Differences between religions

[ZenFred]

I hope that everyone is at peace and find themselves in contentment and joy. Your replies in the past have been very insightful and helpful .
I am probably guilty of posting the same question over and over again in differing contexts, but if you would be so kind to indulge me.

I was considering what I believe C.S. Lewis originally said about the perception that all religions say the same thing. Hall (2012) of beliefnet echoed Lewis’ sentiment in this article (retrieved from beliefnet.com/columnists/religion101/2012/11/are-all-religions-saying-the-same-thing.html). Basically that in terms of ethics and morality all religions are very similar, but in terms of what God or reality is or soteriology (method of salvation) they have very important and drastic differences.

I am not sure if I understand correctly or fully, but it seems that difference is one of primarily intellectual belief and cultural context.** Is it true that chief difference between a saved person and non-saved person in a Christian model of salvation is that the saved person held a list of intellectual beliefs the other did not? **That is to say that the key difference between a devout Muslim and a devout Christian is the name they use to address God and a list of intellectual beliefs based on doctrinal claims (assertion or denial of the trinity, divinity of Jesus, prophet hood of Mohammad, ect). All the other significant differences are results of these intellectually accepted doctrinal claims. The Christian revelation of the gospel message, thru both Old and New Testament, was given to one particular group of people (the Jews) at one place and at one time. People who are from other cultural contexts must abandon their own understandings, at least partially, to accept this contextually bound revelation. (I understand that perhaps the very nature of an incarnation, God made man, necessitates this since the incarnate God has to born at one time in one place in order to be incarnate, but still the resulting gospel of salvation is dependent on said context.)
Personal religious experience seems to be very similar across religions except in that in it is then interpreted within the context of one’s doctrinal beliefs (Catholics might see the Virgin Mary, while Buddhists might see a bodhisattva). To elaborate here, I am not saying that Mary is a bodhisattva nor vice versa but if I as a Buddhist and was praying and felt a presence or even saw a figure approaching I might say “Oh that was a bodhisattva” whereas other religions would reach other conclusions of the same experience.
I suppose you could argue that rituals are different across religions and that catholic use of baptism and communion is what allows for salvation while Buddhist taking of refuges or making offerings of incense and flowers does not (or vice versa). But I don’t know if many people would really say the rituals in and of themselves grant salvation or special spiritual statuses but rather it is belief and devotion behind them (but perhaps this is a very 21st century western sentiment).
Another example, fundamentalist type Christians are fond of having a simple few steps in order to be “saved” to include a Jesus prayer in which I ask for forgiveness of my sins from Christ. How is it different if every time I am supposed to say Jesus I say “Ahura Mazda” (The Zoroastrian God) instead but with the same earnestness and intention? Would Jesus deny the prayer because the person had picked the wrong ethnic-cultural understanding of God to pray to?
While I am interested in the question of salvation, I understand a common Christian response by some is that “well, God alone judges the hearts of men and we can’t say who will make the cut and who won’t”. I completely agree with that response, but this still dodges the overall question of whether different religions are the expressions of the same truth or if one particular revelation is correct while the others are fundamentally flawed or critically incomplete.
I don’t mean this essay as a rhetorical question. I believe that objective truth is truth independent of my own views or opinions about it. I welcome any critiques of flaws in my reasoning.
Namaste and God’s Peace, -Fred

 

[Butaperson]

You ask some wonderful questions, my friend, and there are certainly answers.

First off is the position that the Catholic church maintains on the position of souls that have never heard to word of Christ. The word of God is in the soul of everyone, and in general it is hoped that these folks will follow their conscience. However, they are not expected to live a Christian life because they simply do not know to.

The same could possibly be applied to those who have grown up under the influence of one single religion, even if they may have heard about Christianity. They are not living a Christian life, but God may still have mercy and save them considering the circumstances. ANYONE can be saved, whether Christian or not, by the mercy of God, but it is also stated that Catholics are the most easily saved because we have access to the fullness of truth.
This is because to “not be saved” means that you have completely rejected the grace of God. It is understood that there are many people of many faiths who are trying their very best to find the grace of God, but have been raised with a religion that does not have it. We do not know who is saved and who is not, which means that to be honest, it could be a great deal of people (in fact, St. Faustina, when describing her vision of hell, implies that it is a great many people of other faiths who are saved). We do not know their lives.

