🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂 📙 You can find my new book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook

"you might think that your neighbor is ugly, but that doesn't mean it's skillful to go around talking about that" 😂😂. A really good point and it made me laugh pretty hard too lol. Actually appreciate this video because I find myself getting into this discussion with friends not infrequently.

I'm was born in a Sunni Muslim ☪️ family but I was always curious about the deep and complex questions of the life like existence, meaning, suffering cause..etc. & I couldn't find the answers but kinda fascinated and attracted to the Buddha ever since I was a kid and after reading about thr Nikāyas and Therāvada Buddhism, it changed my life and it means a lot that I found the Noble Buddha's Dhamma, the greatest gift to humanity. Namo Buddhay ☸ from Turkey 🇹🇷

Doug It is probably the most Important and and at the same time most difficult video. I think it requires much wisdom to talk on this topic. Its great that you really made an effort because I requires profound investigation of principles.. It is a much curious topic and probably the most important for the present.

It was during my time looking at the Atheist-Theist debates I became a Buddhist in my outlook. I've spent a lot of time looking at this debate, and the one question left out is; 'What is Religion or Philosophy for? Or 'what is the truth we chase after?' For some, religion provides security and safety through a 'Hypostasis', a bedrock of beliefs to stand upon. I noticed from Buddhism and mysticism that this is not the aim, but instead, to accept the ambiguity and mystery of life. Theists want metaphysical ideas like a God or a Self to comfort them. In contrast, such beliefs in Buddhism would be seen as attachments, cravings, and sources of suffering. I see it as the difference between the two metaphors. One belief stands upon an island in a sea of change and uncertainty. However, for the Buddhists, it's Neurath's Ship. (Like the Simile of the Raft). It's an allegory of the crew (humanity), on a ship we constructed (our ideas, beliefs, science, art, philosophy, religion), on the ocean (changing reality). It sees our existence as constantly changing, but we use human invented ideas and beliefs to help navigate the world. It shows that our goals are different and that not all religions are the same.

In Shobogenzo, a student asks Dogen what the point of zazen (sitting meditation) is, if all it takes to become enlightened is to know the phrase "The mind itself is Buddha". Dogen basically calls him stupid and says if that was true there would be no suffering because everyone could become enlightened easily

Loving kindness is loving kindness no matter the labels - just ask your dog or cat. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

I love this topic. I think spiritual thinkers will tend to agree with you. While members of conservative religions will certainly not. Thanks Doug 💖

Thanks, Doug. I think seeing it as a new religion is actually very helpful. I just met a girl who hinted that she might have these kind of views and I think your idea will help me be more compassionate and understanding about it.

From my perspective, different religions state explicitly different goals. Diversity is valuable, but primordial unity expresses itself through diversity without dividing its essence. No one path or dogma fully encapsulates the divine mysteries. While outwardly contradicting each other, the mystical elements of many different religions share much in common with each other (sometimes even more than mystics share with fundamentalists in the same religion), and contemplative practices used in different religions tend to lead to similar forms of spiritual experience. Those spiritual experiences are multivalent and can be conceptually communicated in different ways. The kind of experience that I personally have had, for example, from practicing Hindu forms of yoga are not exactly the same as I have had at Buddhist meditation retreats, but those experiences are not mutually exclusive. The different perspectives and experiences help me to deepen my understanding of that which links different phenomena together. Many religious folks see their own path as “the best,” but that kind of bias does not take into account that different people may need different teachings to bring out their innate wisdom.

On a side note, the thumbnail on this is so creative haha! Insightful content as always!

Thank you Doug for this timely video! With the increasing popularity of psychedelic drugs and its subculture, the topic of perenial philosophy is for sure something we should look out for. I have heard it compared to the parable, that it's like doctor prescribing medicine for different patients. It would be ridiculous for a patient to accuse the doctor of fraudery, because he prescribed different medicine to different people, or condemn other patients as fools because they are not taking the same medication that is working wonders for himself. The question I have is, in this forest of views, how can one choose the path they should take? For me it is so confusing, that it became a paradox of choice, and I end up reverting to unskillful ways of living just from the paralysis. Maybe one day we would have a good way to determine paths for people, maybe a big A.I. backed Myers-Briggs like test haha.

