Don: If god is the god of all mankind, why are there so many different religions? So many different paths, so many different entry ways to the same god? Can they all be true? The religions are diverse in concept, practice, and beliefs. Their differences are often contradictory. Why would a god of all mankind present divergent pictures of him- or herself? Are the contradictions real, or just perceived?
Theistic religions (religions that emphasize the concept of a god) include Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and (arguably) parts of Hinduism. Buddhism, on the other hand, is not theistic: God is not a personal being—it does not exist—for Buddhists, who believe they ascend to an other-worldly place of peace and Zen—their version of heaven, called Nirvana—through a series of transformations that do not involved godly intervention.
Nevertheless, all religions fundamentally address the issues of creation, revelation, and salvation. In other words, they all ask: Where did we come from, what are we doing here, and where are we going? To the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) the answers are linear in time. There is a history with a Beginning (Creation), an End Time, then a New Beginning, and they have a god who oversees this process. In eastern religions, however, the process is not linear in time; rather, it is spatial, ascending through a circular or spiral path, and there is no single god overseeing it.
Given the contradictions among the various religions, logically we must conclude that either: Not all of them are true; all are false; or parts of all of them are true. An example of a direct contradiction in the very concept of god is that to Christians, god is a trinity; to Moslems, god is singular (“There is no god but god” is the most common statement of faith for Muslims); and to Buddhists, there is no god. Why would the god of all mankind present himself in this contradictory manner? Has god misrepresented himself, or have we misrepresented him?
Throughout history, groups in general and religions in particular have always opposed other groups and religions that have different views. The title of Democratic presidential advisor James Carville’s book—We’re Right, They’re Wrong—puts it in a nutshell. Would it not be in god’s interests to use a single, easily discernible, unambiguous, timeless, demonstrably true, and completely forthright revelation of himself, rather than the variety of revelations (and non-revelations) claimed by diverse religions? If other religions are true, at least in part, how might we tell?
The bible refers to one god of all in several places, such as Psalms 47:7-8:
For God is the King of all the earth;
Sing praises with a skillful psalm.
God reigns over all the nations
and Psalms 22:28:
For the kingdom is the Lord’s
And He rules over the nations.
Closely related to the issues raised by the concept of god as the god of all mankind is the question: Does religion create communities, or does community create religion? Is diversity of thought, action belief, practice and so on beneficial to god? To mankind? To both? If not, surely it makes little sense that there would be a god of all mankind, does it not?
David: To those of us who accept evolution as a valid theory, it demonstrates the general principle that diversity leads to continual development and, in a real sense, improvement or advancement to higher levels, as (for example) from ape to man.
The question I have is whether god manifests himself or whether we do it for him (or her, etc.) To me, god is directly manifest all around—in the beauty and bounty of nature, in the selfless acts of sacrifice, goodness, love, care and compassion we not infrequently see in people (and, I would add, in animals), and so on. To me, this is the “easily discernible, unambiguous, timeless, demonstrably true, and completely forthright revelation” of god. And to me and I dare say other heretics, the fundamental problem is that god is at best only indirectly manifested, at second hand, in any religion’s scripture.
In short, I think god is plainly manifest and that religion sometimes serves to point this out but also sometimes serves to deflect or distort our vision.
Don: Is the paradigm we are discussing the wrong paradigm then? Does god seek us, or is god waiting for us to seek him? According to Isaiah 40:31, it seems to be the former:
Yet those who wait for the Lord
Will gain new strength;
They will mount up with wings like eagles,
They will run and not get tired,
They will walk and not become weary.
Is it a case, as my old teacher Dr. Steiger would have said, of: “Don’t just do something, stand there!” ?
Benjamin: I have been struggling with these very questions and with my own doubts, as have others—such as the former Adventist pastor in California who turned atheist. [Editor’s note: I believe Benjamin may have been referring to Ryan Bell http://www.religionnews.com/2014/12/30/living-without-god-year-former-pastor-ryan-bell-no-longer-believes/ ]
David: The god of Judaism is a jealous, violent, punishing god. The god of Jesus is a loving, caring, forgiving god. The god of Islam seems to be somewhere in-between. I personally am drawn to the god of Jesus—the god of pure love and forgiveness—and just cannot accept the validity of a god who is other than that. At the same time, I am not convinced that the god of Jesus is the property of Christianity. I think many Moslems, for instance, seem to believe that their god, too, is a god of love and forgiveness. Calling it “the god of Jesus” or “the god of Christianity” seems wrong to me, not just strategically (in the desire for peace on earth) but also in fact.
From what I have read and heard of her speeches, the famous young Moslem woman Malala and I share the same view of god. As far as I can tell, Malala’s view of her Islamic god does not include violence and revenge and punishment. But her religion, like Christianity, unfortunately does hold that god has a dark, vengeful side. Christians in general believe in the god of the Old Testament as well as in the god of Jesus. Moslems in general believe in the god depicted in some Koranic verses and hadith* as vengeful and violent as well as the god depicted in other Koranic verses and hadith as kind and tolerant.