On the contrary, there are those who have indeed rejected God. They have heard the truth of the Catholic church and they have rejected it in order to practice a religion that does not contain the fullness of truth. In these cases, it is understood that God has provided them with everything they needed to follow Christ and they chose not to take it.
Now, the Catholic idea of hell is essentially an eternity without God. It is NOT a torture pit of flames where God punishes people because he doesn’t like them. Those who have decided that they do not want to spend an eternity with God are not forced to. That is what it is. So the idea is that the person who truly wants to spend an eternity in heaven with He who is the One, True God…will.
Those who choose to follow a false god do not choose to spend eternity with the One True God. The one who they devote their lives and afterlives to does not exist. They have been deceived. That is why we teach that God may have mercy, but that their path to heaven is so much less assured than one who has devoted their life to the Truth.

You referred to calling Jesus by a different name. But there is a huge difference between praying to Jesus by a different name, and praying to something that is not Jesus. For example, the French call Jesus “Jésus” (pronounced 'jeh-soo). That is a different name, but it is still Jesus. Ahura Mazda is not Jesus, it is not the son of God. It would be like if someone said “That tree is so beautiful” and I said “Thank you”. The compliment was not directed towards me and I cannot accept it, just as Jesus does not accept a prayer that was intended for something else. He may offer what one might call “A for effort”, because maybe you were trying to reach some understanding that you simply could not, but the fact of the matter is that it is simply not a prayer to Jesus.

IN CONCLUSION.
The Catholic church is the one single Church that holds the fullness of truth. Other religions may hold varying degrees of truth, but only the Catholic church holds the fullness. People of other faiths may be saved and Jesus does indeed take pity on those who try to find him. But the clearest and most straightforward path to salvation is, was, and always will be the Catholic church.

 

[zippy2006]

I hope that everyone is at peace and find themselves in contentment and joy. Your replies in the past have been very insightful and helpful .
I am probably guilty of posting the same question over and over again in differing contexts, but if you would be so kind to indulge me…

It is hard to give a clear answer to such a long post, but I will try. Perhaps it would be helpful in the future to try to isolate specific questions and points of interest.

I was considering what I believe C.S. Lewis originally said about the perception that all religions say the same thing. Hall (2012) of beliefnet echoed Lewis’ sentiment in this article (retrieved from beliefnet.com/columnists/religion101/2012/11/are-all-religions-saying-the-same-thing.html). Basically that in terms of ethics and morality all religions are very similar, but in terms of what God or reality is or soteriology (method of salvation) they have very important and drastic differences.

I think the article deviates fairly significantly from Lewis’ own views. Lewis’ claim in books such as Mere Christianity and The Abolition of Man is that an objective moral code exists throughout all cultures. This is what Catholicism understands as the natural law. It would, however, be a mistake to understand Lewis to be saying that all religion is morally and ethically equivalent. All cultures and religions capture a basic ethical bottom line, but some rise further above this line than others. Therefore not all religion is morally and ethically equivalent, even though an objective moral code does exist.

I am not sure if I understand correctly or fully, but it seems that difference is one of primarily intellectual belief and cultural context.** Is it true that chief difference between a saved person and non-saved person in a Christian model of salvation is that the saved person held a list of intellectual beliefs the other did not? **That is to say that the key difference between a devout Muslim and a devout Christian is the name they use to address God and a list of intellectual beliefs based on doctrinal claims (assertion or denial of the trinity, divinity of Jesus, prophet hood of Mohammad, ect).

No, the difference between someone who is saved and damned is not a difference of intellectual beliefs. The most significant difference is baptism. Through baptism we die and rise with Christ, are made friends of God, and share in the divine life. We are saved by God’s grace through repentance, baptism, and faith.

The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is the possession of sanctifying grace gained through baptism. Looking at the two, the most obvious difference is that the Christian participates in the divine nature, while the non-Christian does not (2 Pet 1:4).

All the other significant differences are results of these intellectually accepted doctrinal claims. The Christian revelation of the gospel message, thru both Old and New Testament, was given to one particular group of people (the Jews) at one place and at one time. People who are from other cultural contexts must abandon their own understandings, at least partially, to accept this contextually bound revelation.

Why would one have to abandon their own understandings to accept revelation? Don’t all assertions/propositions have to be understood in context?

Personal religious experience seems to be very similar across religions except in that in it is then interpreted within the context of one’s doctrinal beliefs (Catholics might see the Virgin Mary, while Buddhists might see a bodhisattva). To elaborate here, I am not saying that Mary is a bodhisattva nor vice versa but if I as a Buddhist and was praying and felt a presence or even saw a figure approaching I might say “Oh that was a bodhisattva” whereas other religions would reach other conclusions of the same experience.

