Religious Pluralism & Trinity

[Samuel Stuart Maynes]

I writing a book on Religious Pluralism and the Trinity Absolute, and I would much appreciate forum reader's thoughts on the basic ideas and presentation.

My thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.

In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universe Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.

The Trinity Absolute is portrayed in the logic of world religions, as follows:

1. Muslims and Jews may be said to worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the existential Deity Absolute Creator, known as Allah or Yhwh, Abba or Father (as Jesus called him), Brahma, and other names; represented by Gabriel (Executive Archangel), Muhammad and Moses (mighty messenger prophets), and others.

2. Christians and Krishnan Hindus may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or "Universal” Absolute Supreme Being (Allsoul or Supersoul), called Son/Christ or Vishnu/Krishna; represented by Michael (Supreme Archangel), Jesus (teacher and savior of souls), and others. The Allsoul is that gestalt of personal human consciousness, which we expect will be the "body of Christ" (Mahdi, Messiah, Kalki or Maitreya) in the second coming – personified in history by Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha (9th incarnation of Vishnu), and others.

3. Shaivite Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucian-Taoists seem to venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person or appearance, ie. the Destiny Consummator of ultimate reality – unqualified Nirvana consciousness – associative Tao of All That Is – the absonite* Unconditioned Absolute Spirit “Synthesis of Source and Synthesis,”** who/which is logically expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified in and by union with the Supreme Being – represented in religions by Gabriel, Michael, and other Archangels, Mahadevas, Spiritpersons, etc., who may be included within the mysterious Holy Ghost.

Other strains of religion seem to be psychological variations on the third person, or possibly combinations and permutations of the members of the Trinity – all just different personality perspectives on the Same God. Taken together, the world’s major religions give us at least two insights into the first person of this thrice-personal One God, two perceptions of the second person, and at least three glimpses of the third.

* The ever-mysterious Holy Ghost or Unconditioned Spirit is neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite, but absonite; meaning neither existential nor experiential, but their ultimate consummation; neither fully ideal nor totally real, but a middle path and grand synthesis of the superconscious and the conscious, in consciousness of the unconscious.

** This conception is so strong because somewhat as the Absonite Spirit is a synthesis of the spirit of the Absolute and the spirit of the Supreme, so it would seem that the evolving Supreme Being may himself also be a synthesis or “gestalt” of humanity with itself, in an Almighty Universe Allperson or Supersoul. Thus ultimately, the Absonite is their Unconditioned Absolute Coordinate Identity – the Spirit Synthesis of Source and Synthesis – the metaphysical Destiny Consummator of All That Is.

After the Hindu and Buddhist conceptions, perhaps the most subtle expression and comprehensive symbol of the 3rd person of the Trinity is the Tao; involving the harmonization of “yin and yang” (great opposing ideas indentified in positive and negative, or otherwise contrasting terms). In the Taoist icon of yin and yang, the s-shaped line separating the black and white spaces may be interpreted as the Unconditioned “Middle Path” between condition and conditioned opposites, while the circle that encompasses them both suggests their synthesis in the Spirit of the “Great Way” or Tao of All That Is.

If the small black and white circles or “eyes” are taken to represent a nucleus of truth in both yin and yang, then the metaphysics of this symbolism fits nicely with the paradoxical mystery of the Christian Holy Ghost; who is neither the spirit of the one nor the spirit of the other, but the Glorified Spirit proceeding from both, taken altogether – as one entity – personally distinct from his co-equal, co-eternal and fully coordinate co-sponsors, who differentiate from him, as well as mingle and meld in him.

What do you think?

Samuel Stuart Maynes

 

[BL2KTN]

My thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.

Why does the world need a "framework of pluralistic theology"?

 

[Samuel Stuart Maynes]

Why does the world need a "framework of pluralistic theology"?

My thesis is that as the world becomes more and more religiously and culturally diverse, we will have no choice but to practice pluralism in order to avoid a “clash of civilizations” over what amounts to a possibly preventable and ultimately correctable misunderstanding. To quote from my Homepage, I maintain that:

“As religious communities and as growing nations, our futures are inextricably linked, being joined at the hip so to speak. We must develop a truly multi-cultural, multi-religious society in order to get along. Religious variety would be a wonderful source of cultural stimulus, if religious beliefs could be placed in some sort of comprehensive context which recognizes the differences, but integrates their best attitudes in one inclusive framework. Diversity can be healthy and something to be celebrated. Pluralism also has the virtue of being a universal moral worldview.

