Why are there so many religions?

[tonyrey]

It is frequently argued that there are so many religions they cannot all be true and are all likely to be false! I believe the reverse is true because:

1. The universality of religious belief throughout history demonstrates that human beings intuitively recognise the inadequacy of materialism.
2. Religions have a basic consensus of spiritual beliefs and values.
3. The differences between religions are inevitable because they often correspond to the needs of different cultures.
4. The differences between religions are also inevitable because human beings are fallible.
5. The richness and variety of religion is a strength rather than a weakness because it embraces every aspect of life.

What is your opinion?

 

[AndrewA]

I think Mankind may have had one “religion” in the beginning, but people renounced God and put false idols in his place.
The rest just spread like wild fire.

 

[tonyrey]

I think Mankind may have had one “religion” in the beginning, but people renounced God and put false idols in his place.
The rest just spread like wild fire.

Indeed! When man first recognised the difference between good and evil and acted against his conscience his religion became distorted by false values. He put himself first and began to worship power, pleasure and material things. Materialism is the logical outcome of abandoning the one true God!

 

[JDaniel]

It is frequently argued that there are so many religions they cannot all be true and are all likely to be false! I believe the reverse is true because:

1. The universality of religious belief throughout history demonstrates that human beings intuitively recognise the inadequacy of materialism.
2. Religions have a basic consensus of spiritual beliefs and values.
3. The differences between religions are inevitable because they often correspond to the needs of different cultures.
4. The differences between religions are also inevitable because human beings are fallible.
5. The richness and variety of religion is a strength rather than a weakness because it embraces every aspect of life.

What is your opinion?

I think there is no question about it. And, we could add many more GOOD reasons, e.g.:

1.) I want to prove myself to God thus I’ll start a better worship;

2.) I have witnessed some bad people so I’ll make a religion that excludes those who think like that;

3.) The nearest place of worship is too far away, but, we don’t want to go without worshiping Him, so the village will start a church; etc., etc.

God bless,
jd

 

[antroji]

Wow. Tonyrey, when I read your original post I thought that “here is someone who is thoughtful and even handed in their assessment of how things work.” I am disappointed to find by your second post that despite my own affiliation with and appreciation of Catholicism there are still those who have such a fundamentalist spin and you set yourself up as a back patter for our own religion seemingly from that positin. All of 1 through 5 can be true, and yet the Church be what it is.

In fact what constitutes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and its fruit, that story being an allegory, is up for debate, as much as our moral sense may not be in terms of our Church’s current position. It is not even clear, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, if “Adam” refers to a person or the race as such, and therefore Eve is in doubt as well, not to mention the exact meaning of the debatable definitions of “sin,” and other words related to that narrative. We take those to mean what we mean today as a retrospective interpretation, not as direct knowledge, independent of NT events.

So it looks to me that you are indulging in gratuitous self congratulation for knowing something others don’t, just because they don’t know it as we do. That appears unseemly and childish to me, especially when the points you enumerate are of interest both as matters of faith and scholarship. So, while you may be “right” as a point of your own take on faith, I think you may have spoiled a fruitful discussion by such a slam-dunk as your second post. there may be points involved, but if I was the ref, there would be a flag.

Further, it is pretty obvious that there are many who do not worship God as we know love and serve Him who are yet not materialists. In other words, your too concise spiritual history of mankind may be lacking in a few refinements? It looks to me that though God is merciful, you may not be, at least in this instance of thought-bite. If I was your friend, I’d say “Whoa, there buddy! Cool your jets and let’s listen for a minute and see what bubbles up, ok?”

 

[colmcille1]

Wow. Tonyrey, when I read your original post I thought that “here is someone who is thoughtful and even handed in their assessment of how things work.” I am disappointed to find by your second post that despite my own affiliation with and appreciation of Catholicism there are still those who have such a fundamentalist spin and you set yourself up as a back patter for our own religion seemingly from that positin. All of 1 through 5 can be true, and yet the Church be what it is.

