Don't Religions Lead to God?

Believe

Active member
I thought I'd throw this out there for discussion. My thoughts on the matter are Intimacy with God is what the Christian faith is all about. That cannot be claimed for any of the others.

First, there are occult religions, such as animism, witchcraft, magic and some elements of the New Age. These are concerned with spirits, often evil spirits, that need to be placated or manipulated. They may dwell in trees, sacred sites or people. They may belong to the ancestors or to nature. These spirits are as varied as the African witch doctor, the Mongolian shaman and the local sorcerer who seek to manipulate them. Occult religions are about spirits, not about God, let alone intimacy with Him.

Second, there are what you might call imperial religions. They are not about God either. They are about the highest political authority, which demands total allegiance – from the divine kings in Egypt and Mesopotamia, through the Caesars of the Roman empire, to the Shinto emperors of Japan–together with Hitler, Mao and Stalin in our own day. It is interesting to notice the “divine” notes struck both by Hitler and Stalin. Stalin used to have gigantic pictures of himself projected against low-lying clouds above mass rallies, while Hitler used messianic language about himself and predicted a Reich of a Thousand Years.

Third, there are ascetic religions, such as Jainism, Buddhism, some strands in Hinduism and all the “do it yourself” versions of Christianity. They are not about God either, but about self-renunciation. The self is renounced and mortified in order to diminish its grip and to rid the person of being tied to this world. Sometimes, as in Buddhism, it is supposed to lead, after many lives, to the final elimination of the self, which is absorbed into the impersonal One or Monad. It has nothing whatever to do with intimacy with God. Indeed, in most branches of these ascetic religions there is no God to be intimate with!

Fourth, there are what one can only call genital religions or fertility cults. They worship sex. This type of religion is very old, and very modern. It ranges from the fertility cults of the Canaanites, through the lascivious statues in many Hindu temples, through places like London’s Soho and Amsterdam, to today’s XXX films and videos and the astronomical sales of pornography. They too have nothing to do with God, let alone fellowship with Him.

Fifth, there are the bourgeois religions, which feed the religious instincts of the leisured classes and cost their adherents nothing apart from massive financial contributions. They are bodies like Christian Science, Spiritualism, Scientology, Theosophy and many of the self-improvement cults. They are all about man, not God and intimacy with Him.

Sixth, there are prophetic religions, which arise from the dynamic leadership and moral challenge of a great leader and tend to sweep across the world within a century of their origin. Islam, which made enormous inroads into the Middle East and North Africa within a few decades of the death of Muhammad, is one excellent example.

Marxism is another. It profoundly influenced a third of the world within a few decades of Marx’s death. Although it was militantly atheistic, Marxism had a passionately held creed, high ideals, self-sacrifice and clear convictions about the future in common with many religions. Its adherents would gladly die for it, as they would for Islam. But even Islam, despite its high view of God, does not offer the worshiper intimacy with God: “Allah reveals his message. He never reveals himself.” The worshiper prays to him but cannot be said in any way to know Allah or have intimacy with him. Such a claim is deemed blasphemous. You can be killed for making it.

Finally, there are the revelatory religions. There have only been two (closely connected) religions in world history that teach that God can be personally known by the believer. Only Judaism and its “child” Christianity maintain that God has given a reliable and personal disclosure of Himself to humankind. Judaism tells of God’s revelation of Himself through His mighty deeds of deliverance for Israel and through the words of the prophets. The Jewish people believed that God’s only residence on earth was the space between the wings of the cherubim figures above the “mercy seat” of the ark: this was located first in the moveable tabernacle and then in the temple at Jerusalem. Of course, Judaism is very differently placed today. There is no ark, no priesthood, no sacrifices, no tabernacle, no temple. Modern Judaism tends to focus on religious law, morality and synagogue worship.


Michael Green, But Don’t All Religions Lead to God? Navigating the Multi-Faith Maze
 
Finally, there are the revelatory religions. There have only been two (closely connected) religions in world history that teach that God can be personally known by the believer.
Hi, Believe

Indeed, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Sikhism and the Baha'i Faith are also considered "revelatory religions".
To me, "revelation" does not mean that we as humans can apprehend all what God is.
It means that Gods show us things about Him. Some attributes, some messages, some promises, some commandments and, more importantly, his love and interest for us.
 
Addressing the OT,
Maybe not, and here's why 101G say this. Acts 17:22 "Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious." Acts 17:23 "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

here the term "superstitious" is
G1174 δεισιδαιμονέστερος deisidaimonesteros (dei-siy-d̮ai-mo-ne'-ste-ros) adj.
more religious than others.
[the compound of a derivative of the base of G1169 and G1142]
KJV: too superstitious
Root(s): G1169, G1142

God has called us to HOLINESS, not to Christianity, nor, Islam, or Zoroastrianism, or anything else out there.

101G.
 
All Satanic religions deny the core fundamental Biblical truths:

1. There is one Creator who is infinite.
2. All humans are in rebellion and need grace to be saved.
3. The method of salvation is the Creator becoming the creation to punish its evil.
 
All Satanic religions deny the core fundamental Biblical truths:

1. There is one Creator who is infinite.
2. All humans are in rebellion and need grace to be saved.
3. The method of salvation is the Creator becoming the creation to punish its evil.
The last statement is not a core fundamental Biblical truth. I am ready to debate with you respectfully if you are interested in knowing why I say that.

God's method of salvation is to extend His mercy to those who repent, willing to live a new life ("be born again").

