Do all religions lead to God?

[Rev Jazzman]

In that case, your point is the same as mine... If one wants to understand the scripture, they have to go back to the Hebrew and Greek texts and they also have to know the history and culture of the times. I just wasn't sure where you were coming from with the term contradictions (which most supposed "contradictions" are easily put to rest going back to the Hebrew and Greek indexes, and others the cultures and/or history).

If the message you get from the Bible is the fellowship of man, then that's interesting... I seem to get something along the lines of a relationship with God. But as someone so elequently said, "If that works for you, then that's great. Go for it."

There's no question that early Christianity had it's impact on just about every religion of the time of the Roman Empire. Under Constatine, there was a period of time where everyone was "required" to be Christian. The same can be said of Celtic beliefs having the same effect on Christianity.

Because I'm a very "question everything" person, I've learned that a lot of what Christianity (mainstream) teaches really isn't Christianity at all. And even though people can quote scripture after scripture, supposedly giving support for their beliefs, it's nonsense because they are taking the scripture at face value without studying the context, the history, the culture, and without taking the time to match things up with the Hebrew and Greek Indexes.

Although I am a Christian, you will find that the views I hold are definately not in compliance with the mainstream of Christianity. Even taking the time to study "christian" customs or holidays (such as Christmas), will show just how much influence that the Celts and pegans had on Christianity in the time of Constatine. And although some would call that evolution, I think it's more like a contamination of something that I believe was once pure. I'm simply making an effort to get back to the "purity" of it...

I know that other people hold different views, and I say "Good for them." The way I see it, I am responsible before God for myself and nobody else (It goes along with Paul's statement, "Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God."). It's not that I don't care about the way Christianity has been watered down and doctored up... It's just that I've never been satisfied with the mainstream's view of God. It's not enough for me to try and base a "relationship" with God on what somebody else teaches. I've found that I have to base everything around me upon my relationship with God. I have found that this makes a huge difference.

I'm not sure why you made your last comment, but you are right... whether one religion is superior to another is an arrogant argument for me to make. #1, I don't judge (it's against my religion). #2, I don't argue (it's a waste of my time) #3, beyond trying to figure it out, it's really none of my business what anyone else believes. My business is my relationship with God. That's really the bottom line of it.

Cheers,

Rev

[preacherman481]

[quote] I'm not sure why you made your last comment, but you are right... whether one religion is superior to another is an arrogant argument for me to make. [quote]
Don't you think that the Bible claims that Christianity is the one true religion? "No one comes to the Father except by me (Jesus words)."
[quote]#1, I don't judge (it's against my religion).[quote]
But what about discernment? It is important for us to use our reason and the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to distinguish between right and wrong and truth and error.
[quote] #2, I don't argue (it's a waste of my time)
#3, beyond trying to figure it out, it's really none of my business what anyone else believes. My business is my relationship with God. That's really the bottom line of it.[quote]
If we really believe Jesus is the Savior, shouldn't we tell other people about him?

Also, I really don't think people have to become Greek and Hebrew scholars to have a basic understanding of the Bible. A child can understand it's basic message. And I feel that most of the Bible should be taken at face value unless there is a good reason not to. One of the basic rules of Scriptural interpretation is to accept a passage for what it says unless it is clearly allegorial.

[chsh]

Originally posted here by preacherman481
Hi ChSh,
You seem to be making human beings the meaure of truth.

We are the only measure of truth in philosophical things.

Regardless of what you meant by "works," what really matters is what is true. Is there a God or isn't there? Has God chosen one particular way to reveal himself or not?

But there can be no truth with something like religion, just like there can be no falsehoods.

Also, I really disagree with your reaction to Bimmer's post. I am not a Muslim, and I think Christianity is the truth (Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life), but just because a person thinks his belief is right and another's is wrong doesn't make him arrogant.

Actually, it does. It exemplifies arrogance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ar·ro·gant Pronunciation Key (r-gnt)
adj.
1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if you change the last part of that sentence to read:

but just because a person thinks his belief is right for him and another's is wrong for him doesn't make him arrogant.

and we have a whole new ball game.

