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

[TEPO]

We all chose unity, and we all chose our own culture. Without respecting others cultures. We’re only human…

 

[Bahman]

Mohammed was influenced by a Germanic monk. Both probably had a distaste for Jews and Mediterranian people’s in general. It was a cultural union between a strict Arabic man and a spiritual Germanic. It’s no coincidence that Protestantism is an extension of Germanic Anglo Saxons.

…it’s all cultural and racial. Once we realize that unity of race and culture is not greater than diversity, we will then develop a proper balance between unity and diversity. If we could have respected the Eastern Greek culture, we could have also avoided an Orthodox split with Catholicism.

But instead, we became human and chose ‘unity’, which offended.

Mohammad doesn’t say so as far as I recall. Moreover the concept of virgin birth, resurrection, hell, heaven, God, … are all older than Christianity since in that regards, Jesus might have also been influenced by other religions.

 

[TEPO]

Mohammad doesn’t say so as far as I recall. Moreover the concept of virgin birth, resurrection, hell, heaven, God, … are all older than Christianity since in that regards, Jesus might have also been influenced by other religions.

It all started with Zoroastrianism, a religion I believe to have been revealed by the Holy Spirit. Much older than both Christianity and Judaism. It was an ancient Mediterranian religion. Judaism is a Mediterranian religion, and Christianity became a Mediterranian religion to begin with, and then was intended by God to be spread universally to all cultures and races.

 

[Bahman]

It all started with Zoroastrianism, a religion I believe to have been revealed by the Holy Spirit.

That is not correct. The story of war between good and evil is common between all religions.

Much older than both Christianity and Judaism. It was an ancient Mediterranian religion. Judaism is a Mediterranian religion, and Christianity became a Mediterranian religion to begin with, and then was intended by God to be spread universally to all cultures and races.

I am wondering why Egyptian religion which is very similar to Christianity didn’t have the chance to spread that far? The story of Horus, read here please.

 

[TEPO]

That is not correct. The story of war between good and evil is common between all religions.

I am wondering why Egyptian religion which is very similar to Christianity didn’t have the chance to spread that far? The story of Horus, read here please.

Zoroastrianism predates Egypt. The idea originated from the Holy Spirit through Zoroastrianism. It was then adopted by other religions through spiritual revelations although never perfected. It’s no coincidence…

You tell me why Islam copied so much from Judaism, claiming to be descendants of Abraham. And then they took such a turn away from the Jews.

…most likely, the Spirit revealed truths to come long, long ago and various cultures tried to claim that truth unsuccessfully until the true one actually came to be.

 

[TEPO]

…so Jesus was predicted in the very beginning because He has always existed. But many cultures wanted His presence to be with them. But Jesus came to the lowliest ones. The ones who were enslaved and abused.

How modest our Lord truly is.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

My point is that there are many false religions because opposite cultures lack respect for other cultures… We’re all bent on unity - that is the problem.

Unity is not the problem. That is the universal quest ordered by Jesus Christ when he charged the apostles to go forth and preach to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Christ preached one shepherd and one flock. Catholics have to agree with this.

That is why we evangelize, and why we must always evangelize.

It’s what “Catholic” means … Universal. You can’t get more united than that.

 

[TEPO]

Unity is not the problem. That is the universal quest ordered by Jesus Christ when he charged the apostles to go forth and preach to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Christ preached one shepherd and one flock. Catholics have to agree with this.

That is why we evangelize, and why we must always evangelize.

It’s what “Catholic” means … Universal. You can’t get more united than that.

Is that the same ‘unity’ that is forced with the sword? Unify with us or die? I think unity causes rejection. Along with disrespect for diversity in culture and race, It causes the creation of new false religions.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is that the same ‘unity’ that is forced with the sword? Unify with us or die? I think unity causes rejection. Along with disrespect for diversity in culture and race, It causes the creation of new false religions.

Are you a follower of Christ?

“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).

There is no real and lasting unity if it is not the voluntary unity of love as opposed to unity by the hateful sword.

THAT IS WHY ISLAM WILL ULTIMATELY FAIL.

 

[TEPO]

Are you a follower of Christ?

“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).

There is no real and lasting unity if it is not the voluntary unity of love as opposed to unity by the hateful sword.

THAT IS WHY ISLAM WILL ULTIMATELY FAIL.

Everyone has the opportunity to follow Christ but not all will accept His gifts. We cannot force Him onto them. If there is one flock do not assume that the whole world will ever accept the Shepherd. Some will, others will not.

…like the Apostles, we should dust off our sandals and carry on. It makes no sense to beat a dead horse. We cannot unify with the dead.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

…like the Apostles, we should dust off our sandals and carry on. It makes no sense to beat a dead horse. We cannot unify with the dead.

We unify with the “dead” by praying for them. No one is “dead” until they enter judgment.

Until then, we are all unified in spirit by God’s call for our loving embrace.

 

[TEPO]

We unify with the “dead” by praying for them. No one is “dead” until they enter judgment.

Until then, we are all unified in spirit by God’s call for our loving embrace.

Well, as true as that is it’s not worth celebrating. I prefer to celebrate cultural diversity and to promote respect for all cultures while respecting my own. By respecting cultural diversity Gods plan will come in to play naturally.

Also, with celebrating unity we see Deism and Melting Pot style faiths. With celebrating diversity we see truth and real authentic faith.

Say no to lukewarm progressivism… Say yes to authentic Catholicism.

 

[MacQ]

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?

Really and truly, I think you’ve lost the effort once you start giving reasons for why catholicism is the right one, or better than the others with facts and figures or scripture references or any of that. You would have lost me, anyway if you started trying to show me that other traditions are inferior.