Hey Doug-- Love the channel, been watching for a handful of months now! I was a bit surprised not to hear any mention of Aldous Huxley's book entitled The Perennial Philosophy. In my opinion, it's a masterpiece of scholarship (one would expect no less from Huxley) and no discussion of this complex topic is complete without at least taking into consideration his account of the matter. I highly recommend it to you and all viewers in this sangha. Keep up the awesome work with this channel! It's clear to me that you're bringing the Dharma down to earth, making us more likely to put the teachings into everyday use and practice. Peace to all.

Thank you Doug for this video I have struggled with this question for sometime. As someone who at times feels like I am being torn between Buddhism and my Christian faith I found it a relief to actually abandon the view that all religious paths lead to the same goal. Some of my thoughts when I compare Christianity (more specifically Catholicism) and early buddhism: The main thing that I was hung up on was thinking the absorptions in Buddhism and Christianity are the same. Although they appear very similar im no longer very sure if they are. They do use very similar ways of describing it. BUT (and it is a big but) from my little experience of Buddhist absorptions they are different. To speak of Buddhist absorptions: They are a cause and effect practice: they require accomplishment in solitude, right view, right intention…right mindfulness… then right samadhi. Essentially I have found it impossible to be in the midst of lay life and the experience them. I believe the Buddha even said this would be the case; that even monks who were attained couldn’t enter jhana so long as they dwell close to the city? I forget the exact sutta but I believe I have heard that said. Buddhist jhanas I believe are also subjectively/experientially different. They are described by the Buddha as a feeling of relief from a burden. To speak of Christian absorptions: I am less familiar with Christian absorptions, both experientially and literature wise. But I know from what I have read that they do not require leaving of lay life. In fact St. Theresa of Avila said that it is very reasonable for lay people who have time to pray ,receive sacraments and practice to attain them. These are just some thoughts on these two religions

It is important to make a distinction between pluralism (the idea that religious differences do not matter) and inclusivism (the idea that, even though one religion is completely true, the others still contain parts of that truth, or truths on different areas, and so are still useful for salvation, even though ultimately the "right" religion should be accepted). The latter is a common view. For instance, it is the stance of the Catholic church (fun fact: there are some priests and nuns allowed to practice Zen buddhism while remaining ordained). The Quran also contains sections which could be interpreted that way (i.e. people are not condemned for their religious ignorance, but by what they did with the knowledge they did have, their goodness, devotion, etc.). The Bhagavad Gita also says: "Whatever a man may sacrifice to other gods, O son of Kunti, is really meant for Me alone, but it is offered without true understanding. I am the only enjoyer and the only object of sacrifice. Those who do not recognize My true transcendental nature fall down." (9:23-24) So I think most religions do have a certain degree of acceptance towards other religious practices.

Glad you mentioned the adwaita vedanta ..the most obvious reference to this comes in the famous 1893 chicago speech of swami vivekananda. Geeta too eludes to water may take may paths but must empty into the same ocean.

I think that not all 'religions' lead the same path. But the spiritual traditions within the various religions do seem to describe similar experiences. Mystical christians and sufi muslims often say some strikingly similar things. Christian mystics talk of the dark night of the soul after a while of dedicated meditations. And the descriptions sound very similar to the arising and passing away stages of the buddhist path. Not to say theres no difference but maybe theres a kernal of similar experience between these mystical traditions.

One other issue that arises with such thinking is that this can often result in a very insulting and arrogant discourse. I have seen this more than a handful of times, where the perrenialist/universalist would say things to the effect of "well, what that religion *really* means is...", or "what the adherents don't actually really realize is.." and then go on to make statements that overstretch the analogies to the point of solidly contradicting what those people actually believe or practice. Granted, this is largely an issue of the tone or intention taken by the person saying these things, but it is a very common way that fixing to views and doctrine, combined with superiority, lead to conflict. Goodness knows how many times I have heard things like this with regards to Buddhism. Heck, I'm seeing them in the comments right now! As always, Doug, thank you for your scholarship. Excellent discussion!!

You are so wise Doug!! 👍 🙏 ❤

… looking a their (black boxes’) function in societal discourses | culture, probably: yes. regulation of individual behaviours | group dynamics with inclusion | exclusion measures that are ‚rationalised‘ with regard to grand tales of transcendental instances, or bluntly emotionalised throughout. and that may work out for many so far, unless cognitive dissonances kick in and can’t be ignored any longer. good thing with buddhism however is, as I see it, that it isn‘t a religion in afore sense, but an inner-wordly path to exercise on. and even more so framed as per the secular take on it as explored in this channel. thanks indeed, doug.

