only one correct religion with the truth?

[Sochi]

Huh?

My point, exactly. Blessings on you.

 

[JonNC]

I give up, PR. You are an impenetrable and supreme expert in diversion. I neither can nor want to compete with that. Good luck.

That’s not the PR I know.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

That’s not the PR I know.

Jon

Awwww, shucks, Jon.

 

[JonNC]

Awwww, shucks, Jon.

Its true. We often disagree… a little… but I’ve never known you to be anything but forthright.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Its true. We often disagree… a little… but I’ve never known you to be anything but forthright.

Jon

Well, er…thanks. Forthright, eh? That wasn’t exactly the superlative I was hoping for, but it’ll do. :tiphat:

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

ggarcia19As a child, I was forced to believe that the Pentecostal church was the only true religion. When I drove the city bus in Houston, Texas, the Jehovah witness would tell me everyday that Jesus and God are two different people and that everyone else is wrong. When I worked for a pest control company that belong to Mormon, they gave me flyers that said Joseph Smith had the only right and correct church and that all other religions was apart of a apostasy. When I went to war in Iraq, the Muslims believed that the Christians are equal to them but there teachings of Jesus Christ was not correct.

Good Evening GGarcia: What do you personally make of all that? Did any of them in particular make an impression on you that they had the truth?

Is it right to say you are the only true church and that everyone else is wrong?

I would offer my opinion that it is right to say what you believe. The question remains as to whether or not what we believe is true.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[JonNC]

Well, er…thanks. Forthright, eh? That wasn’t exactly the superlative I was hoping for, but it’ll do. :tiphat:

Forthright: going straight to the point; frank; direct

As opposed to being “impenetrable and supreme expert in diversion”, which was Sochi’s criticism.

There are other superlatives, but I don’t want you overconfident the next time we disagree.

Jon

 

[CatholicHockey7]

I really don’t think it’s morally right for any one religion to say they are the only true religion and that everyone else is wrong. If any one religion claims to be the only truth, then they must surely be a lie? What do you think?

If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re basically arguing the theory of relativism. Relativism argues the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth. That what I believe to be morally right and wrong is relative to me, and I have no right to impose that view on others because they are equally right in their beliefs relative to them.

You can see how this philosophy breaks down. How can their be an absolute truth that no absolute truth exists? It’s like “the only rule is there are no rules.”

But theories like this simply don’t work in real life. If absolute truth is relative, then Hitler wasn’t a monster. Nor was Osama bin Laden. They were simply following their own idea of truth, and we have no right to impose our ideas of morality on them. Since we cannot impose our ideas of morality on them, we have no right to stand in judgment on them. We cannot condemn their actions because even though we might think the killing of six million Jews is morally wrong, Hitler and those who followed him obviously did not. Since truth is relative, we cannot argue against their rationale for what we view as heinous acts.

 

[Servant19]

If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re basically arguing the theory of relativism. Relativism argues the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth. That what I believe to be morally right and wrong is relative to me, and I have no right to impose that view on others because they are equally right in their beliefs relative to them.

You can see how this philosophy breaks down. How can their be an absolute truth that no absolute truth exists? It’s like “the only rule is there are no rules.”

But theories like this simply don’t work in real life. If absolute truth is relative, then Hitler wasn’t a monster. Nor was Osama bin Laden. They were simply following their own idea of truth, and we have no right to impose our ideas of morality on them. Since we cannot impose our ideas of morality on them, we have no right to stand in judgment on them. We cannot condemn their actions because even though we might think the killing of six million Jews is morally wrong, Hitler and those who followed him obviously did not. Since truth is relative, we cannot argue against their rationale for what we view as heinous acts.

Dear friend, when truth is discussed in this manner, it is not the relativization of morality that is being discussed, it is the relative and gradual unfoldment of metaphysical concepts such as the nature of the universe, life after death, the soul of man etc etc.

God “gradually” unfolds and reveals the nature of these things as human consciousness evolves and intellect matures

If you look at the teachings of all the global religions (especially those found in their respective Holy Books) you will see that there is pretty much complete consistency with moral truths. Of course a few minor differences do occur here and there, but that is predominantly based on the culture/social circumstances of the time of Revelation.