It is not bad to believe you are right and another person is wrong. Not everyone can be right. Someone is right, and someone is wrong. Either Christianity is right or it is wrong.

Why can't everyone be right? Religion has no foundational proof, so following your statement I am 100% correct in stating that there is no god because someone has to be correct, and someone has to be incorrect. Since correct and incorrect must have basis in fact, the only logical conclusion is that since there is no proof of God's existence, he must not exist.

It doesn't matter if it "works" for someone or not. Christianity makes some pretty exclusive claims about God. Either they're right or they're wrong. What we want to be true or what "works" for us is beside the point.

It does matter what works because religion IS and CAN ONLY BE a personal thing. If you take a hundred random Christians, you will find that there will be a near split on many issues (like Abortion, the Death Penalty, etc., etc.).

Each person decides what they believe in for themselves, that in and of itself is proof that religion is a personal thing. It can be enforced on people, sure, but they will inevitably still follow the beliefs they have at the core of their being.

[ntsa]

I'm not sure why you made your last comment

Here's why... (it certainly wasn't meant as a personal flame btw; apologies if that is how I came across - I actually think we /are/ arguing the same platform, by and large )

Don't you think that the Bible claims that Christianity is the one true religion? "No one comes to the Father except by me (Jesus words)."

The point (that I have been pursuing for several posts) is that the message (that of thou shalt not kill, lie, steal, covet etc) is really a blue print for the fellowship of man. It is a set of instructions on how one should conduct ones life, business and affairs.

We have established that there are inconsitencies in the bible. We have established that the bible and other dogma (the methodology) have been created, and "translated", by an imperfect man to represent and embelish upon the basic message. We have established that the dogma has been added to the basic message on a per society basis.

So given the inconsistencies even within our own dogma we must accept that the dogma of a different culture, though it stems from the same basic message, is ever likley to be contradictory to that of our own. It is arrogant in the extreme to suggest that these culturaly different representaions of the same message are any less valid that our own, provided that the individual lives their life (every day - not just Sunday) according to the blue print of that message.

[Rev Jazzman]

preacherman481,

I'll try to make this short and quick to the point as I know people really don't seem to like lengthy postings (I'm a preacher and I'm very analytical, so it's hard for me to just say something without showing at least a little background... Believe it or not, I've tried very hard to keep these short).

I'm not sure why you made your last comment, but you are right... whether one religion is superior to another is an arrogant argument for me to make.

The context is argument, not preaching, teaching, or expressing. Expressing something and arguing about something are two distinctly different actions. One is somthing of a joy to me. The other is a waste of time.

But what about discernment? It is important for us to use our reason and the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to distinguish between right and wrong and truth and error.

Whether I discern something to be wrong (according to my beliefs) or not, it still won't cause me to argue over it. Express, yes (as the Lord may lead, because sometimes, He won't)... Argue? No thanks. Again, the bottom line for me is this, "Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. " Anything beyond expression is judgment (whether it be of pride or arrogance).

If we really believe Jesus is the Savior, shouldn't we tell other people about him?

Again... Express, yes... Argue, no.

Also, I really don't think people have to become Greek and Hebrew scholars to have a basic understanding of the Bible. A child can understand it's basic message. And I feel that most of the Bible should be taken at face value unless there is a good reason not to. One of the basic rules of Scriptural interpretation is to accept a passage for what it says unless it is clearly allegorial.

It doesn't take a degree to pick up a Hebrew and Greek index. Furthermore, if you get everything from reading the Bible at face value, then more power to you. That's something that I've not been able to do. (no, I'm not offended... I've just grown up in a Church that crammed a bunch of religion down my throat, and it wasn't until I was long gone from that setting that I actually "unlearned" everything I "knew" to be true and actually began having a relationship with the Lord. That's when my learning process actually began.)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... There's a lot of stuff that mainstream Christianity teaches that I flat out will never believe again because it's simply not in the scripture (it's only in what people tend to think the scripture is saying). So yes... I have to say (at least for myself) that taking the time to do the reasearch (HB Index, history, prayer) definately has it's advantages.