The differences among the major religions seem to be primarily about eschatology, while the similarities are mostly about ethics.

It’s hard to say religions with different finish lines are somehow running the same race.

I agree that perennialism is a skilful means. The trick is remembering that that's what it is. See with two eyes.

When describing Hinduism, Huston Smith wrote that practices should be tailored to the practitioner's personality. Devotional practice might be better for some, meditation for others, and so on.

I would say this is your most important video

Here in Eastern Europe this kind of view on religions is only quite popular among people who are more new age'ish :D most people don't care about religion at all, although they out of a habit usually declare as Christians/Catholics. Some of these identifying as Catholics may share a kind of similar "hierarchical" view you described, that all religions share more less the same goal and are similar provided that the goal is catholic heaven and there we all agree that there are no doubts that the Catholic God is the boss and the Catholicism is the pinnacle of all. Anyway, for most of them the God is a middle aged guy with a beard, wearing sandals and a dress made of an ornamented window curtain living somewhere in the clouds ;)

What matters to me is only if a practice is based on a natural point or view or a supernatural point of view. I like natural based ideas and consider all the rest a placebo. Devotional and supernatural based Buddhism does not seem to me much different from Islam or Christianity. It can work as a placebo would. So much better for those that can take advantage of it, but it does not work for me.

Brilliant video! I totally agree with you... 😊🙏

The Mahayana and Lotus Sutra have been instrumental in Unification. Mahayana Teachers were aware that Lord Buddha teaches different people in different ways depending on their nature. For example a child is first taught simple manners and then slowly he is guided towards the Middle Way. They said that Pure Land Buddhism is a perfect example because its quite different to mainstream Wisdom.

I'm not fully determined or set in my views around this idea. But I think I tend to lean more towards a syncretic view of other religions than a perennial one. I think, like you mentioned, perennialism tends to erase differences in religions that matter to the followers of said religion. Perennialism can become a form of religious gentrification. I feel like a more syncretic approach allows for a valuing of the positive aspects of varying religions without the danger of colonizing or erasing religion's uniqueness.

Love your work Doug 😊👌

I do not know the answer to whether all religious paths lead to the same end and, as a human, how could I? All I can tell is that I cannot force myself to believe something simply because I am told it is true. I use some type of internal compass which, somehow, leads me along a path through life which enables me to approach the meaning of existence. What names this path is given, what rules it has, what logical rights and wrongs arise, do not matter to me. It is simply the path I walk.

Interesting Topic! I am watching Lectures of Swami Sarvapriyananda regularly and he pretty much embraces this Idea of "Many Ways to Rome" without watering down their Core Doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. Swami-ji for example quotes the famous Verse from the Vedas "Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti" Truth is One, the Wise speak of it in many ways. He emphasizes especially the Mystics of different Traditions, like Meister Eckhart for example. I find this approach is a good middle Way between egalitarianism and religious fanatic exclusivism. If you don't know this Teacher yet, please check out his "Shorts" Clip " 'we are not separate' by Swami Sarvapriyananda " If you want to dig REALLY deep, he has a Playlist called "Vedantasara of Sadananda" containing 37 Videos on the Channel "Vedanta New York", very very insightful. I think also as a Buddhist this could be very interesting to watch/ hear. Best Regards

Hi Doug. When you are awakend you can guide ready people to the nirvana directly. When you are yet not you can not guide others rightly. As buddhism, there are so many kinds of buddhist, almost who are yet not enlightened. When you are really enlighten all things whatever are already in nirvana of you. Doug real you are whatever you are. Have nice day.

HI Doug, I think that universalism can make western religious followers more tolerant towards others, but Buddhism has been tolerant for thousands of years even though it is against universalism because in Buddhism all our actions fall upon us, there is no God to pray to forgive us for our bad karma except our own good actions that can eradicate bad actions. Buddhism doesn't even belive in defensive violence, so I believe that religion doesn't have to be universalist in approach to be tolerant. What is your view regarding it?