I think this point is overemphasized. There are similarities, but there are also differences. Also, I think the criteria for religious experience tend to be too vague. It’s simply not easy to read mystics and discern whether two reported experiences were more alike or different. Catholicism holds that there are elevated natural states of peace and also grace, but they are significantly different from a supernatural union.

I suppose you could argue that rituals are different across religions and that catholic use of baptism and communion is what allows for salvation while Buddhist taking of refuges or making offerings of incense and flowers does not (or vice versa). But I don’t know if many people would really say the rituals in and of themselves grant salvation or special spiritual statuses but rather it is belief and devotion behind them (but perhaps this is a very 21st century western sentiment).

Sacraments are a means to an end, but they are a true means. The grace of the Eucharist cannot be obtained with belief and devotion. Again, the natural/supernatural distinction is very important. Heathen rituals may have a certain natural efficacy, but they do not have any salvific efficacy. The salvific power of Christianity comes from Christ’s passion and death. It does not come from anything humans do.

 

[zippy2006]

Another example, fundamentalist type Christians are fond of having a simple few steps in order to be “saved” to include a Jesus prayer in which I ask for forgiveness of my sins from Christ. How is it different if every time I am supposed to say Jesus I say “Ahura Mazda” (The Zoroastrian God) instead but with the same earnestness and intention? Would Jesus deny the prayer because the person had picked the wrong ethnic-cultural understanding of God to pray to?

I am not a fundamentalist, but one might ask why a Christian prayer would be more efficacious than a non-Christian prayer, even if the same earnestness and intention exists. Although it is questionable whether the same earnestness and intention could exist, the answer is that the Christian is a son of God and the non-Christian is not. The non-Christian does not pray with faith, because they have not been baptized. There is an enormous ontological difference between the two persons.

While I am interested in the question of salvation, I understand a common Christian response by some is that “well, God alone judges the hearts of men and we can’t say who will make the cut and who won’t”. I completely agree with that response, but this still dodges the overall question of whether different religions are the expressions of the same truth or if one particular revelation is correct while the others are fundamentally flawed or critically incomplete.

I agree completely, and appreciate your candid inquiry. I was once very much interested in Buddhism myself.

I don’t mean this essay as a rhetorical question. I believe that objective truth is truth independent of my own views or opinions about it. I welcome any critiques of flaws in my reasoning.

Anthropologically speaking, the most significant difference between Christianity and other religion is 1) the Incarnation and historical claims about Christ’s divinity and resurrection, and 2) the cross and the theology that flows from it. For the Buddhist, suffering is something to be avoided and eventually overcome in a state that contains no grasping or aversion. For the Christian, suffering is the narrow gate through which we must pass. It is through Christ’s passion and death that salvation gushed into the world. Through baptism, Christ lives in Christians and unfolds the same mystery of salvation in their lives. This is how God transforms and restores a fallen world.

God bless,
-zip

 

[fhansen]

I hope that everyone is at peace and find themselves in contentment and joy. Your replies in the past have been very insightful and helpful .
I am probably guilty of posting the same question over and over again in differing contexts, but if you would be so kind to indulge me.

I was considering what I believe C.S. Lewis originally said about the perception that all religions say the same thing. Hall (2012) of beliefnet echoed Lewis’ sentiment in this article (retrieved from beliefnet.com/columnists/religion101/2012/11/are-all-religions-saying-the-same-thing.html). Basically that in terms of ethics and morality all religions are very similar, but in terms of what God or reality is or soteriology (method of salvation) they have very important and drastic differences.

