine characteristics when I read the Writings of Baha'u'llah because it is obvious to me that He is speaking as the Voice of God since He mirrors forth the Attributes of God.

 

[izzy88]

I see those divine characteristics

He mirrors forth the Attributes of God

Which are?

 

[Trailblazer]

The evidence that you provide in #139 is totally inadequate.

If people are to be accepted as messengers/manifestations of Allah based only on their assertion or the assertion of their followers, then what is wrong with accepting Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also as a manifestation of Allah?

None of the evidence I listed in #139 had anything to do with Baha'u'llah's assertions or the assertions of His followers.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which are?

Power and Authority, to name a couple.

 

[izzy88]

Power and Authority, to name a couple.

Those hardly seem like uniquely divine characteristics; lots of people have power and authority.

 

[ManSinha]

You said I was pathetic, so you started it pal.

And you need to broaden your rather limited and pathetic knowledge about the vast Indic religious collection - start with the Vedas and then go on to the Upanishads and the Gita - to name a few
Then come back and talk about "Hinduism"

I said your knowledge was pathetic - you started with the personal attacks - now should I say your reading comprehension is suspect? Or are you and your knowledge the same thing?

 

[MonkeyFire]

I said your knowledge was pathetic - you started with the personal attacks - now should I say your reading comprehension is suspect? Or are you and your knowledge the same thing?

Hahahahahahaha

 

[MonkeyFire]

Why is it so special?

Idk

 

[Aupmanyav]

The different categories of evidence that I believe “indicate” that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God are as follows:

• What He was like as a person (His character): No one knows the real character of any person, perhaps only spouses, perhaps not even them.
  
• What He did during His 40 year mission on earth: Espoused his own importance.
  
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward: Yeah, a few million people have accepted him. But there are other such religions/beliefs as well. The two Sai Babas of India have a bigger following.
  
• The scriptures that He wrote: Ah, the "Old English" books! If someone could have the monumental patience to go through them.
  
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming: BS
  
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming: BS
  
• The predictions He made that have come to pass: BS
  
• The religion that His followers established, what they have done and are doing now.: Nothing other than what other religions have done or doing. Looking for numbers.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

I think you have hit the nail on the head with that statement. I salute you for making it. In reality that is the crux of most dharmic faiths. No threats of eternal damnation or torture if you do not worship this one or that one. A virtuous life is the absolute simplest path to salvation

Religion can be so subjective. Too many think they have to believe that theirs is better and truer than the others.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

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

In terms of knowing the truth, there are several approaches.

1. A person has to determine what tools are required to determine the truth. For example, is the truth that there is a source of creation or is the truth that there is a man-made concept of deity. The reality of a source of creation can easily be at odds with the concept of a god/deity and thus they be can be completely different things all together and potentially not compatiable. (For example, something the created everything may not be concerned with worship and dominance over its creations. By the fact that it has the power to create and itself may have not been created it is dominant for that reason alone and a creation may choose to worship it as the only expression it has as a method of expressing itself. A deity/god on the other hand, as a concept, may demand worship as a part of it seeking dominance from something it either created or didn't create. Further, it is possible that humans can consider something deity that itself is created by something else.)
2. A person would have to determine what tools they currently have available to them and what tools they lack. For example, does a person need do some traveling and meeting people, does a person need to acquire language skills, does a person need scientific skills, investigative skills, etc.
3. A person needs to decide how they personally determine that something is true and from what angles they accept something as being reality. For example, this thing I determine based on my senses, this thing based on the logic I have developed, and this thing I have received from information passed down through human history.
4. Lastly, a person may need to check daily/constantly if they are properly using the tools they have developed and they may have to constantly confront whether or not they are using logic in their choices of beliefs. It may be that someone may have to be 100% honest about the things they know as provable facts, and what those proofs are, and what they beleive - based on beleif of sources. That vs. having faith in something that can't be verified in any way.

That is how Jewish sources, at least, approach it.

 

[izzy88]

Religion can be so subjective. Too many think they have to believe that theirs is better and truer than the others.

Well, obviously if you follow a religion it's because you believe it's true. Why would you be following it if you didn't?
I don't understand why so many people on this forum take issue with someone who believes their religion is true - of course they do, it's their religion.

Are we all required to be agnostic?

 

[CG Didymus]

Well, obviously if you follow a religion it's because you believe it's true. Why would you be following it if you didn't?
I don't understand why so many people on this forum take issue with someone who believes their religion is true - of course they do, it's their religion.

Are we all required to be agnostic?

I believe in exactly how you said it... if the religion is working for you, keep doing it. When it stops working.... move on. But why would it stop working? For me it happened when I started questioning some of the beliefs held by the religion. At that point, I could no longer honestly say that I believed the teachings of that religion, or sect of a particular religion, were true. But ultimately, are any of them absolutely true?

The problem is, people in most religions are expected to believe their religion is the absolute truth. Then, how to they deal with and feel about people in the other religions? Do they feel superior? The most extreme of that being where the person believes that none of the other religions really lead to God (or whatever is The Truth). Or, that the other religions are all false. The less extreme view are the religions that believe all religions are true but that theirs is the newest and therefore the best path to God. The extreme side of this are the ones that try to reinterpret all the other religions in a way that makes them fit into the new religion's beliefs. The less extreme side of this are the ones that just say that all of them are good and all of them lead to the truth or to God.

That's kind of just generalizing it. I was raised a Catholic and used to think it was very extreme. I have Catholic friends now that are very liberal and very tolerant of the other religions. When I told them about my experiences growing up... I told them that I was afraid to put my feet on the floor, because I thought it would open up and I'd slide down into hell, they laughed and said that things changed since Vatican II.