What if......?

[LilyM]

So, you believe all other religions are wrong. You believe that God exclusively reigns through Catholicism. That means He’s selected one billion people out of over six billion on Earth to be saved, provided they do all things Catholic, correctly. WHAT IF that’s wrong? WHAT IF God is above such sectarianism, and is truly universal, in the broadest sense?
WHAT IF when you stand before God at your judgment, you see standing next to Him the best representatives of *all *religions?

As far as I know we don’t believe that God reigns exclusively through Catholicism - He revealed Himself to Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses first, after all. We acknowledge His covenant with the Jews as well as the validity of the Orthodox priesthood and sacraments.

Nor do we believe that one is saved merely by doing all things Catholic correctly - Catholics are just as likely to be damned as much as anyone else regardless of their physical acts. One is saved firstly by God’s grace and by loving Him. The ‘doings’ are aids towards obtaining His grace and fostering our own love of Him, or else they are results that are prompted by that grace and love after it is received and cultivated.

And I will not be a bit upset if I see the best representatives of all religions standing before Him - for there will surely be many of our Catholic saints among them! I’ll feel right at home in fact.

 

[Pater_Familias]

Well I don’t agree with this statement. Although each might a personal truth or that which is true for him. There is only one objective truth and that is the truth by the Catholic Church. To the extents that other beliefs hold some grain of truth that is due to the grace flowing from Mother Church. To hold otherwise seems might close to heresy.

As to the whole judgement day scenario how can I put this in a political correct and ecumenical fashion? God will be there and not only will he be christian ,but Catholic as well

Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all ways of having a relationship with God on terms a human can understand. God cannot be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish.

Buddism does not have the same structure of an afterlife as the monotheistic faiths.

In other words, the question is flawed from the start.

God does not have a religion, as a religion is a way for man to relate to God.

If there is no God, who cares? There will be no Ralph to find out.

 

[GraceDK]

…when you die and stand before Judgment, you discover God is Muslim? Jewish? Hindu? Buddhist? Non-existent?

What if?

God is none of these… I can assure you of that. He is not even Catholic. God is God: Father Son and Holy Spirit.
If you die and there is nothing then that’s sad but you wont care.
If you die and God is there, and you believed in the wrong religion, then thats sad because you have lived in so many misunderstandings and sins.
If you meet God and he is not Christ then you can say: I lived according to the highest most sublime revelation… and even if it was not actually divine, the idea was, nevertheless, because the story about Jesus is so sublime I was sure it came from You, God. And in living according to Christ I lived in the fullness of life with Love as my goal and motive.

However… all this is speculation. Because God is He who said He is: “I am the Lord your God who set you free from slavery … I AM” Christ is the true God. Halleluja

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If that’s true, how does religious observance in small details matter to one’s salvation? If there’s any chance at all that God is non-denominational in the broadest sense, then why bother with the microscopic aspects of any particular kind of religious worship? For example, we Catholics make a big deal of Lent. How important could Lent be, however, if God isn’t even solidly Christian?

That presumes salvation is in doubt. We create the God we need more or less. God is a tad bigger than our narrow needs. Our religiousity is our way of engaging our creator. There is nothing wrong with such practices, and I engage in a great number of them. But I don’t get confused that God turns his back on the Muslim or the the Hindu because they aren’t Christian. We are a creative creature, so we naturally tend to ritualize our beliefs in ways that help us touch the trancendental. God is God, and when we give him human attributes of anger, and especially punishment and retribution, we are I think veering far off the path. God creates good, doesn’t make mistakes, doesn’t give up and start over, and doesn’t in my estimation ask people of wildly different cultures to convert to foreign religions because he likes one better than the others. Just my take of course.

By the way, we Episcopalians also make a big deal of Lent. We will continue to do so. Jesus was and is God, and we have much to repent in that we so fail to take on Christ in our daily lives as we should.

 

[ralphinal]

Well I don’t agree with this statement. Although each might a personal truth or that which is true for him. There is only one objective truth and that is the truth by the Catholic Church. To the extents that other beliefs hold some grain of truth that is due to the grace flowing from Mother Church. To hold otherwise seems might close to heresy.

As to the whole judgement day scenario how can I put this in a political correct and ecumenical fashion? God will be there and not only will he be christian ,but Catholic as well

Not exactly what I am saying. The Catholic Church contains all the Truth that can be understood on earth by humans. God is beyond that. Those who end up in heaven will know all the Truth not limited by Human limitations.

