Some arguments for 'All religions lead to God': How to refute them

[Ben_Sinner]

Christ said, “I am the way. No one can come to the Father except through me.”

If this is true, than that means "All religions lead to God’ is false

Some arguments I have heard regarding when someone tries to justify belief in “All religions lead to God” are these.

—“There isn’t just one religion with one set of rules. God made it so different groups of people could worship him in their own kind of religion. He only made those religions true to those certain groups of people who practiced that religion. Thats how he wanted them to worship him…in their own form.”

—“When Christ said he was The Way, he meant in the sense that we all have God within us and we won’t get to the Father unless we find it within ourselves… Christ wasn’t speaking through his human self when he said that, but through his 'Christ Consciousness”…which we all have. We just have to find it.

—Another one I’ve even heard is “The word became incarnate…but that doesn’t mean it could become Incarnate in different forms as well…such as exteresstrials on a different planet and solar system…this explains how Jesus and Krishna could still both be God”

What would be a good rebuttal for each one of these?

 

[Dorothy]

Christ said, “I am the way. No one can come to the Father except through me.”

If this is true, than that means "All religions lead to God’ is false

Some arguments I have heard regarding when someone tries to justify belief in “All religions lead to God” are these.

—“There isn’t just one religion with one set of rules. God made it so different groups of people could worship him in their own kind of religion. He only made those religions true to those certain groups of people who practiced that religion. Thats how he wanted them to worship him…in their own form.”

—“When Christ said he was The Way, he meant in the sense that we all have God within us and we won’t get to the Father unless we find it within ourselves… Christ wasn’t speaking through his human self when he said that, but through his 'Christ Consciousness”…which we all have. We just have to find it.

—Another one I’ve even heard is “The word became incarnate…but that doesn’t mean it could become Incarnate in different forms as well…such as exteresstrials on a different planet and solar system…this explains how Jesus and Krishna could still both be God”

What would be a good rebuttal for each one of these?

The Catechism tells us this:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/847.htm

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Christ said, “I am the way. No one can come to the Father except through me.”

If this is true, than that means "All religions lead to God’ is false

Some arguments I have heard regarding when someone tries to justify belief in “All religions lead to God” are these.

—“There isn’t just one religion with one set of rules. God made it so different groups of people could worship him in their own kind of religion. He only made those religions true to those certain groups of people who practiced that religion. Thats how he wanted them to worship him…in their own form.”

If this is true then God is illogical and inconsistent. Different beliefs systems in the world hold opposing beliefs about a number of very, very important things. For instance, while Christians know that we only live one life, many eastern religions believe in reincarnation. It is logically impossible for both of these things to be true. If God wanted one group to believe in reincarnation while also wanting another group to believe that we only live one life, God would be irrational.

This is only one example of the myriad of inconsistent and opposing beliefs among world religions.

—“When Christ said he was The Way, he meant in the sense that we all have God within us and we won’t get to the Father unless we find it within ourselves… Christ wasn’t speaking through his human self when he said that, but through his 'Christ Consciousness”…which we all have. We just have to find it.

Jesus said, in no unequivocable terms, that “I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one may come to the father except through me.”

There is no workaround for this statement. If it is true, and Christ is the Son of God, then any religion that rejects Him is, by necessity, not a true religion.

—Another one I’ve even heard is “The word became incarnate…but that doesn’t mean it could become Incarnate in different forms as well…such as exteresstrials on a different planet and solar system…this explains how Jesus and Krishna could still both be God”

What would be a good rebuttal for each one of these?

Refer to my first rebuttal. If The Word became incarnate at different times as Buddha or Shiva, and then eventually as Jesus, that would mean that The Word, and by extension God, is logically inconsistent and irrational.

As for this stuff about aliens, that doesn’t really change the rebuttal. #1: There’s no evidence for aliens, and even less evidence for aliens who’ve been given rational souls. Therefore, any speculation on those grounds is utterly meaningless and shouldn’t be used to inform a person’s world view. #2: Even if there are other lifeforms with rational souls, in order for God to be logically consistent, the core moral teachings between our faith and the alien’s would have to remain consistent. (i.e. it is wrong to murder, it is wrong to commit adultery, etc.)

