To me, the appearance of differences in religion seems to be just that, an appearance. As I review my limited knowledge of the various religions, they all seem to focus on the truth and since the truth can?t be changed, improved or updated, what can account for their differences? To answer this question consideration must be given to those who brought the various religions to the forefront. I can accept the position that religion not only enabled man to peacefully co-exist but it also formed the foundation for civilization, as we know it. It is within the foundation of civilization that may hold the key to the differences.

During the time that the great teachers and prophets spoke, their message had to take into account the culture, the time, the beliefs, the level of understanding and the needs of the people they were speaking to. This speaks volumes when you consider that a review of the major religions reveal a boilerplate that is consistent in each. We have the scriptures: Vedas, Qur an, Holy Bible, Torad Scrolls and Dhammapada. We have the messengers: Vishnu, Muhammad, Jesus, Moses and Buddha. We also have the laws governing moral and religious conduct like the Dharma Sutras, Ten Commandments and the Sharia.

The true differences in religion seems to be how they are divided according to their doctrines. Which consists of their relationship between human and divine activity in the achievement of salvation. Among the religions there are those in which man alone is responsible for his salvation (Buddhism). Where God alone is responsible (Hinduism). And where man and God work together (Christianity, Islam and Judaism). Salvation is something viewed as unattainable in this world and this seems to suggest that our lives on earth are like probation and we spend that probation anticipating our departure.

Another difference seems to be the doctrine that suggests that there are two distinct forces within us that are the actual agents and responsible for good and bad behavior. This interpretation of religious doctrine seems to compromise man?s freedom to choose and comes close to denying man the responsibility for his actions. Therefore, if man is not responsible for his actions, does that mean that if God can?t rid the world of evil and suffering he is not all-powerful? If he can but won?t, does that mean he is not all good? And finally, if God is all-powerful and all good, should we assume that he is not all wise because even though he is doing his best, evil and suffering continue.

And finally, could the Son of God have come to earth more than once? Why would the Son of God only speak to the people between Nazareth, Galilee and Jerusalem? What about the people in China and India? Could the Son of God have come to earth as Vishnu and Abraham and Buddha and Jesus and Muhammad? As the Son of God, that would be an easy as changing clothes. If so, this would justify the fact that all religions have the same foundation. Which is devotion to God, living a morally correct life, loving one another and a path to salvation.

About The Author
My name is Kenneth Brown and I am the father of three grown daughters. I am divorced and although I was born in New York City; I now live in a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia. When I was a Christian, I became aware of and interested in where my “institutional” faith had gone awry. This awareness and interest lead me to the conclusion that Christianity had been hijacked and as a result I became a student of Yoga.

I have been deeply influenced by such people as: Carl Brown, Thurgood Marshall, Malcolm X, Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton and Gurumayi Chidillasananda. Other articles that I have written are: Black History, Fathers, Message To My People, Religion, My Viet Nam, Emotional Awareness and Corrected Vision.

Kenneth's email:
brown6207@bellsouth.net