Tag: Ask Questions

Posted on

Do All Religions Come From the Same God?

This week, we’re dealing with a very specific question, so keep reading before drawing any conclusions. We’re not asking “Do all religions worship the same God?” or “Do all religions lead to the same God?”. Those questions work from the bottom-up, i.e. viewing God through the lens of a man-made construct. Remember, we want to base our ideas and beliefs on who we say God is rather than trying to conform our conception of God into something that aligns with what we already believe to be true. We’re asking a top-down question, i.e. has God used religion, in general, as a way of revealing the character of God to humanity and guiding all of us to the same ultimate purpose or goal?

Here’s what we know:

  1. The Baháʼí Faith is a religion teaching the essential worth of all religions, and the unity and equality of all people. Many indigenous people throughout the Americas are members of the Baháʼí Faith.
    • Baháʼí teachings are in some ways similar to other monotheistic faiths: God is considered single and all-powerful. However, Baháʼu’lláh, the founder of the Baháʼí Faith, taught that religion is orderly and progressively revealed by one God through Manifestations of God who are the founders of major world religions throughout history; these include Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, and Moses, with Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad being the most recent in the period before the Báb and Baháʼu’lláh.
    • Baháʼís regard the major religions as fundamentally unified in purpose, though varied in social practices and interpretations. Baháʼu’lláh taught that the religions of the world come from the same God and are in essence successive chapters of one religion from God.
  2. In 1997, Billy Graham gave a television interview, in which he said: “Well, Christianity and being a true believer–you know, I think there’s the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they’re conscious of it or not, they’re members of the Body of Christ. And I don’t think that we’re going to see a great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God’s purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that’s what God is doing today, He’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.”
  3. In Acts 10:34,35, the Apostle Peter said, “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.”
  4. In Romans 2:11-14, the Apostle Paul said, “For God shows no partiality. For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.”

The answer to this question bears heavily on the idea that members of any particular faith should be encouraged, or even required, to convert others. This is especially true in places where there is an established state religion or attempts at establishing a state religion and exercise of other religions is discouraged and/or suppressed. Further, it requires us to examine the meaning of life and why we are all here. If God is the creator, what purpose does God have for our existence and how does religion further that purpose? Is there only one religious avenue by which to fulfill that purpose, and is our ability or dedication to following that one avenue God’s ultimate goal and priority for us? Or is purpose the priority, with religion and spirituality being provided as tools to enable us to fulfill that purpose?

What do you think? Do all religions come from God? Is religion a means to an end, or is it the priority? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Posted on

The Golden Rule: Can Religions Work Together?

“I’d been reading up on comparative religion. The thing is that all major religions have the Golden Rule in Common. ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ Not always the same words but the same meaning.”

— Norman Rockwell

The concept of the “Golden Rule” is taught in all major world religions. It is a statement, in summary, of the basic requirements for all human behavior. While the sentiment may be expressed in different ways, the message is the same: treat others the way you would want to be treated. The concept may seem simple enough, but oftentimes, it appears to be easier said than done. Although the Golden Rule is a fundamental obligation in all religions, as Blaise Pascal put it, “[m]en never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” This week, we’ll be thinking about whether or not truly adopting the Golden Rule can allow people from different religious backgrounds and beliefs to work together to make the world a better place.

Studies have shown that religion can have a positive influence on many aspects of society, and throughout human history, nations have made religion a part of their governmental systems. For example, Judaism teaches that when God established Israel as a nation, He gave them a theocracy to help govern them. Currently, 20% of the countries in the world have an established state religion. However, in almost all of the countries where state religions exist, a variety of abuses and atrocities have taken place. Religion has been used to control people rather than to serve them.

That said, it is important to consider how and why something born of pure intentions becomes corrupted. How do we go from the Golden Rule to religion being used as justification for hurting and/or controlling people? Perhaps it is because of some combination of humans being imperfect, ignorance, and self-serving interests that religion can be turned into a curse rather than a blessing. Perhaps it relates back to a person’s perception of God being based more on condemnation and judgment than love. Perhaps religion is seen by many as a means to an end rather than a journey of growth and enlightenment. It’s important for us to ask ourselves what, if anything, we want to accomplish by believing and to assess how that agenda impacts us and the world around us.