I am not sure if I understand correctly or fully, but it seems that difference is one of primarily intellectual belief and cultural context.** Is it true that chief difference between a saved person and non-saved person in a Christian model of salvation is that the saved person held a list of intellectual beliefs the other did not? **That is to say that the key difference between a devout Muslim and a devout Christian is the name they use to address God and a list of intellectual beliefs based on doctrinal claims (assertion or denial of the trinity, divinity of Jesus, prophet hood of Mohammad, ect). All the other significant differences are results of these intellectually accepted doctrinal claims. The Christian revelation of the gospel message, thru both Old and New Testament, was given to one particular group of people (the Jews) at one place and at one time. People who are from other cultural contexts must abandon their own understandings, at least partially, to accept this contextually bound revelation. (I understand that perhaps the very nature of an incarnation, God made man, necessitates this since the incarnate God has to born at one time in one place in order to be incarnate, but still the resulting gospel of salvation is dependent on said context.)
Personal religious experience seems to be very similar across religions except in that in it is then interpreted within the context of one’s doctrinal beliefs (Catholics might see the Virgin Mary, while Buddhists might see a bodhisattva). To elaborate here, I am not saying that Mary is a bodhisattva nor vice versa but if I as a Buddhist and was praying and felt a presence or even saw a figure approaching I might say “Oh that was a bodhisattva” whereas other religions would reach other conclusions of the same experience.
I suppose you could argue that rituals are different across religions and that catholic use of baptism and communion is what allows for salvation while Buddhist taking of refuges or making offerings of incense and flowers does not (or vice versa). But I don’t know if many people would really say the rituals in and of themselves grant salvation or special spiritual statuses but rather it is belief and devotion behind them (but perhaps this is a very 21st century western sentiment).
Another example, fundamentalist type Christians are fond of having a simple few steps in order to be “saved” to include a Jesus prayer in which I ask for forgiveness of my sins from Christ. How is it different if every time I am supposed to say Jesus I say “Ahura Mazda” (The Zoroastrian God) instead but with the same earnestness and intention? Would Jesus deny the prayer because the person had picked the wrong ethnic-cultural understanding of God to pray to?
While I am interested in the question of salvation, I understand a common Christian response by some is that “well, God alone judges the hearts of men and we can’t say who will make the cut and who won’t”. I completely agree with that response, but this still dodges the overall question of whether different religions are the expressions of the same truth or if one particular revelation is correct while the others are fundamentally flawed or critically incomplete.
I don’t mean this essay as a rhetorical question. I believe that objective truth is truth independent of my own views or opinions about it. I welcome any critiques of flaws in my reasoning.
Namaste and God’s Peace, -Fred

Great post. For myself, I simply cannot help but be totally enamored by the God whom Christianity revealed to be love, and who proved it by suffering and dying an excruciatingly painful and humiliating death at the hands of His own creation: perfect Truth and Beauty and Innocence summarily spit on, tortured, and killed, to reveal sin and convict us of it while simultaneously demonstrating His love and forgiveness in spite of it. To change us-into who we could be when we’re united with Him instead of off on our own path, often at odds with Reality, with Truth, with God.

 

[ZenFred]

Some excellent and helpful responses, thank you.
I think I’ve been focusing too much on the question of who God is. I don’t think the primary question is whether different faiths are talking about the same one divine reality but under different names and in different contexts. The key difference between Christianity and other religions is sin and the solution to sin.
Zippy you said “The most significant difference is baptism. Through baptism we die and rise with Christ, are made friends of God, and share in the divine life. We are saved by God’s grace through repentance, baptism, and faith.”
May religions share similar experiences and expressions of “God” or something similar. The problem is that while there is this transcendent reality, as human beings it is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to reach it fully. People can have mystical experiences and moments of peace and contentment but seemingly without fail the concerns of this life, the pull of our desires, the our failure to respond well to them lead very quickly back to being caught in our own suffering and inflicting harm on others. The Dali Lama talks about our infinite spiritual potential. Yet the vast majority of us obviously don’t reach it.
In Buddhism, it seems there are three potential attitudes about this that I’ve encountered.

1. People will claim to have very spiritual/enlightened lives and will appear very content and serene, yet it doesn’t take long till their true colors show through and they become surprisingly angry or say prideful things. Not saying they are frauds or evil, but even monks fight over petty things and power struggles or march in favor of genocide of Muslims!! (huffingtonpost.ca/diane-bederman/buddhist-monks-muslims_b_3805842.html)
   *One of my favorite teachers often claims Buddhists never start any wars and are the answer to world peace.
2. Others will say, no we are all enlightened and all have “Buddha nature” or something similar and the truth is fully present, we just don’t know it. While this may be true, there is a huge difference between the truth being present and realizing its presence and allowing it to change our lives.
3. Many Buddhist take a humble route and say they are not enlightened and still experience suffering, but they are a new Buddhist (after decades of practice) or just a simple monk (The Dali Lama describes himself as a lazy monk!!) and other enlightened people are ones who experience what we are working towards, but not themselves.
   I think this failure to always (or even almost always) to act enlightened and to be free from suffering is what Christianity might also be talking about in terms of sin. Buddhism also has sin, but defines it in terms of delusion and attachment; yet I think it is essentially the same.