It only works one direction. God is God. The Fullness of His revelation to man is the Catholic CHurch. God, however, is more than a human can grasp. If you say that EVERYTHING that God is is contained in the Church, you have limited God.

 

[GodIsGracious]

First of all… the answers coming from everyone is rather interesting especially when you look at what the responsee’s religion is.

Secondly, there is no what if. This question isn’t even possible to speculate on.

 

[Lapell]

…when you die and stand before Judgment, you discover God is Muslim? Jewish? Hindu? Buddhist? Non-existent?

What if?

Neither. God is God. That is it! Non-existent? Quite a fantasy, even though so many seem to have come to believe it…

 

[Lapell]

You could as well ask: Is God American? Russian? French? Irish? Arab? Hebrew? Chinese? Congolese? Rwandese? Native American (“Amerindian”)? Zulu?.. That’s a human way of thinking, to limit Him to a Nation or a country, He who created all that exists!

 

[peacefulwarrior]

I would say, “I Knew it, i’m never right about this stuff.” (if god had no denomination).
I would say, “Finally, i’m finally right about something like this, it” (if he did have a denomination."

Though, I will aways say, “Well, okay big cheese, how did I do in life?” (I wanted to call God big cheese, ever since I was a little child)

If there were no God I would say, “House was right again… Kaaannnhhhh!!!”

 

[Lapell]

I’m a practicing Roman Catholic and, as such, it would be a betrayal of my faith to assume that any religion encompasses all that is God. The Church doesn’t encompass God. Rather, God encompasses the Church.

You put it very well!

 

[JonNC]

So, you’re saying it doesn’t have to be objectively true. It’s something you find pleasing, and that’s good enough. Couldn’t that be viewed as entirely self-serving, possibly even delusional (no offense)?

Now wait. You asked a hypothetical question. What if…? I gave a completely hypothetical answer. What if…? This is what…!

There is no doubt in my mind that it is objectively true that Jesus the Christ is the Son of the living God, whose death and resurrection made our salvation possible.
If you want a non-hypothetical answer, I’ll endorse Ralphinal and Cluny. Otherwise, accept my answer for what it is. Hypothetically speaking.

Jon

 

[KingAlfred]

Did you not understand my previous post? I said that I do not think any one religion, including the Roman Catholic Church, encompasses God, but that God encompasses the Church. Now, before I can proceed with answers to your questions I have a few questions of my own. What do you mean by “all other religions are wrong?” What do you mean by “God exclusively reigns through Catholicisism?” What do you mean by “do all things Catholic correctly?” What do you mean by “truly universal, in the broadest sense?” I think the terms you are using are unclear and open to a variety of interpretations, so really, I’m not sure what you are asking me. Indeed, I’m not sure you are sure what you are asking me, and I have a sneaky suspicion that you’re not really interested in the answer, either. You seem to already have an expectation of what I may say. You seem to be trying to make a point with your questions, so please, as plainly as you can, what is your point?

WHAT IF God is not as we perceive Him? WHAT IF God is a universal God, one who has been communicating with Man in many ways, not just through Catholicism? I think that’s a clearly stated question. I believe the more deeply we dig ourselves into denominational, sectarian ‘trenches’, the more we project ourselves onto God, and make Him a reflection of ourselves.

 

[KingAlfred]

As far as I know we don’t believe that God reigns exclusively through Catholicism - He revealed Himself to Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses first, after all. We acknowledge His covenant with the Jews as well as the validity of the Orthodox priesthood and sacraments.

Nor do we believe that one is saved merely by doing all things Catholic correctly - Catholics are just as likely to be damned as much as anyone else regardless of their physical acts. One is saved firstly by God’s grace and by loving Him. The ‘doings’ are aids towards obtaining His grace and fostering our own love of Him, or else they are results that are prompted by that grace and love after it is received and cultivated.

And I will not be a bit upset if I see the best representatives of all religions standing before Him - for there will surely be many of our Catholic saints among them! I’ll feel right at home in fact.

But what if you discover that many of the things you were taught to do, to believe, for your salvation, during your lifetime, were unnecessary, in light of the fact that God transcends such human conventions? For example, why is it that when we execute our rituals, they are superior to those performed by Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc., etc.? If you say, 'Well, they’re not", then how necessary are they, in the first place, when God considers any and all of them legitimate? What makes ours sacred? Why are they necessary, if not ordered by God, if everything is relative in the end?

