A question for all religious believers -- why is your religion more true than any other?

[LuisDantas]

I guess you have the wrong audience for that kind of question. Anyone who would defend their religion as the only Truth™ is gone or banned.
Such behaviour is even banned by the rules, so some might think their religion is the only true™ one, but don't dare state so openly.
Those people exist, just open up YouTube and look for the apologists. The Hamists would say that you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis. They're just not here.

I fear that you are mistaken. Even taking as a given that people who claimed to believe in the one true religion can't post in this thread, the fact remains that people can believe that and simply not express that belief in the forums.

But that is not how these forums work. People may express that belief as long as they don't demand others to agree with them.

 

[metis]

It does seem to me that all of the religious people I know accept that their creed, their religion's essential beliefs, are correct, while all others -- because they obviously don't agree with the central tenets of their sect, must be somehow lacking.

I don't say nor believe that personally. Am I religious? I'm not sure if I am or not.

My former Signature Statement, which I still much agree with, goes like this: Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call "God", and pretty much just leave it at that.

 

[metis]

Like everyone, I am a product of my time and place in the world. I grew up in a world that was mostly Protestant, some evangelical, but at a time when everyone had (or at least admitted to) a religious belief. There weren't many open atheists. I went to a private school run by Quakers, after I had been in a refuge for battered kids called the "Protestant Children's Village" in Ottawa. You most learn what's around you, so my view of religion is necessarily framed within that.

When I've taken the Belief-O-Matic test, my highest correlation is with "Liberal Quakers".

 

[LuisDantas]

It may be interesting to consider how each the Abrahamics deals with this subject matter.

Generally speaking, I get the sense that most liberal believers trust god to be fair even if people "believe wrong" while most fundamentalists have a bit of difficulty understanding why others are not trying very hard to "believe right".

After years of curiosity, I feel that I have a fairly solid idea of how Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bahai Faith each deal with this subject matter. But of course it is best to let actual adherents speak on their own behalf.

 

[metis]

We celebrated Hannukah as well as Christmas (no Diwali, but it was a long time ago).

Our extended family celebrates "ChrisHannukah".

Create a new religion and we'll celebrate that with you.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not at all surprised.

Good. Not everyone enjoys the attitude of those who claim to have found the One True Religion (TM) and it is for the best that you are not surprised by that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good. Not everyone enjoys the attitude of those who claim to have found the One True Religion (TM) and it is for the best that you are not surprised by that.

I need to brush up on the difference between Trade Mark and Copyright.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Seems to me that it is generally not possible to say with any intellectual honesty that a given religion is true while all others are false..

It does not have to be a case of "black and white"..
A religion can be true, but does not necessarily follow that all others are "wrong".

The main point in the Abrahamic faiths, which are the most populous, is:-

The Shema .. the Kalima.
i.e. There is no deity worthy of worship than the One Creator God

Christianity is the odd one out, in that its Orthodox creed emphasises the trinity.
..nevertheless, the vast majority of Christians acknowledge the Shema!

..so therefore, all three are right in the most important tenet of faith.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Christianity is the odd one out, in that its Orthodox creed emphasises the trinity.
..nevertheless, the vast majority of Christians acknowledge the Shema!

Note:

Though this opening verse is now taken as the ultimate affirmation of monotheism, it seems likely that the ancient Israelites originally saw it as a declaration of monolatry.​

​

Monotheism holds that there is only one God for all peoples, in this case, the God of the Hebrew Bible. Monolatry recognizes that there are other gods, but that the Israelites believe in the God of the Hebrew Bible. [source]​

As one can see here, the Shema has the focus of discussion for quite some time.

 

[LuisDantas]

It does not have to be a case of "black and white"..
A religion can be true, but does not necessarily follow that all others are "wrong".

The main point in the Abrahamic faiths, which are the most populous, is:-

The Shema .. the Kalima.
i.e. There is no deity worthy of worship than the One Creator God

Christianity is the odd one out, in that its Orthodox creed emphasises the trinity.
..nevertheless, the vast majority of Christians acknowledge the Shema!

..so therefore, all three are right in the most important tenet of faith.