 

[fred_conty]

There are religions that worship the devil. Those are religions that don’t lead to God.
That proves the statement false.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Read the Gospel according to St. John. Straight through it will take 30 minutes or so and in detail a lot longer.

The foundational concept you are after is one of authority; i.e. who has the right to make the claim of where we go and how we get there. If any of your questions are still unanswered come back and ask specifics.

PAX

 

[Oldtompop]

May I say that if the faithless are not convinced by the Gospel, that Jesus Christ is the only true way to God Almighty , Our Father, then they are not going to be converted in the Holy Spirit to the one True God , the Triune God. But throughout history God has demonstrated the irrefutable truth of Our one and only saviour. The Bible says there are many false gods and as animals and plants go extinct in the natural word, so these cults and sects with their false gods fade into the oblivion of hell. You have one life to choose between truth and falsity, fear and tremble at the wisdom of God Almighty.

 

[TimothyH]

—“There isn’t just one religion with one set of rules. God made it so different groups of people could worship him in their own kind of religion. He only made those religions true to those certain groups of people who practiced that religion. Thats how he wanted them to worship him…in their own form.”

What would be a good rebuttal for each one of these?

This is relativism or subjectivism. Things are true because I think they are true.

God gave my friends and I religion of Professional Football where we find God in an oval shaped ball made of pigskin. Pizza, beer and a 60 inch plasma TV are the primary means of worship which we do on Sunday afternoons during the fall and sometimes on Monday night. God made this religion true to my group of friends who practice this religion. This is the way God wants us to worship him.

Anyone can claim such nonsense.

-Tim-

 

[ericc]

Christ said, “I am the way. No one can come to the Father except through me.”

If this is true, than that means "All religions lead to God’ is false

Some arguments I have heard regarding when someone tries to justify belief in “All religions lead to God” are these.

—“There isn’t just one religion with one set of rules. God made it so different groups of people could worship him in their own kind of religion. He only made those religions true to those certain groups of people who practiced that religion. Thats how he wanted them to worship him…in their own form.”

—“When Christ said he was The Way, he meant in the sense that we all have God within us and we won’t get to the Father unless we find it within ourselves… Christ wasn’t speaking through his human self when he said that, but through his 'Christ Consciousness”…which we all have. We just have to find it.

—Another one I’ve even heard is “The word became incarnate…but that doesn’t mean it could become Incarnate in different forms as well…such as exteresstrials on a different planet and solar system…this explains how Jesus and Krishna could still both be God”

What would be a good rebuttal for each one of these?

The person who claims that all religions lead to God is clearly ignorant of what other religions teaches. Not all religions believe in one supreme God. Some don’t even believe in God, some believe in many gods, the Christian concept of God is different from that of the Muslims. A blanket statement like this is just an excuse not to expend genuine effort to truly understand who is God , what is God, what is his nature and so on. Does a satanist or a pagan or witch doctor believe and worship God? Religions come in many flavors and the person being worshiped is not necessarily God. A statement like this should be met with “what do you know about other religions and their worshipped versions of God?” It is usually answered very vaguely.

 

[openmind77]

Christ said, “I am the way. No one can come to the Father except through me.”

This statement is absolutely true. All human beings do have to go through the Christ to reach the Father

If this is true, than that means "All religions lead to God’ is false

However this statement does not follow, because Christ does not take only Christians to the Father. It is a mistake to believe that the Christ is exclusively owned by any one group, that he is only allowed to take that one group to the Father.

Not only does the Christ take Christians to the Father, he also takes people of all other religions to the Father as well as people of no religion (atheists, agnostics, communists).

Nobody on Earth can put a restriction on the Christ to say which individual or group can or can not be saved by the Christ.

So all religions can indeed lead to God, and there is really no need to refute the arguments below

Some arguments I have heard regarding when someone tries to justify belief in “All religions lead to God” are these.

—“There isn’t just one religion with one set of rules. God made it so different groups of people could worship him in their own kind of religion. He only made those religions true to those certain groups of people who practiced that religion. Thats how he wanted them to worship him…in their own form.”