In Christianity, God’s grace thru Christ is the solution to this problem of sin. In Buddhist terms, Christ is the “vehicle” by which we are able to escape our sufferings and realize our true (or perhaps intended) nature. You said suffering is the path in Christianity, but the end goal of the kingdom of God is freedom from suffering.
So the real question I guess is does justification in Christ “work”? Does it actually deliver a union with God during this life and perhaps even heaven afterwards? Or if it doesn’t deliver 100% enlightenment in this life, is it the best method we have? Do other religions have paths that also work? Is it even possible to be free from suffering and in communion with divine in this life for more than just fleeting moments on meditation retreats?
These are kind of rhetorical questions and I’m still giving these things some thought and prayer.

 

[fhansen]

In Christianity, God’s grace thru Christ is the solution to this problem of sin. In Buddhist terms, Christ is the “vehicle” by which we are able to escape our sufferings and realize our true (or perhaps intended) nature. You said suffering is the path in Christianity, but the end goal of the kingdom of God is freedom from suffering.

The end goal for Christianity is sheer, unending happiness. We’re geared for that; its part of our integtrity, wholeness, homeostasis; its what we continously want and strive for even now. Perhaps that’s synonymous with freedom from suffering.

So the real question I guess is does justification in Christ “work”? Does it actually deliver a union with God during this life and perhaps even heaven afterwards? Or if it doesn’t deliver 100% enlightenment in this life, is it the best method we have? Do other religions have paths that also work? Is it even possible to be free from suffering and in communion with divine in this life for more than just fleeting moments on meditation retreats?

A question I have is whether or not anyone reaches 100% enlightenment or claims to achieve permanent union with God in this life. In Christianity we may have ecstatic “glimpes” of God, and we may otherwise see “as through a glass darkly”, as St Paul put it, but only in the next life is our relationship with God fully consumated, only then do we see Him “face to face”, only then is our happiness complete. Do any eastern practioners really claim 100% enlightenment?

 

[zippy2006]

In Christianity, God’s grace thru Christ is the solution to this problem of sin. In Buddhist terms, Christ is the “vehicle” by which we are able to escape our sufferings and realize our true (or perhaps intended) nature. You said suffering is the path in Christianity, but the end goal of the kingdom of God is freedom from suffering.
So the real question I guess is does justification in Christ “work”? Does it actually deliver a union with God during this life and perhaps even heaven afterwards? Or if it doesn’t deliver 100% enlightenment in this life, is it the best method we have? Do other religions have paths that also work? Is it even possible to be free from suffering and in communion with divine in this life for more than just fleeting moments on meditation retreats?
These are kind of rhetorical questions and I’m still giving these things some thought and prayer.

Christianity is God reaching down to man. Non-Christian religion is man reaching up to God. I am a Christian because my arms aren’t long enough to reach up to God. Christianity makes man what he was created to be. What we were created to be may or may not be what the “spiritual seeker” desires. Any efficacy that other religion has, is had through Christ. No one comes to the Father except through Christ.

It is helpful to note that Christianity claims exclusivity, while many other religions do not. This is significant and it parallels Christ’s claims of divinity.

 

[ZenFred]

Yes the Christian claim of exclusivity is a thorny one especially if you understand that other religions are full of people who mean well and truly seeking to live good lives. These people have religious experiences, witness what they consider miracles, and feel at least somewhat fulfilled in their own tradition. They definitely do not sit around and wonder what’s missing maybe it’s Jesus

Surprisingly there are claims of people who have enlightenment (which would be 100% they just stay on earth even over multiple lives to help others). In zen there is an expectation that you work hard enough (or not work enough) you will gain it this lifetime. But it’s a controversial thing within Buddhism.

As for being 100% enlightened I was thinking about St. Paul and we see thru the glass but darkly when I said it. Total freedom from suffering in this life is unrealistic I think, but religion should be truly transformative. For me Buddhism has been in ways Christianity has not. Yet as the allure of being a new convert wares off I realize there are many things my zen teacher doesn’t tell us and hearing “just practice for another 20 years or 20 lives” doesn’t cut it.

The helpful part of this discussion is that I should focus less on attaining mystic experiences and more on living in accordance with that reality thru compassionate action and being mindful.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes the Christian claim of exclusivity is a thorny one especially if you understand that other religions are full of people who mean well and truly seeking to live good lives. These people have religious experiences, witness what they consider miracles, and feel at least somewhat fulfilled in their own tradition. They definitely do not sit around and wonder what’s missing maybe it’s Jesus

If they are honest with themselves they will eventually see their own sin and need for a savior. We can only project that perfect image of ourselves for so long before it is shattered.

