|
There's a very funny metaphor that serves as an excellent introduction to our topic, what if all animals were round?
The video is to the right, and after you finish laughing, of course you realize that all animals being round simply does not work. That's the humour. Here we are going to apply the same logic … does it work if all religions are the same? Contradictions are the stumbling block for the idea that all religions are equal. Matt Fradd, in writing about this, recounts the following conversation: “I suppose when it comes down to it,” Mary said, “the main thing is that people are sincere in what they believe. All religions are equal.” “What do you mean by equal?” I asked. |
|
“I believe all express the truth, just in different language.”
“If all religions are equally true, then does that mean you would accept everything that all religions teach?”
“Yes. I might express it differently, but I believe that deep down we are all speaking the same language.”
“So you agree with the Christian religion, which says that Christ is the only way to the Father?”
“No.” Mary was unaware of the logical contradiction she had just fallen into. She looked at me as if perhaps I wasn’t paying attention. After all, she had just stated that all religions were equally true. Why would I now ask her if she believed the exact opposite?
“I’m confused,” I said, gently. “You say you believe that all religions are equally true, but you don’t believe that the Christian religion is correct in saying that Jesus Christ is the only objective means of salvation. Doesn’t that mean that you don’t believe that all religions are equally true?”
Mary became uncomfortable when she saw that she had contradicted herself and dismissed what I had said by saying, “I guess I just think it’s arrogant to believe that your worldview is right and that everyone else’s is wrong.”
Not wanting to press too hard, I resisted the temptation to show Mary how her religious indifferentism was itself a worldview that alone claimed to be true while condemning as wrong all opposing beliefs.
If you want to be intellectually honest, you're going to have to deal with contradictions. The alternative is to admit intellectual dishonesty!
We fool ourselves when we think religions are all alike … and we do it, I suggest, because to even consider otherwise is deeply offensive. What about our “good” non-Christian friend, what about all those who've never even heard of Christianity? To consider that all religions are not equal, really, really consider it, could deeply change how we view the world, and strongly affect our actions.
Imagine
Imagination is important … more on that later. But for now let's say that a good start point is to try and step out of your indoctrinated perspective.
Let's start an easy one: If you're a man, try imagine what the world looks like from a woman’s perspective – tough to do, isn't it. Of course the opposite is quite easy because men are really quite simple! But now, if you're a Christian, try imagining what the world looks like as an atheist … it's hard to do, because a complete switch of world view changes values, motivations, and goals. Try to imagine how your entire view on existence would alter if framed through a lens of no God. If you want to really engage with an atheist, it's worth spending some hours in thought thinking this through. Now try again, imagining this time you're a Moslem, or a Hindu. And if you're not a Christian, can you really imagine how a Christian might see life?
What is religion
One definition I read somewhere was “A belief system, often embraced by people too lazy to think for themselves”. Quite a rude answer perhaps, but at least it's honest, I think. People come to a religion for a range of reasons … because their parents brought them up that way, because they find solace, perhaps it has comforting explanations, or just because it's easiest. It's sad how few adopt a religion because they've really examined it.
Of course, when we use the term “religion” we commonly think of the institutionalization of a formalized expression of a belief. It would be miss-representing the debate if we did not also recognize that great evil has been done in the name of most religions. Think of the supposed Christian basis for massacres throughout the ages. On a personal level, I have a friend who was recently murdered in the name of Allah.
But this is not about the institution, which is often usurped by deviants to accomplish personal agendas. We want to explore the underlying basis for what we see in the institutional expression.
Three positions you can take about religion
There are really only three groups, into one of which you will fall. You can
God is mystery, not a puzzle
Puzzles are for solving. And implicit is that if you solve a puzzle, you are greater than the puzzle. It's a beguiling trap to approach the question of religion as a puzzle, and forget religion is about a God. God, by definition, is greater than you or I, and so God is a mystery … he's very Alien because so much of God must be beyond our comprehension.
There are some who argue we merely invoke God to explain the inexplicable. But if there is a God, he must be inexplicable.
So invoke your imagination again. Imagine a mystery. I, for example, have been married for quite a while, and I still find relationship a mystery. Of course I've discovered a lot more, but the more I find, the more there seems left to find. Mysteries do not mean I know nothing, but only that I don't know all.
