The idea of "one true religion" versus "all paths lead to the same place" seems to really be a difference of regional origins, but who knows why that is. Stick with me here...
In so-called Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), there is more of an emphasis on "one true religion" -- this isn't true of all adherents to these religions, and it's not the same across the board, but it's a trend that can be seen.
In so-called Eastern religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Jainism, etc, etc, etc), there is more of an emphasis on the journey is just a journey, a tool to get you to your destination.
Now, to be honest, I'm not sure why there is this "regional" difference. And, I do confess, the distinction isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as this. For example, there are many who would argue that only certain sects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam subscribe to the "turn or burn" mentality of one true religion. There are others who make room for non-adherants within their belief system. In the "Eastern" traditions, there seems to have been a lot more syncretism between traditions -- for example, it's not uncommon to be Buddhist, Confucian and Daoist all at the same time! So it's a different approach.
There is no simple answer, because it's not universal, by any stretch. But at the same time... we could ask why some people are such staunch defenders of one political party over another, or one sports team over another, or... whatever. When it comes to religion, this is all magnified, because one's religion influences how he or she sees the world. If you see the world through the lens of "Christianity is the only way not to burn in Hell forever" then of course you will be a staunch defender. If you don't, then you probably have a hard time understanding where they're coming from. It's all a matter of perspective.
|