Mere toleration is too fragile a foundation for a world of religious differences in close proximity. It does nothing to unite people, and leaves in place the stereotypes and fears that underlie old patterns of division and violence. In the world in which we live today, our elitism and ignorance of one another will be increasingly costly. If the interactions of society are to be at all a rational process, some set of principles must motivate the general participation of religious groups in the oneness of the community, without hindering the maintenance by each group of its own identity.

There must be some form of creative pluralism or constructive interpretation that will allow all groups to agree to a “minimal consensus” of shared beliefs in a systematic unity. And there must be some metaphysical systematic unity, because ultimately all truth (including science) must be part of the explanation of One God.

Recently, a number of theologians have suggested that the Trinity may provide the key to an inclusive theology of religions, and a new understanding of religious diversity. An expanded abstract version of the Trinity can function as a metaphysical "architectonic principle" to unlock the providential purpose and meaning of religious variety, in the portrayal of the multi-dimensional nature of God.

In the past, religious misunderstandings have caused immense grief, but civilization is rapidly approaching the point where the very survival of the world depends on overcoming anti-social religious conflicts, and the negative impacts of increasing population on the planet. The human race can no longer afford religious strife that divides people and disturbs urgent cooperation on mutual issues such as conservation and sharing of resources, combating climate change, stimulating healthy economic growth, etc.

Peace in the world requires peace among religions. Religious pluralism is a necessary paradigm shift whose time has come. Absent any better idea, the Trinity Absolute concept of One God in three phases or personae is the only adequate metaphysical vehicle necessary and sufficient for a real form of religious pluralism that is more than just lukewarm toleration and talking past one another.”

I would really appreciate some feedback on how well the major religions of the world map onto the abstract version of the Trinity outlined in my previous posting.

Samuel Stuart Maynes

 

[PsychoSarah]

What makes you think people will ever stop clashing over religion or that anything could prevent it?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

I think you have an interesting framework. I came to believe that a "Christian pluralism" can be and most probably is true, but come at it from a different angle. I see Scripture as most importantly allegorical, and imo the allegorical truth of the Bible leads (or at least a path can be reasonably found to lead) to what I call Christian pluralism. In other words, Christ's literal sacrifice opens metaphorical paths by which God embraces those of other faiths than Christianity.

Briefly, Christ said unless one believes in Him, one dies in one's sins (Jn 8:24). Organized Christianity has formed this into a highly literal framework leading to an elitist conception, e.g., unless you believe in some set of 'doctrinal features' that is Jesus (by those varied conceptions the church formulates) you go to hell. Allegorically--or, more abstractly--Jesus is Truth (Jn 14:6), which is a higher reality than the doctrinal icon the organized church has made Him into. Thus, His meaning in Jn 8:24 is that to just that degree one conforms to and unites with Truth--regardless of religious affiliation (or none at all), to that same degree one escapes hell. Dying in one's sins is the hell of regeneration or purification. Of course, allegory also is able to define hell as just the word we religionists use to describe the affliction we experience in life when the truth of God informs (and dissolves or destroys) the falsity in our souls--all that's false must be destroyed (Rev 20:10-15 and 22:13-15). In other words, hell is another word for purification, another Biblically sound concept that literalists are wholly unable to arrive at. To the literalist, judgment lands on individuals. Metaphorically, all God's judgments for wrath land on elements within the essence of each person, while His judgments for mercy and restoration are aimed at the individual. Because the literalist rejects any metaphors beyond the obvious ones of Scripture, he can't come to the full truth of who Christ is or what He's done. This is unfortunate as I'm convinced obvious metaphors were placed in Scripture as hints, designed as "doors" to enter to find the deeper things of God's word. Literalist doctrine has been designed to specifically reject this.

Despite the above, I claim Christianity as the highest order of truth on earth and other than my universalism and allegoric leanings hold to many or most orthodox teachings as true. Not sure how or if what I believe fits into your framework, but I find it interesting all the same.

