Forum Home | Login

iamheather

Join Date 10/2001

Are There Different Paths to the Same God?

While reading Christmas-Why do we celebrate it like we do on KarmaGirl's blog, I noticed that the comment section turned into a partial discussion on pathways to God. Some bloggers believed only through "Jesus" could someone reach salvation or God. Others thought multiple pathways lead to the same end result of God .

I am currently reading a book titled, The History of God by Karen Armstrong. Her writing and study is challenging, but highly pertinent and fascinating. This discussion reminded me of an insightful paragraph in Armstrong's book. As a precursor to a hopefully interesting and lively discussion, I will post the excerpt here.

"The human idea of God has a history, since it has always meant something slightly different to each group of people who have used it at various points of time. The idea of God formed in one generation by one set of human beings could be meaningless in another. Indeed, the statement 'I believe in God' has no objective meaning, as such, but like any other statement only means something in context, when proclaimed by a particular community. Consequently there is no one unchanging idea contained in the word 'God'; instead, the word contains a whole spectrum of meanings, some of which are contradictory or even mutually exclusive. Had the notion of God not had this flexibility, it would not have survived to become one of the great human ideas.

When one conception of God has ceased to have meaning or relevance, it has been quietly discarded and replaced by a new theology. A fundamentalist would deny this, since fundamentalism is antihistorical: it believes that Abraham, Moses and the later prophets all experienced their God in exactly the same way as people do today. Yet if we look at our three religions [Judaism, Christianity, and Islam], it becomes clear that there is no objective view of 'God': each generation has to create the image of God that works for it.

The same is true of atheism. The statement 'I do not believe in God' has meant something slightly different at each period of history. The people who have been dubbed 'atheists' over the years have always denied a particular conception of the divine. Is the 'God' who is rejected by atheists today, the God of the patriarchs, the God of the prophets, the God of the philosophers, the God of the mystics or the God of the eighteenth-centurey deists? All these deities have been venerated as the God of the Bible and the Koran by Jews, Christians and Muslims at various points of their history. We shall see that they are very different from one another.

Atheism has often been a transitional state: thus Jews, Christians and Muslims were all called 'atheists' by their pagan contemporaries because they had adopted a revolutionary notion of divinity and transcendence. Is modern atheism a similar denial of a 'God' which is no longer adequate to the problems of our time?"

*note the paragraph breaks are my own, added for ease of reading on this blog. In the book, this is one paragraph.

philosophy

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

I've forgotten how to use that quote deal on this forum so let me make my own use until you remind me again...grrr. Heather, you quoted Karen Armstrong, " thus Jews, Christians and Muslims were all called 'atheists' by their pagan contemporaries..." True, but in those days "Atheist" didn't mean what it means today. "ATheist" (note the two CAPS "A" and "T" . It actually meant something like "A-Typical" , meaning abnormal or someone who had departed from the normal understanding or belief in God, rather than someone who did not believe in God at all. As Karen goes on to point out, all peoples believed in God in one fashion or another. Until the days of John Locke and into the preceeding days of so-called reason and enlightment, the belief in God was something everyone held. Those who had departed from the commonly held understandings of pagan gods or other deities were known as "A-Theist" because they were A-Typical in their belief in God rather than not believing in God(s) at all as is common in today's venacular.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yes, I only quoted one paragraph from Armstrong's book. I think Armstrong alludes to the point you are making Sabbatismus here:

Atheism has often been a transitional state: thus Jews, Christians and Muslims were all called 'atheists' by their pagan contemporaries because they had adopted a revolutionary notion of divinity and transcendence

Thank you for your explanation. It helped define what she was referring to as atheism being a transitional state, historically.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Is this just too "heady," cerebral, or plain boring?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hhhhmmm...As one who does not believe in god....I'm thinking about this...

Successfully updated karma reason!

When people take different paths, they expect different results. There are as many gods as there are religions.

Successfully updated karma reason!

There are as many gods as there are religions

Are there many gods, stevendadalus, or just differing human definitions of "God?" Maybe those gods are simply various aspects of "God."

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hhhhmmm...As one who does not believe in god....I'm thinking about this...

Leaping, let me in on your thinking....I am very interested.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hmm, big questions.

I suppose a particular concept of God would be dependent upon the time in which it was conceptualized. People have only their own experiences to draw on, and their experiences are dependent upon the times in which they live. While to be human might essentially be the same as it was thousands of years ago, we are just as human as they were back then, the experience is very different. (I imagine.) It seems like this would necessarily effect the was people conceptualize God within a particular period.

