Are There Different Paths to the Same God?

Published on December 8, 2004 By iamheather In Philosophy

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.

Comments (Page 2)

cactoblasta

on Dec 10, 2004

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.

iamheather

on Dec 10, 2004

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.

cactoblasta

on Dec 10, 2004

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.

iamheather

on Dec 10, 2004

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.

cactoblasta

on Dec 10, 2004

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.

kingbee

on Dec 10, 2004

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.

kingbee

on Dec 10, 2004

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.

T_Bone4Justice

on Dec 10, 2004

"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.

Dr Guy

on Dec 10, 2004

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?

Dr Guy

on Dec 10, 2004

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).

Dr Guy

on Dec 10, 2004

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.

Uh, Tbone, how can I be wrong? I did not comment on where the god of Abraham came from, only that the three religions have the same god. Which they do, since they all spring from Judaism. Where Judaism came from, I did not comment on, as that is unknown to date.

That the religions contain parables from older religions, I also did not comment on. I would nto find that surprising since ancient man was not the best for making up stories, and I am sure much was borrowed from the societies that sprang up around them. The uniqueness of Judaism was that it was the first to profess belief in One god, instead of a host of gods, so I dont think it was borrowed from other religions. It sprang into being for reasons unknown to modern science, but beleivers will tell you that God himself sought to bring order to chaos by giving us his word.

kingbee

on Dec 10, 2004

And while they exist in isolated pockets, they really are not surviving the progression of human knowledge.

uruba voudoun is alive, well and successfully continuing to evolve all over the americas. it may disquise itself as catholicism and take different names in spanish or english but at core, its the same pantheon and purpose as it everwas back in dahomey.

clearly the pope thinks enuff of it to travel all the way to benin for some practical tips on using dolls and pins to stab out pedophiliac priests.

Dr Guy

on Dec 10, 2004

clearly the pope thinks enuff of it to travel all the way to benin for some practical tips on using dolls and pins to stab out pedophiliac priests.

If it works, I will but them for him! ROFL! But Pope JPII is a man of peace and will not dismiss anyone out of hand for their beliefs. From your description, the religion is not surviving, it is becoming something else. By that reasoning, you can say that all religions last beyond their civilizations. Which is an debate for another thread, and one I would not be averse to.

EmperorofIceCream

on Dec 10, 2004

"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.

Atheist. Composed of 'A' And 'Theist' and meaning without a personal god in just the same way that 'amoral' means being without morality.

You don't understand a word of what you've written, do you?

As Stephen King wrote somewhere... "It's a shame, the things you see when you haven't got a gun."

EmperorofIceCream

on Dec 10, 2004

To kingbee:

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?

I gave you an insightful for that. For myself alone I'd modify your statement to 'through the body', rather than making the bodies of women solely the vehicles of that kind of encounter. But I agree with you that bodies, flesh and sex, are vital to meetings with the divine.

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 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!