So life is a practical romance … a combination of something strange and something known.
To explore a mystery you need imagination and facts … this is what a real scientist does ... it’s driven by a need to know, considers the evidence for the unexplainable, adds imagination, and formulates an explanation. I think many religions can be described by this process, and raises the legitimate question, “are religions man made”?
(Here Christianity steps aside from all religions. In Christianity we find God stepping into this world in the form of Jesus and gives us an explanation that imagination finds incomprehensible!)
If you're not careful, this process can drive you mad (= irrational). There are two types of people who go mad … those who have no imagination and only see facts, and those who have only imagination and see no facts.
But faith should not be blind, faith that is based on evidence is not madness, faith based on evidence is sensible! Have you tried to deny gravity? Can you explain gravity?
What then is this god in all the religions?
The current trend in today's society is to make God in our (comfortable) image: its modern syncretism – a safe God that massages our conscience (until we're threatened, then we find it all falls apart). The God of this age exists in our comfort zones, nowhere else.
Syncretism is “the reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief.” This is the modern world's western spiritual hypermarket … “I'll have a little bit of that, some of this, oh, and as that's on special today ...”
But if there is a God, it's the height of arrogance to think we can define God … he defines us! We exist because we are defined by Truth, not the other way around.
GK Chesterton once tried to define Truth, and said: “I tried to be in advance of the age, I tried to be 10 minutes in advance of the truth, and I found I was 1800 years late. I've strained my voice to utter truths, only to discover not that they are not truths, only they are not mine. I only succeeded in inventing an inferior copy.”
Consider how society is moving
To draw further on Chesterton: If it is true that a man can feel exquisite pleasure in, say, skinning a cat (or some other depravity) as some might do, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two conclusions: either you must deny the existence of God and say everything is relative, or you must deny that there is a union between God and man.
But modern spirituality would like to deny there is a cat.
Progressively we are, as a society, becoming more and more tolerant of bizarre behavior patterns and never seem to ask what is the limit to our tolerance, or if there is a limit. “Tolerate everything but intolerance is our maxim.”
This reflects a fundamental brokenness, a denial of Truth, and persistence to say “I will create my own ethics even if there is a God, because it serves my purpose. And if there is a God, well he can run away and play by himself”.
Yet, if in this self-made spirituality we are the creatures of God’s creation, and this God is concerned about our lives, then what God thinks about all this is surely relevant. More than that, it must be of utmost importance. This is NOT about rules, its about offending God. In my marriage we have “rules” of relationship, but these are emergent properties that flow from who we are, my marriage is not defined by the rules.
So: how do we think about the gods of religions
First, we should recognize our cultural indoctrination of how we think. Recognize we live in post-modern culture that has taught us to be comfortable with paradox – with conflicting ideas and contradictions. Be honest in this.
Second, see the tendency we have to think in terms of duality … the premise that it is all about good and evil, equal opposites battling it out. This dualism pervades our society in media, movies, music, and games. But dualism is a red herring. Darkness is not the opposite of light, only the absence of light. Silence is not the opposite of sound, only the absence of sound. Cold is not the opposite of warmth, only a deficit of warmth.
If we're to talk about God, this is not a dualism topic. A God who creates all has no opposite. He is like the light, warmth, and sound. Any “opposite” is only an absence. Of course absence can kill … an absence of warmth for example.
Talking about God is talking about the infinite solidity that is unchangeable, immovable, inviolate, absolute. Of course this crystal hard purity offends us, we dislike anything to be out of our control. It disturbs our comfort zone, especially when we have a shallow comprehension of what it really means.
But if you want to be honest, then we need to face the possibility that what is, simply is – whether we like it or not.
You might say: “I just think it’s arrogant to believe that your worldview is right and that everyone else’s is wrong.”
That of course is very true if we're talking of opinion. Then it would be the height of arrogance. But think about gravity. If you say gravity doesn't exist, and I say it does, that is not arrogance on my part. Gravity is not an opinion, it's simply there.
The danger comes when we impose opinion, compared to propose explanation. I may propose gravity is the explanation for why I fall off the cliff. You are free to deny that, fine, and I hope all is well for you when you walk off that cliff. Gravity does not compromise.
