Is There One True Religion, One True Path to God?

I enter this discussion with great hesitancy ... but here goes.

My Hindu POV is that all souls have a place on this planet. Since people are diverse, their needs are diverse, and we have so many religions and cultures because of it. I do think the ones that make a bold proclamation that they have the only truth, and theirs is it, are in fact dangerous to the rest of us. So much knowledge has been lost because of that mindset. It disrespects natural diversity, and gets narrower and narrower. It's not just my religion, but also my version of my religion. The basic mindset is, "I'm right, all others are wrong," and it eventually gets narrowed down to only one person left.

So I think as a conglomerate of humanity, we all need to be wary of this view. It will attack others as we are seeing today and have seen in the past on the planet. But when the temporary opposing culture is annihilated, another one pops up, and then they start fighting amongst themselves. It can't end well.

As for one truth, I don't believe that for a minute. By the descriptions each religion gives of it's 'truth' or goals, or end result, they vary substantially. That isn't to say all tolerant faiths don't have their place. They all meet the needs of the specific adherents, and flocks of people living in the same or similar areas of mind join together in one faith. That's a good thing. Some folks need a strong scripture. Other folks need strong experiences. others need a set of defined ethics. etc. The various religions speak to the diversity. Still others need placed for due reflection from the inside out. So we're all different, and there would be many analogies: clothing and food being two of the simplest. I love diversity, and I think we'd all be well advised to embrace it. Imagine a global conference of religion where everyone cam in the uniform of a suit and tie.

Some folks feel comfortable in seeing that it it is the same truth everywhere. That too is okay, but it's another view ... another of the diverse beliefs. In Hinduism it's called the Smarta sampradaya, or Smarta school ... a valid school all on it's own. It's a conglomerate that didn't really meet it's goals of unifying, but instead created another school.
 
Thomas,
The fact that Constantine somehow defined and ordered 50 copies of the Bible, during the council speaks volumes! Who, pray tell decided in what those 50 would contain? I have no problem that you are a Christian apologist but it is hard to prove one version of history when it is usually a version that fits the powers to be. You can call all this a "myth" while I call Christianity one....Jesus, whom I greatly admire, never thought of what his humble teaching would eventually transpire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It has been my experience that one man's myth is another man's fact. It rather comes down to whose version one decides to believe. I have no way to know which side of this story is the 'true' one. So I'm not taking sides. Just making a point. When we are talking about human history, and particularly early human history, I think it is a bit disingenuous to say 'I know' what happened.
 
Hermes said:
Hmm...what part? Constantine "the Great", the Saint... had murdered his son and wife! Even Thomas could not pick on that part..... :)
Click to expand...
I don't know that anyone is saying that Constantine was a great guy, but there are limits to such implications. I think your main thesis was that Constantine created Christianity out of nothing to fit his own needs. As DA said, we all have our own slant and a great many of us consider religion no more then tools for those in power. But that's a very subjective and personal perspective. That as a whole can't be proven or disprove but specific facts can confirm it or not.
I, of course, think religion is larger and more complicated than that.
 
I have never said that Constantine created Christianity! Where the hell are you getting that? But he (a murderer) was canonized as a saint that also tell volumes of the hypocrisy and historical whitewash of the Catholic Church. If you do not agree with me is OK, but do not put words into my mouth. And there are volumes of these in the Church from buggering boys to burning witches who were no more than independent thinking women. Don't make me start a new thread on Catholicism, lets just agree to disagree....
A Cup Of Tea said:
I don't know that anyone is saying that Constantine was a great guy, but there are limits to such implications. I think your main thesis was that Constantine created Christianity out of nothing to fit his own needs. As DA said, we all have our own slant and a great many of us consider religion no more then tools for those in power. But that's a very subjective and personal perspective. That as a whole can't be proven or disprove but specific facts can confirm it or not.
I, of course, think religion is larger and more complicated than that.
Click to expand...
 
Hermes said:
I have never said that Constantine created Christianity! Where the hell are you getting that? But he (a murderer) was canonized as a saint that also tell volumes of the hypocrisy and historical whitewash of the Catholic Church. If you do not agree with me is OK, but do not put words into my mouth. And there are volumes of these in the Church from buggering boys to burning witches who were no more than independent thinking women. Don't make me start a new thread on Catholicism, lets just agree to disagree....
Click to expand...
Maybe calm down? When I write "I think your main thesis was that..." I'm putting forward what I think your trying to say, then we can go back and forward to correct misinterpretations. All of this:

Hermes said:
How so? How many books were "officially" included in the Bible is a myth? No, it is a historical FACT! What about the Biblical Cannon? Before and after the council of Nicaea, it is said that the Cardinals were locked into a room and in the end the books to be included in the bible somehow were assembled on the table, the rest were NOT! Constantine commissioned 50-bibles during the time of the Council. How come that the most interesting books were somehow omitted? Is this a myth to you? God only knows how much they modified or corrected. This was when the debate about the deity of Jesus was debated and the officialdom of Christianity commenced by Constantine the Great
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like the creation of Christianity.
This:
Hermes said:
(who was a saint, but murdered his own son and wife)
Click to expand...
Wasn't something I paid attention to being a short side note of the actual topic.
This:
Hermes said:
But he (a murderer) was canonized as a saint that also tell volumes of the hypocrisy and historical whitewash of the Catholic Church...And there are volumes of these in the Church from buggering boys to burning witches who were no more than independent thinking women.
Click to expand...
Isn't anything I've seen you mention in this thread until now so I don't know how that could have been your primary point.
 
