Do all religions claim they are "the only" way to God?

[TRYPHO]

I was just looking at a list of the major religions of this planet and wondered (since I haven't a clue):
1. Do they all say "pray to this God or go to hell" or do any offer salvation to non-believers too (apart from the one which I know does).
2. Do all these religions have one known human leader at the helm?
3. Are they all divided into sparring fractions like Christianity is?
4. Do the "leaders" of a religion update it, make "modernisations" etc, or are they of the "our religion is perfect and cannot be changed" variety?
--
I am wonderring if all these religions are more or less the same underneath, or whether they can be categorised into groups by similar features - namely requirement-of-belief/leadership/fallibility or mutatability. Perhaps some of you have insight in to the best aspects of these other faith systems too? Perhaps a religion could be "designed" to suit all men for a change? Or some flaw could be removed from an otherwise good religion?

TRYPHO

[Kutjara]

1. There are 8,000 paths to the Buddah.

Everyone finds their own way and one person's route is no better or worse than another's.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. pretty much. You will go to Hell unless you follow me!

[hwmnbn]

4. OK, illinoisprogressive......

I'm right behind you all the way!!

[TRYPHO]

8. Works for 2.1 Billion People so far!

Not as catchy as "8000 ways to Buddha" but "follow me or go to hell" seems the current number 1 system, so just tell me where to send the $$$ and what the bumper sticker should say and I'm all yours!

TRYPHO

[ikojo]

3. Judaism says that all have a share in the world

to come. Judaism is right for Jews but non Jews are only required to adhere to the Seven Laws of Noah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righteous_Gentile

The Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: שבע מצוות בני נח, Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach), often referred to as Noahide Laws are a list of seven moral imperatives which, according to the Jewish Bible,<1> were given by God to Noah as a binding set of laws for all mankind. According to Judaism any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as a Righteous Gentile and furthermore only through abiding by these laws can a non-Jew reach the world to come<2>. Adherents are often called B'nei Noah (Children of Noah) or Noahides and may often network in Jewish synagogues.

[Meshuga]

23. Noachide Laws

Which are the laws that makes a non-Jew a righteous person according to Judaism. The seven laws listed by the Talmud are:

Idolatry - You shall not make for yourself an idol for worship.
Murder - You shall not murder.
Theft - You shall not steal.
Sexual Promiscuity - You shall not commit adultery.
Blasphemy - You shall not blaspheme.
Cruelty to Animals - Do not eat the flesh of a living animal.
Government - You shall set up an effective government to police the preceding six laws

[Bragi]

46. Hmmm...

I don't care much one way or the other about idolatry, sexual promiscuity or blasphemy.

Not eating the flesh of a living animal seems more like a sensible culinary principle than an ethical law.

I'm good with the prohibitions on murder and theft, and with having a governemnt to police these two laws.

- B

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Not Buddhism.

But most other religions claim they've got the real truth and everybody else is going to hell, or some equivalent.

[gater]

6. It depends on who taught you the religion.

I was a Roman Catholic child in the 60's, and had rather, shall we say, radical nuns and priests teach my religious ed classes, and they never said that ours was the only path to Heaven, pretty much the opposite. Grew up in a college town and went to St. Mary's or the college chapel.

[TRYPHO]

12. How were they radical?

gater wrote: radical nuns and priests teach my religious ed classes, and they never said that ours was the only path to Heaven, pretty much the opposite

Were they radical because they were going against Church canon, or because they taught you that and not the usual dogma? And are your views based on their errant teaching or have you gone back in to the fold?

OR, repeat.................OR.............are you saying that there is a version of Christianity that actually has open doors to those that don't accept Jesus as the living God, the Word of God and the Son of God, etc?

Just wonderring.

TRYPHO

[JerseygirlCT]

25. I can't tell you how many of my family and friends share that

opinion -- including me. So there was definitely something in the RCC of the 60s and early 70s that was open and inclusive!

[SacredCow]

7. "Religion" is a construct of humankind....

and therefore is flawed from the beginning.

[TRYPHO]

9. So help construct a better model religion then!

And see what we think!

