Oddly, this post is getting a lot of search engine traffic. “All paths lead to one God” is a particularly offensive statement to me, palatable as many others seem to find it. Commenters have accused me of being argumentative, excitable, and of writing things that seem “hateful” and “mean-spirited.” I’ll cop to argumentative, at least.
The original post was very short – mostly an excuse to link to a Robert Spencer interview where he thoroughly debunked the myth that Christians and Muslims worship the same God or have any overlap (aside from the massive chunks of the bible that Mohammed plagiarized and re-interpreted). This issue has come up before, when an Episcopal priest bizarrely thought she could simultaneously practice Islam and preach Christianity.
The myth that all monotheistic faiths are more or less equal is just that – a myth. It’s propagated by those who espouse a multi-cultural worldview (where the West and Christianity never quite seem to measure up in comparison) and post-moderns who will believe anything as long as it doesn’t stand the tests of logic, common sense, facts or history, because all opinions are equal and what’s true for you isn’t necessarily true for me.
The truth is that Christianity is – like most other religions – EXCLUSIVE. It has deal-breakers – meaning if you don’t believe certain things, then you are not a Christian, no matter what you may call yourself. And what really frosts me, what makes me argumentative and prone to use very definitive, aggressive language, is that people today try to water down Christianity with this multi-culti, postmodern world view. They treat it like a buffet: I’ll have a bit of monotheism, a little Mary, some of Jesus’ teachings because even though he wasn’t God he was still a great moral teacher. No thanks, no book of Romans for me, and most of the old testament and Revelation is too hard, so I’ll pass on that. Thanks. I’m not “religious.” I’m “spiritual.”
I oppose that strenuously and aggressively every chance I get. If I see it creeping around, I stomp on it like the cockroach it is. Biblical Christianity is exclusive and it is definitive on many topics. If you are re-writing it, I will argue with you until I’m blue in the face, and I will press you to explain what you believe and more importantly, on what that belief is based. For example, some people say that when we die, we become angels. That’s a popular notion, often referred to in movies (the end of Steel Magnolias comes to mind, when the evangelical Christian character erroneously claims it) and that idiot TV show, Touched By An Angel. But it has no basis whatsoever in the bible, and when someone refers to it in my presence, if it’s appropriate I say something like, “That’s an interesting idea – on what is it based?” And so far, every conversation leads to more or less the same response. I’ll paraphrase it: “I just want it to be true.”
Wanting something to be true doesn’t make it so. All paths do not lead to one God. Christianity leads somewhere entirely different than Islam, for example and that was the point of the original post.
I’m with you, but I’d quibble. All paths do lead to God eventually, but you may be unpleasantly surprised at his reaction when you find Him on a non-christ path.
Ha – okay, you got me there. Yes, definitely.
Added, for the sake of anyone who doesn’t “get” my agreement with Steve’s point… believing, as I do, as Christianity does, that there is ONLY ONE true God, all paths do lead you to Him – for judgment, when you die. So if you’re coming to him by any other way than Christ, eternity will decidedly NOT be what you had hoped.
I am not a theist, but I have to say that Laura is right on here: not all faiths are equal and if you want me to believe you are offering the Truth then, by definition, someone else can’t also have it.
i guess i understand why people are so protective of their beliefs, well because they believe in them. in most cases they go to great and extraordinary lengths to prove to themselves they believe in something by following either strict diets, even eating utensils, following hijab, etc. however, often when people of these more common belief systems argue against this idea of ‘all paths’ the pick on specific details showing the divisions between their religions. everyone knows that these religions are different and have created differences in their god(s). i dont think the people that believe in ‘all paths’ are saying that the christian god is exactly the same god as the jewish and muslim… based on how these gods are seen from each perspective. i think what you arent realizing is that they are saying there is one god, and he doesnt care in how you believe in him [or possible even IF you believe in], or what you do to celebrate him… those are your choices to make. I think their position is more clearly stating that religion at its root is inevitably good. it teaches us right from wrong. it teaches us how to deal with the difficult parts of life that we cant answer yet with science, and it helps us to be comfortable with the things that scare us. it is the answer to all questions that we need to answer to continue to live peacefully and happily. unfortunately, in the past several thousands of years alot of these religions were manipulated into the exact things they were created to teach us not to do. many people have died because of their or someone else’s religion. im fairly certain, that most common religions do not actually approve of that. i think that what they are saying is that its more important to live a good and altruistic life. if you choose to be religious in any certain way, that is okay as well.