 

[KingAlfred]

Now wait. You asked a hypothetical question. What if…? I gave a completely hypothetical answer. What if…? This is what…!

There is no doubt in my mind that it is objectively true that Jesus the Christ is the Son of the living God, whose death and resurrection made our salvation possible.
If you want a non-hypothetical answer, I’ll endorse Ralphinal and Cluny. Otherwise, accept my answer for what it is. Hypothetically speaking.

Jon

So, Jon, roughly 70% of humanity (the non-Christian world) is dead-wrong about religion, even though much of it has practiced its own versions of religion beginning long before the appearance of Christianity? To me, that doesn’t seem likely. What does that say about God – that He wants to communicate with only 30% of his human creatures?

 

[SSTeacher]

WHAT IF God is not as we perceive Him? WHAT IF God is a universal God, one who has been communicating with Man in many ways, not just through Catholicism? I think that’s a clearly stated question. I believe the more deeply we dig ourselves into denominational, sectarian ‘trenches’, the more we project ourselves onto God, and make Him a reflection of ourselves.

I think you make a good point, here. It’s easy to project ourselves onto God and I daresay a lot of people do it at one time or another. I think it occurs when people fall into the trap of embracing the sort of religious stance that insists upon conformity but sneers at tolerance and compassion. I encountered a lot of this behavior in the Evangelical world, which unfortunately seems to breed a fair number of religionists of this genre.

My younger son, Joe, had an illuminating encounter with some religionists not long after he became a Bible–believing Christian. He’d gone to visit somebody in hospital when he encountered a trio of granite–faced females who were stealthily prowling the hospital corridors with catlike tread indulging in the sort of condemnation that religious people thrive on. One of them stood squarely in Joey’s path and pointedly announced:

If you were to die tonight, do you know that you would go to heaven?

Joe affirmed he did know that he would go to heaven but to no avail. Listening wasn’t on her agenda and she just launched into her memorized tirade of sundry threats and condemnation. Eventually, Joey was able to get away from her and get on with his visit.

What’s with people like that? Answer: Religion.

Religious people are bad news. Religious people have complete certainty about their own righteousness, which frees up their time and allows them to concentrate on the wrongs of others.

Religious people aren’t particularly interested in influencing others but they’re extremely interested in gaining power through the legislature and implementing their agenda by statute.

Religious people dismiss compassion as a sign of weakness and invariably choose condemnation rather than mercy.

Religious people are joyless and unkind and because of that they probably account for much of the anti–God sentiment that is often heard, these days.

Paradoxically, it’s the religious people who are usually first to condemn those who express such sentiment.

Religious people actually enjoy judging their neighbors. It may even be true to say that the main reason people steer clear of churches in this country (Yooessovay) is because of the religious people.

In short, religious people give religion a bad name.

Sadly,
Mick
:sad_bye:

 

[gcnuss]

So…you’d ask God to forgive you for being wrong? Interesting.

I don’t think I’d be asking him to forgive me for being right.

 

[Tsuwano]

WHAT IF God is not as we perceive Him? WHAT IF God is a universal God, one who has been communicating with Man in many ways, not just through Catholicism? I think that’s a clearly stated question. I believe the more deeply we dig ourselves into denominational, sectarian ‘trenches’, the more we project ourselves onto God, and make Him a reflection of ourselves.

But what do you mean by what if? God is not as we perceive him. Any sincere person of religion, especially one who is most devout, will readily admit to that. This doesn’t mean that our perceptions of God are false, but the Church has always said that our perceptions are incomplete. That is one reason we refer to ourselves as “a pilgrim Church.” And though we proclaim that God’s revelation of himself is complete in the person and experience of Jesus Christ, we do not claim to fully comprehend that revelation. That is why the Church constantly refers to God’s presence among us in terms of mystery. As to your second question, again, the Church has always proclaimed that God is a universal God and has communicated with humanity in many ways, and certainly not through the Catholic Church alone. After all, we admit to and believe in God’s revelation of himself to the Jewish people. We also believe that God is present to those who do not share the Christian faith, and missionaries will often tell you that the missionary experience is about discovering the presence of God as he is already present in a culture and not simply a matter of bringing preconceived notions of God as present in one culture to overlay it atop another. I agree that we often focus on our own particular denomination and tend to see God through the prism of our own culture, and though the truth we know of God through our own denomination or culture is not false, neither does one culture fully capture God’s presence among his creation and neither can we claim our understanding of God’s revelation through our own denomination is full and clear.