So when we think of religions, are they opinions or propositions? Because some even claim exclusivity of their explanation.
“If all religions are equally true, then does that mean you would accept everything that all religions teach?”
“Yes. I might express it differently, but I believe that deep down we are all speaking the same language.”
“So you agree with the Christian religion, which says that Christ is the only way to the Father?”
“No.” Mary was unaware of the logical contradiction she had just fallen into. She looked at me as if perhaps I wasn’t paying attention. After all, she had just stated that all religions were equally true. Why would I now ask her if she believed the exact opposite?
“I’m confused,” I said, gently. “You say you believe that all religions are equally true, but you don’t believe that the Christian religion is correct in saying that Jesus Christ is the only objective means of salvation. Doesn’t that mean that you don’t believe that all religions are equally true?”
Mary became uncomfortable when she saw that she had contradicted herself and dismissed what I had said by saying, “I guess I just think it’s arrogant to believe that your worldview is right and that everyone else’s is wrong.”
Not wanting to press too hard, I resisted the temptation to show Mary how her religious indifferentism was itself a worldview that alone claimed to be true while condemning as wrong all opposing beliefs.
If you want to be intellectually honest, you're going to have to deal with contradictions. The alternative is to admit intellectual dishonesty!
We fool ourselves when we think religions are all alike … and we do it, I suggest, because to even consider otherwise is deeply offensive. What about our “good” non-Christian friend, what about all those who've never even heard of Christianity? To consider that all religions are not equal, really, really consider it, could deeply change how we view the world, and strongly affect our actions.
Imagine
Imagination is important … more on that later. But for now let's say that a good start point is to try and step out of your indoctrinated perspective.
Let's start an easy one: If you're a man, try imagine what the world looks like from a woman’s perspective – tough to do, isn't it. Of course the opposite is quite easy because men are really quite simple! But now, if you're a Christian, try imagining what the world looks like as an atheist … it's hard to do, because a complete switch of world view changes values, motivations, and goals. Try to imagine how your entire view on existence would alter if framed through a lens of no God. If you want to really engage with an atheist, it's worth spending some hours in thought thinking this through. Now try again, imagining this time you're a Moslem, or a Hindu. And if you're not a Christian, can you really imagine how a Christian might see life?
What is religion
One definition I read somewhere was “A belief system, often embraced by people too lazy to think for themselves”. Quite a rude answer perhaps, but at least it's honest, I think. People come to a religion for a range of reasons … because their parents brought them up that way, because they find solace, perhaps it has comforting explanations, or just because it's easiest. It's sad how few adopt a religion because they've really examined it.
Of course, when we use the term “religion” we commonly think of the institutionalization of a formalized expression of a belief. It would be miss-representing the debate if we did not also recognize that great evil has been done in the name of most religions. Think of the supposed Christian basis for massacres throughout the ages. On a personal level, I have a friend who was recently murdered in the name of Allah.
But this is not about the institution, which is often usurped by deviants to accomplish personal agendas. We want to explore the underlying basis for what we see in the institutional expression.
Three positions you can take about religion
There are really only three groups, into one of which you will fall. You can
- Be an agnostic: Agnostics deny that you can know what is true, and so choose to not choose. They might agree religion can be a useful social institution, but would also argue that religion can be destructive. Sitting on the fence can be painful. Personally, I think it's an abdication of responsibility to choose not to choose. Note that you've made a choice!
- Be an atheist: Deny God exists, and say we are only mere physical matter, there is nothing more. Because of this there are no absolutes; right and wrong is dependent on the situation. I can murder someone and all you may do is accuse me of being wrong in your own subjective framework of morals … I cannot be absolutely wrong, and you would have to admit that in my framework of morals I may be right. To say there is no God is a statement of faith (immense faith in my view, sounds like a religion to me). The move of “New Atheism”, typified perhaps by Richard Dawkins, is evangelistic about this, and they want to convert everyone to atheism because they think they are right (yet, doesn't atheism say there are no absolutes?).
- Be a theist: someone who says there is evidence for a spiritual nature and a God. Theoretically a theist accepts they can't know everything about God, but there's also often an undercurrent that tries to turn their god into something finite and manageable, often making a god in our own image. It's an attempt to downsize God to something palatable.