In fact what constitutes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and its fruit, that story being an allegory, is up for debate, as much as our moral sense may not be in terms of our Church’s current position. It is not even clear, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, if “Adam” refers to a person or the race as such, and therefore Eve is in doubt as well, not to mention the exact meaning of the debatable definitions of “sin,” and other words related to that narrative. We take those to mean what we mean today as a retrospective interpretation, not as direct knowledge, independent of NT events.

So it looks to me that you are indulging in gratuitous self congratulation for knowing something others don’t, just because they don’t know it as we do. That appears unseemly and childish to me, especially when the points you enumerate are of interest both as matters of faith and scholarship. So, while you may be “right” as a point of your own take on faith, I think you may have spoiled a fruitful discussion by such a slam-dunk as your second post. there may be points involved, but if I was the ref, there would be a flag.

Further, it is pretty obvious that there are many who do not worship God as we know love and serve Him who are yet not materialists. In other words, your too concise spiritual history of mankind may be lacking in a few refinements? It looks to me that though God is merciful, you may not be, at least in this instance of thought-bite. If I was your friend, I’d say “Whoa, there buddy! Cool your jets and let’s listen for a minute and see what bubbles up, ok?”

Hi antroji,
I actually liked tonyrey’s head-on approach. Too often we are prone to pussyfooting around an issue. Maybe we feel constrained by the scourge of political correctness; or we may indulge(unwittingly) in moral relativism, another no less heinous scourge.
My own view is that materialism is so rampant that even when faced with economically straitened times some (most?) people will NOT resort to religion because they foolishly believe that said materialism held all the answers to their lives. A case in point is my own country, Ireland. Moral relativism runs riot here.
There is only one true religion and we must actively fight for it!
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[antroji]

I’ve never gone in for fighting for my religion as an adversarial activity. In fact, the things I’ve heard from religious friends of both sides who escaped from Belfast encourages me to “agree with thine enemy while in the midst.”* At least that way one knows what they are dealing with as distinct from “you have to listen to me because I KNOW I’m right because my Church is, so get with it!” If I heard such an attitude implied by a conversant, I might not be so ready to listen as to run.**

For my part, as long as I am in conversation with someone, a) I can stand my ground, b) I can learn what the concern of the other person is and can more appropriately address it, and c) taking St. Francis advice, I can preach the Gospel by act, and word if necessary. And ours isn’t the only way that advises forbearance over the incitement of opposition.

Perhaps it is a matter of my temperament, but I find opposition tends to cause entrenchment. If someone questions your faith, don’t you instinctively ground to our teachings? Why wouldn’t someone else? Therefore, if we can converse and find common ground, even if it is in a secular account of things, then we can at least have a respectful dialog.

*Jesus said, “Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art with him in the way; lest haply the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou have paid the last farthing” Matthew 5:25,26

** In the extreme, it comes to something like this: "So, look at your world that seems bent on revenge. The suicide bomber didn’t just wake up one morning in the middle of a joyful life and decide to go kill some people. That person, whoever it was, was living such a feeling of disempowerment, that the only access they had to anything that gave them even an opportunity to have a breath of air, in that moment, was a feeling of revenge. We agree, we don’t want them to get stuck in that feeling of revenge and then go kill themselves and other people. But we certainly understand how they got there. Nobody wants to feel powerless. And so, the suicide bombers are just those who are saying, “Well, I can do this one thing. You’ve taken away my power in this way, and in this way, and in this way, but there’s one thing you cannot take away from me: my power to take myself out and a bunch of other people with me, hopefully.” --Abraham H.