1. Everyone goes to heaven, whatever.
2. Try and be kind.
3. Try and humble.
4. Try and modest.

How's that, for the Temple of Trypho?

TRYPHO

[More Than A Feeling]

19. You forgot 5. Know thyself.

6. No demands for proselytization. Be comfortable enough with your faith that you don't have to tell enyone who doesn't want to hear about it.

and

7. Have a solid knowledge about at least one other religion not your own.

[timtom]

10. Admit it, Sacred Cow!

Did you choose your DU moniker just hoping a thread like this would come along?

[IntravenousDemilo]

11. Yes, they all do, at least the monotheistic ones. Not that it makes any difference, since "god",

being non-existent, is irrelevant. Thus their claim is true (and also irrelevant) -- they might as well be the only way to "god". Now, when they claim they're the only way to morality, that is a vile and unsubstantiated lie, since "god" and morality have nothing to do with each other. The nicest, most ethical, most compassionate people I know are pretty well all of them non-believers.

[rosesaylavee]

13. Unitarian Universalism

1. No to part one and yes to part two.
2. Not really. UUs call ministers to lead much like congregationalists. There is elected leadership on the national level. The individual congregations pretty much call the shots for how they function and worship.
3. No. There are the occasional heated discussions (much like DU)about personal beliefs but nothing that would divide the movement or cause permanent damage.
4. Depends on the congregations. Some congregations have longstanding proud traditions and others tread boldly where no congregations have gone before.

I grew up Roman Catholic. This is my adopted faith so I am a bit more than a little partial to it. More info here: http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/uufaq.html

I would bet that there are many liberal religious on this forum - many are UUs.

[TRYPHO]

14. Thank you for the link - fascinating.

To be honest, if I was looking for a religion that would seem exceedingly attractive as it appears wonderfully "open" to all. Furthermore, from my studies of early Christianity, I have to say that it seems to go back to pre-presbyter days, when the battle between bishoprics offering an organised structural religion won out over the internal personal version of the religion (it was destined to be that way, but thats another discussion entrirely).

Anyway, thanks for the link. You appear to have a really friendly and open religion.

TRYPHO

[rosesaylavee]

22. Thanks.

I like it a lot. BTW, bit a trivia here about early Christians. One of the 'first' Unitarians lost the argument (and his life) when he spoke out against the Trinity or Trinitarianism. He didn't think it had a basis in the religious writings of the time.

[ikojo]

26. I don't know if it's true now but at one time

many UUs were Jew-Jews...at a time when being a Christian was a requirement for employment in some professions some Jews would join a UU church. That way they could say they were Christian without really having to do the Christ thing. There's a UU church in the city of St Louis and quite a few of the names on the name tags are of Jewish origin.

[rosesaylavee]

31. May very well be.

It is a big tent religion. Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Gays, Straights, Lesbians, Earth faiths, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, Theists, etc. ... all are welcome and diversity is celebrated.

It works for me.

[Zhade]

33. Gotta take exception with the UU creed, much as I don't wish to.

It gets a major thing wrong - namely, it calls atheism a religion, which (as it's a LACK of religion) is obviously flat-out wrong.

I'd thought about attending a UU church strictly to join the choir - music (along with my other creative pursuits) is as close to 'religion' as I'll ever get - but learning that pretty much nailed the coffin shut on the idea.

[rosesaylavee]

36. Link?

Where is it referred to as a religion? I think of it pretty much as a belief.

[KenHodson]

57. Huh? UU has no creed. Zip, Zero, Nada.

You only wrote 2 sentences. How did you make errors in both of them? Unitarian Universalists, citing the Universalist portion, believe a creed is not necessary for salvation (historically), or that a creed is not necessary for being a good person (contemporarily).
Next, break down the word atheism. A = not, Theism = belief in God. An atheist would have a "belief" that God does not exist. But since the term "atheism" cannot reside in a creed that doesn't exist... what the hell are you talking about?!?
Are you sure you went where you think you went?

[TRYPHO]

58. Welcome to DU

KenHodson wrote:

You only wrote 2 sentences. How did you make errors in both of them?