God is mystery, not a puzzle
Puzzles are for solving. And implicit is that if you solve a puzzle, you are greater than the puzzle. It's a beguiling trap to approach the question of religion as a puzzle, and forget religion is about a God. God, by definition, is greater than you or I, and so God is a mystery … he's very Alien because so much of God must be beyond our comprehension.
There are some who argue we merely invoke God to explain the inexplicable. But if there is a God, he must be inexplicable.
So invoke your imagination again. Imagine a mystery. I, for example, have been married for quite a while, and I still find relationship a mystery. Of course I've discovered a lot more, but the more I find, the more there seems left to find. Mysteries do not mean I know nothing, but only that I don't know all.
So life is a practical romance … a combination of something strange and something known.
To explore a mystery you need imagination and facts … this is what a real scientist does ... it’s driven by a need to know, considers the evidence for the unexplainable, adds imagination, and formulates an explanation. I think many religions can be described by this process, and raises the legitimate question, “are religions man made”?
(Here Christianity steps aside from all religions. In Christianity we find God stepping into this world in the form of Jesus and gives us an explanation that imagination finds incomprehensible!)
If you're not careful, this process can drive you mad (= irrational). There are two types of people who go mad … those who have no imagination and only see facts, and those who have only imagination and see no facts.
But faith should not be blind, faith that is based on evidence is not madness, faith based on evidence is sensible! Have you tried to deny gravity? Can you explain gravity?
What then is this god in all the religions?
The current trend in today's society is to make God in our (comfortable) image: its modern syncretism – a safe God that massages our conscience (until we're threatened, then we find it all falls apart). The God of this age exists in our comfort zones, nowhere else.
Syncretism is “the reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief.” This is the modern world's western spiritual hypermarket … “I'll have a little bit of that, some of this, oh, and as that's on special today ...”
But if there is a God, it's the height of arrogance to think we can define God … he defines us! We exist because we are defined by Truth, not the other way around.
GK Chesterton once tried to define Truth, and said: “I tried to be in advance of the age, I tried to be 10 minutes in advance of the truth, and I found I was 1800 years late. I've strained my voice to utter truths, only to discover not that they are not truths, only they are not mine. I only succeeded in inventing an inferior copy.”
Consider how society is moving
To draw further on Chesterton: If it is true that a man can feel exquisite pleasure in, say, skinning a cat (or some other depravity) as some might do, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two conclusions: either you must deny the existence of God and say everything is relative, or you must deny that there is a union between God and man.
But modern spirituality would like to deny there is a cat.
Progressively we are, as a society, becoming more and more tolerant of bizarre behavior patterns and never seem to ask what is the limit to our tolerance, or if there is a limit. “Tolerate everything but intolerance is our maxim.”
This reflects a fundamental brokenness, a denial of Truth, and persistence to say “I will create my own ethics even if there is a God, because it serves my purpose. And if there is a God, well he can run away and play by himself”.
Yet, if in this self-made spirituality we are the creatures of God’s creation, and this God is concerned about our lives, then what God thinks about all this is surely relevant. More than that, it must be of utmost importance. This is NOT about rules, its about offending God. In my marriage we have “rules” of relationship, but these are emergent properties that flow from who we are, my marriage is not defined by the rules.
So: how do we think about the gods of religions
First, we should recognize our cultural indoctrination of how we think. Recognize we live in post-modern culture that has taught us to be comfortable with paradox – with conflicting ideas and contradictions. Be honest in this.
Second, see the tendency we have to think in terms of duality … the premise that it is all about good and evil, equal opposites battling it out. This dualism pervades our society in media, movies, music, and games. But dualism is a red herring. Darkness is not the opposite of light, only the absence of light. Silence is not the opposite of sound, only the absence of sound. Cold is not the opposite of warmth, only a deficit of warmth.
If we're to talk about God, this is not a dualism topic. A God who creates all has no opposite. He is like the light, warmth, and sound. Any “opposite” is only an absence. Of course absence can kill … an absence of warmth for example.
Talking about God is talking about the infinite solidity that is unchangeable, immovable, inviolate, absolute. Of course this crystal hard purity offends us, we dislike anything to be out of our control. It disturbs our comfort zone, especially when we have a shallow comprehension of what it really means.