The way that many argue on here gives me the sense that they are so fearful and tenuous of their own position that they cannot even for a moment allow someone else the viewpoint they were perforce of their upbringing given. Adamantine insistence on one’s own rightness, especially by third party, in this case the Church, is personally suspicious to me. I don’t myself need someone else’s complicity as a verification of my belief. And I won’t give them my belief unless they ask in a way that indicates sincere inquiry as distinct from baiting. JDaniel’s additions seem to me as well gratuitous and self congratulating. Put on the other’s shoes, and don’t necessarily assume that someone’s different views or practices stem from a consciously deliberate evil, as sometimes appears to be implied on here. For my part, I believe that all will be justly sorted out at the end; my uninformed opinion of someone else’s difference may more go against me than bless the other. So I’d rather talk it out, granting the other what they came with and work for clarity.

 

[lizaanne]

What is your opinion?

There are so many religions because people want to live life according to their own will, and not the will of God. They find a religion that “fits” what they feel is a comfortable belief system for them so they don’t have to go out of their way too much. That is why being a Catholic is not easy - we are conforming our lives to the will of God, not expecting God to conform to ours.

Quite simple really.

~Liza

 

[fhansen]

I think in some way all religions are a response to an innate sense about and aspiration for something “bigger” than us, and in that, there is faith. I also believe that God has “filled in” certain relevant facts for us by revealing His will in a direct manner and that He’s done this via Judaism and Christianity. Any beliefs that we agree upon with other religions are to be applauded.

 

[colmcille1]

I’ve never gone in for fighting for my religion as an adversarial activity. In fact, the things I’ve heard from religious friends of both sides who escaped from Belfast encourages me to “agree with thine enemy while in the midst.”* At least that way one knows what they are dealing with as distinct from “you have to listen to me because I KNOW I’m right because my Church is, so get with it!” If I heard such an attitude implied by a conversant, I might not be so ready to listen as to run.**

For my part, as long as I am in conversation with someone, a) I can stand my ground, b) I can learn what the concern of the other person is and can more appropriately address it, and c) taking St. Francis advice, I can preach the Gospel by act, and word if necessary. And ours isn’t the only way that advises forbearance over the incitement of opposition.

Perhaps it is a matter of my temperament, but I find opposition tends to cause entrenchment. If someone questions your faith, don’t you instinctively ground to our teachings? Why wouldn’t someone else? Therefore, if we can converse and find common ground, even if it is in a secular account of things, then we can at least have a respectful dialog.

*Jesus said, “Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art with him in the way; lest haply the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou have paid the last farthing” Matthew 5:25,26

** In the extreme, it comes to something like this: "So, look at your world that seems bent on revenge. The suicide bomber didn’t just wake up one morning in the middle of a joyful life and decide to go kill some people. That person, whoever it was, was living such a feeling of disempowerment, that the only access they had to anything that gave them even an opportunity to have a breath of air, in that moment, was a feeling of revenge. We agree, we don’t want them to get stuck in that feeling of revenge and then go kill themselves and other people. But we certainly understand how they got there. Nobody wants to feel powerless. And so, the suicide bombers are just those who are saying, “Well, I can do this one thing. You’ve taken away my power in this way, and in this way, and in this way, but there’s one thing you cannot take away from me: my power to take myself out and a bunch of other people with me, hopefully.” --Abraham H.

The way that many argue on here gives me the sense that they are so fearful and tenuous of their own position that they cannot even for a moment allow someone else the viewpoint they were perforce of their upbringing given. Adamantine insistence on one’s own rightness, especially by third party, in this case the Church, is personally suspicious to me. I don’t myself need someone else’s complicity as a verification of my belief. And I won’t give them my belief unless they ask in a way that indicates sincere inquiry as distinct from baiting. JDaniel’s additions seem to me as well gratuitous and self congratulating. Put on the other’s shoes, and don’t necessarily assume that someone’s different views or practices stem from a consciously deliberate evil, as sometimes appears to be implied on here. For my part, I believe that all will be justly sorted out at the end; my uninformed opinion of someone else’s difference may more go against me than bless the other. So I’d rather talk it out, granting the other what they came with and work for clarity.