Always expect everyone to be wrong. The trick is to make your point in the "helpful" style of suggestion rather than the "aggressive" style of correction. On the other hand I like nothing more than a good fight, so keep with the passion, just don't turn it into a rapture :-)

Welcome to DU Ken :hi:

TRYPHO

[KenHodson]

63. You are correct. I'd like to offer an apology to Zhade.

I would also like to add this: I am not an atheist, but have enormous admiration for atheists that belong to any UU (or other) congregation. While these atheists have dismissed any notion of the mystical, they value living a noble life and seek community with same. That is awesome to me.
I am not sure I would behave the same. I may just become a hedonist. I have taken cursory peeks into this idea, the path of turning atheism into spiritualty. Penn Jillette, as I understand, has written something... maybe... Sam Harris turns me off, as he seems angry.
Maybe I could prosper as an atheist, (actually I like the sound of the word "absurdism" - Camus, et al - better). Does this ring familiar with anyone out there? Anyone???

[TRYPHO]

65. God = Good; No God = Bad; False assumption 101

Of course God-fearers are not "good" people, though they aught to be if they followed what they believed. But humans aren't like that. Likewise the freedoms associated with the atheism-concept does not lead them all to the hedonistic end of the spectrum, and although many find the "god concept" unacceptable, they still understand the benefits of communal existence in an ordered environment.

Humans are not good at following instructions, or behaviour patterns, but the "groups" they cluster in to do appear to want to be "seen" as holier than thou.

What I think God* needs is lessons in group psyche and man management.

TRYPHO
* - by which I mean religion

[BlueJazz]

15. I think all the above posters are going to hell.

[TRYPHO]

17. What about below, and slightly to the right?

Do you take tablets for that conviction?

TRYPHO

[BlueJazz]

18. Why do you bring up the 10 commandments?

[TRYPHO]

20. one or two, or even three tablets?

special offer, 3 for the price of 2 if you are quick, offer must close soon.

15 commandments for the price of 10.

Two free chlorpromazine tabs with each tablet. Largactil if you like.

TRYPHO

[patrice]

16. Catholics didn't used to teach that.

I specifically recall we students investigating this question in Catechism classes in high school. Teachers' answers, even for Jews, was anyone who tried their best to live the way s/he should could be Saved.

[TRYPHO]

27. From the Catechism...

ARTICLE 2 - THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

74 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth":<29> that is, of Christ Jesus.<30> Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth

--
Seems straightforward talk to me. Know the truth - that is Christ Jesus. To the ends of the Earth.

Since I don't "know" Jesus, and since about 4 billion people are with me on that, we appear to be outside of the Catholic Catechism. Also, if you've ever read about the early church, one of the big tussles was how to supercede the Jewish scriptures, which Irenaeus so cleverly did by the following formula:

God = The Word = Jesus Christ

Irenaeus declares (this is a quote from "Beyond Belief" by Elaine Pagels page153)

"the Jews have departed from God, since they have not recieved the word, but they imagined that they could know the Father....without the word, being ignorant of the God who spoke in human form to Abraham and then to Moses"

Irenaeus declares that God disinherited the Jews and stripped them of their right to be his priests. Although they continue to worship, God rejects their offerings as he rejected Cain's, since, just as Cain killed Abel, so the Jews "killed the Just One", Jesus, so that "their hands are full of blood".
Thus the Jews worship in vain...

and so it goes on.

Nice. Clever. False. But got the job done of tarnishing the Jews with the belief that they had some power to influence a Roman overeseer, and that now Jews (and other heretics) can't enjoy heaven.

Thats the way I read it anyway.

TRYPHO

[patrice]

30. Right, it IS the way one reads it.

i.e. Words are not the same thing as that to which they refer.

I suspect our definitions of know and Jesus differ somewhat.

[TRYPHO]

38. Historically the CHURCH says otherwise...

I am well read on early Christianity, when things were very different. At that time Jesus was the only way to God, as it conditioned the correct ethos for the new faith. It rejects Judaism, demands adherence or hell, and confirms acceptance in the bishop system, which was very important as opposing Christian sects were suggesting direct-to-God options.

I accept that the people running the Church these days may have a softer front to other religions, but the original intent was otherwise, and the original works confirm this.