That said, I'm no expert on any religion. Are there different paths to the same God? I do think so. I think that all roads, in the end, lead to the same place, and it's really as simple as that for me. I think it's just as good to be a Christian as a Jew as a Muslim as a Buddhist, (etc). But with thinking like this, half of 'em wouldn't have me. Which only serves to remind me that even within a certain time period, individuals' concepts of God will vary greatly.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hamster

I think that all roads, in the end, lead to the same place, and it's really as simple as that for me. I think it's just as good to be a Christian as a Jew as a Muslim as a Buddhist, (etc). But with thinking like this, half of 'em wouldn't have me. Which only serves to remind me that even within a certain time period, individuals' concepts of God will vary greatly.

I believe in some ways most religious roads do lead to the same place, but I think one's knowledge at the time is a factor in accountability. I am not set in stone on that one, but that is my current thinking.

It seems that you then share Karen Armstrong's same views. Thank you so much for the reply. I was worried no one wanted to have this discussion with me.

Have an insightful.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Is one big paragraph, not easy reading. And I try not to debate politics or religion too much, it's all too easy to get too heated, thats why I'm not jumping in here. But having said that...
If god is in any sense real, and not merely a fabrication to comfort people, then there would either have to be a steady line of gods over the years, or the god we worship today is the same one our ancestors worshiped. If there has been a steady stream of gods (not merely mortals revered as gods) then christianity, judaism, and (as i understand it) islam is nonsense at best. So either there never was a god (and most likely never will be) or there has always been the same god that is around today (even if we worship he/she/it under different guises). And for whatever frame of reference it might add, I consider myself a christian.
Tried to post this last night but my internet connection decided to stop working

Successfully updated karma reason!

When people take different paths, they expect different results. There are as many gods as there are religions.

I have to disagree with you. IN the first place, the god of Judism, Christianity and Islam is the same. But that is not surprising since they all spring from Judism.

But even in the religions that profess belief in multiple gods, Hinduism for example, there is a common thread. Hinduism, which has many Gods, really has 3 major gods (ah! The concept of the trinity again!) and one of them is God of all gods! Greek and Roman mythology had the same set up. So are they really that different from the Judeo-Christian god?

I think not. For you can view the lesser gods in most religions as angels in the Judeo-christian religion. When you break down the major religions, you begin to see a lot of commonality between them. Is that because of the limited nature of man and his imagination? I doubt many would subscribe to that theory. SO there appears to be something more behind the commonality.

For some, that is the belief that there really is a god. For others, it is just the natural progression of human logic (everything coming to a central point - or in the case of religion,to 1 over arching surpreme being).

Successfully updated karma reason!

"The human idea of God has a history, since it has always meant something slightly different to each group of people who have used it at various points of time. The idea of God formed in one generation by one set of human beings could be meaningless in another. Indeed, the statement 'I believe in God' has no objective meaning, as such, but like any other statement only means something in context, when proclaimed by a particular community.

What I find fascinating about this point (and I do agree with it) is what happened to make the major religions of today so long lasting? We call the religions of the Greeks and Romans 'Mythology', yet they are really ancient religions that did not survive their civilizations. Yet Hinduism, Buddism, the trio of Judeo religions (for a convenient grouping) have all survived thousands of years when the normal life span of a religion is but a couple hundred.

And I ask why? I know that each suceeding generation molds their religion to fit the times. Indeed, if you were to point out the one major purpose of the Catholic Church, it would be to stop that from happening. And even they are not totally sucessful (Note Vatican II in the early 60s). Man always tries to mold the religion to fit their current world problems. The debate about gays was not an issue 200 years ago, nor was the issue of Abortion. Today they occupy an inordinant amount of time in the politics of most religions.

So while the major religions have not changed in the last 1500 years, all of them have changed to fit the times. (Confusing, sorry. I mean the major religions today are the same ones from 1500 years ago.) Yet with the changing, they still, at the core, are the same.

That is the $64 question. Why do these religions survive and thrive, yet others wither and die? Perhaps because the ones that contain some of the absolute truth will transcend their creators?