I think it best to say, "It’s not a matter of which religion is best…it’s which is best for YOU. As a catholic, I respect others’ choices of religion…it’s natural for us to want for others what we have… "
And leave it at that.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think it best to say, "It’s not a matter of which religion is best…it’s which is best for YOU. As a catholic, I respect others’ choices of religion…it’s natural for us to want for others what we have… "
And leave it at that.

I respect the right to choose one’s own religion without respecting any religion but my own.

If we say it matters not which religion is the best, but rather which religion is the best for YOU, we are no better off than when we say it matters not which morality is the best, but rather which morality is best for YOU. That is moral and religious relativism pure and simple.

You really cannot say, and expect any Catholic to believe it, that the religion Jesus founded by his death and resurrection might not be the best religion for someone else.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Really and truly, I think you’ve lost the effort once you start giving reasons for why catholicism is the right one, or better than the others with facts and figures or scripture references or any of that. You would have lost me, anyway if you started trying to show me that other traditions are inferior.

I think it best to say, "It’s not a matter of which religion is best…it’s which is best for YOU. As a catholic, I respect others’ choices of religion…it’s natural for us to want for others what we have… "
And leave it at that.

By this reconning, the measuring stick for truth becomes founded, in principle, upon a subjective standard and thus lacks any foundation for being true, in any meaningful sense.

It isn’t a matter of which religion is “best for you,” it is a matter of which religion is determinably true.

Either…

1. the means by which to accurately assess truth is possible to us as human agents, or
2. truth is inaccessible because human agents lack the wherewithal to make accurate truth assessments.

Christianity and Judaism claim that Truth makes itself accessible to us, not because of something about our nature but because of the nature of truth itself. Truth (God) comes to us and makes himself accessible as a gift but requires acceptance.

Catholicism traditionally depicts the power (virtue by which) to access Truth (God) as a supernatural gift of grace. Natural virtues of the intellect and psyche meet up with the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity to supervene our natural limitations regarding accessing Absolute Truth.

No other religion makes that claim about the human relationship to Truth which is the reason that Catholicism essentially gets “right” the relationship between the natural human tendency to search for God and God’s “movement” to make himself available and accessible to human beings.

It isn’t a unilateral search, it is a dynamic between quest and revelation.

It isn’t merely about man’s search for meaning but about Meaning making itself available to the human intellect.

It is presumptuous to insist that “objective” reality is essentially a dead reality that must be “autopsied” to be discovered and that without the full onus of recovery falling on the human intellect no “knowledge” is possible. Such a view has a priori severed itself from the possibility of meaning being anything more than a subjective determination, which is precisely where Bahman appears to run aground. He can’t seem to get past his own thinking about the truth but keeps falling back on doubt as an undercurrent that causes him to trip.

 

[Servant19]

Yes. Search back to the beginnings of religions and see which religions are based on inclusiveness and exclusiveness, then you will see that Catholicism was based on the inclusion of Gentiles and all cultures universally. There you will find truth.

Dear friend,

Please consider what you have postulated here. Is not Judaism based on “exclusiveness” too?

Would you consider Judaism a false religion based on this criteria?

Yes, God seems to work in this way. He creates a “chosen people” and instils in them through a later Revelation an instruction to be all inclusive rather than exclusive.

This applies to Judaism, (the chosen people), and Islam, (the submitters to the Will of God / the Arab Nation). They were followed by Christianity and the Baha’i Faith respectively, and both these religions created all-embracing “inclusivity” for these peoples.

All Abrahamic religions have incredible validity, and an incredibly important place in the Divine Plan, and none are false

.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Bahman, just because Muslims worship the same God as we do doesn’t mean they can’t falsely attrribute revelation to Him.

 

[Servant19]

Bahman, just because Muslims worship the same God as we do doesn’t mean they can’t falsely attrribute revelation to Him.

Which begs the question, what are the criteria to be fulfilled to attribute truth to a Revelation?

.

 

[Abu]

Servant19 #157
God seems to work in this way. He creates a “chosen people” and instils in them through a later Revelation an instruction to be all inclusive rather than exclusive.
This applies to Judaism, (the chosen people), and Islam, (the submitters to the Will of God / the Arab Nation). They were followed by Christianity and the Baha’i Faith respectively, and both these religions created all-embracing “inclusivity” for these peoples.
All Abrahamic religions have incredible validity, and an incredibly important place in the Divine Plan, and none are false

The fallacy here is in not accepting the historic reality that God has uniquely and specifically sent God the Son, Jesus Christ, to redeem humanity from Original Sin by His Passion and Crucifixion, and to establish His Church, the Catholic Church, to lead mankind to the fullness of truth. He prepared the Way through the Jewish prophets and fulfilled the prophecies.

The historian Eusebius in his Church history, 4.3, 1.2, tells us that writing about 123 A.D., apologist Quadratus cited those in his day who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus of Nazareth – prime witnesses – long after the miracles, crucifixion and death of the Son of God. No other religious founder claimed to be God and proved it – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Which begs the question, what are the criteria to be fulfilled to attribute truth to a Revelation?

.

Well remember, we’re Catholics. So we’d say that there is good historical evidence that Jesus existed and rose from the dead, and using the Bible as a historical source (not as divinely inspired, because that would be question-begging), we see that He founded a Church, and based on His resurrection, it is reasonable to trust in His promise that He would protect His Church from error. And when we do historical examination, the Catholic Church is the best candidate for Christ’s Church, and the Catholic Church affirms the inspiration of the Bible.
So we go Christ->Church->Bible.

Also, I was responding to Bahman, who said that since we believe that Muslims worship our God and since the Quran says to disrespect Jews, that we therefore have to do so:

TEPO;12024093:

God never commanded us to disrespect Jews or Zoroastrians.

God says so in Islam.