How to deal with "Every religion thinks it's the right one"

[NextElement]

This comes up SO often for me when discussing religion with non-believers. They always eventually go to the “Well every religion thinks it’s right and all the others are wrong!”… For me it’s hard to keep the conversation going after that. It’s like, yeah they do, but why does that stop you from finding your own truth?

Any advice for how to deal with it when this is brought up? How can I kind of elevate Christianity/Catholicism above all of the “other” religions that would swear they are the truth?

 

[Reepicheep]

A dozen people try to solve a complicated math problem. They arrive at a dozen answers. Each person thinks they have the right answer.
Does that prove that none of the answers can be right?
Or could it be that one of the dozen really did get the right answer?

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

A dozen people try to solve a complicated math problem. They arrive at a dozen answers. Each person thinks they have the right answer.
Does that prove that none of the answers can be right?
Or could it be that one of the dozen really did get the right answer?

You could ask them are they on this List., and if so where have they been for 1800/or whatever years before it was founded ?

How Old is Your Church?
AUTHOR UNKNOWN

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1608.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you are a member of the Churches of Christ your church began near the beginning of the 19th century in New England. Abner Jones, Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell were some of the most well known originators of your religion.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as “Church of the Nazarene,” “Pentecostal Gospel,” “Holiness Church,” “Pilgrim Holiness Church,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Roman Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

 

[edwest2]

This comes up SO often for me when discussing religion with non-believers. They always eventually go to the “Well every religion thinks it’s right and all the others are wrong!”… For me it’s hard to keep the conversation going after that. It’s like, yeah they do, but why does that stop you from finding your own truth?

Any advice for how to deal with it when this is brought up? How can I kind of elevate Christianity/Catholicism above all of the “other” religions that would swear they are the truth?

Not uncommon. Some who don’t believe think that their minds are the ultimate answer. Just tell them who Jesus Christ is and what He did for them and all of us. Then pray for them, even if they insist one religion is good as or lacks the truth as much as any other. In those cases, after you’ve given them the truth, let God touch them.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Vianneyizer]

This comes up SO often for me when discussing religion with non-believers. They always eventually go to the “Well every religion thinks it’s right and all the others are wrong!”… For me it’s hard to keep the conversation going after that. It’s like, yeah they do, but why does that stop you from finding your own truth?

Any advice for how to deal with it when this is brought up? How can I kind of elevate Christianity/Catholicism above all of the “other” religions that would swear they are the truth?

I wonder, fellow Christian, why would you ever discuss religion with non-believers? We all know what St. Fracis of Assisi said…

Be well -

Zachary

 

[thequietsinger]

This comes up SO often for me when discussing religion with non-believers. They always eventually go to the “Well every religion thinks it’s right and all the others are wrong!”… For me it’s hard to keep the conversation going after that. It’s like, yeah they do, but why does that stop you from finding your own truth?

Any advice for how to deal with it when this is brought up? How can I kind of elevate Christianity/Catholicism above all of the “other” religions that would swear they are the truth?

I usually just avoid it at all costs. I don’t really talk religion/Catholicism to anyone, except for one friend at work, since we’re literally the only ones who aren’t Atheist or of other religion(s). If it’s brought up, and you feel uncomfortable with it, change the subject. It may be seen as the cowards way out, but it’s better than getting into an aggressive debate/argument over it, especially if it’s between a friend. I speak from experience.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

Yes But the Holy Father has asked us to Evangelize, hard to do when staying quiet.
All other Religions don’t have a problem with talking about Religion so why should we!!.

I say bring it on. Maybe because I am in the Legion of Mary going door to door I don’t have a problem in bringing up anything.

 

[Vianneyizer]

Yes But the Holy Father has asked us to Evangelize, hard to do when staying quiet.
All other Religions don’t have a problem with talking about Religion so why should we!!.

I say bring it on. Maybe because I am in the Legion of Mary going door to door I don’t have a problem in bringing up anything.

You go door to door spreading veneration of Our Lady? How wonderful!!

May God bless you in all your endeavors -

Zachary

 

[St_Francis]

Two points: I try to avoid acrimony by having in mind that I am only going to explain the Faith, not get into a debate. If they want to know more, fin; if they attack what I say, fine: I shake the dust from my sandals

I do believe that it is important for those of us who feel comfortable doing so (and we are all encouraged to be able to give reasons for our belief! 1St Peter 3:15) and there are those who need a seed to be planted, if not more. Perhaps they want to believe bit know very little about religion and so do not know where to start. If A Catholic explains the reason for their faith, then the person is encouraged, no? And I believe our reasons are the best, esp for those who profess no belief at all.

In answer to the OP: I am learning the line of reasoning from explaining why I believe A Creative Being exists through to Christianity and on to the Catholic Church. Too much to write in a post, but I plunge in and when I get stuck, I do the research. Some people are way too advanced for me to discuss with and I can’t do it, but they are generally people who are not sincerely interested in listening anyway, so I just do what I can when it comes up.