But if you want to be honest, then we need to face the possibility that what is, simply is – whether we like it or not.
You might say: “I just think it’s arrogant to believe that your worldview is right and that everyone else’s is wrong.”
That of course is very true if we're talking of opinion. Then it would be the height of arrogance. But think about gravity. If you say gravity doesn't exist, and I say it does, that is not arrogance on my part. Gravity is not an opinion, it's simply there.
The danger comes when we impose opinion, compared to propose explanation. I may propose gravity is the explanation for why I fall off the cliff. You are free to deny that, fine, and I hope all is well for you when you walk off that cliff. Gravity does not compromise.
So when we think of religions, are they opinions or propositions? Because some even claim exclusivity of their explanation.
The need to continually question
Charles Schulze has this delightful cartoon.
Of course we must continually question our understanding. I must continually say “but what if I'm wrong“… and re-evaluate the evidence. Say I fall off a cliff once and survive, and I take that as evidence of gravity. The next time I might carry a rope and a big soft cushion, and test if gravity still works. After that I'll think a bit more, and maybe I'll take a hangglider … and realize I can only fly because of gravity! So the evidence accumulates, and the more I understand the evidence, the more I can do!
This is where most religions fall down … they do not encourage the critical examination of their fundamental precepts. Most believe it simply because that is what it says. Perhaps they do so because unconsciously, or maybe consciously they realize it might not hold up to analysis. Christianity says, examine away to your heart’s content (pun intended).
However, reason can only go so far because reason seeks to make the infinite finite – an impossibility. At that point in exploring mystery the imagination necessarily takes over to place the finite in the infinite.
The poet only asks to get his head into heaven. The rationalist tries to get heaven into his head, and it is his head that splits (Chesterton again).
Charles Schulze has this delightful cartoon.
Of course we must continually question our understanding. I must continually say “but what if I'm wrong“… and re-evaluate the evidence. Say I fall off a cliff once and survive, and I take that as evidence of gravity. The next time I might carry a rope and a big soft cushion, and test if gravity still works. After that I'll think a bit more, and maybe I'll take a hangglider … and realize I can only fly because of gravity! So the evidence accumulates, and the more I understand the evidence, the more I can do!
This is where most religions fall down … they do not encourage the critical examination of their fundamental precepts. Most believe it simply because that is what it says. Perhaps they do so because unconsciously, or maybe consciously they realize it might not hold up to analysis. Christianity says, examine away to your heart’s content (pun intended).
However, reason can only go so far because reason seeks to make the infinite finite – an impossibility. At that point in exploring mystery the imagination necessarily takes over to place the finite in the infinite.
The poet only asks to get his head into heaven. The rationalist tries to get heaven into his head, and it is his head that splits (Chesterton again).
What religions are there?
Probably too many to count. There are modern, old, and the plainly bizarre (like the Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth, or the Prince Philip Movement that says Prince Philip is divine). The diversity of religions are mostly incompatible with each other. This is not to even touch on strange religious practices, like one where mothers throw babies off a 50 foot tower to be caught by men holding a bed sheet below, and all for supposed good luck (looking for good luck in a religion that purports a faith in God????)
But let's take a brief look at some of the more familiar religions (drawing on various internet resources).
Hindu (about 14% of the world): a plethora of gods, but most Hindus believe in a one Supreme being whose qualities and forms are represented by the many deities that come from “him”.
Bahá'í (a modern religion): God is transcendent and can't be known directly. God is known through the lives and teachings of his great prophets.
Buddhism (about 6% of the world): focuses on personal spiritual development and the attainment of a deep insight into the true nature of life.
Paganism: a group of contemporary religions based on a reverence for nature, drawing on the traditional religions of indigenous peoples throughout the world.
Pantheism: the natural universe is divine, the proper object of reverence, pervaded with divinity.
More about Christianity a little later on.
Why are there so many parallels between religions?
If you read only two books as a result of this discussion, I would suggest Chesterton's “Orthodoxy”, and Boyer and Hall's “the Mystery of God” (http://bit.ly/15jmS1k).
In the latter, the authors begin with a useful metaphor of walking from home to work. Along the way he sees the beauty and details of the world around, all by the light of the sun. But he cannot look at the sun for fear of being blinded, and so the sun becomes an unconscious blind spot.