As for being 100% enlightened I was thinking about St. Paul and we see thru the glass but darkly when I said it. Total freedom from suffering in this life is unrealistic I think, but religion should be truly transformative. For me Buddhism has been in ways Christianity has not. Yet as the allure of being a new convert wares off I realize there are many things my zen teacher doesn’t tell us and hearing “just practice for another 20 years or 20 lives” doesn’t cut it.

Buddhism doesn’t offer everything that man desires. Man doesn’t desire a state of stasis in which there is no grasping or aversion. Man desires happiness, and this is something worth striving for. Buddhism is thin. It doesn’t have warrior-saints like St. Joan of Arc, intellectual giants like St. Thomas and St. Augustine, or servants of the poor like Mother Teresa and St. Francis. It does have peaceful figures like St. Terese, and mystics like St. John of the Cross–at least it has adherents in such categories.

This is a reflection of the fact that Buddhism participates in a truth that surpasses it. That truth is found in Christianity. Christ redeems the whole man, not just his peaceful, calm, still, meditative parts. He also redeems man’s anger, his thirst for knowledge and happiness, his shame, his pride, his sexuality, his yearning for love, etc. Buddhism tends to “poo poo” the parts of man that it finds unseemly, but God gave us each of these unseemly things. A man without sexuality, anger, a thirst for knowledge, shame, pride, or a strong desire to be loved and to love is only a half-man. Buddhism has some truth, but it contains no truth that Catholicism does not, and Catholicism contains enormous truths that Buddhism does not.

A religion that does not redeem the whole man is automatically imperfect and wanting. Like the bread and wine at mass, God takes our fallen human nature and raises it up. He sanctifies our anger and our sexuality, along with our prudence, peacefulness, and restraint. He restores them to the way they were first intended to be. Lewis and Chesterton are very good on this point. At some point you will find yourself deadened and numb from Buddhism, because it suppresses and despises aspects of the human being that need to be sanctified and appreciated. Or perhaps you will see yourself in the mirror without your make-up on, and realize instantaneously that you cannot save yourself, that no amount of discipline, meditation, or self-generated loving-kindness will fulfill you (1 Jn 4:19). We pray that on that day you will turn to the Lord.

God bless,
-zip

 

[adawgj]

Hi ZenFred . First off cool username.

Secondly I’m too ignorant to answer your questions. But maybe this video can help.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=n6XNO6Jv3q0#t=0

 

[ZenFred]

Adawj, Very interesting video, thanks!

As it happened, I was reading a book from the Dali Lama “Essence of the Heart Sutra” where he says

“My admiration for the world’s great spiritual traditions increases and I can deeply appreciate their value. It’s clear that these religions have served the spiritual needs of millions of people in the past, continue to do so at present, and will continue to do so in the future. Realizing this, I encourage people to maintain their spiritual tradition, even if they choose to learn from others, like Buddhism, as well. Changing one’s religion is a serious matter, and it should not be taken lightly. Given that different religions traditions evolved in accordance with specific historical, cultural, and social contexts, a particular tradition may be more suitable to a particular person in a particular environment. Only the individual knows which religion is most suitable for him or her. It is therefore vital not to proselytize, propagating only one’s religion, asserting it alone is the best one or the right one.”

Really can’t be said better than that.

 

[Abu]

No other religion has faith in a God who has taken a human nature, historically has been crucified and risen, with the testimony of many eye-witnesses.

The historian Eusebius in his Church history, 4.3, 1.2, tells us that writing about 123 A.D., apologist Quadratus cited those in his day who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus of Nazareth – prime witnesses – long after the miracles, crucifixion and death of the Son of God. No other religious founder claimed to be God and proved it – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

The vast gulf between Catholicism and any other religion is that the Catholic Church has been founded by a Divine Person who lived with a human and divine nature and claimed to be God, proving that claim by His resurrection. When God leads us through His Church, others fashion their own beliefs and morals.

Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalists and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, Sheehan/Joseph p 89, 93].

Not only are the facts of Jesus miracles recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries.

His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42; Jn 11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

It was this Jesus who said to His apostles “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16)

All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Thus was His Catholic Church founded.