I dont know. But is is an interesting question.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"What I find fascinating about this point (and I do agree with it) is what happened to make the major religions of today so long lasting? We call the religions of the Greeks and Romans 'Mythology', yet they are really ancient religions that did not survive their civilizations. Yet Hinduism, Buddism, the trio of Judeo religions (for a convenient grouping) have all survived thousands of years when the normal life span of a religion is but a couple hundred."

That's a good question. Perhaps, we desire gods to rule over us. Even if we destroyed the concept of god, we would created idols in his image. Perhaps we're doomed to repeat these silly rituals and irrational superstitions because deep within us is a fatal flaw to worship the unknown. Even if we are accidents, the byproducts of a long series of mutations, we would create a god, sacrifice our firstborn to him, and then discard him like yesterday's news. There is a carelessness to our approach to religion that is disturbing. History is littered with dead gods. Theologically speaking, we are a bloody thirsty people.

Progress, for all its progressivism, cannot tolerate ignorance and those who cling to outdated notions are scorned by those brave enough to recognize their own intellectual bravery. However, religious knowledge by its very nature is a remembrance. Remember the teachings, promises, threats, and acts of your gods. Gods die when people forget them. But worse yet, is a religion that forgets itself. Such gods are insane and their religions undead. When spirituality is replaced by rituals, wisdom replaced by creed, compassion replaced by judgement, that religion has degenerated into a ghoulish vampirism on the living. Religions like Christianity exist because we allow them to exist. But remember, it's just a game. If all roads do lead to the same god, then why worry? You'll get there eventually. It's mere semantics. Right?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Danny

Is one big paragraph, not easy reading

I was wondering about that. I went ahead and separated the paragraph and just notated it.

If god is in any sense real, and not merely a fabrication to comfort people, then there would either have to be a steady line of gods over the years, or the god we worship today is the same one our ancestors worshiped. If there has been a steady stream of gods (not merely mortals revered as gods) then christianity, judaism, and (as i understand it) islam is nonsense at best. So either there never was a god (and most likely never will be) or there has always been the same god that is around today (even if we worship he/she/it under different guises). And for whatever frame of reference it might add, I consider myself a christian

I don't necessarily agree with the "steady line of gods" per se, but more of a steady line of differing definitions and understandings of God.

Either way, I appreciate your comments especially as you try to avoid these types of subjects.

Dr. Guy

Excellent point, Dr. Guy.

For you can view the lesser gods in most religions as angels in the Judeo-christian religion. When you break down the major religions, you begin to see a lot of commonality between them.

I tend to view the "lesser gods" as simply different aspects of God. He is vast and limitless.

We call the religions of the Greeks and Romans 'Mythology', yet they are really ancient religions that did not survive their civilizations. Yet Hinduism, Buddism, the trio of Judeo religions (for a convenient grouping) have all survived thousands of years when the normal life span of a religion is but a couple hundred.

Yes, it is fascinating. As I read more of the book, I hope Armstrong will elaborate more on the evolution of religion and God.

Why do these religions survive and thrive, yet others wither and die? Perhaps because the ones that contain some of the absolute truth will transcend their creators?

Fascinating question.

Echo

Perhaps, we desire gods to rule over us.

In the book, Armstrong proposes that we are homo religious as much as homo sapiens.

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

Perhaps, we desire gods to rule over us.

What's that classic line? "If there was no God we would have to create one?"

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

Why do these religions survive and thrive, yet others wither and die? Perhaps because the ones that contain some of the absolute truth will transcend their creators?

I'm a little more cynical than you Dr Guy. If you look at the major religions that have survived, you can see that their practitioners have always been intimately associated with government. When Rome was sacked by the Goths, the Catholic Church was able to subvert the Goths and convert them within a generation or so. All of the other main religions have had the same ability to convert their greatest threats. To some extent their longevity could be attributed to adaptation and temporal power.

Successfully updated karma reason!

castoblasta:

you can see that their practitioners have always been intimately associated with government.

I completely disagree with this statement. All religions have lead to moral restraint and protection against secular forces. It is the very foundation that democracy is based upon.

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

I completely disagree with this statement. All religions have lead to moral restraint and protection against secular forces. It is the very foundation that democracy is based upon.

Why do you disagree? Islam was both a state and a religion, and the influence of its religious leaders on politics both today and in the past is undeniable. Similarly Christianity, especially Catholicism, has always been intimately involved in politics. You only need look at the influence of the Christian Right in the US to see that even today religion has a large part in the governing of nations. Hinduism has the intriguing quality of being both a religion and a social structure which ensures the maintenance of the status quo. Buddhism is much more difficult to explain in this way, so perhaps it's an exception. I'm too ignorant of Buddhist history to make much of an argument either way though.