i think the main point that ‘all paths’ believers are saying, is that religion itself does not matter, but the fact that it exists matters. if you live a good life with common sense and place others before yourself then you wont be secluded from an afterlife, a heaven, an eternity, or a peaceful rest simply because you didnt eat bread and drink wine every week, or believe in the son of god [second/messiah], or shared diary and meat on the same plate, or any of the things people do while practicing their specific religion. i think it focuses on the commonalities instead of the differences of the religions of the world, but definitely not the specifics.
ive always found it most interesting, that almost everyone that believes in a religion, whether its one of the many Christian denominations, or jewish denominations, hindi, muslim, etc. fail to think about the case that almost all of them teach that to be saved you or acquire the eternal ultimate goal, one must believe in that specific religion and practice its methods. well, if there can only be ONE, the probability doesnt look good for most us.
be well,
~marion
Marion, I appreciate your thoughtful comment. On what evidence or logic is the belief that “religion itself does not matter, but the fact that it exists matters. if you live a good life with common sense and place others before yourself then you wont be secluded from an afterlife, a heaven, an eternity, or a peaceful rest simply because you didnt eat bread and drink wine every week, or believe in the son of god [second/messiah], or shared diary and meat on the same plate, or any of the things people do while practicing their specific religion.” based? I mean, what is the source for that? This is a serious question, no snark here at all. When I have asked people that question in the past, the answers always boil down to “I just want it to be true,” which I find a very weak foundation for planning how you will spend eternity. At the heart of it, is the basis for your comment different? Again, no snark. This is an argument (in the sense of debating, presenting arguments to establish a proposition, search for truth kind of way) that I would dearly love to have.
i take no offense to questions… to be inquisitive is to be human. keep in mind though, i am not a believer of ‘all paths’ but simply speculating on their beliefs. i dont think that their idea and belief system is foretold or utilizes any specific teachings/writings/scripture. i think that what they have done is stand back and look at the bigger picture of all religions and say that they want to celebrate the commonalities of them, but not the differences. its a cooperative approach to religion and i see it as somewhat refreshing. people trying to find the good in everything and live a seemingly good and peaceful life is more of what we need in this world. what they are doing i think is better for humanity, then as ive stated before what alot of the more normal and main stream religions have done. granted its easy the darker things religions have caused are extremist sections of a more peaceful religion, but things like the crusades did in fact happen and even christian religions do adopt new practices slowly over time. martin luther broke away from catholicism because of many things that he didnt agree with that the catholic church was putting onto the followers of christ. ironically, after centuries later, catholicism ended up diminishing many [not all] of the things that he had a problem with. they didnt do this publically or even completely wipe them off the books [i imagine to hide the egg on their face] but it is no longer common practice to buy loved ones out of purgatory, is it?
i guess my point is, id rather people trying to find a better way and more peaceful way to live harmoniously then an angry or hateful way. its better for all of us. plus it goes back to what i was saying before, only one can be right by most accounts… so that means that most will be wrong. odds are against all of us and most found their religion before they even understood it, having been taken their at an early age by family and entered in at a young age.
either way, i prefer to see people trying to get along in this world of hatred and pain. both the old book and jesus taught the world to love their neighbor as themselves, hindu prema teaches the world to give up selfishness and to love with out expectation of everyone around, buddism teaches us the compassion of others and mercy through karuna, and the islamic god teaches everyone to embrace all things with love and knowledge and let him worry about his will.
i understand the importance of evangelism in christian religions, but evangelism’s purpose was to get the word of jesus christ out… i dont remember it saying to tell others they are wrong, judging others, or condemning them for not following christ’s teachings. i think that we should leave those tasks up to god.
one addition, i wanted to comment specifically on the “i want it to be true” statement as you made that in the original writing as well. i think you are misunderstanding them… i dont think its ‘i want it to be true’; however i think its that their saying ‘i believe it to be true’. which is no difference than any other religion… they are all based on faith and belief; so to condemn them for having only that is to condemn all religions including each of our own for the same thing. none of the new book was written from christ’s hands; but its believed that the teachings were accurate to his… “believe”. i can only speculate that they are basing it off of the world around them and the teachings of all religions.