I aint bitter though! I just accept your Christianity is insular or evangelical; hence the original post to some extent.

I would be interested if someone currently active in the Catholic church could let me know if the current Catechism, or the papal doctrine perhaps, assumes not believers are automatically hell-bound. Perhaps the tone has been altered at some point.

TRYPHO

[Dervill Crow]

35. Before I married my husband in 1974 I read book "Christ Among Us."

It said that Catholics should not marry non-Catholics because the non-Catholic would be heading for hell. I sold the book on Half.com a number of years ago, or I could probably find the quote.

Funny thing is, he wasn't really all that religious and was horrified when a few years after we were married I got "born again." He's very happy my spiritual leanings settled down and I'm now just a regular liberal witch.

[TRYPHO]

39. If you are anything like my wife...

I'll be grateful for a few eons peace and quiet once I'm dead.

And she wont ask me for money either.

Sometimes she's a witch too. Spelt with a b.

But I love her. Guarantees me a short purgatory.

TRYPHO

[Dervill Crow]

45. Well, darn I responded to my own post instead of yours.

It's here somewhere if you're interested.

It's early and I'm not adequately caffeinated. :dunce: :argh:

[Dervill Crow]

44. LOL - no, he shut me up right quick.

Early on in my "walk with Jesus," as they call it, I tried to convert my husband, and he said, "I don't need to be born again, I'm Catholic." He made it clear that the old school, mass-in-Latin Catholics just don't go in for all that bible thumping business. The witch thing doesn't seem to bother him; he seems comfortable with candles and incense, and that might be because he was raised Catholic. :)

He must love me, too, because we just celebrated our 33-year wedding anniversary.
:party: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :party:

[TRYPHO]

59. Your husband wasn't a convertible model.

Plenty would rather burn than turn. Perhaps your arguments (at that time) weren't formulated well enough. You need to hit peoples triggers hard to stand a chance.

Originally one of the big fights within Christianity was whether there should be two bapstisms or just one. The first to find Jesus, the second to find God. (sort of). The first group won of course, but only because there was no formula to the second baptism ceremony - it usually involved Dancing, and answerring questions about your faith; but since it was so different between groups the process never really grew in to the canon. And of course the Church leaders then declared it heresy and declared all those that organised such ceremonies were heretics too, and were excommunicated. Sweet.

I wonder if your "walk with Jesus" is a hangover from the second baptism sects?

He must love me, too, because we just celebrated our 33-year wedding anniversary.

Congrats. Impressive to hear these days. On a cruel note I think the very rich and/or the very poor find it a lot easier to divorce than the majority in the middle with just enough to lose to make the process a fight rather than a happy closure. I told a friend I was going to inherit some property and the first thing he said was "well, if you divorce, she'll have half". I couldn't believe it..his comments I mean. Anyway, If I did divorce I'd want her to have half so she could bring up the children (with her sexy young mexican lover, Rodriguez).

She wishes.

Anyway, I'm off for a second baptism of the day,

TRYPHO

[bananas]

21. This thread proves the saying that there are no stupid questions

only stupid answers.

[JerseygirlCT]

24. There is as much variation on those questions as their are

people claiming those major faiths.

Strictly orthodox (small o) Christianity might say that belief in Christ is the only means of salvation... But even there, there are exceptions. Many sects of Christianity don't claim to know God's will or God's plan for people outside of Christianity. Many liberal Christians believe in universal salvation. (Me included).

Other religions are not so focused on "salvation". Jews don't spend a great deal of time on the next world, but on right living in this world, for example.

Many religions do not have a single world leader. Christianity does not, though Roman Catholicism does. Some denominations have a head, some are organized differently, parish by parish. Lots and lots of variety there.

Sparring? I suppose, but not always of the violent type. Disagreement on theology -- probably -- I'd assume so. But many beliefs encompass those differences as part of the belief.

It's really hard to make any hard and fast rule for religions. Although there's a great deal that can be found to connect the world's major religions, there's also almost endless variety -- which makes sense as there are an endless variety of people!

