The one true religion

[kylixguru]

you and i both know this is not the intent of this thread...

You might have but to me the intent wasn't clear. That is why my answer had to be within a context. Absent that, people could impose all kinds of things I never thought of and fool themselves into thinking I said something I didn't say.

or are you saying their are many paths to god?

Yes and no.

I believe in the God of Abraham. His Family has many distinct "mansions" of activity within it. The plan for the management of His inheritance is quite clear to me. If my understanding and activity is indeed consistent with the God of Abraham then I am 'true' to it. If my understanding and activities have strayed then I would no longer be true to it.

I would just as quickly give any other patriarchal system the same consideration.

when someone asks what is the one true religion, they are not asking if that religion hasn't morphed into something else...

Pardon me. I take for granted that they ought to make this a matter of consideration.

A person, such as it appears you are talking about here, is stuck in the mindset that there has to be a uniform cosmic deity for everyone that will only have one true religion for everyone in the entire universe. I flatly refute this notion. I believe this is very unhealthy as it pits distinct social bodies against one another that ought to simply be good neighbors.

one can say mormonism has evolved and didn't stay on the intended track joseph smith invented...

He reinvented with Divine assistance.

after all you did say he himself would be excommunicated by todays mormon standards.

Yes, I did. And, he most definitely would be excommunicated by today's standards. Thus, the church was 'true' and still is to some extent. However, it hasn't been true to what it was given and has fallen and stands in need of being redeemed. Once Eve's eyes are opened, as they soon shall be, then she will be able to have Lucifer cast down. Unfortunately, this won't happen until she is reduced to abject poverty and suffering to humble her. She shall taste the bitter so that she will learn to prize the sweet.

 

[Katzpur]

one can say mormonism has evolved and didn't stay on the intended track joseph smith invented...

One can say whatever one wants to say, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So, define "true." I'm assuming you believe truth is relative. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Otherwise, could you please elaborate. I'm not trying to argue that my religion is true and yours is false, so let me make sure that's understood at the outset. But what I'm thinking is this: Suppose you say that there is a Higher Power of some sort, but that this higher power is simply a spiritual force of some kind that is incorporeal and does not interfere in the affairs of human beings. Suppose I say that there is a Higher Power of some sort, and this higher power is a corporeal being that is personally interested in us and intervenes in our lives from time to time. Now we both could be absolutely wrong in what we believe. Maybe there is no Higher Power of any kind. Are both our beliefs "true" or are they both "false"? On the other hand, maybe my understanding of who and what this Higher Power is is accurate right down to the most minute detail. If this were the case, how would your religion (or in this case, one component of it) continue to be "true"? How does "false" translate into being "true"? (Obviously, the same question would exist if your understanding of this actual Higher Power were accurate and mine was way out there in left field somewhere.)

The religion is true to the person who believes it, and I'd assume that if this god you speak of exists, he could understand that a person can be honestly mistaken. I believe any truth a human speaks of must at least be relative in some sense, we're not gods.

 

[Katzpur]

The religion is true to the person who believes it, and I'd assume that if this god you speak of exists, he could understand that a person can be honestly mistaken.

Oh, I definitely agree, and I don't believe that when we stand before God to be judged it's going to be like the multiple-choice test I described. I don't think God is going to exact some punishment on people who were sincere in what they believed but were simply wrong.

I believe any truth a human speaks of must at least be relative in some sense, we're not gods.

No, we're not, but I disagree that truth is relative. If God exists at all, He is what He is. We can't simply say that He is what we believe Him to be. The reality of who He is is independent of who we conceive Him to be.

 

[kylixguru]

I don't think God is going to exact some punishment on people who were sincere in what they believed but were simply wrong.

I disagree whole-heartedly. If a stake president has what he views as a dangerous dissident sitting in front of him because of his sincere grievances about corruption in the church and that S.P. decides to follow the policy in the church handbook to use the excommunication powers to "protect the integrity (image) of the church" when that dissident was simply performing his duty and his right to "see that iniquity does not enter the church" then that stake president has innocent spiritual blood on his hands and shall become a Son of Perdition. By excommunicating an innocent individual in order to undertake to cover sin within the church when that individual was merely performing his priesthood duty then that person was denied the Holy Ghost. This sin is an unpardonable sin. That Stake President, no matter how well meaning, allowed the spirit of Cain to murder for gain (praise of the world). That was unrighteous dominion in its fullest expression and that S. P. can definitely say amen to his priesthood authority for the rest of his life and for his entire world to come. When you take an oath and covenant of the Melchizedek Priesthood it is your own personal responsibility to learn your duties according to God's Word and by revelation. If you are going to just do what the handbook tells you to do you are relying upon the arm of flesh. Intentions will have nothing to do with this situation.

