There are many, many ways to God. In fact, there are as many ways as there are people. Knowing my readers, that will be read two ways, and both will be happy. One camp will read that God is Jesus and that there are many ways to Jesus, and the other camp will read that all religions are the same script different cast, and they all bring us to the same place. I want to talk about the latter. I just can't seem to make sense of it, but a lot of people believe it.
I guess the idea that all religions are the same is based on certain assumptions. The base assumption has got to be that we are as we are meant to be, in that, nothing is wrong. Even though there is evil in the world, for some reason this is how it is meant to be. That we live and then die, and that there's some afterlife; that there's an intentional haze between God and man, as opposed to one as a result of something going wrong; that your life is what you make of it, in that, you can make choices toward or away from "god" and evil/negativity is a purposed obstacle to perfection or enlightenment.
With those assumptions, I guess it makes sense, then, that everything is ok, and every one is on their own journey. Some find God through the ways of Buddhism, some through Hinduism, some through Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Voodoo, Hedonism, Satanism, and even Atheism (maybe the assumption is that God is the enlightenment).
But, assuming the presence of evil is good (per se), what about God? This way of thinking also seems to imply that God isn't, or that God is merely an idea, that human perfection or enlightenment is the goal, that it's about us. I only say that because all the different "paths" have a different concept of who or what God is, and saying that all these paths lead to him/it cannot possibly be true. They all go different places. They all have different philosophies, different objects, different obstacles that must be overcome, different levels of enlightenment, a different goal or afterlife. Yes, there is room for perception (and by that I mean, if many different people look at a piece of art, it will mean something different to each of them), but there also must be room for truth (by that I mean, it is a painting, it is oil based, it is red blue and green, it isn't a portrait, it isn't in a frame, it is on a white canvas, etc).
There are certain truths about you, no matter how wrong the perceptions of you are (ha, I know this full well!). And if God is a being (like we are beings), there are certain truths about "him". The Atheists say he isn't there, the Hedonists say it's us, the Hindus say there are thousands of them, the Buddhists say the existence of God "tends not to edification", the Jews' and Muslims' monotheistic God says different things to each group, and the Christian God is the one who came in search of man. How is it possible for all of these religions or thought-methods to be leading to the same place?
I think that what is essentially being said by these people is "we don't know", and that is absolutely valid. It's a way of saving face, and it's precious. However, it's better to admit not knowing something, than to insist knowing something you don't. This is also a way of combating the arrogance of one-wayers. To them, the concept of there being one way is offensive, exclusive, and downright rude. However, perception isn't the only way of looking at God, there must be room for truth too.
There must be right people, and there must be wrong people. And within that giant spectrum, there must be those who are somewhat right, and those who are closer to wrong. How to know? How to know but to keep searching, but to keep questioning your own beliefs? How to know but to keep journeying? How to know but to keep an open mind, and especially an open heart? The truth must eventually be seen ... at least that's what I think. :)
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
An excerpt from that link I sent you earlier (my bishop meditating on this issue...)
"You see, it sounds like you are agreeing with me -- that those who could not accept that gospel, those who we might say never really heard the gospel, and those who today for whatever reason on account of our all too fallible human ambassadors of the gospel do not accept Christ -- we would not want to say that God consigns them to an eternity of damnation.
If there is a possibility for those people because they have not had the gospel preached to them and proclaimed to them the way that our Lord would have us do it -- if there is still hope for those people, then you cannot also maintain the argument that there is no salvation outside faith in Christ.
You have already extended your understanding of the grace of God to include people's own qualities of righteousness and goodness and their desire to know and serve God in whatever way that's available to them. And I think once people begin to think through those issues, they will see -- as many people do today -- that they cannot hold on to those old exclusivisms -- they simply do not stand up to reasoned discussion....
...Because everything we know about God from the witness of Jesus, from the witness of Scripture, is that God has created all human beings in his own image. That God loves all human beings, enough to send his son and that the grace of God is not confined to those who confess faith in Christ alone.....
...A God who created all humanity out of love and then offered redemption only to a few of them, would not be a loving father. He would be an abusive father. And the difficulty with the exclusivist position, as I have tried to show in the book, is that in fact it leads us to a god who is too small, a god who is in fact abusive and cruel and not the God of Jesus Christ...
...What I believe we see in our Lord Jesus Christ is a God whose grace is boundless, whose love is unconditional, whose mercy is everlasting, and whose invitation to worship and adore him cannot be confined by human terms and conditions."
Post a Comment