 

[Ion]

Christians do not run from sufferings. We conquer death and suffering though love for Jesus and fort one another.
Jesus and the martyrs did feel their sufferings but they kept themselves in total control.
Sufferings and death can do to us nothing, that is the end. In Buddhism, you think that suffering can never reach you again after you become a good guy, so to speak.

 

[ZenFred]

Ion,

I think that the issue of suffering in both faiths is more complicated than that. Yet it really gets to heart of each religion.

In Christainity, I would think what one could say is that primarily your suffering is transformed by the power of Christ and the limited, flawed human beings we are becomes a sanctified child of God. Due to this transformation which frees them from the bondage of sin and places their hope in Kingdom here and to come. In that way current sufferings pale in comparison to the assurances of Christ and the christain looks forward to heaven without son and suffering. You talk about “embracing” suffering but it’s more putting your faith in a greater payout (no disrespect meant) and being willing to sacrifice worldly things for heavenly gains. I can’t remember who said it but “give up what you cannot keep to gain what you cannot lose.”

In Buddhism the goal is broadly to transcend suffering. It’s not as much running away as realizing our sufferings are of our own making and unnecessary. Depending on the tradition or even personal approach this is accomplished differently. Some focus on living ethnically without harming others to stop the self inflicted cycle of karma manifested through anger, revenge, and isolation. Others focus on learning how our thoughts and emotions are not real and we suffer as a result of our mental phantasms and seeing and accepting things just as they are. Others put their faith and trust in the “Buddha” or the transcendent nature of the universe to lead us to a “pure land” beyond the traps of desires.

As the Dali Lama argues these paths are different and use different methods yet their goal of inner peace and harmony with others is the same.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

IWhile I am interested in the question of salvation, I understand a common Christian response by some is that “well, God alone judges the hearts of men and we can’t say who will make the cut and who won’t”. I completely agree with that response, but this still dodges the overall question of whether different religions are the expressions of the same truth or if one particular revelation is correct while the others are fundamentally flawed or critically incomplete.

This I take to be the central question you want to ask.

The main difference between religions is that they cannot all agree on all questions of truth. Would you want some religion to have all of the truth? That’s probably the one we ought to look for.

As I said recently in another thread, if you accept that God exists, you might also accept that God has given us one religion that is truer than all the others, because when God gives a gift, it cannot be that he gives an impure gift. So we look for the religion that has the mark of infallibility. If it has the mark of infallibility, it should tell us that it has that mark. The Catholic religion claims to be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals. I’m not aware of any other religion that makes the same claim. If no other religion makes that claim, it is reasonable to conclude that Catholicism is the truest of religions.

In fact, virtually all Protestant religions assert that the Catholic claim of infallibility is false. This implies that on this matter they all claim to be infallible in their own right. But why do they claim the gift of infallibility when they know very well that they all disagree with each other about some important aspect of Christ’s teachings? How can they all disagree with each other about this or that and all be infallible?

 

[ZenFred]

Charlemagne,

You said this very well. “if you accept that God exists, you might also accept that God has given us one religion that is truer than all the others”.

I agree, and it is something I’ve overlooked. If God exists AND is capable and chooses to reveal Himself, it would make the most sense that He would give one revelation, not many. It doesn’t seem to make any sense that he would reveal one set of truths to one group and then give wildly different set of “truths” to another group. The doctrinal differences beyond world religions are more than just slight cultural differences.

I am also defining “revelation” as specifically spelled out statements about God’s and Human nature, what happens after death, how to lead a good life, and so on. Not a vague sense of there is a divine nature or be nice to other people.

Alternatively, God could have given multiple incarnations (this is purely hypothetical) to each group and give similar teachings with slightly cultural modifications (like different parables, different emphasizes etc.) I think this is loosely what the Bai Hai believe. But there is little evidence to support this, Muhammad, Jesus, the Buddha, and so on make very different claims about who they are and what kind of “God” they represent.

Anyways, so I think there are several scenarios that could have resulted in the current religious diversity.

1. God revealed himself through one revelation, and all other faiths are human imitations of said revelation or simply human fabrications.
2. God has not revealed Himself, either due to choosing not to or inability to do so in way we can comprehend. Religions are man’s attempt at describing the indescribable divine reality.
3. A mix of #1 and #2 where there is one revelation which is copied by some and others attempt to describe divine reality without benefit of the revelation.
4. There is no “God” or humans have no way of reaching a comprehension of divine reality and all religion is purely delusion.