Antroji,
You cite violence as indicative of the breakdown of dialogue. Fair enough. But I was not referring to this realm of “endeavour” at all.
I was talking about the strength of belief as expressed by the more abler debaters than yours truly; and I admire (and learn from) such strength.
The Nortern Ireland “situation” is, with respect, food for another thread entirely and I would be happy to discuss that with you.
Also, and I hope you won’t take this the wrong way, I think you are being too harsh on the general level of debate on this site. Perhaps it’s the “fighting Irish” in me, but I view all of this as a form of healthy activity. Egos are indeed involved and some will be bruised in the process. But no blood has been spilt and hopefully some valuable lessons, both on the topic and on ones strength of belief, will have been learned in the process.
I don’t view the debates here as some sort of blood sport. I really do learn from them.
I am deeply aware of the problems here in Ireland of a weak Church. Most of the Church leaders will not tackle the insidious rise of moral relativism. It’s almost as if they are running scared of the liberal media. But there are flickerings of hope.
I do believe firmly in the need for a strong voice , not a strident ranting one.
If this is perceived by some people as arrogant then that is their lack of insight. And no amount of crying foul via the stream of moral relativism or p.c. can ultimately topple the Truth.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Moonstruck888]

1. The universality of religious belief throughout history demonstrates that human beings intuitively recognise the inadequacy of materialism.

There are so many religions because each society creates religions in their own image. Since no two societies have identical cultural references and values, no two religions are the same.

 

[tonyrey]

There are so many religions because each society creates religions in their own image. Since no two societies have identical cultural references and values, no two religions are the same.

What precisely do you mean by “in their own image”? How can a religion reflect a society of individuals?

 

[colmcille1]

What precisely do you mean by “in their own image”? How can a religion reflect a society of individuals?

Hi tonyrey,
Check out the comment of the poster you addressed the above question to. Its on the ‘Should science be secular?’ thread. the post is no.331. My LARGE reply will hopefully alert a few others as to this posters calibre. Thought I’d let you know before you face the same debating cul-de-sac you experienced on another thread.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Moonstruck888]

What precisely do you mean by “in their own image”? How can a religion reflect a society of individuals?

One example would be the image of Jesus as having blonde hair and blue eyes. That’s absurd. He was born in the Middle East thousands of years before the European Jews settled the area.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Hi tonyrey,
Check out the comment of the poster you addressed the above question to. Its on the ‘Should science be secular?’ thread. the post is no.331. My LARGE reply will hopefully alert a few others as to this posters calibre. Thought I’d let you know before you face the same debating cul-de-sac you experienced on another thread.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

ROTFL!!!

Do you seriously think you’re going to tell them anything about me that they don’t already know?

You amuse me.

 

[tonyrey]

Wow. Tonyrey, when I read your original post I thought that “here is someone who is thoughtful and even handed in their assessment of how things work.” I am disappointed to find by your second post that despite my own affiliation with and appreciation of Catholicism there are still those who have such a fundamentalist spin and you set yourself up as a back patter for our own religion seemingly from that positin. All of 1 through 5 can be true, and yet the Church be what it is.

In fact what constitutes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and its fruit, that story being an allegory, is up for debate, as much as our moral sense may not be in terms of our Church’s current position. It is not even clear, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, if “Adam” refers to a person or the race as such, and therefore Eve is in doubt as well, not to mention the exact meaning of the debatable definitions of “sin,” and other words related to that narrative. We take those to mean what we mean today as a retrospective interpretation, not as direct knowledge, independent of NT events.

I’m amazed you think I’m a fundamentalist! I simply stated truths that must be held by anyone who believes in the difference between good and evil. At some point in history human beings must have become aware of that distinction. If anything this is to adopt an anti-fundamentalist stance because it implies an evolutionary view of man…

So it looks to me that you are indulging in gratuitous self congratulation for knowing something others don’t, just because they don’t know it as we do. That appears unseemly and childish to me, especially when the points you enumerate are of interest both as matters of faith and scholarship. So, while you may be “right” as a point of your own take on faith, I think you may have spoiled a fruitful discussion by such a slam-dunk as your second post. there may be points involved, but if I was the ref, there would be a flag.