 

[Tsuwano]

I think you make a good point, here. It’s easy to project ourselves onto God and I daresay a lot of people do it at one time or another. I think it occurs when people fall into the trap of embracing the sort of religious stance that insists upon conformity but sneers at tolerance and compassion. I encountered a lot of this behavior in the Evangelical world, which unfortunately seems to breed a fair number of religionists of this genre.

My younger son, Joe, had an illuminating encounter with some religionists not long after he became a Bible–believing Christian. He’d gone to visit somebody in hospital when he encountered a trio of granite–faced females who were stealthily prowling the hospital corridors with catlike tread indulging in the sort of condemnation that religious people thrive on. One of them stood squarely in Joey’s path and pointedly announced:

If you were to die tonight, do you know that you would go to heaven?

Joe affirmed he did know that he would go to heaven but to no avail. Listening wasn’t on her agenda and she just launched into her memorized tirade of sundry threats and condemnation. Eventually, Joey was able to get away from her and get on with his visit.

What’s with people like that? Answer: Religion.

Religious people are bad news. Religious people have complete certainty about their own righteousness, which frees up their time and allows them to concentrate on the wrongs of others.

Religious people aren’t particularly interested in influencing others but they’re extremely interested in gaining power through the legislature and implementing their agenda by statute.

Religious people dismiss compassion as a sign of weakness and invariably choose condemnation rather than mercy.

Religious people are joyless and unkind and because of that they probably account for much of the anti–God sentiment that is often heard, these days.

Paradoxically, it’s the religious people who are usually first to condemn those who express such sentiment.

Religious people actually enjoy judging their neighbors. It may even be true to say that the main reason people steer clear of churches in this country (Yooessovay) is because of the religious people.

In short, religious people give religion a bad name.

Sadly,
Mick
:sad_bye:

I agree with much of what you’ve posted, but I would note that where you use the term “religious” I would use the term “ideological.” Religion, when perceived as an ideology, is false because it sees nothing beyond its own experience. Ironically, those who are most religious, Mother Theresa, for instance, or St. Joseph Frienademetz or St. Daniel Comboni, are seldom ideological and admit that the more they come to know God, the more they realize how little they know of him. Religious people don’t give religion a bad name, ideologues do.

 

[Tsuwano]

But what if you discover that many of the things you were taught to do, to believe, for your salvation, during your lifetime, were unnecessary, in light of the fact that God transcends such human conventions? For example, why is it that when we execute our rituals, they are superior to those performed by Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc., etc.? If you say, 'Well, they’re not", then how necessary are they, in the first place, when God considers any and all of them legitimate? What makes ours sacred? Why are they necessary, if not ordered by God, if everything is relative in the end?

Writing from a Christian, or Roman Catholic, perspective, we do believe some of our rituals, the liturgy and the eucharist for instance, are uniquely different from other religious rituals because we believe that through them we are actually participating in God’s revelation of himself to all of humanity. This is not to say however, that other religious rituals are not holy or should not be recognized as such. We believe that the search for the sacred is in itself a holy and grace induced activity. We acknowledge the presence of God among Hindu believers, for example, and though we, as Christians, do not believe the religious experience of the Hindu captures the full essence of what God wishes to communicate to humanity, we do recognize the holiness and righteousness of the endeavor to discover, communicate with and serve God as he is found. I think the question you are really asking is how is it that Jesus, according to Christians, is necessary for salvation. What makes Jesus, and by extension his Church, unique for the salvation of the world?

 

[ralphinal]

WHAT IF God is not as we perceive Him? WHAT IF God is a universal God, one who has been communicating with Man in many ways, not just through Catholicism? I think that’s a clearly stated question. I believe the more deeply we dig ourselves into denominational, sectarian ‘trenches’, the more we project ourselves onto God, and make Him a reflection of ourselves.

The problem with the idea that God has communicated with man in forms other than what we see in the Bible (Judaism to Catholicism) is that it creates a situation where God gave contradictory information to man. Also, if this God did not know that these ideas would come in contact with another, you get a God who is not omniscient. If he did know, then he created a situation that would lead to conflict, and in some, loss of faith in him.

All are major issues with that position.

If your position is that there are varying levels of truth in all faiths, you are correct. That does not mean that all faiths are Divinely inspired.