Have you ever thought other religions might be correct on their beliefs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moosebreathh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you gave a very wise response to the question
You might also consider. (to justify your thoughts) a comment from Dorothy Day given at an interview with Robert Coles
 
The Secular Mind by Robert Coles pp162 Interview by Robert Coles. I’m afraid – I’m really afraid that going to church and praying will become an automatic thing with me. I’m afraid I‘ll be going through the motions – that I won’t be thinking, or be myself praying – that I’ll be half conscious, daydreaming. …I’ll never forget what happened to some of my dear friends who became Communists (in the 1930s). I’m not here to “red-bait”, I never did. I could see then , and still can , why they chose as they did . But I saw their minds get swept up, get swept away. They criticized people for getting swept up by capitalist materialism, and then they got swept up by another kind of materialism. They seemed to loose all their independence; they said what they were supposed to say - I would be talking to them, and could almost predict, word for word, what I’d hear coming out of their mouth! It was scary to me – not that I would necessarily disagree with what they were trying to get at . It was the automatic way they spoke, the instant replies, with the words and

phrases I’d been hearing for years. I recall one of my friends speaking like that – I¬ recall thinking afterwards: he’s lost, his mind is gone; its no longer his mind, it belongs to the party, and its spokesmen, and to what’s decided by them, the higher - ups, here and abroad. I’m not talking about “discipline”, here; I’m talking about believing something, the faith that you must take your orders in what you say or do , that you are not really responsible for anything on your own, but only as part of something larger, called Communism, and your life is to be put on the line for that [ideology] , in a manner that others decide, and you are in a holding pattern: you wait for those others to tell you what to do.

…I’m just saying that anything is possible for any of us, that we can take religion or politics or some set of ideas, and end up living in such a way that we lose all sense of who we are – our minds no longer belong to us. ( sorry, don’t quite know how to operate this thing!)
 
Moosebreathh said:
have you thought other religions might be correct?
Click to expand...
Sometimes. I have felt that perhaps Protestants were correct in their views against rigid religious practices, but their lack of consistency about morality turned me off.

I sometimes felt that maybe a “non religious” view of God was correct as well, should Christianity not be true. A creator exists, but that it doesn’t care about us. Passive, if you will.
 
No, but they may have elements in them which are on the right lines. We pray for them.
 
Nina said:
I wonder if I’ll be able to completely ignore other religions not because they might be “correct” but maybe they’ve grasped some truth I’d like to know about.
Click to expand...
They won’t have any truth that isn’t to be found in the Church. You cannot miss out on it unless you miss it in your studies of what the Church teaches.
 
No never.

Why put ones Faith in the Holy Trinity only to exam other possibilities?

Makes no sense at all. As Jesus rightly says …

A House Divided Cannot Stand​

22 Then one was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute; and He healed him, so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw. 23 And all the multitudes were amazed and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”

24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.”

25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.
 
I would suggest it’s boarding on blasphemy to go against ones own Faith so please be carful on this subject my friend.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
I did, obviously when I was a Buddhist.
Click to expand...
I dabbled in that myself after being exposed to it in the Far East…went to a monastery in Alaska sometimes, read a lot…then at IU went to see the new site they built.
Very fascinating…got to see a display of the priest and their rituals while at Univ. of Fairbanks and their sand mandala…all very interesting.

In the end it just was not where God wanted me…

I blame watching Kung Fu too much as a kid…
 
Last edited:
I blame mine on depression. Buddhism had a lot to say about suffering, and that appealed to me.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
I blame mine on depression. Buddhism had a lot to say about suffering, and that appealed to me.
Click to expand...
I think it is a great philosophy, discipline and has many admirable qualities…but leading oneself to nothingness is the opposite of filling oneself with Christ…Buddhism can give a sense of inner peace, but no resolution or hope…

Also Buddha is still in his grave…Christ has risen…😀
 
Last edited:
A bit early for the Paschal greeting, and I thought people were celebrating Christmas too early!
 
The Church teaches that there is goodness and truth in other religions.
CCC 843: The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”
Click to expand...
 
I created an account just to reply to your post.

Clearly your position is that SOME things could come about simply through evolution, whereas other things require more than simple evolution to come about. (This is at least talking about things in the biological domain, not necessarily the physical domain.)

Then you give two examples: the rotary flagellum and the human eye.

Nevermind what anyone else has to say, including biologists. According to YOUR OWN position, either:

a) The rotary flagellum and the human eye came about simply due to evolution, or

b) The rotary flagellum and the human eye required something additional to come about.

In regard to b), the presumed extra ingredient is intelligent design coming from an already existing intelligent creator.

We will take “for granted” that the flagellum and the human eye required intelligent design to come about. That is, we will presume b) to be true, regardless if others like biologists say that a) is the case.

Then you basically propose that there are only two possibilities without room for a third possibility. Either:

a) intelligent aliens intelligently designed the flagellum and the human eye, or

b) God did.

The next step in your strategy is to argue that a) provides an insufficient explanation, or at least a) doesn’t provide an explanation which removes the necessity of appealing to God, but rather reinforces the necessity of appealing to God.
 
abc1234def said:
I created an account just to reply to your post.