Hitler, and Bin Laden are not acting on any Holy Book, they are “interpreting” according to their own desires and dictates. Religions never advocated “personal interpretation” and actions based on that. They advocate humility and unity, not arrogance and segregation/separation.

Truth relativity does not apply to these circumstances

.

 

[daler]

Truth relativity does not apply to these circumstances

.

Yes,
. For to cast all alternative views which address similarity beneath the all-encompassing “theory of relativity” blanket misses far too many of the important points of open discussion.

. Consider for example, the Golden Rule, which is found in every major religion, with only slight variations. If we accept a certain one version as having come from God, but dismiss and exclude all other versions, we are poisoning the common well from which they all have sprung.

. This appears to be done, not out of objective analysis, but some form of absolutism. Then, to create an opposite position of contrast from which to prove one’s own (usually inherited) belief, a die is cast in the form of: “That is relativism.”

. While relativism does exist, and the point can be well taken as legitimate at times, it becomes a distraction to the subject matter being discussed and is often far to convenient of a means to end serious discussion and becomes not only a disservice to the audience, but to the individual using it as a device.

. I mean no offense here

 

[PJM]

=Gary Sheldrake;12023276]Good Evening GGarcia: What do you personally make of all that? Did any of them in particular make an impression on you that they had the truth?

I would offer my opinion that it is right to say what you believe. The question remains as to whether or not what we believe is true.

Thank you,
Gary

BETTER YET,

WHEN THE STATEMENT IS GOD’S TRUTH
HISTORICALLY PROVABLE
& BIBLICALLY PROVABLE

THEN ONE IS MORALLY OBLIGATED TO SHARE IT, FOR WHAT IT IS: THEE TRUTH

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Sochi]

BETTER YET,

WHEN THE STATEMENT IS GOD’S TRUTH
HISTORICALLY PROVABLE
& BIBLICALLY PROVABLE

THEN ONE IS MORALLY OBLIGATED TO SHARE IT, FOR WHAT IT IS: THEE TRUTH

God Bless you,
Patrick

Gary’s question holds, not in spite of this, but because of this.

As I said, Patrick, in the “your thoughts, please” thread:

Sochi

Yes, I agree in part, except about the arrogance. Arrogance means the refusal to ask questions, and therefore make accurate observations, resulting in separation, not harmony, yes? Here’s the thing. It is SO easy to mis-state something, and misrepresent something. Why is that important? To me it is important because I read a lot of posts on her and other places. The most common features of the aggregate, whatever the topic, are bad spelling and poor grammar. That is like sour notes in music and poor math. And even if one claims that those aren’t important, fact is, they bear o the feeling of the presentation. So for me, it makes me wonder about the way many people think, and what tools they are using to do the thinking they think they are thinking.

This is of even greater importance, perhaps paramount importance, when it comes to “thinking” about one’s faith or religion. Regardless of the emotional sincerity of many on here, I wonder at the degree of finesse and discrimination available to some. And of course, there is the monumental bugaboo of being a cradle anything. If you take it away from the kind of reactivity that would say this is about Catholics, and look at is as a social phenomenon about politics, food preference, etc, it is clear that many or most of any religion are in it because they “were born that way.” And then one has to ask if this is about a lottery, or is is something that all the people in the world actually deeply examine and conclude about using adequate tools and all data. In my opinion, no.

In that case, my main investment is in basic self knowledge, of which the average person seems to have little, other than the unfounded belief that their particular perceptions and thoughts equal the totality of useful reality. Do they? Or do they reflect what they necessarily grew up with and had to think in order to get along and be safe? What might happen to the kid who spontaneously starts spouting christianist ideas in thee house of some guy who just killed some Catholics in the next village? As humans, we just don’t up and burst out with some extra-familial ideology.

And ordinarily neither do we, later, conduct any sort of deep search of our own nature and how we know things, and do a really exhaustive inventory and collation of all that is available to us as humans. Indeed, if we do such a search, it is most often within the bounds of the paradigm we grew up with. Even in terms of conversions, we usually stick within a larger and similar group; C1>C5, or some such. It takes a pretty profound need or insight to prompt someone to go outside their faith group. And even then there are pre verbal and pre cognitive factors at play. The human mind is in a kind of hypnotic state until about 7, the alleged “age of reason.”

