Fri 17 Jul 2009
Aren’t there many different paths to God?
Posted by Darren under Apologetics , Christians , Epistemology , Faith , God , Jesus , Philosophy , PluralismShouldn’t Christians just leave people alone? After all, if all religions feel fulfilling to those that follow them, why try to get people to change their beliefs? You may have heard people say that there are many roads up the mountain, but they all eventually lead to the same point at the top.
I guess it depends whether religion is like insulin or ice cream. For example, I prefer chocolate ice cream, while you might prefer vanilla, or butter pecan, or strawberry, or … great, now I’m hungry. But regardless of what your favorite flavor is, there’s nothing wrong with choosing one instead of another; it’s a personal preference. If someone told me they liked mint flavor best, I wouldn’t respond by saying “What the heck’s wrong with you?” or “How dare you choose mint instead of chocolate, you big jerk!”
The point is this:
That’s the beauty of ice cream – you can choose what you prefer. When it comes to medicine, however, it doesn’t make sense to choose what you prefer. Rather, it’s essential to choose what heals. It would be silly to choose NyQuil over penicillin simply because it tastes better. (Greg Koukl)
When choosing ice cream, you choose what you like. But when you choose medicine, you choose what heals you. Religion isn’t like ice cream, where you should choose whatever “tastes best”. You need to choose what’s true. The truth is often tough, but that doesn’t mean we should just ignore it and choose what we like.
Jesus didn’t claim Christianity is ‘true like ice cream’. He didn’t say “Come, follow me, it’ll be fun!”. He in fact claimed something very specific, contradicting every single religious (or non-religious) person who lived before him. He claimed that it’s impossible to “earn” our way into heaven, and in fact need to trust in God (who Jesus himself claimed to be in human form) instead of trusting our own failing efforts.
But isn’t that pure arrogance? Isn’t that intolerant? Doesn’t it sound presumptuous for Christians to claim they have “the truth” and all other religions are wrong? Well, only if truth is like ice cream. If someone is dying and needs medicine, you need to give them what will heal them, not what they like best. In the same way, Jesus gives us what we need, and ultimately what is best for us.
There are many different paths, but they don’t all eventually lead to the top of the same mountain. Some veer off to the left and the right; others climb entirely different mountains! And if God is real, truth about God is not like ice cream; it’s like medicine, and only what is true can heal.
14 Responses to “Aren’t there many different paths to God?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Yum ice cream. Some parts of religion can be analogous to ice cream like: types of music, free will verse determinism, women in office, etc. But where does the ice cream stop and the medicine start? Can women preach? Can practicing gays be Christians? Can I believe on my own or is it totally up to God?
You mentioned that it is impossible to "earn" our way into heaven, but isn't believing an act? Isn't having faith in something invisible something you have to do?
August 9th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Hi Mark,
I just read your response. I want to address the last part of it…
It would seem that believing would be 'earning' but the Scripture says that no one can come to the Father unless he calls them. He does give us that one condition yes, but he calls us. It is also God who gives us all our abilities. He is our creator, so in essence, nothing started with us, it all began with him and he told us the way of salvation is through believing on him, nothing else. Also, how can we believe if there was nothing first to believe in? God provided the very thing to believe in and told us it was the only way. God's gift to us is free will so we can choose to believe it or not, that is our choice, but that doesn't change what God has said about it in the Bible. Even that was given to us. It is through none of our efforts that we are saved. It was all by his grace and his initiating everything first.
As for the other issues. The Lord grants understanding wisdom when we earnestly ask for it. They aren't just simple pat answers which would give cause for debate. If you really want to know then I am certain that you will seek it with your whole heart. If you simply want to debate, that is futile. There is history involved with each of these issues. What needs to be understood is what was happening at the time, who the writer was specifically addressing, and cross referencing. If you would really like to know, there are a lot of wonderful studies with in depth information to give more clarity of understanding on each issue.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:21 am
"…only what is true can heal."
I think of the many children who have slowly and painfully died right before the eyes of their parents, believing what their holy book told them about curing the sick with prayer.
…only what is true can heal."
October 26th, 2009 at 1:22 am
AcesLucky, thank you for your comments. However, I think you've clearly taken my quote out of context. I wasn't referring primarily to physical healing here, I was referring to healing from sin. I don't at all advocate taking a faith-based healing approach at the expense of medical healing (since God also heals through our own immune systems, medicine, etc). I advocate prayer for healing in faith, because I've witnessed myself how effective that can be, but not *instead of* doctors, medicine, etc.
What did you think of the rest of the post, ignoring for a moment that last line?
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:43 am
I thought it was purely assertion, claiming Christianity to be the "truth/medicine" as opposed to other forms of spiritual endeavors being "ice cream/flavor preference".
You made the analogy that Christianity is the medicine BECAUSE it was the truth, and therefore the medicine, not subject to preference (the nyquill/penicillin analogy).
My view is if it's true, then it's true in an ACTUAL sense. And so if Christianity were the medicine, it could only be because it's ACTUALLY true.