No. my main thesis was that all main religions have had a common core to which, Thomas replied that he did not think so...I really do not care, I have my own opinion and that is that. I do not care for anyone's validation. I also maintained that after a while religions become stagnant bureaucracies, mainly for the Sunday folk to spend time together. The whole issue of Catholicism came after Thomas' counter. I am very calm but perhaps I need to reevaluate what and where I spend my time on...
A Cup Of Tea said:
Maybe calm down? When I write "I think your main thesis was that..." I'm putting forward what I think your trying to say, then we can go back and forward to correct misinterpretations. All of this:



Sounds to me like the creation of Christianity.
This:

Wasn't something I paid attention to being a short side note of the actual topic.
This:

Isn't anything I've seen you mention in this thread until now so I don't know how that could have been your primary point.
Click to expand...
 
Hi guys –

Hermes – yes I'm an apologist – the definition of which is one who believes there's a reasonable and rational defence of religious principles on the basis that the primary data, the transcendental aspects of its sacra doctrina is Revealed (as most say, the Hindus say 'Remembered' but it amounts to the same thing). If one doesn't believe in 'Revelation' then the rest of the discussion is void.

On the issue of Constantine, the point is I'm working from the material evidence. The way I see it is this:

A priest in Alexandria, Arius by name, preached that Jesus Christ was not God as such, but rather an intermediately being, not quite God, but more than just man. He believed that Christ's divine aspects were created, that God made Jesus in response to the fallen condition of the human race. The battlecry of the Arians was 'there was a time when He was not' – I wish I could remember the Koine Greek, because it's quite a catchy little aphorism. Arius was noted for his catchy phraseology (Tertullian was another one) and composed catechetical songs the workers could sing while performing their work together, songs for hauling ropes, lifting weights, songs like that ...

His parishioners had been baptised into a religion that declared that Christ was co-ternal with God, that Christ is God, and Christ was 'there' before the world was made. Christ was not made or created ... His physicality was, and His humanity was very real, He hungered and thirsted, pee'd and poo'd and farted (there was a naive Medieval belief that, of course, the Son of God never suffered the need to have a shit. He was so perfect He digested His food perfectly, and there was no waste! Suffice to say, we've moved on ...) But the divine nature is wholly divine, eternal , etc.

So they complained to their bishop, and he told Arius to shape up or shut up. Arius continued and the argument grew. Mobs rioted. Arius was well connected to the upper echelons of Greek society and drew on those supports ... the argument grew and the Church was in something of an uproar.

Constantine saw that this disorder now penetrated every strata of society and that civil disorder threatened the peace. By now Christianity had some five million adherents across the empire. So he did something that had not been done before, he invited all the bishops to gather in one place and sort out the problem. Was He created or was He not. I don't think he particularly cared either way, he just wanted an answer, something that everyone could adhere to, and an end of all this strife.

The bishops had never been in a position to gather before. Christianity was considered 'illegal' and any publicity likely to bring a strong and stern reaction. The various churches in various parts of the world underwent persecution from time to time and the Christians tried to stay 'under the radar'. In 318 (I think) the then emperor – not Constantine – declared Christianity a legal religion, although that was not observed throughout the empire, but it meant the Christians didn't have to keep secret.

Constantine paid the travelling expenses, and put up the bishops at a palace he had erected for himself as a holiday retreat at Nicea. He paid for 50 copies of the Bible to be produced, but he had no real idea of what the book contained. Nor do we, really, as none have survived. It was just a generous gift. Nor was the Bible ratified at that time. Some bishops thought some texts should be included, some not. The Shepherd of Hermas, for example, was cited as scripture by some of the early Fathers. Some thought Paul wrote it, although there is written material from Papius saying it was written by the brother of the pope. It's very allegorical, very uplifting, but it is rather 'Arian' in that it views Christ as created ... Another example was a letter of Pope Clement of Rome, which some regarded a standing alongside the Epistles. Others said that Clement's letter was sound theology, but that there was nothing 'revealed' in the letter and therefore it was simply an informed and saintly commentary on Christian morality ... others thought the Book of Revelations should not be in the Bible ...

Constantine was present at the opening of the Council, as it was called, but he did not 'chair' the Council, nor take any part in its deliberations.

Nicea produced two things: A version of the Creed which was thought to be sufficient to settle the problem of Christology, and not even all of it, just that Jesus is co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial with God – and co-eternal with Him.

After the creed, a number of 'canons' or rules about how the Church would conduct itself. All very dry stuff really ... Nothing about the Holy Spirit, that came later, there was no dissent on that point. Nothing about Easter. A rule that if a priest (if unmarried) should choose a housekeeper that's not likely to lead to rumour and scandal. Your mum or your aunt, that's okay, but not a Playboy centrefold. Not because big-boobed babes can't be saints, but people will talk! Any priest who makes himself a eunuch is out – that's over the top. Stuff like that.

