I wonder how many religions, denominations, and sects claim to know the only way to God, and promise that all who follow their rules will be among the chosen few who will share the glory of heaven for eternity? It seems that the number of such exclusive faith groups has grown with the passage of time, but thankfully there has also been an increase in the number of people who recognize that a God of Love who created all of us would not be so selective.
Just for discussion's sake, suppose I decide to convert to one particular denomination which warns that I will spend eternity in hell if I don’t do as they preach. I believe I've been born again, and I am baptized by immersion in the church pool. I am so relieved to know with absolute certainty that I will go to heaven when I die! I am absolutely ecstatic until it occurs to me that none of my family or friends share my faith, and some do not believe that Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven. How will I enjoy eternity without my loved ones?
As I continue to ponder my salvation, I wonder about the millions of people who have lived in different parts of the world, far away from the place where Jesus lived and died. The Hindus believe that Krishna was an incarnation of God who lived in India thousands of years ago, the Buddhists believe that Gautama Buddha demonstrated the way to enlightenment, and the Muslims believe that Mohammed is a divine messenger and prophet of God. And then there are the other millions of people who believe that God or other divine beings have spoken to them through Nature or other sources. Can I believe that the God who created all of us would have restricted his communications to one little part of the world, for one period of time, through just one person who was granted the sole power to save all of us from an eternity of despair?
Now I have to wonder . . . if God had nothing to do with Krishna, Buddha, and other religious leaders, such as Tao-te-Ching and Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, founder of Sikhism, from where did these men get their ideas? And if they were so completely off-base, why would God have allowed them to teach their flawed concepts to anyone? Would it have been better for the people of Asia and other parts of the world to be kept in total darkness while awaiting the Christian missionaries who wouldn’t arrive in those countries for many centuries? Or is it possible that God revealed divine truth to different people at different times, in different parts of the world; knowing that religion would not be a “one size fits all” concept for all of the earth’s inhabitants?
I ponder these questions while looking more closely at the core lessons of each religion. Buddha taught that one must develop wisdom and compassion in order to attain enlightenment. Enlightenment, rather than salvation, is the goal of a Buddhist. But the Buddha’s appeal that compassion be put into selfless action by alleviating suffering wherever it appears, is really not different from Jesus’s commands to his disciples to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick.
The Hindus know Krishna as the embodiment of love and divine joy, who destroys all pain and sin, who was born to establish the religion of love. Jesus said: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" and, "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Luke 10:27). He also said: "Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you” (Luke 6:27). Christians who believe the prophecy in Revelation 21:4 will see the similarity between their goal and that of Krishna’s followers: “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
I can’t read the Bible and not feel its underlying message that God is Love; we are all children of Love; and it is the messages of love that emanate from a divine source, while those passages that encourage judgmental thinking were added, I believe, by oppressors who played on the fears of the masses in order to gain power over them.
I have given examples of love as the central message in just three religions; but the golden rule, that you should do to others as you would have others do to you, is the law of love that has been laid down over and over, in different languages, in various religions, around the world. (See The Golden Rule in Thirteen Sacred Texts.) The Dalai Lama has said: "Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion has more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal."
Now I have a problem with my membership in the church that promised to save me from eternal damnation. After my contemplations, I realize that a God who is Love cannot leave anyone to such a fate. Even those who don’t believe in God are children of Love, just as a child who runs away from home is still loved and welcomed back on her return. No matter how much our children ignore us and disobey us, we will always love them, won’t we? How could we expect less of God?
Emily, like you I believe there is a frameworK which can and does comfortably hold a whole range of different belief structures, including the mainstream monotheistic religions, polytheistic religions like Hinduism, as well aS science/materialism.
ReplyDeleteFor isntance, here's a "scientific take" on the the three omni's: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence
I believe that the differences between belief structures are only apparent differences, brought about by the treachery of language, which frequently conceals more than it reveals.
I believe the differences are about the misapplication of names/labels, not substantive differences about the ideas and concepts. People almost always confuse the Name of the Thing (eg Jehovah) with the Thing Itself, or confuse the Name with the Classification (a divine being, a god)
This takes us into deconstruction territory which I hate. But I do find the follwoing distinctions very useful: distinction between the Sign, the Thing Signified, the Signifier/s; or between the Thing Itself and the Attributes of the Thing.
Anyway, this comment is far too long so I'll end here. I hope you will continue coming to visit Cosmic Rapture.
Regards
masterymistery at cosmic rapture
Listen to the Alanis Morisette song "Still"- it suddenly occurred to me that this is about the unconditional love of God. Also her song, "That I would be Good," is an amazing song- despite my faults and my foibles, I could still be loved- its very moving.
ReplyDeleteA Seventh-Day Adventist pastor explained it like this: Eventually everyone we love will be Saved. So we will all be together in Heaven. The people whom nobody cares about, and did not try to be good, will fade away. They won't actively suffer in Hell forever; instead, they will just fade away to nothing, or dissipate (like water evaporating away, or like dust being scatterred).
ReplyDeleteA Supreme Being would not condemn an individual to infinite torment for whatever the individual did in a finite lifespan. A God who _would_ condemn people to infinite torment would be a God to be _feared_ but not a God to be _loved_. Ultimately we have to decide what kind of God would be truly a Supreme Being worthy of our devotion.
A story was written about it. I no longer have the reference. It was likely in a Science Fiction and Fantasy anthology of short stories. In the story, a liquor store owner was shot to death in a robbery of the store. An angel showed him around Heaven. Then the angel took him down to Hell and said, This is where you belong. (The tour of Heaven was merely to let him know what he was missing.) Hell was a dreary place but actually livable. After a couple of hundred years down there, the man demanded to speak with God, and this was granted. The man asked why he'd been condemned to Hell. God said the man had had an impure thought about a young woman and also the man had cursed once. God said (in effect) that was it and no second chances; the man was in Hell to stay forever, and there was nothing to be done about it. All this was delivered cavalierly by a God more interested in getting back to his Heavenly bliss with his companions up there. The man was outraged and said so. The man said to God: If that's the kind of God you are, then I'd rather be in Hell than be in your Heaven! And so the story ended. The man continued to be in Hell and did as well as he could with his life (or afterlife) down there. I agree with that man. The choice we have is: what kind of God would it be, that we would want to be in that God's Heaven?
Or something like that.