 

[Samuel Stuart Maynes]

In defending my thesis that Christ represents the Supreme Allsoul which is also reflected in Krishna (as the Supersoul), Panentheists like me inevitably become embroiled in debates about the nature of the Trinity. I’m hoping that readers on this forum can help me answer some of the following questions.

Is the creation a product of God’s nature or his will? Does God have freedom of will? If freewill is the prerogative of personality, does the Qur’an have a point in speculating that the individual wills of the free persons of the Trinity may eventually conflict, and then each would tend to “take their portion of the kingdom and go their own way?”

Briefly, in order to account for the creation, theologians posit an Ontological Trinity (immanent or essential) and an Economic Trinity (historical or creational). For some, these are equivalent, or just two versions of the same thing. For others, this is not so clear, and the God of creation is not fully God as God outside of creation.

Some theologians maintain that while the members of the Trinity are all equal, and there is no essential “ontological” subordination, there is a functional “economic” subordination. Others worry that this ends up in two trinities, which they see as a highly unpalatable implication. The essential problem is to combine the identity with the distinction of the persons of the Trinity – same substance (essence), but individual functional appropriations and relationships.

Recognizing that time is an illusion in the bigger picture, my speculation on three snapshots of the Trinity at different ‘times’ or ‘ages’ (existential, experiential, and absonite) attempts to resolve this theological debate.

What do you think? Do I even understand this problem correctly?

Samuel Stuart Maynes

 

[dwackler2012]

Your viewpoint is skewed and bias on the premise of all believing in the same goals.

If you view the Bible as the scripture and without error: Jesus said their is only one way to heaven.

Even though the Scriptures even in the old testament discuss three in one. Genesis referring to God plurally.

The difference of trying to unify different cultures under the pluralistic basis of belief in that all are the same direction - is purpose/intent/conformity/laws of each based on their own culture and sub-cultures.

You are stretching your thesis with nothing to prove only a basis of opinions with pieces of each religion stated as fact to support the other = which in turn creates an internal contradiction to each specific religion. A hindu does not reach enlightenment through faith in Jesus. A Christian does not reach heaven on the belief if I live a "better life" than the one before; in which Christianity does not support reincarnation

Just some thoughts.
David.
May God provide you direction and understanding in which you wish to find.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Your viewpoint is skewed and bias on the premise of all believing in the same goals.

If you view the Bible as the scripture and without error: Jesus said their is only one way to heaven.

But "all believing in the same goals" and "Jesus is the only way to salvation" aren't mutually exclusive. Christianity as the seven churches believe they alone have Christ (Isa 4:1), but this elitism is based on a highly literal understanding of the Bible and many of these are in darkness according to the Lord (Mat 7:22-23).

As I noted in previous post, the metaphor--not born from wild imagination but a rational, congruous metaphoric structure--allows the belief in Jn 8:24 to extend beyond elitism to belief in absolute Truth, or more realistically, those portions of absolute truth one is cleansed to "hear" or "see". Belief as a union of truth in the human mind with external Truth Himself is inherent in the lesson Jesus taught about the despised Samaritan who "felt compassion" (Luke 10:33) and stopped to minister to the beaten man while the "proper" religionists crossed to the other side of the road and passed the man by.

Gotta read between the lines to get to the meat of may of the the truths Jesus taught imo.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But "all believing in the same goals" and "Jesus is the only way to salvation" aren't mutually exclusive. Christianity as the seven churches believe they alone have Christ (Isa 4:1), but this elitism is based on a highly literal understanding of the Bible and many of these are in darkness according to the Lord (Mat 7:22-23).

As I noted in previous post, the metaphor--not born from wild imagination but a rational, congruous metaphoric structure--allows the belief in Jn 8:24 to extend beyond elitism to belief in absolute Truth, or more realistically, those portions of absolute truth one is cleansed to "hear" or "see". Belief as a union of truth in the human mind with external Truth Himself is inherent in the lesson Jesus taught about the despised Samaritan who "felt compassion" (Luke 10:33) and stopped to minister to the beaten man while the "proper" religionists crossed to the other side of the road and passed the man by.

Gotta read between the lines to get to the meat of may of the the truths Jesus taught imo.

The issue is that people naturally would interpret any "absolute truth" without uniformity, meaning that people would still argue over who viewed the truth correctly.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I writing a book on Religious Pluralism and the Trinity Absolute, and I would much appreciate forum reader's thoughts on the basic ideas and presentation.

My thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.

In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universe Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.

The Trinity Absolute is portrayed in the logic of world religions, as follows:

1. Muslims and Jews may be said to worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the existential Deity Absolute Creator, known as Allah or Yhwh, Abba or Father (as Jesus called him), Brahma, and other names; represented by Gabriel (Executive Archangel), Muhammad and Moses (mighty messenger prophets), and others.

2. Christians and Krishnan Hindus may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or "Universal” Absolute Supreme Being (Allsoul or Supersoul), called Son/Christ or Vishnu/Krishna; represented by Michael (Supreme Archangel), Jesus (teacher and savior of souls), and others. The Allsoul is that gestalt of personal human consciousness, which we expect will be the "body of Christ" (Mahdi, Messiah, Kalki or Maitreya) in the second coming – personified in history by Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha (9th incarnation of Vishnu), and others.

3. Shaivite Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucian-Taoists seem to venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person or appearance, ie. the Destiny Consummator of ultimate reality – unqualified Nirvana consciousness – associative Tao of All That Is – the absonite* Unconditioned Absolute Spirit “Synthesis of Source and Synthesis,”** who/which is logically expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified in and by union with the Supreme Being – represented in religions by Gabriel, Michael, and other Archangels, Mahadevas, Spiritpersons, etc., who may be included within the mysterious Holy Ghost.

Other strains of religion seem to be psychological variations on the third person, or possibly combinations and permutations of the members of the Trinity – all just different personality perspectives on the Same God. Taken together, the world’s major religions give us at least two insights into the first person of this thrice-personal One God, two perceptions of the second person, and at least three glimpses of the third.

* The ever-mysterious Holy Ghost or Unconditioned Spirit is neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite, but absonite; meaning neither existential nor experiential, but their ultimate consummation; neither fully ideal nor totally real, but a middle path and grand synthesis of the superconscious and the conscious, in consciousness of the unconscious.

** This conception is so strong because somewhat as the Absonite Spirit is a synthesis of the spirit of the Absolute and the spirit of the Supreme, so it would seem that the evolving Supreme Being may himself also be a synthesis or “gestalt” of humanity with itself, in an Almighty Universe Allperson or Supersoul. Thus ultimately, the Absonite is their Unconditioned Absolute Coordinate Identity – the Spirit Synthesis of Source and Synthesis – the metaphysical Destiny Consummator of All That Is.

After the Hindu and Buddhist conceptions, perhaps the most subtle expression and comprehensive symbol of the 3rd person of the Trinity is the Tao; involving the harmonization of “yin and yang” (great opposing ideas indentified in positive and negative, or otherwise contrasting terms). In the Taoist icon of yin and yang, the s-shaped line separating the black and white spaces may be interpreted as the Unconditioned “Middle Path” between condition and conditioned opposites, while the circle that encompasses them both suggests their synthesis in the Spirit of the “Great Way” or Tao of All That Is.

If the small black and white circles or “eyes” are taken to represent a nucleus of truth in both yin and yang, then the metaphysics of this symbolism fits nicely with the paradoxical mystery of the Christian Holy Ghost; who is neither the spirit of the one nor the spirit of the other, but the Glorified Spirit proceeding from both, taken altogether – as one entity – personally distinct from his co-equal, co-eternal and fully coordinate co-sponsors, who differentiate from him, as well as mingle and meld in him.

What do you think?

Samuel Stuart Maynes

God went to great lengths to protect Israel from other religions, which he called idolatry. Far from promoting harmony mixing one religion with another promotes strife within. It would be like yoking an ox with and ass and trying to plow a straight furrow. Or weaving cloth with different textures of thread; such a cloth will wear itself out in short order. Even Jesus told his disciples that it was 'his way or the highway'.

 

[brightlights]

Is the creation a product of God’s nature or his will?

Both. Creation was an act of will but creation also teaches us about the nature of God. Still creation was a free act of love. God was not obliged by anything to create.

Does God have freedom of will? If freewill is the prerogative of personality, does the Qur’an have a point in speculating that the individual wills of the free persons of the Trinity may eventually conflict, and then each would tend to “take their portion of the kingdom and go their own way?”