Not that Nicea was a garden party. Things got very heated. There was shouting. People got hit. No-one was killed.

But the Big Point is – it failed. Even after Constantine asked for a point of the Creed to be clarified so there could be no doubt at all, and the word 'consubstantial' was added, the Arian dispute flared up again almost straight away and continued to be the bane of later emperors. Some emperors were for Arius, some against him ... but none of 'em could stop the discussion.

In 638 Emperor Heraclius issued his Ecthesis, forbidding the discussion of 'energies' which was a cause of great theological dispute in his day. The Church ignored it. In 647 Emperor Constans II issued his Typos, forbidding the teaching of either (heretical) Monothelitism or the orthodox Dyothelitism. Pope Martin, bishop of Rome, refused to accept the Typos, and was deposed, tortured and exiled to Crimea in 655. St Maximus the Confessor likewise refused to obey the emperor and had his hands cut off and his tongue cut out.

The point is, all the material evidence shows the Emperors were unable to dictate to the church. Again, when the Coptic Church broke with Orthodoxy, Egypt effectively 'left' the empire, a huge blow to the economy of the empire, a disaster for the emperors ...

Personally I don't think Constantine should ever have been declared a 'saint' and he's not recognised as one by the Catholic Church. He is by the Orthodox Patriarchates, but not by Catlicks.

All this and more is supported by surviving material evidence. The claims otherwise are spurious, not a shred of evidence, and the argument that the evidence was destroyed is equally 'convenient' for those who can't actually offer any foundation for their claims. If it was destroyed, how do they know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lux
Kathie Bondar said:
Hello Shibolet
We honor the accomplishments of our forefathers by building on it. Poor Isaiah and Job did not have the privilege to drive a car even a bicycle, travel to distant continents by airplane, learn correct English spelling or contemplate the wonders of the Higgs particle. What I am saying is, they were good for their times two thousand years ago, but we have moved on.
Click to expand...

True that Judaism is progressive but nothing has changed as Deuteronomy 4:2 is concerned. "You shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." And Jesus added, "As long as heaven and earth won't pass away, nothing will pass from the Law and the Prophets" aka Judaism which was the Faith of Jesus. (Mat. 5:17-19)
 
Shibolet said:
True that Judaism is progressive but nothing has changed as Deuteronomy 4:2 is concerned. "You shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
Click to expand...

Problem is, translating the original text into other languages in and of itself changed the word somewhat, as not all words originally used had direct translations. Which required a certain amount of personal interpretation on the part of the translators.
 
Shibolet said:
True that Judaism is progressive but nothing has changed as Deuteronomy 4:2 is concerned. "You shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." And Jesus added, "As long as heaven and earth won't pass away, nothing will pass from the Law and the Prophets" aka Judaism which was the Faith of Jesus. (Mat. 5:17-19)
Click to expand...
But isn't that saying of Jesus that you are relying on in one of the books that added the New Testament? And wasn't it also written by a Jew?
 
Namaste Jesus said:
Problem is, translating the original text into other languages in and of itself changed the word somewhat, as not all words originally used had direct translations. Which required a certain amount of personal interpretation on the part of the translators.
Click to expand...
Could that be "inspired mistranslation"?
 
Can we all suffice to say that noone here agrees 100% on the meaning of ALL of the OT and NT? If so, I'll step in again (pretty sure I commented back a while ago, but I'm too lazy right now to check)

IMO, There is 1 true path. That is that there is 1 path which is 100% correct (IMO that is Islam, but I expect everyone to think their path is that one). I cannot say however that other religions do not follow a path "close enough" that with Allah's grace and mercy can be successful in obtaining Paradise (Heaven). All religions contain likenesses with one another. (as shown by the Belief-o-matic results) Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and some versions of Hinduism agree on many prophets, laws, Monotheism, etc. and yet they are not the same religion.

In conclusion, yes I believe there is 1 100% correct path, but many paths with a possibility to arrive at the same destination.
 
The one true path is knowing that your belief is your belief, and not to expect that everyone will agree with you.

I think most people are interested in converting and recruiting others to their belief is due to ego and doubt...and the more that agree with them, the better their ego feels (that they got it right) and the doubt lessons (that they got it wrong)...safety in numbers.
 
But because of that generalization, I can only assume you think that anyone attempting to convert is insecure. That is not always the case. It will not change my mind one bit if someone converts or not. But I would truly feel great about someone else accepting my faith. And there is much to gain from trying to convert and successfully converting righteous people. From an Islamic standpoint, leading someone to the correct path is one of the greatest favors one could gain after entering into Islam. hence the reason so many try to force or coerce...
 
I think you stated my case quite eloquently...tis the same for the Baptist, the Jehovah's Witness, the Mormon, the Evangelical Christian...

You are not alone when it comes to an edict from the top to go out and get 3 who will get 3 who will get 3
 
Re: #179-180

I look at it this way. My only duty in that regard is to deliver the message. What you do with it after that is up to you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top