Since as I said above the scenario that God revealed Himself multiple times through each of very different religions seem unreasonable. But since He is God He could do it that way, just wouldn’t make much sense to be basically purposely deceive humanity.

Thoughts?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Thoughts?

You have nicely fleshed out the gist of what I said. Thank you.

 

[Ion]

Charlemagne,

You said this very well. “if you accept that God exists, you might also accept that God has given us one religion that is truer than all the others”.

I agree, and it is something I’ve overlooked. If God exists AND is capable and chooses to reveal Himself, it would make the most sense that He would give one revelation, not many. It doesn’t seem to make any sense that he would reveal one set of truths to one group and then give wildly different set of “truths” to another group. The doctrinal differences beyond world religions are more than just slight cultural differences.

I am also defining “revelation” as specifically spelled out statements about God’s and Human nature, what happens after death, how to lead a good life, and so on. Not a vague sense of there is a divine nature or be nice to other people.

Alternatively, God could have given multiple incarnations (this is purely hypothetical) to each group and give similar teachings with slightly cultural modifications (like different parables, different emphasizes etc.) I think this is loosely what the Bai Hai believe. But there is little evidence to support this, Muhammad, Jesus, the Buddha, and so on make very different claims about who they are and what kind of “God” they represent.

Anyways, so I think there are several scenarios that could have resulted in the current religious diversity.

1. God revealed himself through one revelation, and all other faiths are human imitations of said revelation or simply human fabrications.
2. God has not revealed Himself, either due to choosing not to or inability to do so in way we can comprehend. Religions are man’s attempt at describing the indescribable divine reality.
3. A mix of #1 and #2 where there is one revelation which is copied by some and others attempt to describe divine reality without benefit of the revelation.
4. There is no “God” or humans have no way of reaching a comprehension of divine reality and all religion is purely delusion.

Since as I said above the scenario that God revealed Himself multiple times through each of very different religions seem unreasonable. But since He is God He could do it that way, just wouldn’t make much sense to be basically purposely deceive humanity.

Thoughts?

Yep. You have to take in consideration that the devils are not sleeping and there is all sort of interference. Also, you take it to abstract while we have mainly only a handful of religions, or at least prototypes so to speak. When you say, God revealed himself you can also think about miracles.
For example Judaism. It started very well but unfortunately the Jews become more and more astray from God. (I think it is proven because they did not have any prophets in thousands of years). Catholics had so many miracles and saints during the last 2 millennia. Muslims, they do not even expect miracles. Hindu, Buddhists ?

 

[fhansen]

Charlemagne,

You said this very well. “if you accept that God exists, you might also accept that God has given us one religion that is truer than all the others”.

I agree, and it is something I’ve overlooked. If God exists AND is capable and chooses to reveal Himself, it would make the most sense that He would give one revelation, not many. It doesn’t seem to make any sense that he would reveal one set of truths to one group and then give wildly different set of “truths” to another group. The doctrinal differences beyond world religions are more than just slight cultural differences.

I am also defining “revelation” as specifically spelled out statements about God’s and Human nature, what happens after death, how to lead a good life, and so on. Not a vague sense of there is a divine nature or be nice to other people.

Alternatively, God could have given multiple incarnations (this is purely hypothetical) to each group and give similar teachings with slightly cultural modifications (like different parables, different emphasizes etc.) I think this is loosely what the Bai Hai believe. But there is little evidence to support this, Muhammad, Jesus, the Buddha, and so on make very different claims about who they are and what kind of “God” they represent.

Anyways, so I think there are several scenarios that could have resulted in the current religious diversity.

1. God revealed himself through one revelation, and all other faiths are human imitations of said revelation or simply human fabrications.
2. God has not revealed Himself, either due to choosing not to or inability to do so in way we can comprehend. Religions are man’s attempt at describing the indescribable divine reality.
3. A mix of #1 and #2 where there is one revelation which is copied by some and others attempt to describe divine reality without benefit of the revelation.
4. There is no “God” or humans have no way of reaching a comprehension of divine reality and all religion is purely delusion.

Since as I said above the scenario that God revealed Himself multiple times through each of very different religions seem unreasonable. But since He is God He could do it that way, just wouldn’t make much sense to be basically purposely deceive humanity.

Thoughts?

This may be of interest, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**I. THE DESIRE FOR GOD

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.1
28 In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behavior: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being:

From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him - though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For "in him we live and move and have our being."2

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332
**
More on this can be found here:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c1.htm#28