If we extend this metaphor we might consider that there are shadows and dark places where we see no detail and where the sun does not shine. Sometimes we might see the sun reflect off a lake or a rock, or the blindingly white sand on the beach, and it occupies our attention. We might even be amazed and drawn by it. But it's not the sun. The sun is present in all we see, but none of what we see is the sun. Everything shows details of light, but none are the light.
In the same way, if there is one God, and one true religion, then:
As CS Lewis notes: “If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through… When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I become a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view… As in arithmetic—there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong; but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others (p. 35).” [Mere Christianity]
And here it is here that we come up against the hard reality of Christianity (not the institution, but the person of Christ) which claims to be the true Sun, not a reflection. Christianity says all other religions are distortions and at best, as false as a reflection in a mirror.
Unless you are hopelessly narcissistic, you would not be truly satisfied by kissing the reflection of your lover (try it, if you like)!
The uniqueness of Christianity
This story is told:
During a British conference on comparative religions, experts from around the world were discussing whether any one belief was unique to the Christian faith.
They began eliminating possibilities. Incarnation? Other religions had different versions of gods appearing in human form.
Resurrection? Again, other religions had accounts of return from death.
The debate went on for some time, until C. S. Lewis wandered into the room.
“What’s the rumpus about?” he asked, and heard in reply that his colleagues were discussing Christianity’s unique contribution among world religions.
In his forthright manner, Lewis responded, “Oh, that’s easy. It’s grace.”
Christianity is seen as a religion, but at its core it is nothing more than a relationship. In this it is unique among all religions. It says that by God's grace you can be in relationship (and all that this implies) with the infinite God.
Christianity makes claims no other religion does. Is this arrogance, or simply stating the Truth?
Christianity cannot stand as one among equals. It either is true, or it is a very bizarre distortion worse than all other religions.
Take the example of Islam. Who was Jesus Christ?
The Christians say that He was God.
The Muslims say that He was just a man.
Both cannot be right, and while Christians may affirm many things about Islam (prayer, monotheism, …), the two belief systems simply cannot be reconciled.
Jesus says things that fundamentally contradict all other religions. And very importantly, please especially note, Christianity is absolutely nothing without the Jesus who claimed to be God.
In his book God in the Dock, Lewis says, "If you had gone to Buddha and asked him 'Are you the son of Brahma?' he would have said, 'My son, you are still in the vale of illusion.' If you had gone to Socrates and asked, 'Are you Zeus?' he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammad and asked, 'Are you Allah?' he would first have rent his clothes then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius, 'Are you Heaven?' I think he would have probably replied, 'Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.' The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man."
So what does Christianity claim that is such a problem?
First, some of the essential elements:
Christianity then makes several very important claims that others do not:
Central to understanding this is the concept of love and justice. We have a broken relationship with God. God loves us and earnestly desires to restore that relationship. But perfect love requires perfect justice; else the love will not be perfect. Hence Jesus’ death and resurrection is all important, because perfect love needs perfect justice which requires perfect sacrifice.
This is an amazing concept, but fully and inherently consistent with God's nature.
Where then do we stand?
Christianity is so different to all other religions, it must be incredibly true, or incredibly bad.
One cannot say all religions lead to God and remain intellectually honest.
The choice is yours; between relationship with God or the ritual of one of many other systems.
Remaining thoughts:
a) Can I control God?
Yes, sort of. How to have control over someone who loves you … by caring less (think about it)
b) How to view the value of other religions?
We are free to affirm truth where we find it, but Jesus claims to be the only way.
c) How to view the incredibly exclusive claim that Jesus is the only way?
Christians have two views:
Personally, I am an inclusivevist.
Probably too many to count. There are modern, old, and the plainly bizarre (like the Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth, or the Prince Philip Movement that says Prince Philip is divine). The diversity of religions are mostly incompatible with each other. This is not to even touch on strange religious practices, like one where mothers throw babies off a 50 foot tower to be caught by men holding a bed sheet below, and all for supposed good luck (looking for good luck in a religion that purports a faith in God????)
But let's take a brief look at some of the more familiar religions (drawing on various internet resources).
Hindu (about 14% of the world): a plethora of gods, but most Hindus believe in a one Supreme being whose qualities and forms are represented by the many deities that come from “him”.
