All religions cant be right therefore

[Tomdstone]

For years, people resisted the fact that the Earth was round. They did it out of ignorance, they didn’t know any better.

I don’t think that there are too many scholarly people today who, after study and investigation, believe that the earth is flat. This is totally different from religion, where, after serious and dedicated study, intelligent and scholarly Jewish rabbis continue to hold to their belief that the Messiah has not come. Or after long study and discussions, Roman Catholics insist that their calculation of the date for Easter is correct, and Eastern Orthodox continue to insist that they have the correct method for dating Easter. Neither side is budging after hundreds of years.

Yes, we can resist facts. We do so all the time, mostly due to ignorance. .

Can you p(name removed by moderator)oint for us where is the ignorance involved when the two sides do not agree on the date for Easter?

 

[clem456]

An atheist I know states “Since it is inconceivable that all religions are right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.” What would you say to him?

I would say
"It strains credulity to the breaking point to believe there is no truth. Even an atheist believes that something is true (his own beliefs). "

 

[NovusFidem]

I don’t think that there are too many scholarly people today who, after study and investigation, believe that the earth is flat. This is totally different from religion, where, after serious and dedicated study, intelligent and scholarly Jewish rabbis continue to hold to their belief that the Messiah has not come.

Not entirely different, as the magnitude of the findings are overwhelmingly different. Men probably accepted facts about a small leaf far quicker than they did facts about a small tree. Men knew everything about their small villages before understanding how big their country was. They also had a better grasp at the environment of their own Continent, before understanding that there was a whole planet to care about. Less than a thousand years ago, men finally understood that this planet was round.

So, NOT totally different from religion. We are finally understanding the Universe, how can men have, after only 2000+ years or so (since the New Testament, or the Old Testament, or since the first human sapiens), complete understanding of He Who came before the Universe was even created?

We are talking about things bigger than us.

Also, as comparison. On matters of faith and science, you have those who, supposedly, found the answer, and those who refuse what they take for facts.

If the side who “found the answer” in science is found to be right, then those who refused it before and insist on refusing it after, would be the ones ignorant on the matter.

If the side who “found the answer” in religion is found to be right, then those who refused it before and insist on refusing it after, would be the ones ignorant on the matter.

Or after long study and discussions, Roman Catholics insist that their calculation of the date for Easter is correct, and Eastern Orthodox continue to insist that they have the correct method for dating Easter. Neither side is budging after hundreds of years.
Can you p(name removed by moderator)oint for us where is the ignorance involved when the two sides do not agree on the date for Easter?

The discussion you mention is not on a factual situation, but more of a question of liturgy, I believe.

Catholicism is full of symbols. Early Christians didn’t even have a specific day for Easter celebration. Some celebrated on the first Sunday after Jewish Passover, while others celebrated it on the same day of the Passover. Some wanted it to be on the same day of the week that death and resurrection happened (Friday and Sunday), while others wanted to be chronologically faithful to the specific days. What matters is that we celebrate Easter, no matter the day.

A similar situation comes from the Host we receive at Mass. Should we use unleavened bread, like Jesus used, or should we use leavened bread, to symbolize His rising? It is all a matter of liturgy. Maybe one of them is right, which leaves us the question: Orthodox or Roman? (I’m in for both)

So, where is the ignorance? No offense intended (but probably caused) - it’s on you. Their “not agreeing on the date for Easter” is akin to a mother and father discussing if they should make the birthday party on the Wednesday (the actual birthday of the child) or on the Saturday (to make sure all his friends will be able to attend).

A better question you could have made was: “why not every religion agrees that Jesus was God”, to which I simply answer: “Because not all of them accept the facts given, out of willful ignorance”.

 

[Tomdstone]

What matters is that we celebrate Easter, no matter the day…

If that is true, then why don’t Roman Catholics simply accept the Eastern Orthodox date for Easter? In not doing so, there is the danger that Catholics may look to be stubbornly holding on to a date for Easter which is unfriendly to good relations between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

 

[Tomdstone]

Should we use unleavened bread, like Jesus used, or should we use leavened bread, to symbolize His rising? It is all a matter of liturgy.