So, in order to have a really solid foundation, it might be useful to be well versed in self knowledge before considering any religion, perhaps even Catholicism. That way it is more assured that one’s faith is no mere accident one can become fervent about solely (lol) through chance association, and more one of really having a clue as to what is available, including some of the esoteric options even within the more public faces of some faiths or philosophies.

And if someone is utterly convinced that they are already “home,” and not in need of such process, fine, I guess. But then what of all the other faithers and religionists in the world? Would the above process not be recommended to them in order to convert to the “One, True, faith?” If yes, and one hasn’t done such a process themselves, what weight of authority is there other than putting stock in habituated third party references? So, to me, even if one has a nominal faith and is emotionally convinced of it, it may not be enough, even with a line of ascribed evidence.

Do I then think that someone with an unexamined faith is void of “real” experience? No, of course not. But what they are void of to some degree must be the conviction of an actually comprehensive consideration, and more importantly, a language that includes such experience as would facilitate interfaith communication and understanding. How often have I seen people arguing for the same thing but expressed in their particular phraseology as having sole proprietorship of something Universal?

Draw your own conclusions about this. I can’t imagine how hard it has to be for someone totally identified with their faith to see beyond their pedigree of belief even for a moment. But what I do know is that it s enthusiastically rewarding.

You have, of course, done your admirable and thorough work within your own faith. By my measure, that is, as wonderful as it might be in a limited way, rather incomplete. And we know how you are about "history.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

BETTER YET,

WHEN THE STATEMENT IS GOD’S TRUTH
HISTORICALLY PROVABLE
& BIBLICALLY PROVABLE

THEN ONE IS MORALLY OBLIGATED TO SHARE IT, FOR WHAT IT IS: THEE TRUTH

God Bless you,
Patrick

Good Evening my old friend Patrick: I hope all is well with you these days. As you know, I have always fundamentally disagreed with the idea that there is one true church with the one truth. I thought I might share something that our friend Vouthon has recently posted on the matter:

St. Pope John Paul II explained that this approach to other religions is based upon sacred tradition, the church fathers and the very origins of the Christian revelation:

Quote:
**"…You speak of many religions. Instead I will attempt to show the common fundamental element and the common root of these religions.

The Council defined the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions in a specific document that begins with the words “Nostra aetate” (“In our time”). It is a concise and yet very rich document that authentically hands on the Tradition, faithful to the thought of the earliest Fathers of the Church.

From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of humankind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man. The Council document speaks of this unity and links it with the current trend to bring humanity closer together through the resources available to our civilization. The Church sees the promotion of this unity as one of its duties: “There is only one community and it consists of all peoples. They have only one origin, since God inhabited the entire earth with the whole human race. And they have one ultimate destiny, God, whose providence, goodness, and plan for salvation extend to all. . . . Men turn to various religions to solve mysteries of the human condition, which today, as in earlier times, burden people’s hearts: the nature of man; the meaning and purpose of life; good and evil; the origin and purpose of suffering; the way to true happiness; death…and finally, the ultimate ineffable mystery which is the origin and destiny of our existence. From ancient times up to today all the various peoples have shared and continue to share an awareness of that enigmatic power that is present throughout the course of things and throughout the events of human life, and, in which, at times, even the Supreme Divinity or the Father is recognizable. This awareness and recognition imbue life with an intimate religious sense. Religions that are tied up with cultural progress strive to solve these issues with more refined concepts and a more precise language” (Nostra Aetate 1-2).

…

The words of the Council recall the conviction, long rooted in the Tradition, of the existence of the so-called semina Verbi (seeds of the Word), present in all religions. In the light of this conviction, the Church seeks to identify the semina Verbi present in the great traditions of the Far East, in order to trace a common path against the backdrop of the needs of the contemporary world. We can affirm that here the position of the Council is inspired by a truly universal concern…

In another passage the Council says that the Holy Spirit works effectively even outside the visible structure of the Church (cf. Lumen Gentium 13), making use of these very semina Verbi, that constitute a kind of common soteriological root present in all religions.

I have been convinced of this on numerous occasions, both while visiting the countries of the Far East and while meeting representatives of those religions, especially during the historic meeting at Assisi, where we found ourselves gathered together praying for peace.