 

[St_Francis]

The age of one’s church doesn’t parallel it’s truth or veracity.
There was a time when Christianity was just a week, a month, a few years, a century old, too.
If you are gauging by length of time then Judaism, of course, has been around twice as long as Christianity…not to mention Hinduism and Buddhism, among others.

.

I think the point of the list is not to show the *age *but the chronology and the founders.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You could ask them are they on this List., and if so where have they been for 1800/or whatever years before it was founded ?

How Old is Your Church?
AUTHOR UNKNOWN

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

I’m pretty sure Lutherans would trace their history back to Saint Paul and the writing of Romans, and to the gospels themselves. The Lutheran position is that the early Church held doctrinal positions more akin to Lutheranism than Catholicism – hence the fact that Saint Augustine is a central figure in Lutheran theology (perhaps more central than Luther).

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

This comes up SO often for me when discussing religion with non-believers. They always eventually go to the “Well every religion thinks it’s right and all the others are wrong!”… For me it’s hard to keep the conversation going after that. It’s like, yeah they do, but why does that stop you from finding your own truth?

Any advice for how to deal with it when this is brought up? How can I kind of elevate Christianity/Catholicism above all of the “other” religions that would swear they are the truth?

This is often used as an objection to a type of faith that is blind, and to the attitude that “I believe because mom and dad told me.” What we are to do is seek the truth by examining the evidence for each religion. And when you do so, Christianity has the best evidence.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The age of one’s church doesn’t parallel it’s truth or veracity.
There was a time when Christianity was just a week, a month, a few years, a century old, too.
If you are gauging by length of time then Judaism, of course, has been around twice as long as Christianity…not to mention Hinduism and Buddhism, among others.

.

This would be like saying the age of a painted masterpiece has nothing to do with its origin or connection to the artist who painted it. Clearly, a painting done in the 19th century could NOT have been a work of Botticelli.

So when Jesus speaks of founding HIS Church on Peter and the gates of hell not prevailing against it, the provenance of the Catholic Church and its connection to Christ himself via Apostolic succession is an important feature regarding authenticity, especially since Christ himself took great pains to groom his followers and assure them of his protection and patronage.

The point you are making and, at the same time, missing (apparently,) is that age DOESN’T matter, but age wasn’t the criteria being appealed to by Celtic Maiden. It is the direct and unbroken line of succession from Christ that is important in her post, since Christian churches are ostensibly passing on the teaching of Christ that they received FROM him. Yet, how could the message have been received FROM Christ when no direct connection to him exists?

Fifteen hundred years of non-existence needs to be explained if a church suddenly pops into existence claiming to have the unblemished message and authority of a founder who lived some fifteen hundred to two thousand years previous. This is especially true when the “latter day” churches typically remove original aspects of teaching and authority in order to justify their existence.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m pretty sure Lutherans would trace their history back to Saint Paul and the writing of Romans, and to the gospels themselves. The Lutheran position is that the early Church held doctrinal positions more akin to Lutheranism than Catholicism – hence the fact that Saint Augustine is a central figure in Lutheran theology (perhaps more central than Luther).

I would agree that Lutherans would try to trace their doctrinal beliefs in this way, but this reverse engineering attempt at genealogy wouldn’t necessarily explain the historical genesis of Lutheranism since most of the doctrines in question existed continuously in substantively similar form in Catholicism. It would be more a matter of emphasis than actual differences in doctrine, in most cases.

To make the historical case, a Lutheran would have to show that Paul and Augustine placed the same emphasis on those doctrines as modern Lutherans do AND that that emphasis precludes or excludes Paul and Augustine from espousing the intrinsically “Catholic” version or emphasis on the doctrines AND that the Lutheran interpretations are the correct ones.

I do get your point about how Lutherans would understand their origins, I just don’t think the historical case would be made by simply pointing to writings of Augustine and Paul as if those references would be sufficient to make it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I would agree that Lutherans would try to trace their doctrinal beliefs in this way, but this reverse engineering attempt at genealogy wouldn’t necessarily explain the historical genesis of Lutheranism since most of the doctrines in question existed continuously in substantively similar form in Catholicism. It would be more a matter of emphasis than actual differences in doctrine, in most cases.

To make the historical case, a Lutheran would have to show that Paul and Augustine placed the same emphasis on those doctrines as modern Lutherans do AND that that emphasis precludes or excludes Paul and Augustine from espousing the intrinsically “Catholic” version or emphasis on the doctrines AND that the Lutheran interpretations are the correct ones.

I do get your point about how Lutherans would understand their origins, I just don’t think the historical case would be made by simply pointing to writings of Augustine and Paul as if those references would be sufficient to make it.

I agree. I do think, however, that Luther’s original (Augustine-influenced) reading of the book of Romans was quite profound (if not perfect), and that – if it had simply served to purify the Catholic Church – it would have been a tremendously good action of the Holy Spirit.

Theologically, Luther was about 95% right in doctrine, and 99% right in emphasis. The Catholic powers-that-be at the time were 99-100% right in doctrine, but very wrong in emphasis. If Luther could have found a way to keep in unity with the Church, he would rightly be called a saint today.