No, it is not. The Eastern Orthodox say that the fact is that leavened Bread was used at the Last Supper. The Roman Catholics say that the fact is that unleavened Bread was used. After 2000 years of discussions and study this question has not been resolved. OTOH, the question of whether the earth is round or flat has been resolved.

 

[NovusFidem]

No, it is not. The Eastern Orthodox say that the fact is that leavened Bread was used at the Last Supper. The Roman Catholics say that the fact is that unleavened Bread was used. After 2000 years of discussions and study this question has not been resolved. OTOH, the question of whether the earth is round or flat has been resolved.

Nope. The Jews eat matzo, an unleavened bread, during Passover. If Jesus was a Jew, then He followed Jewish customs, and the bread used was unleavened. By Jewish religious law, the use of leaven (eating leavened food) was forbidden during Passover, so it is fair to assume there was no leavened bread on the table.

That doesn’t mean that Orthodox Catholics are wrong in using leavened bread; they simply have another reason - another symbol - for using leavened bread.

Here: catholic.com/quickquestions/eastern-rite-catholics-use-leavened-bread-in-holy-communion-but-roman-rite-catholics-

 

[NovusFidem]

If that is true, then why don’t Roman Catholics simply accept the Eastern Orthodox date for Easter? In not doing so, there is the danger that Catholics may look to be stubbornly holding on to a date for Easter which is unfriendly to good relations between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

We just might. Not sure if Pope Francis or Pope Bene, but one of them said something about changing the Easter dates, to make it more in tune with the calendar used by Jews/Orthodox Catholics.

As I said, this is not a matter of teaching, or facts. Just preference.

EDIT: it was Pope Francis, June 12 of this year.

 

[Tomdstone]

Nope. The Jews eat matzo, an unleavened bread, during Passover. If Jesus was a Jew, then He followed Jewish customs, and the bread used was unleavened. By Jewish religious law, the use of leaven (eating leavened food) was forbidden during Passover, so it is fair to assume there was no leavened bread on the table.

That doesn’t mean that Orthodox Catholics are wrong in using leavened bread; they simply have another reason - another symbol - for using leavened bread.

Here: catholic.com/quickquestions/eastern-rite-catholics-use-leavened-bread-in-holy-communion-but-roman-rite-catholics-

No. The Eastern Orthodox, at least some of them, say that it is a fact that Jesus used leavened bread. “When the Lord instituted the Mystery of the Eucharist, He commanded us to do as He had done. The Orthodox follow that instruction; Rome, however, does not. The Roman Pontiff has altered the Lord’s institution and the traditions of the Holy Fathers, by instituting the use of azymes or unleavened bread (crackers), and not artos or leavened bread in the celebration of the Mystery of the Eucharist. The Apostles are all unanimous in their testimony that our Lord made a point of offering leavened bread, which they show by using the word Greek artos and not the Jewish crackers or unleavened bread, which the same Apostles always specify as azymos, or azymes in English. It is very clear that the Lord, the Apostles, and the Apostolic Church all used leavened bread, not Jewish crackers, in their Mysteries.”
trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics_brief_replies_papal_innovations.shtml#03
Now, two thousand years have passed and this issue is still not resolved. One side maintains that Jesus used leavened bread, the other side says that Jesus used unleavened bread. Neither side will budge after hundreds of years of discussions and study on this issue.

 

[meltzerboy]

I see Christianity as one way of seeking God. It happens to be my way because I was born in a Christian country. If I had been born in a different country, or if I had been born 3000 years ago, I wouldn’t be a Christian.

I can’t see my religion as being the only way. I believe that God is so far beyond our limited human understanding that we can only make tiny steps towards the infinite.