 

[BruceDLimber]

If you take all religon as it is today and put them together you come up with contradiction.

Not so: this isn't the case!

The key is understanding that while spiritual teachings are unchanging and shared across various religions, the social teachings are INTENTIONALLY temporary; and each Age has its own religion with its own social teachings intended for that particular Age! These social teachings may latere be altered or abolished by any of the Divine Messengers God sends to found these religions (though not by us). So there's no problem with apparent "contradictions" because they're simply teachings specifically suited to a specific time and circumstances. (I refer you to the quote I posted in #14.)

And indeed, ALL the great religions are in fact part of a single ever-evolving faith, the Faith of God!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I suspect we can only make one "Choice" of a religion at a time.
This says nothing about the "truth" of any other religion.
I suspect some religions have serious errors in their beliefs... which rules them out as choices for me. Others seem not far from the mark, but still do no match my personal beliefs.

The real question remains, and that is how God values our religions. I rather think, it is mostly how we behave, that shows him the value of our beliefs.

 

[openyourmind]

Then it is true! You just said there are apparent contradictions. Chose a side, I accept that there are contradiction which is why you can't put them all together. They can all still be "true religions" by the fact that the fundamentals are still the same. But contradict one another because the human hand has made changes. So go to the beginning and cut the crap, what's left is the truth.

Not so: this isn't the case!

The key is understanding that while spiritual teachings are unchanging and shared across various religions, the social teachings are INTENTIONALLY temporary; and each Age has its own religion with its own social teachings intended for that particular Age! These social teachings may latere be altered or abolished by any of the Divine Messengers God sends to found these religions (though not by us). So there's no problem with apparent "contradictions" because they're simply teachings specifically suited to a specific time and circumstances. (I refer you to the quote I posted in #14.)

And indeed, ALL the great religions are in fact part of a single ever-evolving faith, the Faith of God!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well Katzpur this god you speak of may be who he is, but that doesn't mean humans understand what that is. I don't even understand my own gods, and they're certainly not transcendent like the one you believe in. I can't imagine even coming close to understanding that one.

 

[Katzpur]

Well Katzpur this god you speak of may be who he is...

If He exists, He definitely is what He is.

...but that doesn't mean humans understand what that is.

I believe you're correct in saying that we don't understand Him, at least not fully. On the other hand, our conception of Him -- to the degree that we do understand Him -- can be either correct or incorrect.

I don't even understand my own gods, and they're certainly not transcendent like the one you believe in. I can't imagine even coming close to understanding that one.

Okay. Could you explain, please, what is less understandable about my God than your gods? I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I'm just curious.

 

[BruceDLimber]

I suspect we can only make one "Choice" of a religion at a time.

This says nothing about the "truth" of any other religion.

Not so!

I quote the Baha'i scriptures (which also make clear God's approval of all the great religions):

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."

—(The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 114;
also Gleanings, CXI, pp. 217-8)

Best!

Bruce

 

[Katzpur]

Not so!

I quote the Baha'i scriptures (which also make clear God's approval of all the great religions):

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."

—(The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 114;
also Gleanings, CXI, pp. 217-8)

Best!

Bruce

I love that!

 

[kylixguru]

Not so!

I quote the Baha'i scriptures (which also make clear God's approval of all the great religions):

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."

—(The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 114;
also Gleanings, CXI, pp. 217-8)

Best!

Bruce

Such concepts are not new. Catholicism was the same concept.

What the world needs is for someone to weave everything together in a way that is convincing to those who sincerely hear it out and can put it together for themselves.

Absent this understanding, trying to implement this concept in ignorance simply will create a new whore of the earth.

 

[Duck]

Even the most staunch believers have "one true religion" and denounce all other religions as false.
That amounts to everyone being atheist to all religions but their own. If we ask people their opinion on all religions and calculate a mean (in colloquial terms people call the mean, "average"), our calculations would reveal that the majority would find all religions as false.