[rox63]

28. I've never met a Quaker that said anything like that

Check them out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends

I've been known to occasionally warm a bench at a Friends Meetinghouse.

[TRYPHO]

29. Seems Quakers were...

a halfway house to Unitarianism. They seem to be a spearhead against Bishop-headed Christianity towards a "personal" agenda with God, which then would develop in to a direct communication and a (potential) for redundancy in "orthodox" thought (ie need for Jesus if the communication is X -> God not X -> J -> God), which UU has become.

Another interesting question then - why don't Quakers and UU's merge? What are their differences?

Apologies if my question is obvious to you, but I can't see much between the two forms of prayer.

TRYPHO

[rosesaylavee]

32. Ha!

Quakers like to sit quietly and commune with their thoughts. UUs like to talk - some say too much!

[TreasonousBastard]

47. The RSOF started out as a reaction to...

the dogmas and religious arguments of the 1600's but we have enough trouble trying to agree within ourselves to merge with anyone else. And church mergers are horrifically expensive and possibly destructive things. Many UUs are still steaming over small differences between Universalism and Unitarianism.

You're right that Quakerism started out as the personal experience of God, much of which brings to mind early Gnosticism, although few Quakers would call themselve Gnostics. Since then it has diverged to several branches-- some of hold to the early silent meetings, no "hireling priests," no doctrine, and often almost no religion, so to speak. A few meetings are even openly hostile to mention of Christ. Others kept the Christocentric basis of the early Quakers, but lost some of the immediacy of the concept of the Light and started things awfully close to doctrinal statements. They even have seminaries and hired clergy.

Informally, there's a lot of interaction between UUs and Quakers where I've been. I am a member of a New Jersey meeting where the wife of a local UU minister attends, and, like many Quakers, I've been attending a local UU church since moving to Long Island because the meetings here are small and not very active.

Quaker worship and prayer is not prayer in the more traditional sense, but it is an opening of oneself to the inner Light and a communion with God. It is largely unspoken and generally misunderstood, even by many Quakers, as a sort of group meditation. I still haven't completely figured it out myself, but the quest is the thing.... UU prayer seems to be more traditional, and actual meditation is common in many services, but there doesn't seem to be a sense of who or what one is praying to. Or maybe I'm just missing something there.

For the skinny on Quakers, the Wiki article is pretty good but www.quaker.org is the granddaddy of Quaker info.

[TreasonousBastard]

48. Yeah-- few Quakers think much of...

the whole concept of heaven and hell, putting all that stuff into the category of unproven and unknowable, therefor false, doctrine.

We're not even all that sure the soul exists, although you might get lots of arguments about that if you bring it up.

Quaker belief is about the here and now-- what we can experience and/or control. Any afterlife, whatever that may be, will take care of itself.

[Dervill Crow]

34. I think Christianity and Islam are the only ones who claim that. n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

37. And between them, you have some 55% of the world's population

In the United States, self-described Christians make up about 76.5% of the population (see http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/aris_index.htm )

[MistressOverdone]

40. I believe my church used to

but they are backing away just a bit as it becomes less politically correct. Or, rather, they just don't SAY it anymore. But I believe most of us believe it.

[TRYPHO]

41. Which "church" is that?

And also WHO is making the edict for the followers to obey? Is there a structure for such adulteration of the initial "word" or are "they" just changing the interpretation of a potentially ambiguous commandment to find the Father through the Son?

I hope I'm not sounding cheeky, its just the Church founders canonised certain scriptures for (in their understanding) good reason, and said these are the books, none others, and these are not for changing. So how can you change them?

TRYPHO

[MistressOverdone]

42. You cheeky monkey, you!

The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, and yeah, it's all in the rubrics in the Book of Common Prayer. Or actually, it used to be in the 1928 book. I frankly don't know if it is in the newer version or not. And really rubrics is the wrong word. I think it is catichism. Or however that is spelled. Anyway, I had to memorize it for confirmation more years ago than I want to admit.

But my church doesn't pay a lot of attention to all that anymore, I don't believe. I personally believe that for ME, Christ is the way. I don't know about everybody else. I think that would be presumptuous of me.