At any rate, I think that the Lutherans have a much better case than, say, the Anglicans, that their Church is Christ’s Church. (At least until some of them started fragmenting themselves and selling out on moral teachings…)

 

[Randy_Carson]

This comes up SO often for me when discussing religion with non-believers. They always eventually go to the “Well every religion thinks it’s right and all the others are wrong!”… For me it’s hard to keep the conversation going after that. It’s like, yeah they do, but why does that stop you from finding your own truth?

Any advice for how to deal with it when this is brought up? How can I kind of elevate Christianity/Catholicism above all of the “other” religions that would swear they are the truth?

Cardinal Newman on One Church

…There is such a thing as religious truth, and therefore there is such a thing as religious error. We learn that religious truth is one—and therefore that all views of religion but one are wrong. . . . our religious creeds and professions at this day are many; but Truth is one: therefore they cannot all be right, or rather almost all of them must be wrong. That is, the multitude of men are wrong, so far as they differ; and as they differ, not about trivial points, but about great matters, it follows that the multitude of men, whether by their own fault or not, are wrong even in the greater matters of religion.

…Doubtless if men sought the truth with one tenth part of the zeal with which they seek to acquire wealth or secular knowledge, their differences would diminish year by year. Doubtless if they gave a half or a quarter of the time to prayer for Divine guidance which they give to amusement or recreation, or which they give to dispute and contention, they would ever be approximating to each other. We differ in opinion; therefore we cannot all be right; many must be wrong; many must be turned from the truth; and why is this, but on account of that undeniable fact which we see before us, that we do not pray and seek for the Truth?

…Some men will tell us that this difference of opinion in religious matters which exists, is a proof, not that the Truth is withheld from us on account of our negligence in seeking it, but that religious truth is not worth seeking at all, or that it is not given us. The present confused and perplexed state of things, which is really a proof of God’s anger at our negligence, these men say is a proof that religious truth cannot be obtained; that there is no such thing as religious truth; that there is no right or wrong in religion; that, provided we think ourselves right, one set of opinions is as good as another; that we shall all come right in the end if we do but mean well, or rather if we do not mean ill. That is, we create confusion by our negligence and disobedience, and then excuse our negligence by the existence of that confusion. It is no uncommon thing, I say, for men to say, “that in religious matters God has willed that men should differ,” and to support their opinion by no better argument than the fact that they do differ; and they go on to conclude that therefore we need not perplex ourselves about matters of faith, about which, after all, we cannot be certain.

…How are the sheep of Christ’s flock scattered abroad in the waste world! He came to gather them together in one; but they wander again and faint by the way, as having lost their Shepherd. What religious opinion can be named which some men or other have not at some time held? All are equally confident in the truth of their own doctrines, though the many must be mistaken.

(Parochial and Plain Sermons, Vol. 8, Sermon 13: “Truth Hidden When Not Sought After,” 1843)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think the main point in favor of the Catholic Church is that its unity is unwavering since Christ and St. Paul required that unity of the true Church.

All you find in Protestantism is a fragmented phenomenon, thousands of sects each claiming to be right, but none claiming to be unified AS ONE CHURCH since the time of Christ.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I agree. I do think, however, that Luther’s original (Augustine-influenced) reading of the book of Romans was quite profound (if not perfect), and that – if it had simply served to purify the Catholic Church – it would have been a tremendously good action of the Holy Spirit.

Theologically, Luther was about 95% right in doctrine, and 99% right in emphasis. The Catholic powers-that-be at the time were 99-100% right in doctrine, but very wrong in emphasis. If Luther could have found a way to keep in unity with the Church, he would rightly be called a saint today.



At any rate, I think that the Lutherans have a much better case than, say, the Anglicans, that their Church is Christ’s Church. (At least until some of them started fragmenting themselves and selling out on moral teachings…)

Luther did have some moral and psychological issues that surfaced later in life that did mitigate against his sanctity.

The way of Lutheranism today seems to be following the way of Luther in his life.

The substantive difference is the Eucharist. We need the Bread of Life to bring us to sanctity. Without it human thought, effort and persistence are not sufficient. It is the sine qua non that is missing from all Christian denominations, the absence of which that will eventually spell their failure.

Any form of Christianity that is not God-authored will peter out eventually.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Any form of Christianity that is not God-authored will peter out eventually.

Very likely, any denomination that rejects Peter will peter out.

All Christians denominations have some of Christ in them. None of them seems to have all of Christ in them. For example, none of them has Peter in them. Taken as a whole, Protestant unity goes as far against Christ as it can possibly go.

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” - John 17:20-21

“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16).

 

[Bahman]

This comes up SO often for me when discussing religion with non-believers. They always eventually go to the “Well every religion thinks it’s right and all the others are wrong!”… For me it’s hard to keep the conversation going after that. It’s like, yeah they do, but why does that stop you from finding your own truth?

Any advice for how to deal with it when this is brought up? How can I kind of elevate Christianity/Catholicism above all of the “other” religions that would swear they are the truth?

The question: How to deal with “Every religion thinks it’s the right one”?
The answer: Drop them all together.