I think you missed the point something fierce.

 

[Tamino]

I don't know if I think that's entirely correct -- especially when one factors in American evangelicals. I remember a CNN special with Christiane Amanpour from some years ago, in which, while talking to a girl of about 9 or 10, asking her about her school friends who were Muslim or Jewish. Her answer was a very blase "oh, they go to Hell," as she kept on drawing her picture.

To be honest, I know about this, but it still feels a little unreal. Like another, parallel universe...
I grew up in Germany. The Eastern part of the country is largely non-religious after half a century of communist rule. The SED never prohibited Christian religion or destroyed churches, but Christians could get in trouble easily if they spoke up, and people were encouraged towards atheism. In West Germany, the main religious groups are Catholics and Lutheran Protestants.
The Catholic Church keeps getting in trouble lately for being too conservative (while getting in trouble with the Vatican for being to progressive...) The Maria 2.0 movement is pushing for female priesthood, and pushing hard. And the bishops are under fire for not detecting and stopping child abuse among their priesthood. The Catholic Church keeps loosing members.
The Lutherans (EKD, Evangelische Kirche Deutschlands) are very progressive. They have female pastors and leaders, services for gay couples, and they strive for ecumenical and interreligious dialogue. Doesn't help them much... they are losing members as well.
Other Christian sects exist, but aren't large enough to have any significant social or political influence.
So in short: the two big churches are very diplomatic in their official statements... They might believe that their faith is the "true one" on paper and in private, but they hasten to affirm religious freedom and dialogue in public.
The Muslims, too, present themselves as tolerant and democratic - at least the larger organizations.
The only people who publicly declare that "the others go to hell" are the small groups of extremist Christian evangelicals and salafi Muslims. You meet them in the cities, sometimes, with their info booths and handing out leaflets... But the majority of people dismisses them a crazy extremists.

I am kind of afraid that the extremists will gain more power here, like they do in other countries. But right now , it's pretty relaxed. Admitting that you're an atheist is perfectly fine in most situations. It's more like, if you admit that you're religious, you might be asked "is that just a family tradition or do you really believe in that stuff??"

 

[Aupmanyav]

As a non-believer in any religion, I am curious how it is, what evidence, what logic, leads you to suppose that your particular religion/denomination/sect got it right, while the others did not.

As perhaps you know that I am a strong atheist, but I believe that my Advaita view of Hinduism is, beyond doubts, the best, because it goes 100% with science. No other religion or even any denomination of Hinduism does that.

The logic is simple:
1. Since at the beginning of 'inflation', there was nothing other than 'physical energy' in the universe. Therefore, existence of any kind of God or Goddess is impossible.
2. Since everything in the universe arose from this glob of 'physical energy' (humans, animals, vegetation and non-living substances), we are not many but one. All seeming differences are, but illusions.
3. It does not call for any supernatural, mystery, miracles or magic. The only way to know what we do not know now, is science.
4. Rules (governmental or social) are made by humans, there are no God-given rules.
5. My belief does not require any worship or rituals to Gods (male or female, because there are none).
6.The idea of soul is a human construct just like God. Nothing real about reincarnation/rebirth, heaven or hell, end of days and judgment or any kind of nirvana, moksha, deliverance (by whom - Amazon, e-Bay, Target, Wallmart, BestBuy, CostCo?), being saved (saved from what?).

Since it is a radical type of Advaita Hinduism, you may term it as "Parā Advaita)

 

[MikeF]

Seems to me that it is generally not possible to say with any intellectual honesty that a given religion is true while all others are false.

Which is perfectly fine, but how widely is that view shared among those with theistic beliefs? Especially if we pare it down the bare belief that there is something (with intent) rather than nothing responsible for all that is.

I also think that it is very rare for anyone outside the Abrahamics to make such a claim.

And yet the Abrahamics, primarily Christianity, have dominated the Western religious experience for quite some time and hence I would say this idea that "our way is the right way" has also been dominant well into the 20th century where Christianity is dominant.

Most other adherents simply accept that there is a wide variety of religions, creeds and beliefs and that far as they know their current choice is the best fit for them.