Thus, instead of marveling at the fact that Providence allows such a great variety of religions, we should be amazed at the number of common elements found within them.…”

• Pope Saint John Paul II (1994), Crossing the Threshold of Hope **

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Sochi]

Good Evening my old friend Patrick: I hope all is well with you these days. As you know, I have always fundamentally disagreed with the idea that there is one true church with the one truth. I thought I might share something that our friend Vouthon has recently posted on the matter:

Thank you,
Gary

Gary, I truly admire your patience and civility, accuracy, and compassion. My best prayers for patience often leave me short of your standard. Thanks for being here.

 

[PRmerger]

I thought I might share something that our friend Vouthon has recently posted on the matter:

Originally posted by the late, great, Pope St. John Paul II:

"…You speak of many religions. Instead I will attempt to show the common fundamental element and the common root of these religions.

The Council defined the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions in a specific document that begins with the words “Nostra aetate” (“In our time”). It is a concise and yet very rich document that authentically hands on the Tradition, faithful to the thought of the earliest Fathers of the Church.

From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of humankind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man. The Council document speaks of this unity and links it with the current trend to bring humanity closer together through the resources available to our civilization. The Church sees the promotion of this unity as one of its duties: “There is only one community and it consists of all peoples. They have only one origin, since God inhabited the entire earth with the whole human race. And they have one ultimate destiny, God, whose providence, goodness, and plan for salvation extend to all. . . . Men turn to various religions to solve mysteries of the human condition, which today, as in earlier times, burden people’s hearts: the nature of man; the meaning and purpose of life; good and evil; the origin and purpose of suffering; the way to true happiness; death…and finally, the ultimate ineffable mystery which is the origin and destiny of our existence. From ancient times up to today all the various peoples have shared and continue to share an awareness of that enigmatic power that is present throughout the course of things and throughout the events of human life, and, in which, at times, even the Supreme Divinity or the Father is recognizable. This awareness and recognition imbue life with an intimate religious sense. Religions that are tied up with cultural progress strive to solve these issues with more refined concepts and a more precise language” (Nostra Aetate 1-2).

…

The words of the Council recall the conviction, long rooted in the Tradition, of the existence of the so-called semina Verbi (seeds of the Word), present in all religions. In the light of this conviction, the Church seeks to identify the semina Verbi present in the great traditions of the Far East, in order to trace a common path against the backdrop of the needs of the contemporary world. We can affirm that here the position of the Council is inspired by a truly universal concern…

In another passage the Council says that the Holy Spirit works effectively even outside the visible structure of the Church (cf. Lumen Gentium 13), making use of these very semina Verbi, that constitute a kind of common soteriological root present in all religions.

I have been convinced of this on numerous occasions, both while visiting the countries of the Far East and while meeting representatives of those religions, especially during the historic meeting at Assisi, where we found ourselves gathered together praying for peace.

Thus, instead of marveling at the fact that Providence allows such a great variety of religions, we should be amazed at the number of common elements found within them.…”

• Pope Saint John Paul II (1994), Crossing the Threshold of Hope

Amen!!

 

[Jerbear]

Who’s to say that any religion has it right? If I were to ask a classroom of preschoolers to draw the molecular structure of uranium, I’d get a bunch of pictures, but it’s extremely likely to say the least that none of them will be correct. This is how I view religion, people trying to solve something that is way above us, just my person opinion.

I think if you assume that there is at least one religion that has it right, then no, I don’t think there has to be only one which has the truth. If it turns out the truth is that the only thing needed is to be a good person and to love thy neighbor and to try and make the world a better place, then I believe a lot of religions would have the truth.

If the answer is that Jesus is the only way to heaven, well then obviously Christianity would be the only religion to have the truth.

It’s not possible for multiple religions to be 100% correct. There is a maximum of 1 religion that be absolutely and positively true in every aspect as others have mentioned in previous posts. For example, either Jesus is or isn’t the son of God. There is no middle ground. If he is and a religion says that he’s not, then obviously that religion isn’t 100% correct.

 

[PRmerger]

Who’s to say that any religion has it right? If I were to ask a classroom of preschoolers to draw the molecular structure of uranium, I’d get a bunch of pictures, but it’s extremely likely to say the least that none of them will be correct. This is how I view religion, people trying to solve something that is way above us, just my person opinion.

I have a higher view of our ability to reason and draw conclusions about Truths.