God is most free. He is not bound by anything outside of his own person and the commitments he freely makes. God is a plurality but he is also a unity. This means that he has no internal conflict. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are always in perfect agreement. I recently read Jonathan Edward's formulation of the trinity and it went something like this:

The Father is God in himself. The Son is God's self expression and his own self reflection. When God thinks of himself it's his Son that emerges. The Spirit is God's active power in the world.

The reason I bring this up is to demonstrate that since all members of the trinity are the one God, there can be no disagreement among them.

Briefly, in order to account for the creation, theologians posit an Ontological Trinity (immanent or essential) and an Economic Trinity (historical or creational). For some, these are equivalent, or just two versions of the same thing. For others, this is not so clear, and the God of creation is not fully God as God outside of creation.

Some theologians maintain that while the members of the Trinity are all equal, and there is no essential “ontological” subordination, there is a functional “economic” subordination. Others worry that this ends up in two trinities, which they see as a highly unpalatable implication. The essential problem is to combine the identity with the distinction of the persons of the Trinity – same substance (essence), but individual functional appropriations and relationships.

Recognizing that time is an illusion in the bigger picture, my speculation on three snapshots of the Trinity at different ‘times’ or ‘ages’ (existential, experiential, and absonite) attempts to resolve this theological debate.

I would side with the theologians who say that how the Trinity has been revealed in history is the same way the Trinity has always existed -- in mutual love and sacrificial submission. Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, prayed that God would glorify him with the glory that he had with him before the world existed (John 17). God answered this prayer by sending him to the cross. What can this mean? On the cross God's true nature is revealed - a God of sacrificial love. But this glory is the same glory that Jesus had with the Father before the world existed. On the cross Jesus was simply doing what he's always been doing since eternity past.

 

[lesliedellow]

My thesis is that as the world becomes more and more religiously and culturally diverse, we will have no choice but to practice pluralism in order to avoid a “clash of civilizations” over what amounts to a possibly preventable and ultimately correctable misunderstanding. To quote from my Homepage, I maintain that:

Doesn't truth figure in this somewhere? Whether or not any individual religion is true, trying to merge them all into one amorophous feel-good mess, will get you only gobbledygook. Self contradictory gobbledygook at that.

 

[Edouard]

I recommend books by Lee Strobel.
He writes based on fact and does so through the lens of him being a reporter and uses the same techniques as a lawyer. Case for Creation / Case for Christ ect..
All of them are packed filled with Fact after Fact using sources outside the Bible.

Truth is relative in today's society. What might be morally right for you is morally wrong for me. Some religions believe if you eat pork you are an outcast. (Jewish). Some believe if you eat cows you are outcast. So what one views as morally right or wrong is based on what their world view is.

You stated that all religions lead to the same place essentially. How is this so..
Mormon theology does not believe in hell. Catholic church believes in heaven, purgatory and hell (unless they have changed their viewpoint- which I hope they have): protestant and non-denom believe i heaven and hell. Hindu and Buddhists believe we keep getting reincarnated until we reach enlightenment. Islam believe in using force to convert the world to their belief systems (study the origins of how Islam came to be and actions that took place). Not saying that God was not violent at all by any means.

So to say that all the religions lead to the same place again is relative based on your world view. I believe someone also posted that and how we agree to get there as well is also an issue.

Your objective is not met because all religions are bias at the very core.
Keep in mind the bible is the only book I am aware of that has not been disproven historically in accordance with events. You have document after document in the Old Testament to attest to the history of the Kings and wars that took place - along with the Dead Sea Scrolls arising. In regards to the New testament you have writing compiled by Josephus and others (Jewish historians) to account for the history of the world and the new testament truths.

Just a thought
Grace and peace be with you.

 

[Samuel Stuart Maynes]

God is most free. He is not bound by anything outside of his own person and the commitments he freely makes... I would side with the theologians who say that how the Trinity has been revealed in history is the same way the Trinity has always existed...

Brightlights… Thank you for your gracious response. I agree with you that the individual members of the Trinity have freewill (at least within the limits of Trinitarian unity). The Qur’an might be right that eventually there would be a catastrophic disagreement if the Godhead were only two, but apparently three divine persons guarantees that a minimum of necessary harmony will always be found.