So there are contradictions not only among the various religions but even within each one! It seems to me that the contradictions are the result of human attempts to define god and are replete therefore with human biases and faults in logic. We must stop looking to find god in or through the human intellect as represented, for instance, by scripture, and start looking around us, using our eyes to see the manifestation of god in a nature illuminated by light from inside our hearts. The eyes can see god; the intellect cannot, in my opinion and experience. To the extent that scripture is a work of the intellect (I contend, but many dispute, that all scripture is an intellectual construct) then scriptural statements concerning god stand as good a chance of being false as of being true. To the extent god is experienced rather than imagined, god is in my view more likely to be real and less likely to be definable.
Benjamin: So god could be the elephant of the blind men of Hindustan,† with parts we can perceive through a sense of touch; but if we try to define the whole from the part we are experiencing we are bound to be wrong.
David: Nevertheless, we find it comforting and enlightening to keep searching, intellectually, for an answer to what god is like, even knowing that we will never find the answer, at least not here on earth. But we also believe the search for the answer will take us further towards it, will take us to a higher level of understanding.
Don: Is it strategically in god’s interest for us to be confused and contradictory? God could so easily dispel the contradictions and confusion through some simple, short, declarative statement, similar in a way to the plain and unmistakable pillar (of smoke by day and fire by night) that he used to guide the Israelites in the exodus from Egypt. Is there a value for god in our confusion?
Jay: If one believes the story of the Fall, then one must believe that we (Adam and Eve) chose not to have the kind of god that existed in the Garden of Eden—a god directly revealed, a god we could chat with, take a stroll through the Garden with, and know intimately. So I don’t think it’s god’s strategic intention to have so many religions; it is just a reflection of our need to make a construct of god so we can re-establish some sort of relationship with him. If the pre-Fall direct relationship with god were intact there would be no need for religion, but ever since the Fall, we have been unable to see god and to talk with him, so we have to build constructs of god to serve those purposes.
I would guess that all major religions believe in good over evil, love over hate, grace over disfavor. That is the commonality of god; the god of all mankind.
An analogy to the establishment of multiple religions in trying to establish a relationship with the one true god is the installation of a piano (representing god) on the second floor of your house. You can just try to muscle it up the stairs; or you can take it apart on the ground floor and re-assemble it on the second floor; or you can use a mechanical hoist. You can get it there; the question that consumes us is “How? What’s the best way?” One person of a certain disposition or skill set or background will argue for one way. A person of a different disposition, etc., will argue for another. But from the perspective of the piano, it doesn’t care how it gets to the second floor.
David: It seems to me the method is important. One might fall on the stairs; the hoist might break; one might lose a piece of the piano during disassembly, rendering it unplayable. But in any case, to me, the analogy represents just another example of intellectualizing the way to god.
Our late dear friend Harry often said he had never seen god and had never spoken with god. I think we do see god every time we see an act of kindness, every time we see a beauty of nature. And I think we all do talk to god, but in feelings, not words; through the heart, not the mind.
Benjamin: If that is so, what does it imply for religions?
David: It means that they are wrong!
Benjamin: So what are we all doing here at Oakwood Seventh Day Adventist church on a Sabbath morning?
David: We are trying to understand where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going. We are not here to bash religion (though, QED, I do so from time to time!). Religion can be one way of getting the piano up the stairs—provided you don’t slip, or lose a part, or break the hoist.
Jay: Accepting that all methods of getting the piano up the stairs can get it there, then they are not necessarily wrong. They are just different ways of achieving the same goal. As well, they all help to reveal something about the piano or oneself: If one tries to carry the piano up the stairs, one may discover one’s limitations; if one dismantles it, one may learn something about how it works; if the hoist breaks, one may learn something about the physics of the piano. One must of course acknowledge that whichever method (religion) one chooses, one may be missing the insights offered by the methods (religions) one chose not to adopt.
Benjamin: The process, the journey, then becomes more important than the end goal.
David: Before even thinking about ways to move the piano, why not just go up and sit in the music room on the second floor and open our eyes? Perhaps there’s a piano already in it! In fact, I believe there is!
Charles: In some ways, this question relates to whether and how God is knowable. The process of Revelation. We are ultimately subject to the limitations and aspirations of our intelligence and reason. A logical question is whether God is knowable through human intelligence and reason alone. Is something more required and if so, what is that something?
All of contingent reality requires a cause greater than itself. All that exists, has ever existed and will exist is a manifestation of the cause, the creator, the ‘I Am’. Anything that is known with any degree of certainty is known because it exists ultimately as a manifestation of such a cause. Thus, it seems entirely consistent that revelation of an infinite God (the cause) should accommodate an infinite diversity of process (revelation). For humanity, the process of revelation must reconcile a divine, sovereign cause with the freedom of will to acknowledge it. God making his will manifest while allowing man the freedom to choose appears to have been present in the Garden and ever since. The problem was not the freedom to choose; rather, it was the choices made. It seems logical to me that a God of all mankind would be more interested in the choices made than the process of choosing. This is not inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings.