I think if you assume that there is at least one religion that has it right, then no, I don’t think there has to be only one which has the truth. If it turns out the truth is that the only thing needed is to be a good person and to love thy neighbor and to try and make the world a better place, then I believe a lot of religions would have the truth.

Why are these the only truths that must be embraced?

If the answer is that Jesus is the only way to heaven, well then obviously Christianity would be the only religion to have the truth.

Not necessarily.

Jesus is the only way to heaven, but we don’t deny that Muslims “have the truth” when they profess: “There is only One God”.

It’s not possible for multiple religions to be 100% correct. There is a maximum of 1 religion that be absolutely and positively true in every aspect as others have mentioned in previous posts. For example, either Jesus is or isn’t the son of God. There is no middle ground. If he is and a religion says that he’s not, then obviously that religion isn’t 100% correct.

Right.

 

[Servant19]

Who’s to say that any religion has it right? If I were to ask a classroom of preschoolers to draw the molecular structure of uranium, I’d get a bunch of pictures, but it’s extremely likely to say the least that none of them will be correct. This is how I view religion, people trying to solve something that is way above us, just my person opinion.

I think if you assume that there is at least one religion that has it right, then no, I don’t think there has to be only one which has the truth. If it turns out the truth is that the only thing needed is to be a good person and to love thy neighbor and to try and make the world a better place, then I believe a lot of religions would have the truth.

If the answer is that Jesus is the only way to heaven, well then obviously Christianity would be the only religion to have the truth.

It’s not possible for multiple religions to be 100% correct. There is a maximum of 1 religion that be absolutely and positively true in every aspect as others have mentioned in previous posts. For example, either Jesus is or isn’t the son of God. There is no middle ground. If he is and a religion says that he’s not, then obviously that religion isn’t 100% correct.

My suggestion humbly is to take into heart what is stated in the Bahai Writings. I must admit I am paraphrasing here because I am short in time to find the proper quote. My apologies…

But here it is. EVERYTHING that is good belongs to God, and everything that is evil belongs to your own selves. All the good deeds that you have done in your whole life do not belong to you, they belong to God. He is the source of all good and it is through His grace and bounty that you are enabled to carry out good deeds.

With this in mind, it is easy see that it applies to certain religion as well, and Truth.

 

[tonyfish58]

Who’s to say that any religion has it right? If I were to ask a classroom of preschoolers to draw the molecular structure of uranium, I’d get a bunch of pictures, but it’s extremely likely to say the least that none of them will be correct. This is how I view religion, people trying to solve something that is way above us, just my person opinion.

I think if you assume that there is at least one religion that has it right, then no, I don’t think there has to be only one which has the truth. If it turns out the truth is that the only thing needed is to be a good person and to love thy neighbor and to try and make the world a better place, then I believe a lot of religions would have the truth.

If the answer is that Jesus is the only way to heaven, well then obviously Christianity would be the only religion to have the truth.

It’s not possible for multiple religions to be 100% correct. There is a maximum of 1 religion that be absolutely and positively true in every aspect as others have mentioned in previous posts. For example, either Jesus is or isn’t the son of God. There is no middle ground. If he is and a religion says that he’s not, then obviously that religion isn’t 100% correct.

May I suggest that would depend a lot upon if you look at the Prophet and His Word individually without any preconceived ideas or learning. Or if you look upon what the intent of that Prophet was and what His Word was by mans later interpretation of the Prophet’s intent and Word.

If we go back to the Classroom and teach all new people born into this word from this day on using a chosen World Language, that the Religious Truth is, there is Only One God, That All the Prophets are from God, that Mankind is One, in One generation we would have a amazingly United World

The only reason this is not yet so is Man, it is not God or His Religions keeping us from this Fundamental Truth.

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[PJM]

=Sochi;12027129]Gary’s question holds, not in spite of this, but because of this.

As I said, Patrick, in the “your thoughts, please” thread:

Sochi
You have, of course, done your admirable and thorough work within your own faith. By my measure, that is, as wonderful as it might be in a limited way, rather incomplete. And we know how you are about "history.

Thank you

But I seem to recall the only thing “my faith” has to do with the discussion is that truth is singular, and it rest in its totallity ONLY within the holder of all the Keys to heaven.

Mt. 16: 15-19
John 17:13-22
Mark 16:15-16
Mt. 28:16-20

Are just a few proofs of this reality. Amen
God Bless you

Patrick