Now you just need to find a set of practices and beliefs that allows you to be heaven-admissible in the most possible amount of branches of Christianity while still eligible for last-minute conversion to Islam if Jesus comes and says to do it and not doing any of the worst sins of Judaism (you still worship Yahweh as Christian, right?) and reducing wordly attachments in case Buddhism is right.
The funny thing is that you will have to do some things to gain eternal individual life if Jehova’s Witnesses are correct and to lose eternal indeividual life in reincarnations if Siddhartha Gautama found the truth.
So, this sort of thing sort of works. But is going to run into issues. So for example some Jews don’t consider Christianity to be an acceptable way of worshiping the same deity even as they think Islam generally is. (The whole divinity of a human being thing is a problem). And some religions specifically have issues with trying to hedge your bets. And many forms of Judaism have stricter rules for people who are descended from Jews. But as a general strategy it might work.
The most horrifying thing is that after you pick the optimal faith, you need to unbelieve everything you considered during your choice while keeping the belief that you have chosen right and acquiring the belief in the chosen faith.
The reason is that when choosing you suppose that everyone actually worships the same God, and you need to find just an optimal way of worship; but the closest faiths to it—I think they are Bahaism and most factions of Buddhism—are easy to satisfy by default, you need to believe not them, but one of the probably-least-true faiths—one of strict jealous faiths. Simply because the faith you considered right while choosing is permissive enough to forgive your move into a strict one you will choose to believe a faith which is furthest from your initial assumption.
I am not even sure whether you should ascribe divine nature to Jesus—Christianity is not united even in this question.
That doesn’t strike me as a practical definition of ‘Christianity’. Even most of the mutually incompatible Christian sects would agree that not ascribing divine nature to Jesus would disqualify them from even a heretical Christian sect. “Folks who believe Jesus was divine’ would be a reasonable description of what the word “Christian” means.
We-ell. Judaism is OK with a other-than-human-but-not-God angel evicting Adam and Eve. Jehova’s Witnesses are a Christian sect, but they ascribe Jesus a position higher than humans and angels but strictly lower than God.
Now you just need to find a set of practices and beliefs that allows you to be heaven-admissible in the most possible amount of branches of Christianity while still eligible for last-minute conversion to Islam if Jesus comes and says to do it and not doing any of the worst sins of Judaism (you still worship Yahweh as Christian, right?) and reducing wordly attachments in case Buddhism is right.
The funny thing is that you will have to do some things to gain eternal individual life if Jehova’s Witnesses are correct and to lose eternal indeividual life in reincarnations if Siddhartha Gautama found the truth.
So, this sort of thing sort of works. But is going to run into issues. So for example some Jews don’t consider Christianity to be an acceptable way of worshiping the same deity even as they think Islam generally is. (The whole divinity of a human being thing is a problem). And some religions specifically have issues with trying to hedge your bets. And many forms of Judaism have stricter rules for people who are descended from Jews. But as a general strategy it might work.
Separate comment for a separate point.
The most horrifying thing is that after you pick the optimal faith, you need to unbelieve everything you considered during your choice while keeping the belief that you have chosen right and acquiring the belief in the chosen faith.
The reason is that when choosing you suppose that everyone actually worships the same God, and you need to find just an optimal way of worship; but the closest faiths to it—I think they are Bahaism and most factions of Buddhism—are easy to satisfy by default, you need to believe not them, but one of the probably-least-true faiths—one of strict jealous faiths. Simply because the faith you considered right while choosing is permissive enough to forgive your move into a strict one you will choose to believe a faith which is furthest from your initial assumption.
You are embellishing the truth. You cannot even be saved by standards of both Russian Eastern Ortodox Church and Catholicism at once.
I am not even sure whether you should ascribe divine nature to Jesus—Christianity is not united even in this question.
So yes, bet-hedging will still give quite perverted result.
That doesn’t strike me as a practical definition of ‘Christianity’. Even most of the mutually incompatible Christian sects would agree that not ascribing divine nature to Jesus would disqualify them from even a heretical Christian sect. “Folks who believe Jesus was divine’ would be a reasonable description of what the word “Christian” means.
We-ell. Judaism is OK with a other-than-human-but-not-God angel evicting Adam and Eve. Jehova’s Witnesses are a Christian sect, but they ascribe Jesus a position higher than humans and angels but strictly lower than God.