But if it were actually true, children wouldn't be dying based on what Jesus says in the bible. In other worlds, it would ACTUALLY be true, not in some metaphorical "spiritual" sense. Plus, if it's true in a spiritual sense, one might think it would be true in a physical sense as well (if truth is absolute).
Thus, "only what's true can heal" is the medicine — see, that's actual.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
AcesLucky,
Sorry I never replied to your post!
Again, it seems as though I've failed. I wasn't suggesting that all other religions are "icecream/preference" … I actually do agree with you, a religion is true only if it is, as you say, actually true. And of course, if Christianity is actually true, then all others would be false; the same way if, say, Islam is true, then Christianity (and all others) would be false.
"if it were actually true, children wouldn’t be dying based on what Jesus says in the bible."
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that if Jesus' words were true, that people wouldn't be dying? I don't know where in the Bible such a claim is made. It's not assumed that everyone will be physically healed. That isn't seen as being most important, since our time here on the Earth is temporary, whereas our eternal destiny is forever. The healing Jesus provides is indeed spiritual, but not merely metaphorical.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
“if it were actually true, children wouldn’t be dying based on what Jesus says in the bible.”
I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that if Jesus’ words were true, that people wouldn’t be dying?
======
When people take the words (i.e., of Jesus) in the bible as "actually true"; for instance:
Matt 21:21 "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."
John 14:12-14 "…if you ask anything in my name, I will do it."
Mark 11:24 "…whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."
James 5:15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well..
Etc…etc…
People take that as actually true (meaning in real life), because it's in the bible, and pray to cure their sick children and the child dies. Look up:
'"Followers of Christ Church" in Oregon City. It's a church with a long history of child deaths.' Or Dale and Leilani Neumann, or Javon Thompson, and a host of others.
They sit around and pray over these sick children believing what the bible tells them instead of taking them to a local doctor which, as it turns out, can almost always treat them rather easily. But no. The child dies a slow agonizing death, sometimes over weeks.
Why do they do this? Because the bible tells them that prayer should work as Jesus promised. But in fact, it does not work.
If it were true, it would work. See?
Clearly, Christianity wasn't the "medicine" for these children or their believing parents and congregations. (And forgive me if I can't accept the agonizing death of a child as a "spiritual" healing.)
Thus my original statement agreeing with you, "only what is true can heal."
November 12th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Again, when I was talking about medicine I was using it as an analogy. I was talking about spiritual healing, not physical healing. When you take a look at what the whole Bible teaches, not just certain quotes (without context) it's apparent that it teaches that not everyone should expect to be healed physically. Look at the James 5 quote for example: It's clear from the context that this is regarding a very specific application, namely the elders of the church praying for an individual. Even in that case, there is no assurance of healing due to prayer. Prayer in the Christian faith does not (at least, should not) act like a magic formula. I recently spent a lot of time researching this because the topic came up at my church and so I was tasked to write a position paper on the matter. Here is a brief excerpt:
Does God desire that each of us be healed? Yes, in the sense that our loving God does not desire that any of His children would be burdened with pain. However, in a similar way to how God desires that all will be saved (ex. 1 Timothy 2:4) but not all will in fact be saved (ex. John 14:6), not all that God desires necessarily will come to pass. This including healing, and not everyone will receive divine physical healing.
There are many times in the Bible when people are not physically healed. Paul mentions his "thorn in the flesh" (2 Corinthians 12:7) which was not healed, even after he prayed three times for healing. Timothy (who is "faithful in the Lord", 1 Corinthians 4:17) is said to have "frequent illnesses" (1 Timothy 5:23). In response, Paul doesn't tell Timothy to be healed, he just tells Timothy to "use a little wine". Elsewhere, Paul notes "I left Trophimus sick in Miletus" (2 Timothy 4:20). Jesus, in John 5, heals one man by the pool of Bethesda, even though there were many sick, and then slips away. Not everyone, even the most faithful Christians, will be healed. This is demonstrated in scripture and confirmed by our own experience.
I also note that God does heal through “mundane” methods such as our immune systems and medical attention. Jesus affirmed seeking help from doctors when he said that “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.” (Matthew 9:12). Also, gospel author Luke was a physician (Colossians 4:14) who accompanied Paul on his missionary journeys.
Those who take verses such as you've quoted above as unqualified promises are taking them in a way that was never intended, with sometimes tragic results. Personally, I have known people who have been miraculously healed, recently a medical doctor who attends my church was healed of an illness in a way inexplicable to medical science. However, I personally deal with certain physical ailments which have not (yet?) been healed, so I don't approach this issue dispassionately as an observer, either.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:45 am
He heals the epileptic
14 And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying, 15 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. 16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. 17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me. 18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. 19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? 20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Matt 17:14-21 (KJV)
Notice the Title "He heals the epileptic"
Notice Jesus is specifically talking about HEALING and why the others couldn't do it.
Notice the context is supplied by Jesus referring to HEALING (not of a spirit but an actual physical affliction).
I specifically chose these passages because in each, the context is already supplied by Jesus!
I know it's a knee-jerk reaction to claim "context" whenever a scripture turns out to be factually false, as in this case. But to claim "context" here is wrong.
But by all means; tell me what the context in this scripture is, if not the one supplied by Jesus and the Title of the episode.