—“When Christ said he was The Way, he meant in the sense that we all have God within us and we won’t get to the Father unless we find it within ourselves… Christ wasn’t speaking through his human self when he said that, but through his 'Christ Consciousness”…which we all have. We just have to find it.

—Another one I’ve even heard is “The word became incarnate…but that doesn’t mean it could become Incarnate in different forms as well…such as exteresstrials on a different planet and solar system…this explains how Jesus and Krishna could still both be God”

What would be a good rebuttal for each one of these?

 

[Abu]

Ben Sinner #1
What would be a good rebuttal for each one of these?

1) The first question to answer is:
How do we know when God is speaking to us?
The only reliable, factual answer, is that Jesus Christ claimed to be God
Who else, except the Christ, claimed to be God and proved it?
The reality is that:
Fact 1: There was a man called Jesus.
Fact 2: He claimed to be a messenger sent from God.
Fact 3: He did enough to prove that He was such a messenger.
Fact 4: Crowds followed Jesus and He had an inner circle to whom he spoke much more.
Fact 5: He commissioned His followers to continue His teaching and founded His Church.
Fact 6: Jesus affirmed that God would protect that teaching.

Obviously, the Resurrection of Jesus is the key, as the existence and faith of the Catholic communities is not self-explanatory, but dependent on the fact of the spectacular historical Jesus and the fact of His Resurrection.

Why should Jesus take precedence over all others?
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.

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;Jn11:47).Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

The evidence of history which attests Christ as the Son of God, sent to redeem humanity, also attests, to this day, to His reality and His truths through the facts of the miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the medically attested miracles that take place at Lourdes, and the Eucharistic miracles.

2) The second question is:
Has God Himself given us definite instructions as to His means to lead us to Him? Very definitely.

**By founding His own Church on Peter the rock. Jesus of Nazareth, God the Son, mandated for all of mankind through 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, also].

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

His Catholic Church, with His Supreme Vicar, the Pope, thus offers to all the means of salvation which only Christ has authorised.

*Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus *(literally, “outside the Church, there is no salvation”). Some people have wished to understand this saying in the most literal sense: that is, that the person who is not formally a practicing Catholic cannot be saved. The Church has condemned such an interpretation (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).

This is not to say that the maxim is false. Properly understood, it is quite true. The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846). [My emphasis]
Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, OSV].

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium:
16. “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.”

 

[fhansen]

Christ said, “I am the way. No one can come to the Father except through me.”

If this is true, than that means "All religions lead to God’ is false

Some arguments I have heard regarding when someone tries to justify belief in “All religions lead to God” are these.

—“There isn’t just one religion with one set of rules. God made it so different groups of people could worship him in their own kind of religion. He only made those religions true to those certain groups of people who practiced that religion. Thats how he wanted them to worship him…in their own form.”

—“When Christ said he was The Way, he meant in the sense that we all have God within us and we won’t get to the Father unless we find it within ourselves… Christ wasn’t speaking through his human self when he said that, but through his 'Christ Consciousness”…which we all have. We just have to find it.

—Another one I’ve even heard is “The word became incarnate…but that doesn’t mean it could become Incarnate in different forms as well…such as exteresstrials on a different planet and solar system…this explains how Jesus and Krishna could still both be God”

What would be a good rebuttal for each one of these?

Ask, why should all religions lead to God?

 

[mdcpensive1]

This is relativism or subjectivism. Things are true because I think they are true.

God gave my friends and I religion of Professional Football where we find God in an oval shaped ball made of pigskin. Pizza, beer and a 60 inch plasma TV are the primary means of worship which we do on Sunday afternoons during the fall and sometimes on Monday night. God made this religion true to my group of friends who practice this religion. This is the way God wants us to worship him.

Anyone can claim such nonsense.

-Tim-

Roger Godell was elected pope but there arose an anti-Christ in Stan Kroenke who deceived the people of St. Louis about their God who they gladly gave their money to build a new temple to worship in. The people of St. Louis are now like the Jews who are awaiting a savior to bring back good times and restore order.