I don’t know whether what you say here is “orthodox” teaching in Catholicism but it is inherent to Judaism, which does not believe that its religion is the only way to seek and find G-d.

 

[NovusFidem]

Now, two thousand years have passed and this issue is still not resolved. One side maintains that Jesus used leavened bread, the other side says that Jesus used unleavened bread. Neither side will budge after hundreds of years of discussions and study on this issue.

Again, no.

Was Sop Leavened or Unleavened? John 13:26-27

Also. Jesus could have used just about any sort of food, so none of this really matters. What matters is that we receive Him in the Eucharist.

As much as** historical account** supports the use of unleavened bread (people wouldn’t be selling food with leavened grains for the Passover; Jesus would be respectful of Jewish customs and symbolism, etc), the use of leavened bread is not wrong, once we understand that the matter of the host is, quite honestly, irrelevant to its importance. The matter of the host is valid either way, although illicit by each of those two Catholic communions.

Fixating so much on negligible details of this important Sacrament is what keeps those two religions apart. But this is an imperfection of the men responsible for both institutions, and not of God. The Truth stays that we must receive the Eucharist as established by God. The doubts stays in how we should do so, thanks to human stubbornness and incompetence in making peace.

 

[NovusFidem]

I don’t know whether what you say here is “orthodox” teaching in Catholicism but it is inherent to Judaism, which does not believe that its religion is the only way to seek and find G-d.

I think that what he said is “somewhat” orthodox. We do believe that truth can be found in other religions (and, thus, people can be saved, even if they never get in contact with Catholicism). It’s just that, for us, the whole of truth can only be found in our religion.

I could be wrong, of course.

 

[Tomdstone]

Again, no.

Was Sop Leavened or Unleavened? John 13:26-27

Yes. I do not disagree that this is what the Roman Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years. But for 2000 years the Eastern Church has taught that Jesus used leavened bread as I have given the quote above. There have been studies and discussions on this for 2000 years and there is still disagreement on this issue. Each side claims it is right and the other side is wrong.

 

[Bahman]

Well, that is what Theology and Philosophy works with.

I don’t think so, since if there was no need for Theology, Philosophy and science if there was a true religion.

I’m not saying that EVERY religion works on a set of consistent teachings and facts, but the more serious ones do, or try to at least. Even if a teaching hasn’t reached total consensus, doesn’t mean it never will. Just as happens with science: we evolve. Sooner or later the Truth will be revealed.

Trying to be consistent is not enough. The true religion must be consistent hence there is no true religion if we accept your assessment that all religions are partially consistent.

Can’t we? I find it very kind of you to believe we can’t, but you seem to forget that we, as humans, are capable of very serious crimes. Malicious people DO exist: they do not believe what they preach, but keep on preaching just to lure naive people into traps.

That is true because there exist not a true religion since malicious people couldn’t possibly exist if there was a true religion.

If one does not believe in God, why should they fear “divine judgment”?

That is true that malicious people does not fear in divine justice but why they should fear it, because there is no true religion since otherwise they could be there.

Even those who DO believe in God, it was said that judgement would come after our deaths only; why should we fear God right now?

Justice delayed is justice denial so I don’t believe that Gods’ Judgment come after the death when you look at the whole picture correctly.

In that case, what is stopping me from committing sins right now?

We have to agree on the definition of sin because I don’t agree with the traditional definition. But regardless of definition people commit sins since they don’t contemplate enough about the consequence of their actions.

Yes, we can resist facts. We do so all the time, mostly due to ignorance.

That is not correct. The correct statement is that the right teaching takes time.

We also can do it out of malice.

That is not correct either. Some people are malicious because they didn’t have the right teaching, hence the main question is why the true religion with the right system was not in the place.

For years, people resisted the fact that the Earth was round. They did it out of ignorance, they didn’t know any better.

People believe so because there was no true religion to tell them about the truth, one of them for example the fact that earth is round.