I know many self-proclaimed buddhists who hold this view, including many chinese buddhist monks like Chin Kung. They just don't know what they're talking about. If all religions have the same goal, then it would be superfluous for Siddhartha to oppose the Brahmin authority and establish his own monastic order.

Heresy! Reminds me of the witch scene in Monthly Python's Holy Grail.

I personally think truth and all that comes from the same source. I think you can connect religious philosophy in a lot of different ways but the difficulty because how you interpret individual ideas. I worship Kali for instance but don't think you need to do the same thing to get peace or advance on a spiritual path. Divinity or the Supreme reality or enlightenment can all be achieved without having to stick to a single individual path. Religion is a tool that you can use to achieve greater peace in your life etc. What that means is sort of up for each of us to decide.

Buddhas can go every religion which can help people get out of suffering.

I apologize, I don't have time to whatch it for now, but I want to share some information that probably helps, it's up to everyone to decide. I've noticed that psychology, spirituality and tarot, refer to the same situation different and provide different tools to help you. Psychology: healing the inner child trauma ;Spirituality: Dark Night of the Soul; Tarot: Hermit Mode.

Buddha did NOT teach that all religions lead to the same place. He did however teach tolerance and compassion towards all, regardless of religion. This becomes very clear during a debate he had with the Jainist monks. They live by begging, just like Buddhist monks. And they considered the Buddhist monks as a direct threat to their source of food, because they were getting their food from a particular king, but that kind had started to explore the Buddhas teachings. Fortunately, both groups were non-violent. So the battle between them took the form of a debate that was set up in front of the king. The Buddha won, so that king said that from now on he would feed the Buddhist monks instead of the Janist monks. But Buddha said no. He that since the king could afford to feed both groups of monks, he should do so. And so that is what happened.

Perennial because man is on an eternal quest for there to be something, anything, after our time here on earth. That makes death more palatable for so many people. It shouldn't matter much what the individual concept is, because so long as it provides some comfort to the living, it will find followers. But that's the why and the where that the many different faiths converge. Of course each will claim they have the superior or right way. But that's maybe where Buddhism breaks the mould. Buddha really only said, "Look I think you've got this wrong. Here's what I've discovered and observed. But why not think it through for yourself and only follow my suggested path if you agree that it stands the test of common sense". But, yes of course Buddhism itself has had many differing views and schools, but with a cooperation that's mostly missing between other faiths and even within faiths. My sister who is in her 80s happened to ask me some questions about Buddhism recently and actually said to me "Well, this makes no sense to me". (This possibly because I'm no teacher and probably explained it all really badly.) But it's not a comforting philosophy to many, because it requires us to understand that there is no permanent 'us'. And that can be a very unpopular thought as many people rely on the comfort of thinking they will go on after death and even be reunited with loved ones from the past, and rewarded for following the rules of their faith, in a heavenly kingdom after death.

They all have these things in common then after your money and control.

Sort of a trick question. Exoteric, or organized religions, all have the goal of orienting the individual to society, but the experience of God itself because, ironically, the object of organized religions is to shield people from the actual religious experience itself because of the disruptive effect such an experience can have on society: if you have the religious experience without any context of what it is or what it means, you might assume that _you_ are God or the messiah and start new religious movement that challenges the existing social order and sparks a revolution. From the exoteric perspective, I.E mainstream Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and to a lesser extent Buddhism and Hinduism, all have completely disparate doctrines and beliefs that may overlap but ultimately make individual an irreconcilable claims to absolute truth, as they necessarily must as the basis of their authority. Esoteric religions on the other had are the exact opposite and their concern is experiencing the ultimate reality, or God, as much as possible and recognize that the variations and idiosyncrasies by which God seeks to enter into a person's heart are essentially individual: no alchemist -- which for many of it's later centuries was essentially esoteric Christianity -- will perform the opus in the same way. No two students will get to the answer of a Zen koan by following the same predefined path. They are not concerned with moral conduct as the basis of the religious experience is the unity and completeness of all things. Such prejudices are meaningless and only serve as an obstacle to the experience of God, so they are to be discarded in favor of the spontaneous life. Whatever works short of getting you into trouble is fine by the mystic, the seeker, the hermit, the practitioner of esoteric religion, though you will be expected to have learned the rules of your culture before you shed them. The exoteric religions all have symbols for things which the esoteric religion embodies as experiences, so in a way organized religion is forever bumbling around in the dark not knowing that they are the same. They split hairs of petty rules and war with each other over them but never know what it is really about.