Similarly, I argue that the difference between the ‘original’ existential Ontological Trinity (which is/was immutable, and in which the creation was only potential) and the ‘present’ experiential Economic Trinity is resolved by a postulated ‘future’ absonite (neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite) Ultimate Trinity. And of course, these are merely three “snapshots” of (or perspectives on) the one Trinity Absolute, at different stages or ‘times’ of the unfolding of heaven, earth, and all that is.

As C. S. Lewis might have put it, there never was a “time” when the Deity Absolute was not the Father of the Son, and with him, coordinate of their Holy Spirit. But only the Ontological or Paradise Trinity is infinite, past-eternal, and immutable. If the Economic Trinity as revealed in recent history is the “same way the Trinity has always existed,” then the crucifixion was inevitable and everything is predestined. Then, God the Son at least is/was not free, so you see the problem I'm trying to deal with.

Samuel Stuart Maynes

 

[brightlights]

Brightlights… Thank you for your gracious response. I agree with you that the individual members of the Trinity have freewill (at least within the limits of Trinitarian unity). The Qur’an might be right that eventually there would be a catastrophic disagreement if the Godhead were only two, but apparently three divine persons guarantees that a minimum of necessary harmony will always be found.

Similarly, I argue that the difference between the ‘original’ existential Ontological Trinity (which is/was immutable, and in which the creation was only potential) and the ‘present’ experiential Economic Trinity is resolved by a postulated ‘future’ absonite (neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite) Ultimate Trinity. And of course, these are merely three “snapshots” of (or perspectives on) the one Trinity Absolute, at different stages or ‘times’ of the unfolding of heaven, earth, and all that is.

As C. S. Lewis might have put it, there never was a “time” when the Deity Absolute was not the Father of the Son, and with him, coordinate of their Holy Spirit. But only the Ontological or Paradise Trinity is infinite, past-eternal, and immutable. If the Economic Trinity as revealed in recent history is the “same way the Trinity has always existed,” then the crucifixion was inevitable and everything is predestined. Then, God the Son at least is/was not free, so you see the problem I'm trying to deal with.

Samuel Stuart Maynes

In John's Revelation is says that the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. The cross wasn't just a solution to sin. It's also an essential part of the character of God.

 

[dwackler2012]

brightlights: very simply stated; but yet very affective and true.

 

[Samuel Stuart Maynes]

If you view the Bible as the scripture and without error: Jesus said their is only one way to heaven.

Jesus did not say that he is the ONLY way, the ONLY truth, the ONLY life. He did not suggest that it is "his way or the highway," as OldWiseGuy would have it. The Bible says that there is no way to the Father, except through the Son, and implies that Jesus Christ will be the Supreme Judge of all human beings on ‘Judgment Day.’ However, it would only be fair if Christ shares that judgment seat with Muhammad or the Mahdi in the case of Muslims, Indra or Krishna for Hindus, Gautama or Maitreya for Buddhists, Lao-Tzu for Taoists, and so forth. Some just recognition is required.

If the threefold human soul – personality/mind/spirit – is modeled on the Trinity, then individual humans may inevitably have an innate predisposition to worship any one, any combination, or all of the persons of the Trinity. Some toleration is required.

Christians believe that a spark of the divine spirit of God indwells all humankind, and this is essentially the same spirit that is in the Father, in the Son, and glorified in the Holy Spirit of Father and Son. The Qur’an agrees that “the spirit of Allah is closer to you than your jugular vein.” Hindus call it the “Purusha.” Buddhists refer to it as the “Unconditioned.” Neo-Confucians call it the “Tao.” Spirit is the glue that binds.”

Despite apparent differences, the underlying similarities among religions suggest the possibility that they may all be merely different facets of the same multi-dimensional reality. It is only common sense that the Trinity would reveal itself in three basic religious attitudes to the Absolute. Indeed, when we examine world religions, we see in the personalities they portray and the language they use, a reflection of one or other (or some combination) of the three divine psychological personae.

I think that Genesis 1:26 (in the beginning), where God says “Let us make man in our image,” suggests that later on he might also have said, “Let us help humans make their religions in our image.” It would be quite natural if human religions reflect particular aspects of the threefold psychology of One God in Trinity expression. On the face of it, maybe God is telling us something about his multi-dimensional self, through the diversity of major religions, which can be seen to fall into three basic attitudes to (or perspectives on) the Divine.

Samuel Stuart Maynes