- Some believe the supreme being is personal, others say impersonal
- Hinduism can be seen as polytheistic, but many claim monotheism
- Existence is a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, governed by Karma - every action has an equal reaction either immediately or at some point in the future, and across lives
- The goal is liberation from this cycle
Bahá'í (a modern religion): God is transcendent and can't be known directly. God is known through the lives and teachings of his great prophets.
- All human beings have a soul that lives forever.
- All human beings are members of a single race
- All human beings are different, but equal
- All religions have the same spiritual foundation, despite their apparent differences.
Buddhism (about 6% of the world): focuses on personal spiritual development and the attainment of a deep insight into the true nature of life.
- Seeks to reach a state of nirvana – a stillness of mind after desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished
- There is no belief in a personal god … nothing is fixed or permanent and change is always possible.
- The path to Enlightenment is through the practice and development of morality, meditation and wisdom.
- Existence is endless because individuals are reincarnated over and over again, experiencing suffering throughout many lives.
- Our mistaken belief that things can last is a chief cause of suffering.
Paganism: a group of contemporary religions based on a reverence for nature, drawing on the traditional religions of indigenous peoples throughout the world.
- Includes Wiccans, Druids, Shamans, Sacred Ecologists, Odinists and Heathens
- Some groups concentrate on specific traditions or practices such as ecology, witchcraft, Celtic traditions or certain gods.
- Most Pagans share an ecological vision that comes from the Pagan belief in the organic vitality and spirituality of the natural world.
- Contrary to some tabloid ideas, pagans are not sexual deviants, do not worship the devil, are not evil, do not practice 'black magic' and their practices do not involve harming people or animals.
- Jesus, Moses and Abraham are respected as prophets of God
- The final Prophet was Muhammad.
- There are five basic Pillars of Islam: the declaration of faith, praying five times a day, giving money to charity, fasting and a pilgrimage to Mecca (at least once).
- Belief in the Day of Judgment
- The heart of faith for all Muslims is obedience to Allah's will.
Pantheism: the natural universe is divine, the proper object of reverence, pervaded with divinity.
- We do not need to look beyond the universe for the proper object of ultimate respect.
- One of the chief attributes of modern pantheism is the refusal to engage in anthropomorphism.
- Do not usually believe in the immortality of the soul.
- Pantheism can often seem to overlap with atheism
More about Christianity a little later on.
Why are there so many parallels between religions?
If you read only two books as a result of this discussion, I would suggest Chesterton's “Orthodoxy”, and Boyer and Hall's “the Mystery of God” (http://bit.ly/15jmS1k).
In the latter, the authors begin with a useful metaphor of walking from home to work. Along the way he sees the beauty and details of the world around, all by the light of the sun. But he cannot look at the sun for fear of being blinded, and so the sun becomes an unconscious blind spot.
If we extend this metaphor we might consider that there are shadows and dark places where we see no detail and where the sun does not shine. Sometimes we might see the sun reflect off a lake or a rock, or the blindingly white sand on the beach, and it occupies our attention. We might even be amazed and drawn by it. But it's not the sun. The sun is present in all we see, but none of what we see is the sun. Everything shows details of light, but none are the light.
In the same way, if there is one God, and one true religion, then:
- We should not be surprised that we find reflections … distorted and incomplete perhaps, and in the wrong place, and not quite true to the source.
- We should expect that we will find elements of truth in many places, because everything exists in the presence of Truth.
- The one God would be the perfect illumination to understand everything in this life.
As CS Lewis notes: “If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through… When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I become a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view… As in arithmetic—there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong; but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others (p. 35).” [Mere Christianity]
And here it is here that we come up against the hard reality of Christianity (not the institution, but the person of Christ) which claims to be the true Sun, not a reflection. Christianity says all other religions are distortions and at best, as false as a reflection in a mirror.
Unless you are hopelessly narcissistic, you would not be truly satisfied by kissing the reflection of your lover (try it, if you like)!
The uniqueness of Christianity
This story is told:
During a British conference on comparative religions, experts from around the world were discussing whether any one belief was unique to the Christian faith.
They began eliminating possibilities. Incarnation? Other religions had different versions of gods appearing in human form.
Resurrection? Again, other religions had accounts of return from death.