It's not indescribable. It's indescribable for those that have never experienced it. Just like i would would have a hard time describing blue to you if you gave never seen it and I don't have a way of creating blue and it is nowhere to be found. If I tell a meditator you ever just cease to exist and come right back they would go cessation if they have experienced it. If I said have you ever forgotten who you were started from scratch and then realized 12 years later before you became an amnesiac you were a meditator then very very few can relate to that. Even to cessation. But it's exactly what I said. Love relaxation compassion lead to a place where actions become effortless and thought no longer arises as a fixed focus which is to say it's not as strong as it would be in the mind of one that does not meditate. Describing it is actually not that hard. Bridging the experience is where difficulty lies. Like listen to this guy. Bet half of it is unrelatable but as far as I'm concerned he gives a great description. Go figure right. Oh and due to the subjective nature of experience what could be seen are strong mental images or heard are strong mental talk. Strong mental feel. There are your spirits and ghosts. It has to do with perception and how belief can influence sight. I'll put a second video to explain brain.actually I'll link brain first. That way it's easier to see why subjective effects perception. So this is a controlled hallucination with slight degrees of freedom. No teacher no lineage myself. I saw it early hit up history and created a contemplative practice based off what different religions uncovered. Blew out a candle at 18. Autodidactic. No belief. Just don't know mind. That would mark 3 and 4 for giggles. The scientific method applied inside and outside. In sight sound touch taste smell and their mental correlates. Imo religions work for those raised in that religion. Environment effects it though. So a Muslim raised in America since childhood and not limited in exposure would find it harder to open up completely through their religious tool kit. Same with Christians etc. So it's evolving... slowly. I figured it out at ten so... my core framework does not correspond to any religion. It's why I didn't need one to make it work for me. Every religion begins with a practice. Some forget their practices. Buddhism tool the practice itself as the teachings. Instead of a book. This allowed them to keep their practice and evolve it. They learn how the others did it and incorporate it into their practices from time to time. This leads to a fifth. Before the 4th. Mine is self inquiry. But I then went on to dreaming, meditation in horse stance, and psychedelic. Equanimity is big for me too. And then blew out a candle. But self inquiry gave me clarity into self which led me to this understanding i have written of at ten. Almost 40. My training is almost over. And I can officially teach. That's a self rule. Patience is a virtue for a reason. Less backtracking later just cause it takes experience to learn. So focus on experience first and sort the rest later. That's my motto. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ot-latlo073elqM.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hK-BprSo0dmRlqM.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rK9kpsiHzJbcmp8.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sLJdoqh3l9K1gn0.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ott7icumutmrfZc.html

🙏

You have the right to believe in what you want. Stay away from New age stuff False prophets. take care 🙏🙏💯

Great video, I have disagreements with some of the beliefs of this universal philosophy

What “place” is there?

I think it would depend on what actually is the goal. Since I do not remember ever dying before, and I am not dogmatic about any ideas of it, I really just try to be a good person. But, if the transmigration of the soul is true, then any good person will make progress. They may not escape the wheel of life, but progress would be fine. If the heaven/hell bit is real, then it would seem that any good person would have to be allowed into heaven. Think about - god says 'yeah, you were good... but read the wrong scriptures... so no heaven for you.' Any god that could do that would be a dick, and not a worshippable deity. I think religion is just a tool that some use to help them be good people. Some can be good without religion. And of course some use religion as a weapon of hate - they will not make much progress in this life no matter what (I wish them well in their next life - if there is one). 😎

The Buddha wasn’t teaching anything new he was just relaying what was already being taught by different sages. Buddhism was just the teaching that spread throughout central east and southeast Asia and the world

Not all religions lead to the same goal but truth permeates all religions that’s what the Hindus teach, and other religious traditions call it by different names, that’s why I think Buddhism is rather inhibiting because if it or rather the Buddha teaches it’s superior to other teachings of Vedanta or paths. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with craving only if you let it control you or direct it towards harmful and disastrous ends

Yes

I’ve been looking for a video about the 5 Kleshas. I’m confused as to what the 5 are exactly after doing some online research. Maybe that could be a future topic to touch or go over again?

Yes they do. Just more of the same, over and over and over again. Liberation from the wheel of life, they do not.

