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

He doesn't own it, He is it.

Does Unity say John got it wrong, that He is not the Light, the Logos of God?

He grokked it. and became it.... one. I and the father...

Our Father...which art...

He didn't say "My Father" He included all of us...

I need to make clear, I don't speak for Unity (no more than I believe you speak for Catholicism...) and when I take that belief net test I regularly end up high on Unitarian, next liberal Quaker, in there some Buddhism...and a half dozen down or so comes "New Thought" the heading Unity is under.

Did John write the word "only"?
 
He grokked it. and became it.... one. I and the father...
OK. I know that's your line, but I have to say it's really not what John says. For John, it's pretty emphatic He is it personified, not a person that grokked, became, whatever.

He didn't say "My Father" He included all of us...
Sorry Wil, but you couldn't be more wrong. He said "My Father", exclusively, more than 50 times.

The one and only time Jesus says "Our Father" is when He instructs the disciples how to pray, and only in Matthew. In Luke, He simply says "Father". No Jew would assume that by saying 'our Father' means paternity implied.

The seven petitions contained in the 'Our Father' are prayers of the community, not the prayer of Christ. When Christ prays, He speaks personally, not collectively as in the 'Our Father'.

In John, for example, He prays: "And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one." (17:22) and, more pointedly, "And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are." (17:11).

The traditional Christian tradition teaches that the 'one-ness' of which Our Lord speaks is a 'one-ness' in Christ.

But ... and it's a big but ... the inclusion of the words 'as we also' signifies that the one-ness He enjoys with the Father is other and distinct to the one-ness He prays for the community.

So these texts, treated as you treat them, undoes your argument. The one-ness He prays for us is like the one-ness of Father and Son, but it is not the same one-ness: His, and 'also' ours.

The orthodox teaching is founded on the context of the prayer, rather than simply the words, and again on the total weave of the New Testament Scriptures. Paul is emphatic on the one-ness of all in Christ, not Christ distributed out among the community.

Again, as Christ said "No man cometh to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6), so we can only know the Father by Christ, and can only know Christ by the Holy Spirit (John 15:26) – the ruach or pneuma, the breathe of God in the soul.

When speaking of Himself however, He says "my Father" – not 'our' or 'your' or 'the' – but distinctly "my Father". If you read the texts in context, its inescapable. This is what I'm getting at. take a line out of context and you can construe it almost any way you like.

"All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him." Matthew 11:7

Did John write the word "only"?
Yes. Five times, i think. John is explicit in its declaration that Jesus Christ alone is the only begotten Son of God. And not that Jesus was someone who 'grokked' or 'became' ...
 
Only begotten of the continuously begotten....

Love it....

Thomas, it is such an enjoyable read...and nothing undoes my beliefs, it all cements them, you'll never see it that way...you don't wear my shoes....

and odds are if I were in your shoes I'd believe what you believe....

it is just so damned glorious!!


I refer to My father as well....as does every child, with siblings... and when he tells others how to pray....he tells his brothers and sisters to say Our father...

the question I have for me now is...how many angels can dance on the head of this pin with me!!
 
There are many religious beliefs throughout the world. Is one of them the only true path to God and the others false?

The way I see it, all faiths and religious beliefs are in one way or the other interconnected. I see the differences between them as more cultural than anything else with the goal of each being more or less the same.

Thoughts?

Such were the beliefs of Akbar and the Din-i-ilahi.
If there is only one true religion than it has to be the Hodotor.
But what is wrong with falsehoods?
 
I'd say that the only religions and faiths that are false are the ones that claim to have a faith or God(s) that are "better" and/or "more/real" than the others.

A prime example is of some Chrisitians who quote John, "I am the way (etc. etc.), no one comes to the father except through me," and then they use this to defend the fact that their faith is the only one that will get you to heaven. This is to deny the rest of all literature that is divinely inspired (the Qu'ran, the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Talmud, and other parts of the Bible), that promote love and compassion for ALL people.

Who is God? Is God a judgmental being who picks and chooses who and what to love? Or, is God Love itself, a love that knows no conditions and no boundaries?
 
