All Religions Are One; or at Least 1.5

Blake, The Ancient of Days

Atheists like Christopher Hitchens like to say that theists are inconsistent, for they reject the existence of all gods but one. They are only inconsistent in their atheism. Why Yahweh and not Zeus, Allah, Krishna, or Nanabush? Similarly, there are various religions with incompatible claims. How, other than some accident of birth, do you come to choose one faith over another? Can it be fair that everyone not of your faith is damned, only for this accident of birth?

This seems to be fair, if the various religions are incompatible in their claims. I have never really thought they are.

Let’s start with Zeus and Yahweh and Nanabush.

It is simply wrong to say that Christianity denies the existence of Zeus and the pagan gods.

Paul neatly explained Christianity in a Greek pagan context on the Areopagus:

Paul stood in the middle of the Areopagus, and said, "You men of Athens, I perceive that you are very religious in all things. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I announce to you."

This unknown god was not, in the pagan mind, just one more god. A “great high God” seems to be recognized in all polytheistic systems: in Korean shamanism, he is called Chilsong. In Hinduism, Brahman. The North American Indians claim they always knew of a “Great Spirit.” They never deny his existence; they simply stress his utter transcendence. As a result, for practical purposes, we are left dealing with a troupe of lesser gods like Zeus. These lesser gods are not really venerated by the pagans: they are appeased with sacrifices to keep them in a good mood.

Or else, as in Hinduism, they are expressions of aspects of the great high God. We see the same concept in Judaism: the sephirot.

Nor does Christianity deny these lesser gods. They are simply not the great high God—agreeing here with the pagans. They are intermediate beings, more powerful than men, immortal, but amoral. They are daemons, beings of pure spirit. They are simply no longer to be worshipped, for they, unlike Yahweh, have no power to save.

Now, as to Christians and Muslims worshipping different gods: this is nonsensical. As monotheists, both assert there can be only one supreme being; this is also necessarily so as a matter of logic. It does not mean anything that they use different names for this entity; and, in fact, they do not use different names. A Lebanese Christian prays to Allah. It is the Arabic word for God, related to “Elohim” or “El,” the Hebrew Biblical terms.

Christianity in conflict with Judaism? This would be heresy in Christian terms. Yahweh made a covenant with the Jews. Can a Christian believe that God would not keep his word? So long as a single Jew stays faithful to that covenant, it is still in force.

Buddhism is often claimed to be the odd one out, atheist, and incompatible with any of the other main religions. This is an illusion. Buddhism is simply not concerned with metaphysics. It is a psychology, not a philosophy; and is actually compatible with all religious for this reason.

What, you will say, about reincarnation? Reincarnation is a basic premise of Hinduism and Buddhism, and is rejected by Christianity.

I would argue that it should not be rejected by Christianity; because it solves two vital theological puzzles. First, what happens to the souls of unbaptized children? What happens to all the aborted children?

If life on earth means anything, if it is, as Keats has said, the vale of soulmaking, these children have not merited heaven. If dying without having sinned were enough, God is unjust to have created the world, instead of having us all born into heaven. At the same time, it seems unfair that these immortal souls have never had a chance at it. And, in the case of aborted children, because of another’s sin.

That cannot work, and, as a Church commission has recently ruled, Limbo is not an acceptable answer.

The obvious answer is that children who die before baptism are reincarnated. They get a second shot. It seems almost necessarily so.

And if so, it might as well also be true that some others might merit, and get, a second shot. For example, what if you were born in China, or India, and never heard the Gospel? Then you cannot be faulted. So, a second shot, or a third, or a fourth, if necessary, until a lifetime in which you fully encounter the Christian message, and become baptized. Then the Christian rules kick in.

Accordingly, reincarnation could be absolutely true for Hindus or Buddhists, and not for Christians.

It all amounts to less than perfect consensus; but at least as much consensus as you find in science or philosophy.