Even now, with reasonable proof, people resist evolution. They do so out of fear (that it may invalidate their religions - pure nonsense IMO). Out of ignorance (they hear so many opinions, they don’t know who is right, and rightly so). Out of malice (they need to keep people in the dark in order to manipulate them).

Please read the previous comment.

We can ignore facts. We can refuse facts.** It doesn’t make the facts false** just because the majority ignores its existence.

We cannot ignore the fact. It just take time to accept them if there exist a good teaching system in the place.

That said, maybe the majority is resisting some moral facts, some moral laws… out of ignorance. Just because no proof was presented yet, they are ignoring something that might, one day, prove to be Truth.

Moral laws!? Where did they come from? Partially from religions and some we understood it. None of them could possibly have any conflict with facts if there was a true religion.

Happens all the time.

It could happen if there was a true religion.

 

[MPat]

An atheist I know states “Since it is inconceivable that all religions are right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.” What would you say to him?

One possible way is to ask if he thinks it would be reasonable for a detective to say: “Since it is inconceivable that all suspects committed this crime, the most reasonable conclusion is that there was no crime.”. After all, the reasoning is exactly the same.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

One possible way is to ask if he thinks it would be reasonable for a detective to say: “Since it is inconceivable that all suspects committed this crime, the most reasonable conclusion is that there was no crime.”. After all, the reasoning is exactly the same.

Nice try. The problem is that with a crime we have an actual corpse with a physical dagger through his heart… but what do we have with “religion”? Only a nonexistent problem (where did all this shebang come from?) with an unsubstantiated “solution” (goddidit).

 

[MPat]

Nice try. The problem is that with a crime we have an actual corpse with a physical dagger through his heart… but what do we have with “religion”? Only a nonexistent problem (where did all this shebang come from?) with an unsubstantiated “solution” (goddidit).

So, are you going to say that if we had no corpse and no weapon, but there was only one suspect, it would be certain that crime had been committed…?

As you can see, the number of suspects has nothing to do with the question if a crime has been committed. In the same way, the number of religions has nothing to do with the questions concerning God’s existence and the like.

That is, this argument is completely worthless. The only way to fix it is to throw it away and get another one. In fact, that is exactly what you have done (you replaced it with an argument “There is no evidence.”, that is at least slightly better).

 

[Bradski]

One possible way is to ask if he thinks it would be reasonable for a detective to say: “Since it is inconceivable that all suspects committed this crime, the most reasonable conclusion is that there was no crime.”. After all, the reasoning is exactly the same.

The original statement accepted the fact that religions exist. It was only questioning if each of them was true. It wasn’t suggesting that there are no religions. Your analogy is spurious.

The only possible response to the original statement, if you are a Christian, is to to say that the statement is logically valid and that, as far as you are concerned, Christianity if the one true religion.

End of discussion.

 

[davidv]

The original statement accepted the fact that religions exist. It was only questioning if each of them was true. It wasn’t suggesting that there are no religions. Your analogy is spurious.

The only possible response to the original statement, if you are a Christian, is to to say that the statement is logically valid and that, as far as you are concerned, Christianity if the one true religion.

End of discussion.

No the discussion is not over. There is no logical response to the original statement as it is illogical.
See post #14.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So, are you going to say that if we had no corpse and no weapon, but there was only one suspect, it would be certain that crime had been committed…?

If there is no corpse, no weapon, if there is NOTHING, then how come that there is a “suspect”? If you present a nonexistent problem, then there is no need for a “suspect”.

 

[clem456]

The original statement accepted the fact that religions exist. It was only questioning if each of them was true. It wasn’t suggesting that there are no religions. Your analogy is spurious.

The only possible response to the original statement, if you are a Christian, is to to say that the statement is logically valid and that, as far as you are concerned, Christianity if the one true religion.

End of discussion.

Every religion believes it is the true one. Some beliefs claim they are religions and some reject the word religion. Ok, not all beliefs have well developed rituals, but they are still beliefs.

But every human person without exception has a belief system they believe to be the true one.