[okasha]

43. I think that's the Forty-Nine Articles you're referring to,

presently found in the historical documents section.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. My answers:

1. Do they all say "pray to this God or go to hell" or do any offer salvation to non-believers too (apart from the one which I know does).
Not all condemn non-believers to hell. Not even all Christians do this.

2. Do all these religions have one known human leader at the helm?
No. See #3. The Roman Catholics are unusual in this respect.

3. Are they all divided into sparring fractions like Christianity is?
Many are. Note Shia and Sunni Muslims, three major varieties of Jews, dozens of types of Buddhists.

4. Do the "leaders" of a religion update it, make "modernisations" etc, or are they of the "our religion is perfect and cannot be changed" variety?
Some do; some don't. The Scaife-inspired "traditionalists" who are trying to wreck the Episcopal church accuse the leadership of "changing to fit the culture." However, even they themselves would acknowledge that the church was correct in renouncing slavery and accepting Copernicus and Darwin. Until Islamic fundamentalism came to prominence, many Islamic countries were quietly and slowly changing their social mores.

[TRYPHO]

50. Thanks for the answers, now here's the follow-on question:

SHOULD RELIGIONS CHANGE OVER TIME?

Can you think of a single tenet of any faith that is still current* apart from the standard - Believe in Me/Dont Do Bad Things. I would argue that everything else is subject to change over time. My oxen are not to be coveted for sure, but I think my Mercedes is!

I think religions SHOULD be subject to scrutiny, argument and change. The history can remain, but I think religions need to stay "hip", and preach concepts that work for humanity within a civilised democracy (well, atleast here and today) and not some mumbo-jumbo archaic out-dated unapplicable nonsense.

Then the question would be, how? But I'll leave that to God!

Thanks again for everyone's input.

TRYPHO
* - I'm talking old religions. Not L-R-Hubbardism or BlockbusteriPodMacdonaldsStarbucksianity.

[Meshuga]

51. "SHOULD RELIGIONS CHANGE OVER TIME?"

They sort of have to evolve in order to adapt to change or they will seize to exist or clash with the rest of society that has evolved.

[54anickel]

52. Heh-heh, so there's hope the fundies (as they currently are) will go away?....

"...they will seize to exist or clash with the rest of society that has evolved."

[Meshuga]

53. Unfortunately

They are the ones clashing with the rest of the people who have evolved with their BS. Not the ones that have the idea that is going away.

[54anickel]

54. Dang, my misinterpretation. I was hoping they would just cease to exist, not

the individuals mind you, just the movement, sect, cult whatever you want to call it.

[Meshuga]

55. I understood...

what you meant. You didn't have to explain yourself. I was just covering my ass before people misunderstood me. :-)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

56. No

universal Sufism says that all paths lead to God. The people I know that are on various mystical paths all say this, too. Never a problem being around them, as the particular path is looked on with as much interest as one's hair color.

[kiahzero]

60. Pretty much no.

1) No.
2) No.
3) No.
4) Yes (to updates). Most religions modernize, but it's really a question of admitting whether they are or not.

[toddaa]

61. Taoism doesn't meet any of those conditions

There is no sin or salvation concept in Taoism. In fact, in classic Taoism there is no afterlife and Taoist practitioners looked for ways to achieve physical mortality by internal and external alchemy. While Lao Tzu is venerated as a its founder, religious Taoism borrowed gods from regional folk religions and its pantheon of gods are quite flexible and even largely irrelevant to the practice. Taoism values integrity of the person and this can be achieved without following any of the rituals of Taoist priests. Plainly speaking, Taoism has no dogma.

Hope this helps.

[TRYPHO]

62. Thankyou Toddaa

Did you know toddaa means thank you in Ivrit? (Modern Hebrew).

TRYPHO
(off to wiki Taoism...)

[toddaa]

64. Welcome

Glad to be of help. Careful with wiki on Taoism. It's a very big, very messy religion that most Westerners poorly understand, including myself, and I see this reflected in the wiki articles relating to Taoism. When I feel spiritual, I call myself a Taoist, but mostly I'm just a plain old godless heathen atheist wrecker of civilization who finds Chuang Tzu hilarious.