I presume you’re referring to Islam here. Actually, according to the Quran, it is not at all a peaceful religion. The books are arranged in a confusing fashion – longest to shortest – to facilitate memorization. However, when you compare the books as they are written chronologically, you find that the earlier books, written when Muhammed was in Mecca, are more peaceful. Not coincidentally, Muhammed and his followers were a decided minority at that point and held no real power. He was peaceful because he had to be. The later books were written after the move to Medina, when Muhammed became a warlord and explicitly endorsed the subjugation and if necessary, killing, of non-believers. In Islamic studies, the principle of abrogation is important. It states that where verses conflict (i.e. there is no compulsion in religion; kill the unbelievers if they refuse to convert) the verse written last “wins.” The key to understanding the Quran is not just reading the book, but learning when portions were written and in what context.
The crusades were actually a defensive war, and as awful as the methods of warfare they used seem to us today, were fully in line with the norms of that time. I think you’ll find this animated map instructive; you can see that the crusades began when Islam’s massive expansion began to encroach on territory then held by Christians.
I think to some extent we’re talking past each other, because I’m talking theology and you’re more sociology. I don’t wish to be rude, but your knowledge of Christian and Islamic doctrine seems very shallow. Jesus did say that we need to love our neighbor as ourselves, but his context was not that we should do so in order to live peacefully in this world. And Islam’s goal is military and political supremacy; the peace you gain is via submission; pay your jizya, understand that your testimony in court is not equal to that of a Muslim’s, know you will not be permitted to worship freely, and generally ‘feel yourself subdued.’
What Luther did with the Catholic church is what I am trying to do in my small way here: to drag people back to the source book and away from the traditions, assumptions, and general BS that they have added over time. (Incidentally, purgatory is still very much a part of the Catholic faith; the Pope recently affirmed it and released new guidelines about it.) The source book of Christianity is the bible. I don’t have to guess about what it says. Scholars have verified its provenance far more thoroughly than they have other ancient documents, such as the histories of Josephus. Archaeologists keep finding artifacts that confirm its stories. Other books written at that time also verify it. Without regard to the supernatural parts, as an ancient history book it is unparalleled. The supernatural parts you either get or you don’t. The provenance of Islam’s source book is also well known; more so even than the bible as Muhammed started writing it over 600 years later and cribbed a bunch of bible stories to get him started.
So on the topic of “wanting something to be true,” I am specifically attacking and trying to tear down the beliefs of those who call themselves Christians yet espouse false doctrine like the concept that we become angels when we die. There is absolutely nothing in the bible or from the early church writings or the history of the church or any orthodox theology at all supporting such a claim. They believe it because they (wrongly) believe it would be really cool and probably because they like that TV show with the chick with the Irish accent. People are free to believe what they want… but they are not free to believe what they want and mislabel it, slandering Christianity and leading others astray. At some point it stops being Christianity and starts becoming a mishmash of pantheistic postmodern new age garbage. So when I ask the question, on what is that belief based? I’m trying to draw people’s attention to the fact that what they are practicing is not Christianity. As for judging and condemning… that’s exactly what I’d like them to avoid, by learning and following the truth. I don’t judge or condemn; I agree with you that is God’s job. Telling someone they are wrong is neither judging nor condemning. It’s just disagreeing. Sheesh, this is getting long… sorry about that. And I’d like to go on further because I’m dissatisfied with my efforts to explain myself. However… it’s the best I can do at the moment. I appreciate your response.
“I don’t wish to be rude, but your knowledge of Christian and Islamic doctrine seems very shallow.”
unfortunately, i do take some offense to this as i studied Judaism, Christianity and varieties of Christianity in University. though i will agree my strength in the teachings of islam may be weaker as i have only read the teachings. however, i am passively understanding of your comment, and know that you and i may have received different back grounds and educations as well as may see somethings the same and some different.
though, once again i implore you to understand that i neither believe in the ‘all paths’ religion, nor am arguing for them as a believer. i was simply speculating on their belief system from what ive read about it and took it to mean.
i dont disagree that purgatory is still recognized by the Catholic church; my point was more focused on the families paying money to the church for the sins that the dead may have had to shorten or eliminate their stay in purgatory. to my knowledge this no longer takes place… you may in fact know otherwise.
i do agree that we may have been speaking from different stand points; however, as stated before i have tried to keep my personal alignments aside as i was simply attempting to help shed light unbiasedly on a new ideology that you have written about. i wish you the best on your path and will part ways with you here.
be well,
~marion