God didn't need to become His creation.
God didn't need blood from an innocent (neither a lamb, nor The Lamb of God).
God didn't need any verbal or written confession around any particular theological subject.
God forgives and regenerates man FOR FREE, out of his Mercy, Wisdom and Justice.

What I have described is not a Satanic religion, but the Only Religion of God based on Scriptures, reason, science, and the voice of the Holy Spirit talking to your heart.

I repeat my willingness to debate respectfully and in a spirit of brotherhood with you or anyone interested in the subject.
 
Of course it's Biblical!

It's exactly who Jesus was and what he preached.
agreed, because no one was worthy to redeem man. Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."

and his OWN ARM is the Lord Jesus the Christ. it is he who paid the price for our freedom from sin and death. God is a JUST God. and a penalty had to be paid.

101G.
 
The last statement is not a core fundamental Biblical truth. I am ready to debate with you respectfully if you are interested in knowing why I say that.

This is my first time talking to somehow in the Bahai faith so this is very interesting to me.

I notice you accept the appeal to the Bible as an authority, and that's going to be very important—because if you simply reject anything the Bible says you don't agree with, you certainly cannot say you accept the Bible as "core" and "fundamental" in any sense. And it will have to result in the end to a simple straightforward rejection of Biblical authority.

God's method of salvation is to extend His mercy to those who repent, willing to live a new life ("be born again").

I can agree with this much, where we disagree is the "how" of course, that he does that.

God didn't need to become His creation.
God didn't need blood from an innocent (neither a lamb, nor The Lamb of God).
God didn't need any verbal or written confession around any particular theological subject.

Okay we need to be very careful how we speak here. Because I would agree with you completely that God literally does not "need" anything, it's against his fundamental attributes. We cannot (except as a colloquial term for intensely desire) ever say that God "needs" anything, because this expresses a deficiency and a limitation, things the Infinite Transcendence simply could not possibly possess.

What I would rather prefer the articulation of the position to be, over and against the false "need," is that God's attributes are such that to maintain them all in perfect harmony, it is God's choice to implement his economy of justice and morality with himself as the basis of all value and importance. Once we establish that, his methods of punishment or redemption must necessarily flow from it.

God forgives and regenerates man FOR FREE, out of his Mercy, Wisdom and Justice.

God could theoretically do anything he wants, he is the proverbial 900 pound gorilla in this scenario. God could make sin impossible, he could never punish any evil, he could mete any response to evil he desired, whether good, bad, or ugly, God's options here are endless, they are literally anything at all. God could reincarnate people, he could transcend people to godlike status, or he could require of them things they simply could not do, if he saw fit, and he could reward or punish or simply do nothing based on anything whatsoever he likes. So God has the options here.

Now that we got that out of the way, we have revelation from God that he has chosen to adhere to his own attributes and never violate them, and those attributes include holiness and moral purity and his own non-negotiable supreme and preeminent worth. From these, God saw fit to judge rebellion with the harshest punishment imaginable, to give to sin the wages of spiritual death, his wrathful displeasure and anger expressed directly on the objects that displease him. And he has every right to do this, because he alone is infinite, created and upholds all things.

However, God forgiving man "for free" in the sense of requiring no suffering, sacrifice, punishment or payment of any kind whatsoever, is a false statement according to the Bible. The Bible tells us God will by no means acquit the guilty, that the ransom price of the soul is too high to pay, that the wages of sin is death, that the wrath of god is against all the ungodliness of men, and that the Law—his holy Law of absolute moral purity—brings wrath. God tells us that the sin of the earth weighs so heavily upon it, he will turn mountains over in his anger, and send the sinful to hell.

Now I can give you the references for all the above claims no problem.

What I have described is not a Satanic religion, but the Only Religion of God based on Scriptures, reason, science, and the voice of the Holy Spirit talking to your heart.

No, you have violated the Holy Scriptures of our Old and New Testaments, called the Bible commonly. You have trampled and violated all the principles therein laid out for us, and created a god that does not fit—it does not match—and in fact is a god that is overly permissive to evil and exists only to please creation instead of the only truly worthy thing, himself. Essentially, you have enthroned creation over Creator here by rejecting the Biblical revelation handed down to us by the Holy Spirit, and claimed instead that God requires nothing at all for moral evils against him.

I repeat my willingness to debate respectfully and in a spirit of brotherhood with you or anyone interested in the subject.

I appreciate that. I like your style, you are very polite and well articulated.

If I get a bit passionate in my statements, know that my intention is not to insult or impugn you personally, but to be critical of your beliefs.

Peace and respect.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate that. I like your style, you are very polite and well articulated.

If I get a bit passionate in my statements, know that my intention is not to insult or impugn you personally, but to be critical of your beliefs.

Peace and respect.
I also appreciate your style, my brother.
I also understand that both of us can get a bit passionate in defending our beliefs... that is absolutely correct, because it means we both care about what we believe. Our beliefs are part of our lives and we take them as precious.

An essential part of my beliefs is that both of us are creatures of the same God... that we seek Him, and we need His grace, that He loves both of us and is interested in bringing both of us back to Him.
Regardless of any theological disagreements we may have, I take for granted that you love God, you love Christ, and you will enjoy paradise forever. It is upon that basis that I like to exchange views or debate.

To be theologically wrong about something does not mean to be evil, or in sin. It just means that we have come to different conclusions based on the information we have been exposed too, and the experiences we have gone through.

If you are interested, we could debate on your last proposition: "The method of salvation is the Creator becoming the creation to punish its evil."
Please feel free to reword your proposition in case you want to make it reflect more accurately your view, and let me know.
 
Back
Top Bottom