different faiths all lead to god?

Post Reply New Topic

you know looking back i think that ALL faiths lead to the same god, they just have different missions. for example buddism you learn meekness and something else, i admit im not an expert on alot of the worlds religions but this seems to make alot of sence.
islam you learn submission, christianity you learn forgiveness and so on and so forth

thoughts?

I've heard this before. I'm not sure that the virtues of different religions are always so compatible.

If you mean that god is non-existant and an all religions teach you to worship a hollow idea, then you might be right.












P.S. You should post the avie you had on I² Richard!!

Insipid atheist remark in 2. You guys are slipping.

Christianity teaches meekness too. As does Judaism. And the Tao. And Christianity most definitely teaches submission, it's not a concept new to Islam.

But religions are fundamentally opposed to each other at their core.

Christians say Jesus was the Messiah, the foretold savior of mankind. Jews say he wasn't. Muslims say he was just a prophet, and New Agers say he was a guru. Buddhists say there is no God, or God is a force, Hindus and Mormons say there are many gods. Jews, Christians and Muslims assert there is only one. Christians and Muslims believe in an afterlife when you die, Hindus and Buddhists believe you get reborn and have to do it all over again.

It's difficult to see how any God could create a multitude of conflicting religions with the intent that they all lead to Him. They can't all be right.

Meaning that it's more likely to believe that either (a) none of them is right, or (b) one of them is, but if one is, the others can't be.

Which is consistent with Christianity's teachings. Jesus said, "I am the Way [not just "a way" or "the way-shower"]... no man comes to the Father except through me." And no other religion - no other man - makes that claim.

Last edited by JonnyBGoode on 19 Aug 2007, 11:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

Stop bashing the atheists dammit.
I'm so sick of all you Christians ganging up on us.

show me a christian that prays three times a day. twords mecca. thats submission brah and i know that religions share most of the same values, im just saying that every religion has there center theme on what its all about.

my idea makes more sence. every religion leads back to god, there just different interpetations of god.

To me, that's not submission. That's slavery.

Or even worse: rank hypocrisy.

And shows just another way where Christianity and Islam are incompatible. Jesus taught us not to do our prayers for public show, but to pray privately, for it was a conversation just between ourselves and God. And I can show you a great many Christians who pray not three times a day, but constantly throughout the day, in submission to their God. But you'd never know it because they don't go do elaborate footwashing ceremonies and lay down a mat and shout out their prayers to be heard by all.


Seems strange to me.

Of course, if God were an amorphous blob of power out there like "the Force," he (it?) wouldn't care. So think of him (it) what you will.

But if there really is a personal God who is personally interested in his children on Earth... do you really think he's happy with all the people who do teach he's just an amorphous blob of power? I know I wouldn't be too happy if people went around telling others that I was something or someone I wasn't. (And they have... and I've sued... so I know...)

well, i dont think most muslims would consider praying slavery. see this is just my point. different religions have different lessons to learn/

personally i think its rad they pray three times a day like that,

"You cant believe everything you read" doesn't necessarily mean "Don't believe everything you read."

Not believing everything you read is a good policy. You must make everything you reead prove it's point with proper evidence and refrences. The bible is self-refrencing therefore unverifyable.

That's not true at all. The Bible is hardly self-referencing. The Bible is a historical document, recording historical things in a historical framework. Most of those events have been shown by archaeology to have occurred the way the Bible relates. (I'm not talking about the pre-Abrahamic stuff, there's a lot more to the Bible than that.)

I will concede your point, to a point, however. The Bible itself says not to believe everything you hear/read but to put them to the test. It's not a book that lives in it's own fantasyland.

PS. It might do you good to spellcheck once in a while.

Well I suppose it doesn't do any good to argue philosophy or religion with people who don't actually have anything more to offer than half-witty quips.

the whole purpose of this thread wasnt to gang up on one pirticular religion, but to have an open discusion on what we think the religions of the world play in the path to god. thanks

Well, that was my point and attempt.

More like Christians are bending science to mold it into their already pre-determined views. Noah's Arc? Do you know how many religions claimed reference to that EXACT same thing? Lets see, there are the vikings, the native Americans, the pagans, hell a plethora of religions throughout time. The arc is no more or less proof of Christianity than it is of any of those other beliefs.

First of all, it's ARK, not ARC. If you're going to pretend to be an intelligent atheist, please at least learn to spell correctly.

Secondly, I did say - and I quote - "I'm not talking about the pre-Abrahamic stuff, there's a lot more to the Bible than that." Now if you know your Bible worth a salt, and it's obvious you don't, you'd know the whole Ark thing was included in "pre-Abrahamic stuff."

Third, to me it seems far more reasonable that if every culture on the planet has a myth about a great flood, it's far more likely to be based on some truth and have an original source, than be utterly made up wholecloth.

Fourth, I wasn't postulating the Ark as any sort of proof. You're the one that brought it up as a straw man and postulated it as a proof of Christianity. Which it is most decidedly not.

Fifth, I'd like to point out that the OP just posted that his "whole purpose of this thread wasnt to gang up on one particular religion." Or did you just blissfully ignore that in your obvious new attempt at bashing. Please at least try to pay attention.