Peace

Rev

[Rev Jazzman]

nsta,

I didn't take it as a personal flame. My pastor (a father to me) passed away last Sunday and I've not had a lot of sleep due to getting everything ready for the funeral services... I was just irritable and I guess that showed in my note. I apologize for that.

In a way, you're right... There are definately religous "laws" that govern behavior between man and fellow man.

The way I look at it is this... The Old Testiment (the Old Covenant, or Judiasm) was based on religous law. The New Testiment (the New Covenant, or Christianity) was based on grace. With grace, we have promise (pm me if you want me to go into detail on that). That promise comes from exchanging our nature with the nature of Christ ("He who loses his life for my sake shall find it... "

With Christ being the "way," we have a means of meeting the requirements of the old covenant. So... By grace, those "laws" become promises. "Thou shalt not kill" is no longer a command, but a promise. The difference is our taking on the nature of Christ. That is the difference between Judiasm and Christianity.

It is interesting to note that there were people in the Old Testiment who had a good concept of this. I won't get into it in detail, but take David's comment, "Delight thyself also in the Lord: and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart."

Mainstream Christianity (as well as Judiasm) teaches, "Please God, and in return He'll give you what you want." where in actuality, David is really saying, "Give your life to God, and His desires will become your desires." That's an exchange of nature. (BTW... I guess that's a fairly simple and quick example of what I'm talking about mainstream religion being "crammed down prople's throats.")

A Christian will not live his life by law but by grace. That grace enables him to fulfill the law. I hope that made sense, because I cut a LOT of stuff out. Cheers

Rev

[Rev Jazzman]

nsta,

Oops! I cut out too much!

The point I was trying to make was that neither Judiasm or Christianity has a focus on relations in the spectrum of mankind. The focus is on a relationship with God. According to the Old Testiment "Thou shalt not kill" ("kill" coming from the Hebrew word "ratsach" meaning murder or assasinate, BTW) was a religous law that the Jews followed. With Christianity, "Thou shalt not kill." is a promise... IE, it's a manifestation (or "fruit") of having the nature of Christ.

IOW, "The means is not the ends," in regards to Judiasm, and "the 'fruit' is not necessarily the 'vine'" in regards to Christianity.

Peace,

Rev

[ntsa]

Rev Jazzman --

I didn't take it as a personal flame. My pastor (a father to me) passed away last Sunday and I've not had a lot of sleep due to getting everything ready for the funeral services... I was just irritable and I guess that showed in my note. I apologize for that.

Please accept my sincerest condolences. No apology required

I think Dr Martain Luther King summed up my own views on tolerance (religious, racial, sexual etc) when he said:

"When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
Extract from:
http://web66.coled.umn.edu/new/MLK/MLK.html

I am not the theologan in this thread, but I do believe this: when I come to be judged it will be not on the flavour of the faith to which I adhere, but on the content of my character and upon the choices that I have made in this life.

I believe that there is as much of the devil as of the angel in the human soul and that every individual is born with a concept of right and wrong. I believe one should make the choices that one knows to be right regardless of religious affiliation, regardless of a belief in God or a belief in divine retribution, simply on the basis that one knows them to be the right choices. This is what makes a good person and, as I think I said before, there is no religion that has a monoploy on good people.

[darkwulf888]

Hey, I just wanted to comment about all religions leading to god...Me and a few of my friends invented our own religion..(yes we are freaks ) And this religion called (The Inner Circle) does not lead to god or anything of the sort...just wanted to comment on the matter...sorry if this post made u offended or something...

[Palemoon]

I can say only this the creator is what this is. Relegion has many languages (tower of babble) the spirit one voice. What point is there in one way being correct at the expense of others being wrong? We all face death meet the creator what he is called and by whom for what reason and why again is not my concern. I will have my moment of passing it will have been in a life of peace without harm. Many things are done in the name of the creator and his world, task is we are not there yet we are all here. Culture and language are diffcult things as expression in English have no direct transulation sort of Hindi Ko Alam one language I speak means I do not understand. Now if you were GOD would you intrust your wisdom and ways to one race and belief? Such are the tasks the creator leaves us we still as a human race argue the points we hold dear, and for what cause do we do this our self or the benefit of the human race?