The debate went on for some time, until C. S. Lewis wandered into the room.
“What’s the rumpus about?” he asked, and heard in reply that his colleagues were discussing Christianity’s unique contribution among world religions.
In his forthright manner, Lewis responded, “Oh, that’s easy. It’s grace.”
Christianity is seen as a religion, but at its core it is nothing more than a relationship. In this it is unique among all religions. It says that by God's grace you can be in relationship (and all that this implies) with the infinite God.
Christianity makes claims no other religion does. Is this arrogance, or simply stating the Truth?
Christianity cannot stand as one among equals. It either is true, or it is a very bizarre distortion worse than all other religions.
Take the example of Islam. Who was Jesus Christ?
The Christians say that He was God.
The Muslims say that He was just a man.
Both cannot be right, and while Christians may affirm many things about Islam (prayer, monotheism, …), the two belief systems simply cannot be reconciled.
Jesus says things that fundamentally contradict all other religions. And very importantly, please especially note, Christianity is absolutely nothing without the Jesus who claimed to be God.
In his book God in the Dock, Lewis says, "If you had gone to Buddha and asked him 'Are you the son of Brahma?' he would have said, 'My son, you are still in the vale of illusion.' If you had gone to Socrates and asked, 'Are you Zeus?' he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammad and asked, 'Are you Allah?' he would first have rent his clothes then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius, 'Are you Heaven?' I think he would have probably replied, 'Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.' The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man."
So what does Christianity claim that is such a problem?
First, some of the essential elements:
- There is only one God, but that there are three elements to this one God: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – a unique monotheistic view of three but one (could man have imagined this?).
- It is not a system, but a belief that we were created as relational beings for relationship with God
- The history of Christianity (through the Jews and then through Jesus) is the history of God seeking to restore relationship.
- Jesus Christ is the Son of God sent by God to save us from the consequences of our rebellion, and that no-one comes to the Father but through Jesus
Christianity then makes several very important claims that others do not:
- Christianity is the only religion where God reaches down to man, all other religions exhort man to reach up to God and grasp hold of Him through their own efforts
- Christianity is premised on a relationship with God, other religions are systems of do’s and don’ts to appease God who, hopefully, will be merciful if we got it right.
- Christianity sees Jesus as the full and singular expression of Truth
- Christianity stands and falls by the singular event of Jesus and his death and resurrection
- God is reconciled to us when we accept God’s solution for love and justice.
- The only thing I can do is accept … which is much harder than it sounds!
- Only Christianity offers the expectation of "God with me", all other religions can only offer a “I hope God will be with me”
Central to understanding this is the concept of love and justice. We have a broken relationship with God. God loves us and earnestly desires to restore that relationship. But perfect love requires perfect justice; else the love will not be perfect. Hence Jesus’ death and resurrection is all important, because perfect love needs perfect justice which requires perfect sacrifice.
This is an amazing concept, but fully and inherently consistent with God's nature.
Where then do we stand?
Christianity is so different to all other religions, it must be incredibly true, or incredibly bad.
One cannot say all religions lead to God and remain intellectually honest.
The choice is yours; between relationship with God or the ritual of one of many other systems.
Remaining thoughts:
a) Can I control God?
Yes, sort of. How to have control over someone who loves you … by caring less (think about it)
b) How to view the value of other religions?
We are free to affirm truth where we find it, but Jesus claims to be the only way.
c) How to view the incredibly exclusive claim that Jesus is the only way?
Christians have two views:
- Inclusivity: the only way to God is through Jesus, but you do not need conscious knowledge of Jesus (this is not the same as universalism, that all roads lead to God). This says God is revealed in all of existence and you can choose to respond accordingly. The parable of the rich young ruler suggests this as well. He followed all the religious rules religiously (!), but Jesus still says to him, one thing you lack, sell all you have and follow me. It’s a choice to give up yourself completely, total abandonment of self to Jesus (or what you know of Jesus), and thereby find yourself. This is not nice-feeling spirituality; this is total sacrifice for total gain through what has been revealed to you about God. No other religion this relationship (Read CS Lewis’ “The last battle” to see this in story form).
- Exclusivity: You only find your way to God through conscious knowledge of Jesus.
Personally, I am an inclusivevist.