First is that all goals are different. Theist want to their respective heaven but Non Theist goal is not heaven. For Buddhist it is liberation / Nirwan not heaven as heaven too is ephemeral aka have to go through Samsara.

you can connect Indian philosophy with European philosophy like Schopenhauer did, but it’ll look very cringy if you do it like newagers. There is a big difference between eclecticism and between melting ideas in each other without any basic connections whatsoever. When it comes to the topic of “similarities” between religions, I often see how people are trying to devalue the originality of a different religions that were not able to make a big influence on each other. People are trying to make that illusionary connection where it’s kinda pointless, and often shows how the person that says such thing understands the materials of different discourses.

@Doug's Dharma You forgot that all the Buddhist traditions can be said to lead to the same goal because they all subscribe to the Aryan 8-fold path. That cannot be said of other religions. 😁

Could perennialism equate to mundane right view? Is that why some Theravadin monastics appear sympathetic to perennialism when teaching lay people?

Of course all religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam,Hinduism, Buddhism, and every other one,) all have the same goal. And that goal is to realize the oneness of, (for the lack of a better word), the Divinity within all. That being said, it comes down to the individual teachers. The teacher that has truly realized that oneness, is a treasure beyond compare. One that has not, can be dangerous. However, then there is karma. One may take many different paths that seem to lead to nowhere, however every misstep can be seen as a lesson. We can all take heart in Buddha’s promise that no matter how many lifetimes it takes, we all realize the oneness of this Divinity in the end. There is no not getting there, because we are all already there. A master ones said, we are "like one in water crying I thirst". All one has to do is just see it. Which of corse is easier said than done.

They used to work together. But people are crazy now.

Most (perhaps all) religions are misleading. If a carrot and a stick determines your path, you might be a donkey. Lol. I know I’m one…working on it. May wisdom be our guide and our path never ending 🙏🏼

No - to be involved in Christianity - particularly American evangelism - is to involve yourself in immoral behaviour. Not for me. I have enough difficulty on my path. I don't need extra baggage.

None of the religions will ever get along.

No i am the way to my mother father

It's a nice, romantic idea that "all paths lead to the top of the mountain", but it clearly isn't true. With regards to Buddhism, the Buddha taught that the only way to awakening was his specific path of practice. With regards to Christianity, the only way to get into heaven is to accept that Jesus died on the cross for your sins. Etc. When you become familiar with different religions, you realize that the goal of each is different, and they all have a different path. In reality, there is clearly only one true path. Whether or not you put in the work to discover what that path is, is up to you.

Religious belief must automatically fall into belief that "I can be saved" Different practices, big hats, books and paraphernalia, but it all comes back to me saving my backside. Rarely does anyone ever ask the question, where is this me that desires to be saved. Start n end here and you will soon see that all religious beliefs are forms of a mental illness.

?Do all religions lead do the same goal? Wrong people lead people to the wrong goal with right truth. Right people can lead ready people with wrong or right truth. Jesus' is right truth, but Gospel is poluted one. Thomas Gospel has truth but need be corrected. Gospel John need be corrected so people can easily digest the Word of Jesus. Even Moses' I am whatever I am. is truth. Sankyara's is right truth, but Hinduism is not Sankyara's. And Sankyara's grandpa master was Gaudapada, who is Huineng's discipel, Indian Gupta. Sakya Buddha's so called Middle way is the Nondual Nirvana, but Buddhist don't understand what this one is saying. Iching has right truth, but world people don't have eye to understand Iching rightly. Newly found bamboo Laotz has truth but need be corrected. Changtz has truth but is there anyone who can eat Changtzu? According to Awakened one even Universe can be eaten.

As an Omnist, I disagree. Whatever leaves you closer to the Divine. All religions agree on the meaning of life: we're here to love and learn, be kind, make a difference and pass it on. The hypocrites fight over the differences. The Holy come together over the commonalities. ✌️

Nope because there is NO "god". Don't follow patriarchal delusions.

Every religion believe in one god yet we have such difficulty understanding that

I find this idea very insulting. It's like saying "Your faith, opinions have NO importance anyway..."

No Because Lamb of God is The truth the way and The Life John 14:6

There is no Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jainist, Sikh, Hindu, Shinto, or jew. There is only god and god only.