If the Golden Rule is fundamental for everyone, is it so impossible that we could find a way to co-exist peacefully in purpose, even if not in belief? If nations or different ideologies wanted to become allies against anything that violated the Golden Rule…the Rule of Love…is it so impossible that they could do it as “equal-but-different” partners? Instead of pushing conformity to one thing over the other, is it possible to learn to accept and respect the fact that there will always be differences? Different people may be pursuing or encouraging different final goals, but why can’t the Golden Rule be the metric by which we gauge how we interact with each other right now? Couldn’t it be possible for everyone to encourage each other to achieve the best that their different traditions require of them while working together to oppose the negative things we can agree on?

The “fish-run principle”, which Zen Buddhists derive from Chuang-Tzu, states: “A fish-run is constructed to catch fish: we should keep the fish and forget the run. A snare is to catch a rabbit: we should keep the rabbit and forget the snare. Words are to transmit meaning: we should keep the meaning and forget the words.” We may not all speak the same languages or come from the same cultures or believe in the same things, but it isn’t impossible for different people to find common ground. If we can agree on things like compassion, love, respect, humility, empathy, and just treating others the way we want to be treated, who knows what kind of impact that collective mission and purpose could have.

What do you think? Is the Golden Rule fundamental? Is it possible for people from different religious backgrounds to work together? What areas of common ground do you think exist? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Posted on

Does Humanity Need a Savior?

Last week, we addressed the concept of “original sin”, so this week, we’ll be discussing “atonement” and the idea that humanity needs “salvation.” Atonement is “satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends.” Atonement within Western Christian Theology generally “refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin through the death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ which made possible the reconciliation between God and creation.” However, in Judaism and Islam, atonement is the process of causing a transgression to be forgiven or pardoned directly by God (rather than through Jesus Christ’s death) through true repentance, fasting, prayer, and good works. So what’s true? Does God have the prerogative and authority to simply forgive sin? Or is forgiveness only possible through the blood of Jesus Christ?

Here’s what we know:

  1. Within Christianity, there are several theories regarding how atonement might work, including:
    • Ransom Theory of Atonement – this theory teaches that the death of Christ was a ransom sacrifice, usually said to have been paid to Satan, in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result of inherited sin.
    • Satisfaction Theory of Atonement– a theory in Catholic theology that holds Jesus Christ redeemed humanity through making satisfaction (restitution) for man’s disobedience through his own supererogatory (the performance of more than what is asked for) obedience. This view acknowledges that God cannot freely forgive sins without any sort of punishment or satisfaction being exacted.
    • Moral Influence Theory of Atonement – an alternative to the satisfaction theory of atonement. Developed by Abelard, this theory focuses on changing man’s perception of God as not offended, harsh, and judgemental, but as loving. According to Abelard, “Jesus died as the demonstration of God’s love,” a demonstration that can change the hearts and minds of the sinners, turning back to God
    • Penal Substitution Theory – teaches that Jesus suffered the penalty for mankind’s sins. Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring satisfaction (restitution) for it. It states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer the death, punishment, and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin.
    • Unlimited Atonement Theory – states that Jesus died as a propitiation for the benefit of mankind without exception. A doctrinal issue that divides Christians is the question of the extent of the atonement. This question typically goes as follows: “Did Christ bear the sins of the elect alone on the cross, or did his death expiate the sins of all human beings?” Those who take this view read scriptures such as John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:6; 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2 to say that the Bible teaches unlimited atonement.
  2. According to Islam, one can be forgiven of sins through genuine tawbah (repentance) which literally means “to return.”
    • Unlike the Catholic concept of atonement, tawbah does not entail formal, ecclesiastical confession to a religious leader. Like Protestantism, Islam allows followers to repent directly to God. In addition, while Christianity and Islam considers humans as prone to sin, Islam ultimately views them as responsible for their actions and refutes the Christian concept of original sin.
    • In Islam, Muslims are discouraged from confessing their sins and sharing the wrongdoings of others. 
    • Also, according to Islam, Blood sacrifice cannot add to Divine Grace nor replace the necessity of repentance. However, sacrifice is done to help the poor and to remember Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son at God’s command (It is not their meat nor their blood that reaches Allah. it is your piety that reaches Him…”— Qur’an, sura 22, ayat 37).
    • When a human has offended or disobeyed God, ḥuqūq Allāh, penitence, remorse, and resolution are necessary in order to show that one is sincere, and will not repeat the wrongdoing in the future.
    • Repentance for sin can be accomplished through acts such as, “fasting, giving charity, sacrificing an animal, and freeing a slave.” In addition, going on the hajj can serve as a form of repentance.
    • However, regardless of one’s outward deeds, God does not accept the forgiveness of those who are insincere in their repentance and only do so in order to avoid Jahannam (similar to the concept of Hell within Christianity).
  3. In Rabbinic Judaism, atonement is achieved through repentance, which can be followed by some combination of the following:
    • confession
    • restitution
    • the occurrence of Yom Kippur (the day itself, as distinct from the Temple service performed on it)
    • tribulations (unpleasant life experiences)
    • the experience of dying.
    • the carrying out of a sentence of lashes or execution imposed by an ordained court (not now in existence)
    • Temple service (not now in existence, e.g. bringing a sacrifice).
      • Note: Which of these additions are required varies according to the severity of the sin, whether it was done willfully, in error, or under duress, whether it was against God alone or also against a fellow person, and whether the Temple service and ordained law courts are in existence or not. Repentance is needed in all cases of willful sin, and restitution is always required in the case of sin against a fellow person, unless the wronged party waives it.