Again, fine. But for those cultures in which Christianity has remained dominant, I would say what you describe is not the prevailing attitude.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which is perfectly fine, but how widely is that view shared among those with theistic beliefs? Especially if we pare it down the bare belief that there is something (with intent) rather than nothing responsible for all that is.



And yet the Abrahamics, primarily Christianity, have dominated the Western religious experience for quite some time and hence I would say this idea that "our way is the right way" has also been dominant well into the 20th century where Christianity is dominant.



Again, fine. But for those cultures in which Christianity has remained dominant, I would say what you describe is not the prevailing attitude.

Christianity is an odd duck, albeit a demographically succesful one. So is Islam.

 

[MikeF]

Christianity is an odd duck, albeit a demographically succesful one. So is Islam.

And for those in societies/cultures in which those religions are, or have been, overwhelmingly dominant, I see @Evangelicalhumanist comment,
"It does seem to me that all of the religious people I know accept that their creed, their religion's essential beliefs, are correct, while all others -- because they obviously don't agree with the central tenets of their sect, must be somehow lacking.", is an experience that is likely shared by many in those Abrahamic dominated cultures.

Yes, there are other religious attitudes in the world, but for those raised in these cultures, this has been the way religion has been presented and experienced. Of course Christianity is loosing its hegemony in the US and Europe since the later half of the 20th century. Perhaps these comments are more reflective of the baby boom generation and younger generations are having a broader experience with religion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... my Advaita view of Hinduism is, beyond doubts, the best, because it goes 100% with science. No other religion or even any denomination of Hinduism does that.

Wow! I was not aware that you were such an expert on the various views to be found within the ranks of Judaism.

Come to think of it, you might benefit in learning of folks such as H.E. Archbishop Emeritus Dr. Antje Jackelén ...

Archbishop Emeritus of the Church of Sweden and an Adjunct Professor of systematic theology/religion and science at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. [source]​

 

[LuisDantas]

And for those in societies/cultures in which those religions are, or have been, overwhelmingly dominant, I see @Evangelicalhumanist comment,
"It does seem to me that all of the religious people I know accept that their creed, their religion's essential beliefs, are correct, while all others -- because they obviously don't agree with the central tenets of their sect, must be somehow lacking.", is an experience that is likely shared by many in those Abrahamic dominated cultures.

Yes, but at a considerably high price. For one, there is the confused notion of what religion even is in those cultures.

Yes, there are other religious attitudes in the world, but for those raised in these cultures, this has been the way religion has been presented and experienced. Of course Christianity is loosing its hegemony in the US and Europe since the later half of the 20th century. Perhaps these comments are more reflective of the baby boom generation and younger generations are having a broader experience with religion.

There was a culture shock involving improved awareness of religious diversity back in the second half of the 19th century. We are living through another now.

 

[Left Coast]

It does seem to me that all of the religious people I know accept that their creed, their religion's essential beliefs, are correct, while all others -- because they obviously don't agree with the central tenets of their sect, must be somehow lacking.

As a non-believer in any religion, I am curious how it is, what evidence, what logic, leads you to suppose that your particular religion/denomination/sect got it right, while the others did not.

This thread is meant to be a great opportunity for believers of all kinds to engage -- to write apologetics in defense of their beliefs. I'm hoping to see significant essays!

I don't see religious worldviews as qualitatively different in that regard from non-religious ones. Everyone thinks their worldview is right and others that contradict them are wrong.

 

[MikeF]

For one, there is the confused notion of what religion even is in those cultures.

<chuckles> Who then has a clear notion of what religion even is, and why? Who, other than an alien anthropologist, has the least bias in terms of evaluating and categorizing human religious expression?

There was a culture shock involving improved awareness of religious diversity back in the second half of the 19th century. We are living through another now.

Cool.

 

[LuisDantas]

<chuckles> Who then has a clear notion of what religion even is, and why? Who, other than an alien anthropologist, has the least bias in terms of evaluating and categorizing human religious expression?

It is not really that hard. Anthropology and other human sciences have long achieved a good functional understanding of religion.

Sure, there is a lot indeed of controversy, but that is nearly entirely a matter of politics and social taboos.