Thomas, it is such an enjoyable read... nd nothing undoes my beliefs, it all cements them, you'll never see it that way...you don't wear my shoes....
Ah, me ... actually I know exactly how you see it, old son, because I used to walk in your shoes, many years ago ... I suppose that's why I battle so hard with you, because I'm so close in that regard.

the question I have for me now is...how many angels can dance on the head of this pin with me!!
Oh, I wouldn't trouble yourself with that old chestnut. You do know it was a peice of nonsense dreamed up by critics to discredit scholastic philosophy! ;) It's just the kind of thing that would appeal to you! :D

God bless.
 
Was that a misquote?
What, 'angels on a head of a pin'?

No-one ever asked that question. It's like the idea that Columbus thought the world was flat.

Aquinas did discuss angels a great deal, in the Summa Theologiae particularly, Q50-Q64 is called The Treatise on the Angels in which Aquinas continues to work out, along with the Treatise on God, the Treatise on Creation and the Treatise on Man, a coherent metaphysical framework of being that allows him to discuss God, corporeal and incorporeal beings, the formal and the formless, etc.

Q52 discusses angels in relation to 'place' (space and time), and as ever, those who ridicule what they don't understand came up with the 'how many angels on the point of a pin' piece of flummery.
 
Sorry, no, you quoted theophony as saying that, but I think you intended it toward wil.


EDIT, but thanks for the quick lesson.
 
There are many religious beliefs throughout the world. Is one of them the only true path to God and the others false?

The way I see it, all faiths and religious beliefs are in one way or the other interconnected. I see the differences between them as more cultural than anything else with the goal of each being more or less the same.

Thoughts?

Not all paths lead to Finding truth.
 
Their is perhaps One True Religion.
And there is perhaps One True Path to the non-existent God(s).

They are quite separate things?

It is common currency; every religion/ideology has them.
Logic; 'They follow what we think is the truth but we do not.'
?
 
Their is perhaps One True Religion.
And there is perhaps One True Path to the non-existent God(s).

They are quite separate things?

It is common currency; every religion/ideology has them.
Logic; 'They follow what we think is the truth but we do not.'
?
What is the truth to you?
 
There are many religious beliefs throughout the world. Is one of them the only true path to God and the others false?

The way I see it, all faiths and religious beliefs are in one way or the other interconnected. I see the differences between them as more cultural than anything else with the goal of each being more or less the same.

Thoughts?

They were all connected, but there were clash between one to another. Christ was crucified by the Jews. Being Jewish-Rabbi is the worse existence in the Koran, so too with the concept of reincarnation. The goal too is vary, examples: Jew, being organized. Christian, following Jesus. Hindu, finish the circle. Buddha, enlightenment. Islam, following Muhammad. Tao, nothing. etc. etc.
 
They were all connected, but there were clash between one to another. Christ was crucified by the Jews. Being Jewish-Rabbi is the worse existence in the Koran, so too with the concept of reincarnation. The goal too is vary, examples: Jew, being organized. Christian, following Jesus. Hindu, finish the circle. Buddha, enlightenment. Islam, following Muhammad. Tao, nothing. etc. etc.

Jesus was not crucified by the Jews but by the Romans, and the reason was because Jesus' disciples were acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem, a Roman province at the time. (Luke 19:37-40) This was the reason and, the proof of it is in the verdict Pilate nailed on the top of Jesus' cross: INRI. (Luke 19:19) Now, with the intent to give you the benefit of the doubt, would you be able to quote the NT to document your claim that the Jews crucified Jesus? I don't think so. Then why slander the name of the Jewish People with such a false accusation?
 
It isn't slandering all the jewish people....it is saying a group of Jewish people didn't like the guy that was making the claim to their G!d....the Romans could care less...Pontius Pilate 'washed his hands' of the whole ordeal did he not.

Some Jews in New York are forever getting themselves in trouble with the law....does that mean that all Jewish people are at fault? Our jails are primarily full of Christians, does that mean Christians are law breakers?
 
My understanding of the event is that it was the Romans who did the act of crucification. The impetus to have it done, though, was by some of the more powerful Jews who saw Jesus as a threat to their power structure. The event was caused to happen by Jews. Not Romans.

Still, I have to agree with Wil. It doesn't slander all Jews to point the finger at a few Jews who precipitated the crucifixition.
 
Really pointless discussion here. Christians, Muslims, and Jews in the past to present have slaughtered miliions over time, all in the name of God. Who is right? God would probably say neither, and they all teach hate, fear and separation, to control the masses for their own purposes, none of which is divine.
 
Back
Top