While most religions included animal sacrifices as a part of their religious practices, only western Christianity teaches that those animal sacrifices represent Jesus Christ’s substitutionary death to atone for the sins of humanity. Even within Judaism, the sacrificial system only provided atonement for sins that were committed unintentionally. Intentional sin could only be forgiven by God through “a broken and contrite spirit (Psalm 51:16,17).”

The focus here should perhaps be less about whether or not humanity needs a savior and more about why God would set things up that way, if that’s actually what God did. Remember, everything we believe is ultimately a reflection of who we say God is and what characteristics we attribute to God. Does God make the rules? Or have principles been set in place that God is required to abide by? If God does make the rules, why would/did God create a scenario in which forgiveness can only be given and received through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice? And what does that mean for those who lived and died before Jesus Christ’s death or for those who lived and died without ever coming into a knowledge of Christ? Why would/did God allow the existence of something God knew humanity would ultimately need to be saved from?

What do you think? Does humanity need a savior? Is atonement for sin necessary? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Posted on

Does “Original Sin” Nullify Free Choice?

This week, we’ll be examining the nature of humanity and how that impacts whether we are free moral agents. “Sin” is “an offense against religious or moral law.” Every culture has its own interpretation of what it means to commit a sin. In the Christian tradition, the concept of “original sin” is based on the premise that “the tendency to sin [is] innate in all human beings, held to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall.” This western Christian concept was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. Other church fathers, such as Augustine (AD 354-430), also shaped and developed the doctrine. Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as an inclination or tendency towards sin (referred to as a “sin nature without collective guilt”) to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt. Moreover, as a further consequence of the first iniquity, humanity is hopelessly lost in a state of sin and is powerless on its own to obey the will of God. That said, does “original sin” nullify our ability to choose “right” from “wrong” without direct intervention/influence from God?

Here’s what we know:

  1. The concept of sinfulness being an inherent tendency in humanity is unique to western Christianity. For example, the Eastern Orthodox version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil. They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine’s notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.
  2. The doctrine of “inherited sin” is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam and Eve for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some others who believed that mortality was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam’s sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today. Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.
  3. The concept of inherited sin does not exist in Islam. Islam teaches that Adam and Eve sinned, but then sought forgiveness and thus were forgiven by God. Quotes from the Qur’an:
    • But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that [condition] in which they had been. And We said, “Go down, [all of you], as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time.” Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.— Surah al-Baqara:36–37
    • Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance.— Surah Ṭā Hāʼ:121–122

This question is important to consider because the concept of original sin implies that humans are incapable of making genuinely “good” choices without God being the direct source of that choice. But to be clear, the issue is less about whether humans are inherently “good” or inherently “bad” and more about whether we actually have the ability to choose one way or the other. If the bad things we do are ultimately the result of our “sinful natures” and the good things we do are the result of God’s influence rather than our own decisionmaking/will power, does freedom of choice even exist? Both the Qur’an and the Bible seem to suggest that it does. The Qur’an says this with regard to individual responsibility:

That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another. And that man can have nothing but what he does (of good and bad). And that his deeds will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best [fair] recompense

Surah an-Najm:38–41

Further, consider this portion of an extraordinary sermon delivered by Moses before his death as the Israelites prepared to enter the promised land:

“…when you obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Law, when you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.  It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.”