What is it self-congratulatory to point out what must be a historical fact unless you reject the difference between good and evil - and man’s ability to recognise it? What is your alternative interpretation?

Further, it is pretty obvious that there are many who do not worship God as we know love and serve Him who are yet not materialists. In other words, your too concise spiritual history of mankind may be lacking in a few refinements? It looks to me that though God is merciful, you may not be, at least in this instance of thought-bite. If I was your friend, I’d say “Whoa, there buddy! Cool your jets and let’s listen for a minute and see what bubbles up, ok?”

You are misinterpreting my statements and oversimplifying a complex issue. To begin with I was referring to materialism **within the context of religion **which had become distorted by idolatry and false values:

“He put himself first and began to worship power, pleasure and material things.”

Eventually the worship of substitutes for God sometimes led to the abandonment of religion altogether. **This does not mean that all those who have no religion lack moral and spiritual values. **There are other - sometimes valid - reasons why people have rejected religion. Virtue is not a monopoly of believers - although they may include a “good” number of hypocrites! Nevertheless when all is said and done full-blooded materialism is logically incompatible with belief in the objective reality of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. On this very forum it has been stated more than once than we are no more than “African animals” and members of the ape family…

 

[Moonstruck888]

I’m amazed you think I’m a fundamentalist! I simply stated truths that must be held by anyone who believes in the difference between good and evil. At some point in history human beings must have become aware of that distinction.

Murder is evil, except in wartime when it is rewarded with accolades.

Stealing is evil, except when done with a Government stamp on it by stock market traders and politicians.

Greed is evil, except when practiced by wealthy businessmen and CEO’s.

Good and evil are relative concepts to culture, time and place, and are totally malleable to suit whatever pragmatic concerns one has at any given time.

 

[inocente]

Some years back I overheard a strange conversation at work and decided to do a little research project.

Almost all of us were graduates. At coffee breaks I’d turn the conversation to belief, and found the most amazing variety. Many atheists had New Age beliefs and many religious people shared some of them. At the time I was a “pure” atheist with no need for reincarnation, things that go bump in the night, UFOs or anything else, but was definitely in a minority.

It seemed to me that we all need some kind of faith, and to avoid enslaving superstitions, legalism or fundamentalism it needs to be consistent, empowering and clear. We can argue the merits of various religions, humanism, atheism and so on (and frequently do ) but the only thing we can all know for sure is that we don’t know for sure.

 

[colmcille1]

but the only thing we can all know for sure is that we don’t know for sure.

Inocente,
A great many philosophers may agree with you but, to be quite frank, this statement won’t wash with true believers. And it isn’t difficult to understand why.
This statement relies on the assumption that interpretation is the end-all and be-all. It isn’t. Interpretation is a part of True Faith. Theologians may debate the minutiae of scripture but there are Faith practices which are unchanging through time. True, there have been challenges to said practices but the strength of True Faith has weathered (and continues to weather) all assaults.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Areopagite]

Murder is evil, except in wartime when it is rewarded with accolades.

Are you saying this SHOULD be the case?

Stealing is evil, except when done with a Government stamp on it by stock market traders and politicians.

Likewise, are you saying this SHOULD be the case?

Greed is evil, except when practiced by wealthy businessmen and CEO’s.

And again … SHOULD this be the case?

Good and evil are relative concepts to culture, time and place, and are totally malleable to suit whatever pragmatic concerns one has at any given time.

Ah, that word “pragmatic.” Such a magical word. What do you mean by it? What determines what is pragmatic or not? I would ask you not to give a synonym … like “useful.”

Now, would you say all this can also be applied to the word “true” too? For example, “It’s true that Jews are equal to others, unless you live under a Nazi regime where you could get in trouble for thinking that?” or something like that? Is truth totally malleable to suit whatever “pragmatic” concerns one has at any give time?