Don: You seem to be saying that in the game of religion, one gets a medal just for playing. One does not have to win; one just has to play the game. That is an idea well removed from “I must know god, I must seek god, I must study, I must immerse myself in the Grand Order of Sacred Texts and so on. In the end, everybody gets a medal.
Charles: I suppose, but I was not referring to individual relativism or pragmatism. The process of reconciling man’s will to God’s will is critically important to Salvation history in the fullness of time. I believe that God has revealed to humanity (and continues to reveal) “The Way”. Even so, I also believe that God is more interested in the choice than the process. My point was that the process of revelation must accommodate God’s sovereignty over will, on the one hand, with man’s freedom to choose, on the other. All of existence (creation) is/was a manifestation of God’s will, but only man (parenthetically created in His image and likeness) was granted the freedom to choose. Individual revelation must accommodate a diversity of process because all men are granted the freedom to choose as a condition of humanity, but not all men are exposed to “The Way” as revealed to Christians. Indeed, I believe it is possible (if not probable) that God may expect more of those with “eyes to see” and “ears to hear”. The “process” of Judgment must also accommodate the reality (diversity) of humanity. Parenthetically, it is interesting that at no time in human history has “The Way” been available to more of humanity (so stay tuned for the End of the Age). These questions parallel the previous discussion on the Mystery of Suffering. Why does God allow Suffering (Evil) to exist? To what purpose? To His purpose.
Chris: There is no perfect way to get the piano to the second floor. Each method can have problems. The real problem is when we think we have the perfect way. We are not perfect beings, so we cannot know the perfect way. This is the pitfall all religions run into.
Benjamin: Doesn’t that apply also to science?
Jay: It could. Science is also a construct and a process that helps us understand something, but in this case the something (god) may be fundamentally impossible to understand. Even so, we are driven to try.
Benjamin: Is it possible there are so many different religions because a few charismatic individuals have been able to articulate their view of what god is and have gained a large following of ordinary people unable to articulate their own views?
Don: Yes, I think history shows charismatic people behind all religions.
David: If there is value in diversity then the ultimate, the ideal, would be for everyone to have his or her personal religion. It doesn’t get more diverse than that. A group religion is an intellectual, imaginary, fake bucket made of constructs into which we pour people according to their perceived relationship to the construct. Race is also just such a collection of buckets. If we get rid of the imaginary buckets, we are left with nothing but diverse individuals. But individuals are real—they, and their views, matter, unlike the fake buckets we want to sort them into.
Don: Two medical metaphors come to mind: First, I teach my surgical residents that if every surgeon does something differently then how they do it doesn’t make a difference. In a thyroidectomy, some always put a drain in place, some put them in but remove them within 24 hours, some leave them in for at least three days; some close skin with one suture, some with another; some make incisions in one direction only, some make them only in a different direction. Whenever one sees this sort of thing happening in surgery, it usually means that the method used doesn’t make a difference to the outcome. Second, perhaps each of has a “spiritual genome” in our hearts that connects each of us individually to god in a manner that is totally unique.
Charles: There is a profound difference between the cause (creator) allowing for diversity of process, or even hardwiring diversity of process, as a means to facilitate revelation to all mankind and saying that God does not have a preference. Similarly, there is a difference between allowing for the cause (creator) to allow evil and suffering to exist in his creation to his purpose and suggesting that the creator is the author of evil. The allowance for diversity makes god accessible to all of humanity (his creation) at all times and in all places. The allowance for a diversity of process makes God the God of all mankind.
* * *
*Editor’s Postscript: While looking for the plural of “hadith” (it is “hadith” or “ahadith”) I just stumbled across this passage on a Moslem website http://quransmessage.com/articles/hadith%20FM2.htm:
The Quran claims to be the direct word of God, the Divine scripture, a revelation to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and hence the ‘primary source’ of any interpretation, the absolute first principle for analysis.
It also presents itself as a discourse (Hadith) to mankind (45:6). It is not the personal property of any religious elite, divide, group, sect or individual. Non Muslims have as much right to reflect, ponder, scrutinise, question, criticise the arguments presented by the Quran (and Muslim interpretations of it) as those who have ‘inherited’ their religion and have been born into Muslim households.
The Quran is simply a message to all mankind from a Divine Creator.
068.052
“But it is nothing less than a Reminder to all nations (Arabic: Alameen)”
===
† The Blind Men of Hindustan poem was quoted and discussed in the context of Truth on July 26, 2014 http://www.donweaver.org/truth-ii/ and October 25, 2014. http://www.donweaver.org/truth-xiv/
* * *
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.