Perhaps all religions have lead to moral restraint and protection against secular forces, but that doesn't mean that they haven't been involved in the wielding of temporal power themselves.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Perhaps all religions have lead to moral restraint and protection against secular forces, but that doesn't mean that they haven't been involved in the wielding of temporal power themselves.

Casto, but is that power an effect or a reason. I think the quest for God would continue with or without political power. It is an innate human quality.

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

I think the quest for God would continue with or without political power. It is an innate human quality.

Certainly, but all the longlasting religions, with the possible exception of Buddhism, have been closely related to government and political power. It's probably just cynicism to assume there's a link, but it is an interesting correlation.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

All religions have lead to moral restraint and protection against secular forces. It is the very foundation that democracy is based upon.

lost me there. you consider human sacrifice to be moral restraint? what about religions that celebrated fertility with orgies or those who believed it possible (as i still do) that men are only able to engage the divine through the body of a woman?

almost all conquering cultures, societies, tribes, clans, cities, states, nations have imposed their religions on the vanguished and thus religion and government became inexorably linked.

as far as protection against secularism goes, no truly secular state of which im aware existed in in the entire modern history of our planet until 1917 so there was no threat to protect against. on the other hand, there is no society of which im aware--once again in the entire documented history of the planet--about which it can be said there was not one class or type of person or group needing protection from the religious.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

what happened to make the major religions of today so long lasting? We call the religions of the Greeks and Romans 'Mythology', yet they are really ancient religions that did not survive their civilizations. Yet Hinduism, Buddism, the trio of Judeo religions (for a convenient grouping) have all survived thousands of years when the normal life span of a religion is but a couple hundred

the modern religions are having a pretty good run but christianity is only 2000 years new...islam is about 1300. judaism dates back 4000 years. hinduism may go back as far as 6000 years but 4500 years is more historically evidencible. compared to 10,000 years of uruba in africa, they all have a ways to go. the dao is pretty much historically intact to 6000. shamanism doesnt really count because its not unified but there's evidence of shamanist cults that are much older than uruba. same goes for the aboriginal religions of australia; there are very few but still a few aborigines for who can explain 20,000 year old magic items and ways of uniting the living and the ancestors.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"A fundamentalist would deny this, since fundamentalism is antihistorical: it believes that Abraham, Moses and the later prophets all experienced their God in exactly the same way as people do today."

If this is true, I would like to know the last time they actually saw a burning bush or last time God personally asked them to sacrifice their first-born son?

Dr. Guy: "IN the first place, the god of Judism, Christianity and Islam is the same. But that is not surprising since they all spring from Judism."

Dr. Guy, I'm pretty sure you are wrong about this as the first known organized religion was said to come from ancient Mesopotamia and it was not Judism. As you may know, Mesopotamia is located in what we now call Iraq. Judism came much later...

However, I do agree with you that there is in fact a common thread through most religions as they all co-opted some of their principles, beliefs, and teachings to varying degrees from religions that existed before them. In fact, some of their "parables" are almost identicle...only the names of the characters and their god changed. This is also true of some parables in the Christian bible.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Buddhism is much more difficult to explain in this way, so perhaps it's an exception. I'm too ignorant of Buddhist history to make much of an argument either way though.

I will also disagree with your premise of government and religion. Judaism may have been a part of the government of ancient israel, but there was a very long gap when it was completely out of power. With the exception of Islam, religion and government are totally divorced today.

And the reason I omitted Buddhism, and you have trouble categorizing it, is that it is not really a religion in the traditional sense, but a way of life. Kind of what you say hinduism is. And I agree with you on the Hindu part, but then dont all religions offer a social structure as well?

Successfully updated karma reason!

The problem with your examples, is the lack of an established creed. They are actually not 'a' religion, but a grouping of similarities among practices. And while they exist in isolated pockets, they really are not surviving the progression of human knowledge.

As for Tao (never saw it spelled dao, but then they have been revising spelling of oriental words a lot lately), like Buddhism, it is not a religion per se, but a way of life. And yes, Like Buddhism, it has been around a very long time and shows no signs of dying out. But in each of the eastern religions, there is the core concept of God, even tho most of them profess more a way of living to achieve perfection, than a ticket to heaven (which could be the same thing if you look at it that way).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: