Evidence for God from Science

I don't think that saying the major religions have a common goal at the most universal and atomic levels is a statement which presupposes the relativity of truth - the opposite, in fact: It is pointing out the absolute nature of truth, which lives up to the definition so perfectly that no amount of doctrine or dogma can disguise its essential aspects. The relativity can appear because truth must be considered in the light of time and space, which is where history and culture - geography - are the variable factors posed by life on Earth which impact our understanding.

If an individual has not had the benefit of receiving the wisdom of Jesus Christ, are we to suppose them incapable of finding the 'right way' (ie, the 'way to God')? The bible is very clear that Jesus died to save all people; who are we to assume that the mystery of Christ does not move in mysterious ways, and that Christ himself would reject a 'right living' person (or indeed any person) because the letters of their creed did not precisely match the words of the New Testament?

This is not to take something away from St Paul, simply acknowledging that not everyone is lucky enough to be acquainted with his work, which is both a literary and spiritual masterpiece.

In looking at all of this we must not forget that Jesus was a Jew. Because he denounced the pharisees, political conspirers and money lenders in the temple, we should not assume he was rejecting his faith. We have every reason to assume he was an absolute master of his religion of birth, which is why - from a very early age - he was able to pick apart the wrong-doings of priests and elders of his time. He also preached forgiveness and to love our neighbours and enemies alike. Would he have had us tear each other apart over differences between letters?

The living Christianity - keeping the balance between an active and contemplative life, which I agree is the best way - is no different in principle to the 'right living' decreed by other religions. The basic commandments of humanity hold true wherever you are in the world and Jesus was a lover of humanity. I have no doubt in my mind that he would (and does) smile down on all humble, faithful children, no matter which church they are attending at whomsover's behest.

Regarding the authenticity of scripture, we must remember that everything we read in the bible has been translated several times over and that at a certain point in history, a group of men got together and decided what should be ''kept in' and what should be 'left out'. I would love to know how this was decided and why the church fathers considered it so important to keep the more esoteric elements of Christianity - at the time a religion characterised by many diverse sects with various source documents - away from the organised church.

I am not saying if the editing of the Bible was a 'good' or a 'bad' thing, I don't see it in those terms, simply as something that happened, and I think it is important to try and understand why and how it was done. Who can decide what aspects of God's word another has the right to access, when the truth alone can set us free and nothing else has that power? I am not trying to be negative here, as perhaps it was indeed done by the right people for the right reasons.

Take for example the Gnostic scriptures, such as the Gospel of Thomas; I am interested to know how you would view a text of this kind; devoutly Christian but not included in the Bible. This is purely an example, I am not commenting on Thomas here, you can say Peter instead if you like, I'm just trying to objectively look at the question as to why he would be omitted when others were not.

Jesus himself wrote nothing; was this to avoid the problem of interpreation raised by the written word? Or perhaps it was to maintain secrecy or avoid the proliferation of dogma which had so infuriated him in Jerusalem. In this respect Christianity had similarities with mystery religions such as the cults of Demeter, Osiris and Dionysus, which were conducted in absolute secrecy under pain of death, and which also involved initiation with the express purpose of achieving eternal life. Initiates who attempted to reveal the particulars of their experiences were condemned to death and made a public example of. Why?

Perhaps by revealing the secrets it was feared that the mysteries would lose their potency. Could this be why certain texts were 'lost', did they reveal too much? Gnostic scripture is known to be quite Kabbalistic in nature and Kabbalah, as we know, is characterised by extreme secrecy, at least partly for the protection of the public, as the uncontrolled study of kabbalistic principles is as likely to lead to death, madness or loss of faith as it is to empower the individual through knowledge of the truth...

The dangerous nature of certain teachings is not evidence for their lack of truth.

Regarding the accepted Scriptures, I do think it is a particular gift of grace which has enabled the Christian to reveal the mysteries in a 'safe' way, it is what makes the life of Jesus into the turning point of history, the bridge between the ancient and modern worlds. The pre-eminence of Christianity as a perfected faith cannot be disputed, the life of Jesus is testament to that, but have nothing to fear from taking an objective look at history; It reveals nothing which detracts from the pivotal role of Christ in the story of our creation.

So there is no need to shy away from other faiths and cultures as if they might lead us astray. To do so would be like denying the spectrum of colours which makes up white light; not only would we be missing the truth and rejecting our inherent unity with other human beings - all parts of the same God - we would be depriving ourselves of the fullest possible knowledge of beauty and wisdom.

Hinduism, for instance, is the most ancient religion of the world and also the most tolerant of other faiths; its open and forgiving nature in this respect is an aspect of its essential truth; the very acceptance that it does not have a monopoly on truth - wisdom indeed. It also has a major point in common with Christianity in the idea of a holy trinity, whilst the Hebrew letter 'Shin', described as 'the capstone of God's word' has the appearance of a three pronged crown or three candles; however you perceive it, it has a distinctly triune appearance.

When I look at a religion it is the principles not the letters I perceive as being universal. I do not have to worship Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva, but I can certainly acknowledge that the idea of a holy trinity is for some reason considered essential. I see the mystery presented by these examples as being, in part, about the nature of 'three'. It makes me wonder how the interaction of Father, Son and Holy Spirit occurs, in what pattern, with the result of which manifestations/aspects of creation? The answer is anything but one-dimensional.

As for Zen, I do not consider that to be a religion, but a meditation technique designed to strengthen body and mind.

And to sum up for everyone who couldn't be bothered to read all of this (and I wouldn't blame you!) if I was to encapsulate everything I've said into one small statement, it would be this:

Love will find a way

Charlotte,

I agree with some of what you're saying but not all.

I think you can make a claim that there are elements of truth in most world religions and that that falls under the universal truth of God or common grace. However, the claims of Christ as preserved in the Gospels are exclusive in terms of the claims he made of Himself. When He says I am the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the father but by me, either He's making a true claim or the claim disqualifies His being the Son of God.

The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, (not the infancy narrative) is far from a clearly Christian document. I actually did my Senior Thesis back in 1985 on that document. It is 114 logia or sayings attributed to Christ with no contextual narrative surrounding it. It's like a book of quotes. It corresponds to several sayings of Christ from the Gospels, many found in Matt 13. There are several that are corrupt versions of Biblical sayings which were altered to match Gnostic teaching and doctrine. There are many that are not found in the Scriptures at all. When it was originally found at Nag Hammadi, there was a brief flurry of excitement that it might represent what has come to be known at the "Q" document, a hypothetical documents suggested by Biblical Scholars to explain sayings of Christ present in Matthew and Luke but not Mark. There are very few serious Biblical Scholars who believe that anymore and the fact that it was found on a scroll of other Gnostic documents makes it pretty clear that is comes from that body of tradition and literature which abounds with pseudopographal writings which lack the textual strength and tradition of the cannon that was accepted by the early Church. Part of their criteria included a clear tie to apostolic authority and influence.

Yes Jesus was a Jew and early Christianity was not seen as a new Religion but rather a sect of Judiasm. That doesn't argue for salvation through Judiasm today or any other religion. Christ's claims were exclusive. No matter how you nuance it, arguing anything else does indeed default to a form of universalism if there is salvation through any other person or any other means than the atonement of Christ.

If you wish to discuss more in the area of the "editing" of the Scriptures, that's an area I've examined for many years in my own life and studies and we can do so.

Charlottecowell again a good post!

Look at how Paul dealt with the same issues you brought up in Act 17:21-32: "Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new. 22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.'

29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." 32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." ESV

Several point to note: God is unknown yet known. The evidence for his existence is the fact life exist and this is known. Next Paul speaks this: “26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us…”

This is where the state of other religions are — feeling and groping for God. Then along comes Christ and God is revealed. The question now comes — will people accept this or hold on to things they made about god, imaginations, opinions, idols, etc. Now comes a test — will people repent?

Do all spiritual roads lead to God?

I wrote the following on the Amazon Christianity forum and it applies here as well and Quoted below for a few paragraphs:

"If you gave me directions to your home then I could find it... regarding all spiritual roads leading to the same end...

“...Now, If all spiritual roads lead to God then why when going to your house I can take only a certain road to get there? If I do not follow your directions to your house as they were written down, or if I instead just decided to turn south instead of north to your home, would I really arrive at your house?

“In America, if I drive south, I would end up in Argentina and the end of the road in a desolated area or drive into the sea where there is no road, no path. All roads do not lead to your own home and yet, how can all roads lead to God?

“How can you know for certain one is on the correct road? How does one arrive at your home if the way is not known? Answer, you give those whom want to visit you clear directions and point out the way for them. Even give them a phone number to call if they stray from your directions and get lost along the way. Allegorically speaking, why would God be any different?

“Yet if God did this, people decry — “how unfair! How narrow minded! How cruel! How Unjust! I cannot believe in a God who gives me concrete directions home and points out the way to him. This map he left me is flawed! It was written by others and not him! How dare he give ME such directions! What about all those that will never hear!

“People claim that all the other roads are the correct roads to God and this proves Christianity as the greatest wrong; however, all religious system hold a different version of a theistic God and others hold that everything is part of a pantheistic impersonal God. Other religions teach evil is an illusion. Others teach that evil is real. The majority teaches salvation by works but what is defined as good works between each varies greatly. There is even the religion of no religion.

“All these roads that the crowd follows cannot be right as they each teach opposites of each other. They do not lead to the same place. Something needs to gain your attention to the right path, the correct course. God left us a roadmap to him and directions to follow. Why he even performed an act to gain your attention. How do you know what road is the correct one?

“It is marked as the one most unique, different, and despised, the one road people hate to follow, the one the crowds ignore, and the road opposite of all other roads. This road makes judgments, it convicts and it purifies. The roads that rely on human effort abound aplenty. Only one road relies on God's grace.

“Which way leads to God? How can one be sure? The uniqueness of the road, different from all others would be a sure sign post of the correct way along with an event that transcends centuries to gain your attention. Yet, what I hear many say is their complete rejection of the map that God left which reveals the way, the truth, and the light...” {End of quotes I wrote on Amazon Forum}

Acts 17 records that some of the people after hearing about the resurrection of the dead from Paul mocked while a few others heard and found the right road. Jesus made a statement that He is the way (road), the truth, and the life and that no-one comes to God unless through him. This is a bold statement. It challenges people from all faiths because it is true. For it to be true means there are false paths. Some will mock and scoff at such a claim and hold on dearly to their idols and imaginations.

In Acts 17, Paul was pointing to Christ as the way to God. It is not the ideas of Christianity about love and positive moral ethics that the non-Christian world hates or even disagrees with. It is the claim that Christ is the only way and their way is false. This is seen as judgmental and harsh and arrogant. Yet, people are permitted to mock and scoff and freely go their own way. This is not true in Islamic countries and even in Israel you cannot speak against the religious status quo without retribution: Same in India depending on the province.

People like to mock the Judaic — Christian scriptures and claim these cannot be trusted because men and women wrote it. Would you trust your closet and dearest friend to write the directions and draw me a map to your home? Why cannot God?

Would God be schizophrenic with directions that tell everyone, “just go straight on Hindu Lane for a country mile, then turn north on Buddha Boulevard that begins with the first step for as long as you like till you reach Islamic Drive then turn east and go past Allaa Wills road and turn right on Rabbi Avenue and keep going, whatever you do - do not turn on Christian Way cause the road is too narrow minded, instead take a left on Zen street to God's house. Matter of fact why not just take any ol' road you like if you do not like my directions - see ya later - Love God"

You think the God of the universe would leave better directions than that. He would chose a people to proclaim the praises of who he is and have them write a book describing what he is like, what he desires, and the way back to him. He gives us a cell phone of prayer in case we make a wrong turn or two and even an auto pilot to make sure we arrive in time. However, many forget this helper (Holy Spirit) is with us and often instead take control of the wheel thus delaying one's progress a bit longer.

I am glad the Lord of Glory left us a map, directions, and a helper and I find these to be indispensable for leading me to God's eternal home. He placed a cross as a marker to the entrance of the road and made a big scene to gain our attention to the correct road from amongst many. The crowds follow the board paths. God's road is narrow and straight to him so you'll know you are one the correct road. His road is unique as it is paved with grace. All other roads are paved with human works.

Acts 17: 30, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." 32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." ESV
-
-
-

Thanks for your replies, guys, that's great!

BW, I like this bit of your post about allah avenue etc, made me smile, and I do understand the points you are making. However, regarding the excellent quote from St Paul about people only finding their way to God through Jesus, the way I would interpret this is, no matter which way someone goes, Jesus will find them. It is him that is the shepherd and if his children get lost on different paths, sooner or later he WILL find them. Do you see the difference?

What Paul says to the Athenians only confirms what I think: that God is not in a temple of stone but within the mind, body and soul of the person. Also in the case of the Greeks - presumably Paul is referring to pagan religions - I do of course make a distinction between idolatory and enlightened 'faith'....I do not think worshipping a craven image is going to help anyone.

Nor do I think that all the other religions I mention have everything right, simply that there are some things they DO seem to have right, the trinity being a great example - maybe even the only example, but it's a pretty important one isn't it? Also, given Jesus' appearance relatively recently, I don't think discounting everything that came before him is necessary - I would prefer to reinterpret all other philosophies in his light. There is no one philosophy apart from Christianity that I see as complete, but to salvage the parts which do ring true is to redeem the souls of their believers for eternity; it brings all things into the present moment, as if it were the 'end of time'....

It is not that I dispute the fact that Christ is the way, which you are right to emphasise lest we lose sight of that, I simply feel it's necessary to acknowledge that not all people can find this way of their own accord. We have the benefit of our society - lucky us that we have been 'introduced' to the living God by our parents, teachers, friends and priests...but what of the others? Are they to be damned because they were born in Indonesia or China rather than Italy or America? This notion is not acceptable because it is inhumane and unforgiving. Even if you believe in pre-election (and I'm not commenting one way or another about that because I don't know the answer yet), it is too much to assume that the orders were dished out according to location.

Also, as I said in an earlier post, there are 'right' and 'wrong' interpretations of all religions, our task is to sort the wheat from the chaff in all of them. Take the Koran for example. This is not a book I have read and I'm not especially inspired to do so, but i do appreciate the fact that it is sung; the artistic leanings of Islam - its joyous connection with 'the muse' is, for me, the source of its potency, the essential aspect of its truth, along with the fact that a true Muslim lives a humble, peaceful, spiritually fruitful life - motivated by belief in the afterlife - in much the same way as a true Christian would.

However, the similarities between Christianity and Islam (or other religions) - as you rightly point out - clearly do end at a certain point and ultimately involve the worship of different prophets, and much more else besides.

For the sake of peace in the world, therefore, I find it best to focus on the fact that our Father God is one and the same, because to detach a Muslim from their burning love of Mohammed would be as impossible as detaching a Christian from their burning love for Jesus... I think this is a matter for God not us to decide as it's too emotive a subject. I might well have the rational, personal belief that the Muslim's (or anyone else with another faith) ultimately 'have it wrong' and Jesus is the one true prophet, but it wouldn't help anyone for me to state that, and as I also said before, you can't detach a religion from its historical context.

If Jesus came for the first time now, do you think Christianity would take shape in the same way? No, of course it would not, because amongst other things Jerusalem is not a city controlled by the Roman empire, it is a city being fought over by the Arab nations and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is predominantly Orthodox not Catholic....again, it is the relatives of time and space which we cannot avoid, and which ensure that the truth, though absolute, can only be understood in the light of evolution.

And would we have the same attitude towards Jesus if our lives were in danger because of our faith? I like to think I would have been willing to get thrown to the lions, crucified or tortured on account of him - we all would. But would we really? Maybe yes, maybe no, we simply don't know. For people living in countries where secular rulers use God to reinforce their powers - sometimes tyrannical - can we expect them all to risk life and limb, or the safety of their children, on account of dogma, especially if they never had the chance to learn or do things differently? I don't think we can, because you can bet your neck that if they did rise up the Christian nations would not come out in their support, not at a political level.

Many countries, China being a great example, use propaganda, fear and other techniques to control the minds and hearts of their people. We, thank God, are not subjected to this, we are free to think and do what we want, within reason, but what if we were not, how would we behave, and how would Jesus look upon our souls - as being lost and in need of protection, or as being damned? It is a loving heart that Jesus responds to; his compassion is the way forward.

Canuckster, thank you for explaining a little more about Thomas. As I said in my original post, though, this was purely an example because it is a well known Gnostic text. I have read this Gospel and although there are things in there which ring very true to me, there are also things I find to be too 'harsh', for want of a better word. It was the 'editing' I was more interested in, and I probably would enjoy a discussion in more depth about this as it's always intrigued me.