Clearly your position is that SOME things could come about simply through evolution, whereas other things require more than simple evolution to come about. (This is at least talking about things in the biological domain, not necessarily the physical domain.)

Then you give two examples: the rotary flagellum and the human eye.

Nevermind what anyone else has to say, including biologists. According to YOUR OWN position, either:

a) The rotary flagellum and the human eye came about simply due to evolution, or

b) The rotary flagellum and the human eye required something additional to come about.

In regard to b), the presumed extra ingredient is intelligent design coming from an already existing intelligent creator.

We will take “for granted” that the flagellum and the human eye required intelligent design to come about. That is, we will presume b) to be true, regardless if others like biologists say that a) is the case.

Then you basically propose that there are only two possibilities without room for a third possibility. Either:

a) intelligent aliens intelligently designed the flagellum and the human eye, or

b) God did.

The next step in your strategy is to argue that a) provides an insufficient explanation, or at least a) doesn’t provide an explanation which removes the necessity of appealing to God, but rather reinforces the necessity of appealing to God.
Click to expand...
I suppose I should be flattered that my post would make enough of an impact on you, to prompt you to create an account. “Thought-provoking” is one thing that I hope my poor scratchings turn out to be.

Let’s say (a) is true — that these complex structures came about by evolution, and that they were not designed by external agents.

I would have to have more faith to believe in that, than it takes for me to believe in intelligent design.

And as far as intelligent aliens are concerned, my question would then be “all right, but who created them?”
 
Moosebreathh said:
have you thought other religions might be correct?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s the question you’re really asking. After all, other religions can be correct – when what they teach is what the Catholic Church teaches. So, when the Lutherans teach that Christ died and was resurrected so that we might attain to heaven: correct! When Muslims teach that there is one God – correct!

I think what you’re really trying to ask is “have you ever thought that the Catholic Church might be wrong in a way that other religions are not?”

And, in areas outside of doctrine and dogma, the answer is “yes, and they might actually be!” After all, it’s possible that someone in a position of leadership in the Catholic Church might make a decision based on personal prudential judgment and be wrong in that judgment. And, it’s possible that someone else outside the Church might look at the same issue and make a prudential judgment that is, objectively speaking, better.

However, if what you mean is “have you ever thought that the Catholic Church might be wrong on an issue of doctrine or dogma, and another religion might get it right where the Catholic Church is wrong?”, then the answer is no, that’s not possible.
 
Well it depends on where you were born in the world , and your culture. Growing up in a different faith from birth in a different part of the world and practicing it they would believe theirs is the correct faith - and there will be nothing you can say that will change their mind they believe as strongly in their faith as a Christian does. I believe that they believe their faith is the correct one. The question asked is just another way of asking if we have ever doubted our own faith. My answer - not yet.
 
Hi. I typed up my original message to you in an external word processor. It was around 9000 characters. When I tried posting it, I found out there was a 3000 character limit. So I was going to split it into 3 posts, but then I was prohibited from posting a second time. I messaged the moderators, and they said new accounts could only post once in the first 24 hours. So many rules. Anyway, Part 2:

Your argument goes something like:

Step 1) Presume that aliens were responsible for the rotary flagellum and the human eye.

Step 2) Well, something must now account for how the aliens came about.

Step 3) God is the only remaining explanation.

Step 4) Therefore, God intelligently designed the aliens (who then designed the rotary flagellum and the human eye), or more simply: God intelligently designed the rotary flagellum and the human eye without using aliens as a middleman.

I take issue with a logical leap performed at Step 2.

You seem to smuggle in the “intelligent design” requirement for the existence of the supposed aliens.

It is like you have a hidden assumption, which you didn’t express, that goes like: If X requires an intelligent designer Y to come about, then Y itself also requires a different intelligent designer Z to come about.

By YOUR OWN position, this assumption is not warranted. There are two important reasons why this assumption is not warranted.

First Reason: The strongest reason why your assumption is not warranted is, because by YOUR OWN EXPRESSED OPINION, SOME things can came about simply with evolution without the need of an intelligent designer, even if other things like the human eye do in fact require an intelligent designer.

Second Reason: The second reason I take to be much weaker than the first. I find it unimportant and not really worth mentioning other than for the sake of completeness. This second reason is, if Y intelligent designer requires a further different Z intelligent designer, then by this principle God himself would require a different intelligent designer Z to create God. We can dismiss this possibility by amending the principle with the addendum, “Except in the case of God, who doesn’t need a different Z intelligent designer.”

Since I’m uninterested in the second reason, I will now elaborate on the first reason.

Currently in our reasoning process we have these items on the table:

Item 1) Some things do not require more than simple evolution to come about.

Item 2) The human eye required intelligent design to come about.

Item 3) Aliens could have been the intelligent designers for the human eye.

But then an unwarranted item is introduced:

Item 4) Aliens could not have come about simply through evolution; aliens required an intelligent designer to come about.

Item 4 is unwarranted. We have nothing to suggest that aliens have parts comparable to the rotary flagellum or the human eye, such than an intelligent designer is required to be invoked to explain how aliens came about.
 
I admire your tenacity, it takes a lot to inspire someone so much to create an account because they were so moved to state their position…Kudos! 😀

However, I am curious (and you don’t have to reply) why you were reading Catholic forums in the first place?

In Peace,

M
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top