Deuteronomy 30:10-14

What do you think? Does “original sin” nullify free choice? Is humanity inherently good, inherently evil, both, or neither? Do we have any control over the good and the bad things that we do? Let us know in the comments below!

Posted on

Fear and Faith

Most world religions teach some form of an afterlife. Further, the idea of “bad” behavior being punished, both in this life and in the “life” to come, is often used to discourage people from doing what is considered to be “bad”. For example, 58% of adults in the United States believe in hell (according to the Pew Research Center). The word “hell” usually describes “a place regarded in various religions as a spiritual realm of evil and suffering, often traditionally depicted as a place of perpetual fire beneath the earth where the wicked are punished after death.” If the wicked are punished, it stands to reason that people would want to avoid being wicked, right? So this week, we will look at the relationship between fear and faith. Is fear a useful tool that God uses to get us to obey?

Here’s what we know:

  1. Fear is “an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.”
  2. A deterrent is “a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.”
  3. In the context of the criminal justice system, “deterrence — the crime prevention effects of the threat of punishment — is a theory of choice in which individuals balance the benefits and costs of crime.”
  4. The National Institute of Justice summarizes some of the research on deterrence:
    • The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment.
    • Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn’t a very effective way to deter crime. Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime. Prisons actually may have the opposite effect: Inmates learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the threat of future imprisonment.
    • Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished. The police deter crime when they do things that strengthen a criminal’s perception of the certainty of being caught. Strategies that use the police as “sentinels,” such as hot spots policing, are particularly effective.
    • Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.
  5. Most world religions teach that reaching “heaven” (or paradise, nirvana, etc.) and avoiding “hell” is at least somewhat dependent upon doing and/or being “good”.

In an experiment involving 61 ethnically and religiously diverse undergraduate students at the University of British Columbia, the participants were asked to use mental math to solve 20 addition problems. Before the test, a monitor explained that there was a glitch in the computer program being used to administer the test and that the participants needed to press the space bar key immediately after each question appeared in order to avoid seeing the answer. Cheating behavior was measured according to whether participants followed these instructions. Once the test was completed, the participants were asked to fill out a “View of God Scale,” which gauged their conceptions of God as “positive” (i.e. forgiving, loving, gentle, etc.) or “negative” (i.e. vengeful, harsh, angry, punishing, etc.). Next, the participants were asked to complete a suspicion probe, the Hoge (1972)
scale of intrinsic religiosity, a Views of God scale, and a set of demographic questions.

The results published in 2011 in The International Journal for Psychology of Religion indicated that the students’ differences in religious beliefs had no bearing on whether the students cheated or not, but the participants who applied more punitive attributes to God cheated less than those who attributed positive traits of character to God.

Fear can be a powerful deterrent, but perhaps we should be less focused on whether fear itself is a bad thing and more focused on who and/or what we are afraid of. For example, should the good things we do be motivated by a fear of going to hell? Or should the good things we do be motivated by a “fear of” (it may be better worded as “concern for”) how the negative things we do impact us, the people we love, and the world around us?

Further, is a fear of going to hell really an effective deterrent? Is the fear of what may or may not happen when we die or some other time in the future enough motivation to do good now? Is the threat of more immediate consequences even effective? Children disobey their parents all the time, knowing that they could be (and oftentimes are) caught and punished. Discipline works up to a point, but ultimately, each of us has to decide for ourselves what kinds of people we want to be and the kinds of choices we want to make.

What do you think? How does fear interplay with your faith? Do you think fear is an effective deterrent? If so, why? If not, what motivates you to be the best person you can be? Let us know in the comments below!