Is there Really only one True Religion?

[Storm]

I think the line between religion and culture is blurry at the best of times, but what do you mean?

Are you saying that religious claims of exclusivity or of special authority are externally imposed by the culture and aren't actually part of the religion?

That's taking it a bit further than I intended, but close.

As you say, the line between culture and religion is blurry. This allows tribalism to influence doctrine, to doctrine's detriment.

Do some religions make exclusive claims? Yes, obviously. However, that doesn't change the fact that they're all attempts to understand reality. Nor does it sway my opinion that they're all equally valid attempts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is that?

Some people place their own religion in a special status by dismissing other religions as flawed interpretations. You then turn around and dismiss this mindset as a flawed interpretation.

If religions really is like art, where there's no one "true" version separated from all the "false" versions, then you aren't in a position to dismiss someone's pursuit of understanding as false or invalid.

In order to actually dismiss this sort of religious approach, you have to first take as given that some standard of truth or validity exists against which religions can be measured, but then you can't dismiss them on the grounds that they cite a standard of truth or validity in defense of their own special status.

 

[Mr Cheese]

No. Religions are attempts to understand reality. It's like asking if there's only one true art or science.

I'd say painting with feces is probably the one true form of art

 

[fallingblood]

Why is that?

Because the truth is there are many religions, or sects that claim to be the one an only way to God. Upon further study, you may come to the conclusion that they have a flawed interpretation, but that hardly matters as those claiming to be the only right way will state that your interpretation is incorrect and theirs is correct.

It is impossible to be truthful and say that no religions, or sects, teach that they are the only true religion. I've been in many churches that claim exactly that.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

You just totally confused me penguin

 

[Mr Cheese]

Heretic confused by a penguin...

next on Oprah

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's taking it a bit further than I intended, but close.

As you say, the line between culture and religion is blurry. This allows tribalism to influence doctrine, to doctrine's detriment.

But tribalistically-influenced religious doctrine is still religious doctrine.

Do some religions make exclusive claims? Yes, obviously. However, that doesn't change the fact that they're all attempts to understand reality. Nor does it sway my opinion that they're all equally valid attempts.

I guess my thought was that in the case of many (most?) religions, the religion isn't about an attempt to understand reality (edit: or at least not just about understanding reality). Instead, it's about worship of God(s), or about adherence to a standard put in place by God(s). If you allow for this approach, then I think you have to allow for the idea that one religion might be objectively "better" than another.

If you don't allow for this, then I think you implicitly disallow the approach of a significant proportion of religious believers.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

How can one approach to worshipping God be better then another? God is so beyond our understanding, that it's possible God is all gods at the same time. That's why I'm a Monist

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You just totally confused me penguin

Short version: if you say that no religious approach is no better or worse than another, then you can't go around saying that some religious approaches are worse than others.

 

[Storm]

But tribalistically-influenced religious doctrine is still religious doctrine.

Yep.

I guess my thought was that in the case of many (most?) religions, the religion isn't about an attempt to understand reality. Instead, it's about worship of God(s), or about adherence to a standard put in place by God(s). If you allow for this approach, then I think you have to allow for the idea that one religion might be objectively "better" than another.

Our place in the order of things is included in "reality."

For most practitioners, you're right - adhering to the rules is more important than some mystical quest to understand. But that still leaves the question of what the rules are, where they come from, and why they should be followed.

Religion in every incarnation I know of (in this context, I would even include atheism) attempts to make sense of the world. It asks and sometimes answers the questions of where we fit into things and what's expected of us.

If you don't allow for this, then I think you implicitly disallow the approach of a significant proportion of religious believers.

I do allow for it.

 

[Storm]

Short version: if you say that no religious approach is no better or worse than another, then you can't go around saying that some religious approaches are worse than others.

Yes and no, due to oversimplification.

You can still have preferences, you just have to admit that that's all they are.

 

[Mr Cheese]

How can one approach to worshipping God be better then another? God is so beyond our understanding, that it's possible God is all gods at the same time. That's why I'm a Monist

maybe God is Homer SImpson?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

maybe God is Homer SImpson?

If you believe he is, maybe...

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yes and no, due to oversimplification.

You can still have preferences, you just have to admit that that's all they are.

Exactly

 

[Mr Cheese]

If you believe he is, maybe...

maybe mr burns is satan

That could mean the moomins are secretly the dogs of hell
sent to protect damien thorn, the anti christ

 

[Rainbow Mage]

maybe mr burns is satan

That could mean the moomins are secretly the dogs of hell
sent to protect damien thorn, the anti christ

Whatever floats your boat. Maybe you could make a new religion and call it Homerism.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Whatever floats your boat. Maybe you could make a new religion and call it Homerism.

Isnt that the Cult of Shiva, the holy Penis?

 

[fallingblood]

There may be no one true religion, but I think most could agree that there are some very false religions.

 

[Zadok]

The ancients did not call it “religion” it was know of as the way or path of enlightenment. In essence enlightenment was defined as “eternal” or divine truths.

In our modern age of “enlightenment” we have separated out a number of enlightenments that are popular in our time. These include (not necessarily inclusive) of the following:

1. Environmental awareness
2. Freedoms and Justice
3. Social-economic-political awareness and concerns
4. Scientific awareness and understanding
5. Logic and intelligence

One of the concepts familiar to the ancients was what was known as “whole” or “complete” or “perfect”. The correct path therefore, was inclusive of all possible enlightenments.

It is interesting to me that many scoff at any possibility of such “religious” enlightenment defined as complete or encompassing all enlightened wisdoms. Without understanding that all enlightenments can be enjoyed without one being forced to exclude something, it causes me to wonder if they are really connected to any actual enlightenments. One definition of G-d is one that possesses all enlightenments. Many religions profess means by which an individual can become “one” with G-d or one with all enlightenment but few purport that by possessing the all inclusive enlightenments one becomes a G-d which by definition is the “end” of pursuing the path or way of enlightenment.

Thus to me when one says there is not true religion it is a flag to me that they do not know or understand the path or way of enlightenment whereby there is justice, truth and intelligence. To those that have not found enlightenment and therefore believe enlightenment is not possible – what is the point of looking or for that matter reading any post in this thread?

For me – I agree with the ancients. Enlightenment is not a destination but a way and a path. Have I discovered the path? Perhaps – but then perhaps you path is better. But I am certain that those that do not believe there is such a way or path – have not found anything worth considering.

Zadok

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

In the Baha'i view, ALL the great religions are legitimate and God-sent, and our scriptures state this!

Best,

Bruce