Reddit mentions of Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion (Faith Meets Faith Series)

Could all religions be talking about the same thing? Perhaps. Anything's possible. I'll give you my personal take on that question in a bit, as interfaith relations was the focus of one of my majors back in my college days and remains a hobby of mine today. If you're really interested in exploring this topic, let me offer you a few books with differing perspectives on the matter first:

• God is Not One: Eight Rival Religions that Run the World and Why Their Differences Matter, written by Stephen Prothero: This book advocates that religious differences really do matter. From my reading of various theologians from across a number of traditions, this acceptance of differences and that we're not all talking about the same thing (often called the "exclusivist" position) is probably the most common position across religious traditions (at least in my experience).
  
• The Myth of Religious Superiority: A Multifaith Exploration, edited by Paul Knitter: This book is a collection of essays by theologians across a number of world religions who argue that we really are all talking about the same thing after all. Hick (one of the essayists in this book) is a pioneer writer on this subject in particular and comes out of the Christian tradition, but I recommend this collection rather than one of his books so you can get a wider variety of perspectives.
  
• Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion, written by Mark Heim: This book takes a sort of middle ground between the other two, arguing that each religion really is distinct from the others and pursues a different spiritual path but that perhaps multiple paths can still be right, with say Buddhists working towards nirvana and detachment and Muslims drawing towards a heaven with Allah.
  
  There are plenty more books on this topic than just these three. I merely list these three as decent introductions to their particular points of view as you explore this question yourself. As for my own opinion on the matter, I don't think all religions are talking about the same thing, no. To list just a few of my reasons for thinking that:
  
  

1. Claiming we're all really talking about the same thing in the end is just as exclusive a claim as saying that only one religion is right. In either case, you're insisting a similarly large number of people have all fundamentally misunderstood reality.
   
2. Most religions are addressing fundamentally different problems, even if there are overlaps in a few places. In most strands of Buddhism, the central problem with existence is suffering, which according to Buddhism is caused by attachment: this leads Buddhists to practice meditation in order to cultivate detachment so they can escape suffering and help others. In contrast, the central problem in existence according to my Reformed Christian faith is that we humans were all created good and in the image of God Almighty but now are so infected with evil that we can't help but go awry (whether morally, intellectually, emotionally, etc). Therefore, we need an Almighty Creator to step into our story to love us despite our sins, forgive us our trespasses, reveal the truth of the gospel, save us from evil, and teach us how to live as we were originally created to live, so even when we are weak or overcome by guilt, we can have hope that God will remain faithful to us even so and save us once again. Both Buddhism and my own faith have beauty and power to them, but they're both dealing with very different understandings of the problems facing humanity, the solutions to those problems, and how to live life having experienced such a solution.
   
3. While it's nice to say that all religions are talking about the same thing, clearly we don't think every religion qualifies. It's one thing to say, "Christians, Buddhists, Wiccans, Muslims: we're really all just talking about the same in the end." But it's quite another to lump all those people in with cults like Scientology or the Mansons, with white supremacist neo-pagan groups whose religion is mostly an extension of their bigotry, with ancient religions that held the killing of others in war or human sacrifice as essential rituals, etc. If we draw dividing lines in some instances but not among the major religions, by what standard do we so divide various religions as true or false? How can we say some don't count as "in" while others do while still being philosophically consistent? This is a problem not faced by exclusivists who just assert that they are right and all other religions, while at best perhaps helpful to living well, are not ultimately true.
   
4. Just because we disagree about foundational truths of reality doesn't mean we can't respect each other, treat each other well, etc. I firmly believe that Jesus Christ--as revealed in the Bible and attested to by the creeds of my Presbyterian denomination--is Lord God and the only means of salvation. My Muslim friends in college believed quite differently, as did my Buddhist and Wiccan friends in high school, as do all my atheists and agnostic friends to this day. Our disagreements are serious, which means it's important to discuss them civilly and with compassion for each other, because we are talking about the very fabric and truths of existence. But to just hand-wave away all that tension because it's uncomfortable, rather than to dig into those differences, to see how our disagreements highlight the unique power and beliefs of our own traditions, to learn where each of us is weak in our thinking and needs to reevaluate long-held beliefs... that's a gift I wouldn't give away lightly.
   
5. So to deal with this disagreement, I treat the conflict between me and people who hold other religious beliefs as a sort of "gentlemen's bet with higher stakes" (for lack of a better term). We disagree with each other. That disagreement matters and is rather important. Whoever is wrong is likely in some trouble, depending on how everything plays out. We can't know for sure until we die, if ever. So we each claim our beliefs, and we make our wager with our lives. Until we die, it's wise to civilly talk with each other, explore these questions, etc., because the stakes really do matter. But we can do so civilly, because acting otherwise would just cause more harm and make our attempts to understand the truths of reality all the harder. I personally am a Christian in the Reformed tradition, and my evangelism to others (and listening to them evangelize to me in turn) falls under this civil disagreement, gentlemen's bet lens. After all, with the stakes so high, it's important to share what I believe is true as best I can, while at the same time listening to others share what they think is true. Why? Because first, I might be wrong. Second, if I'm right, knowing what others think will help me explain the truth even better. And third, being civil and at peace with each other provides the best setting for discussing these ideas.
   
   That's just a few of my reasons, anyways. I'm sure I have more, but I'm trying to type this quickly as I'm writing this while on a work break.