Is he talking about healing trees? Was the person suffering a "spiritual" affliction?
"And nothing shall be impossible unto you." Was he just joking? Saying it with a wink? Please by all means, what is the context of the words of Jesus if they don't mean what they actually say?
November 15th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Hello again AcesLucky!
The context of the verses you've quoted is certainly healing. I don't dispute that; although, in the final verses Jesus seems to be using this situation ("Healing the [one] epileptic", not "Healing everyone") to give a more general teaching about prayer. Nevertheless, healing is certainly in view here. There's no need for snarky remarks about healing trees, I think I've been polite so far during our conversation, if you'd like to continue to talk let's try to have our discussion in a civil manner, okay?
The main contention here seems to be verse 20: "And nothing shall be impossible unto you." I think it's important to read the Bible seriously … what I mean is, to read it literally in the sense that we attempt to interpret what Jesus or the authors said as they meant it to be interpreted, not literally in the sense of woodenly.
For example, self-help guru today might say "With self-confidence you can ace any job interview!" but he of course means any job interview the person is reasonably qualified for, not to become the CEO of Microsoft. In the same way, I don't think Jesus meant literally NOTHING would be impossible to us; if that was the case I could, say, twiddle my little finger to make 2+2=5, a square circle, or destroy God.
"Context" doesn't just mean the paragraph a verse is in, either. No verse is more important than any other verse. If all we had was the passage above, and no other part of the NT, we could conclude that Jesus' promise was unqualified and any non-ridiculous request would be granted. However, we have the rest of the NT, which should be considered for the totality of its teaching on any particular subject. I've already given examples above of people in the NT who were not healed of their physical ailments. So, if that is the case, we can ask: What are the reasons why this would be the case, taking all NT teaching into account? (ie, since Jesus didn't seem to mean this as an absolutely unqualified statement, what qualifications might there be?)
I'm glad you've quoted the whole passage, because in the text itself (italicized above for emphasis) Jesus gives one reason a prayer might not be answered: "unbelief". (v20) This is why Jesus refused to heal in his hometown (Mark 6:1-6 & Matthew 13:53-58). We also read that unrepentant sin may be a barrier to unanswered prayer (1 Peter 3:12). Elsewhere, Jesus explained that certain ailments may persist to result in greater overall benefit (John 9; also, 1 Peter 1:6-7). Ultimately, if God does exist, God's wisdom is exponentially greater than ours, so God may choose not to grant any particular request we make for reasons we do not (yet?) comprehend. A prayer of Jesus himself, prayed in accordance with his entirely human nature, was not answered (Matthew 26:42) yet it resulted in the greatest good for humankind.
As I stated before, I've studied this issue quite a bit recently, and do not see conflict here. Is this a particularly important issue to you personally? Have you or someone you know been saddled with a painful illness of some kind? If so, I'm sorry for that, and I hope that my comments here don't come off as being uncaring. I have been, and still am, dealing with certain physical ailments (as many people are) so I am not a dispassionate observer to these issues myself.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:36 am
@Darren
You wrote:
"There’s no need for snarky remarks about healing trees, I think I’ve been polite so far during our conversation, if you’d like to continue to talk let’s try to have our discussion in a civil manner, okay?"
—
It surprised me you took the part about "healing trees" as snarky. I quoted Matt 21:21 as part of my example: "Matt 21:21 “If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”
Here is the full quote:
"21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. 22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."
Matt 21:21-22 (KJV)
—
You wrote:
"The main contention here seems to be verse 20: “And nothing shall be impossible unto you.”
No, that's not the main contention at all. The main contention is whether Jesus is lying or telling the truth.
To suppose that the words of Jesus mean anything other than what they say, is to call Jesus a liar or inept at communication.
So the question is, why wouldn't Jesus mean what he says? (Do not ignore this question!) And do not pretend that his words MEAN something other than what they say.
Why would Jesus say one thing and mean another? If Jesus is sin free, he is not a liar — in fact as one who is sin free, he CANNOT lie as that would be bearing false witness!
I'm sorry, I can only go by what the word of Jesus actually says — and so do people that pray to heal.
PS: Are you truly Christian if you're not following Jesus? To put words in his mouth is not to follow Jesus, but to follow yourself under his name.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Well AcesLucky, you've ignored everything I said in my previous post(s), so I guess there's no point in continuing our conversation.
I do think Jesus means what he says. I don't think he was a liar nor a poor communicator. Perhaps you an impatient listener? I think he meant us to take it the way a reasonable person would take it, as I explained above, not woodenly without thinking about it. Nor do I think he intended us to ignore the rest of what scripture teaches.
With respect to being a Christian, I am by no means perfect, but I do try my best. We will have to, for the moment at least, agree to disagree, and I wish you all the best. I hope that you will at some point reconsider your interpretation.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
As we agreed. Only what is true can heal. And those children remain dead.
December 22nd, 2013 at 12:48 pm
Nice post. I wаs сhеcking continuously this blog and I am impгessed!
Extremely useful info specifically the ultimate section I maintain such
info much. I was seeking this certain information for a long time.
Thanks anԁ best of luck.