Are there people that believe in all religions, or most religions, or are all religions, or most, mutually exclusive? Or is there a one true religion, and which is it?

I will grant that I am not the most vehement practitioner of my faith; that said, nothing I have seen or read indicates that the belief in the Norse Gods is exclusionary of other religions (as in those religions are "false"), to the best of my knowledge that statement (all other religions are false) is pretty much limited to the world view of the Abrahamic faiths. Thor, Odin, Frey, Saga, Sif, Freya, Heimdal, Njord, Frigga, Baldur, Idun, Ran and Aegir aren't portrayed as particularly jealous gods and certainly nothing I have read (nor has there been any personal revelation) has indicated that I wouldn't be free to also honor Amun-Ra if called to do so.

Certainly, it is not my place to denounce all other religions as false. Nor would I presume to do so. I assume that other people are at least as serious about their beliefs as I am, if not more so.

 

[Katzpur]

Certainly, it is not my place to denounce all other religions as false. Nor would I presume to do so. I assume that other people are at least as serious about their beliefs as I am, if not more so.

I feel as if that's a very rational and respectful approach to take. If you expect people to take your spiritual experiences seriously, you have to do the same with regards to theirs.

 

[kylixguru]

I feel as if that's a very rational and respectful approach to take. If you expect people to take your spiritual experiences seriously, you have to do the same with regards to theirs.

I also believe if there are contradictions or problems in a person's theology that it is beneficial to address it. I certainly would want someone to do that to me if they perceive flaws or contradictions in my beliefs. I have grown a lot from being challenged by others who saw flaws in my ideas. I have found flaws and I have also been enabled to see greater light thanks to others sharing their perspective with me. We all have some light to offer one another.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Okay. Could you explain, please, what is less understandable about my God than your gods? I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I'm just curious.

If he is all powerful why doesn't he stop suffering? If he is all knowing why did he let things become so messed up? If he is in all places at once, how is he also not within us and my gods?

My gods never claimed to be omnipotent or omniscient, so they have some excuse for not just being able to magically fix everything. Even if they could, they wouldn't. They'd want humans to put forth the effort. They see us as their children, but like any good parent, they don't just coddle their children.

Also, they never demand worship. They let people come to them. Why does the Christian god demand things like worship, etc.?

 

[kylixguru]

If he is all powerful why doesn't he stop suffering? If he is all knowing why did he let things become so messed up? If he is in all places at once, how is he also not within us and my gods?

The answer is the same as "Why doesn't mankind stop suffering?" We are his eyes, hands, ears, etc. The biggest reason why these things have not been addressed is because His children have failed to establish His economic system.

My gods never claimed to be omnipotent or omniscient, so they have some excuse for not just being able to magically fix everything. Even if they could, they wouldn't. They'd want humans to put forth the effort. They see us as their children, but like any good parent, they don't just coddle their children.

I view my God literally as my parent. Thus, this is indeed a true factor as well.

Also, they never demand worship. They let people come to them. Why does the Christian god demand things like worship, etc.?

Why do I want my children to respect their agreements with me and not make others more important that doing what they agreed to do? The Christian God is talking to His children. What you call worship is what I would consider deference and respect.

 

[gnostic]

Are there people that believe in all religions, or most religions, or are all religions, or most, mutually exclusive? Or is there a one true religion, and which is it?

Truefully, I've never understood the concept of "one true religion".

To me, it sounds petty and childish. The competitive needs to feel "special", and the discredit other religions and demonize other religious people. It is destructive attitude, and often leads to biased, and possibly worse, persecution.

Religion, like people who Christianity & Islam, have classify people who don't follow their specific brands of religion as Satanists, apostates, kaffirs, infidels, etc.

How does it help their causes or the images of their respective religions?

 

[beenie]

Religions are there. they have evolved out of environment and people. they have a long historical and demographic baggage which spans ethnic groups and religious sub groups or larger divisions.
before people speak about enigmatic topics such as 'true' or 'false'. they best, start making a general picture of what these major religions are, the sphere of politics and economical realities they are part of. their place in the world, and other more relevant and major issues than bizarre topics such as 'one true religion'. if people don't know the physical reality and significance of these religions in the contemporary world and in history, they only humiliate themselves when they obsess about these romantic and spiritual ideas.

here is a post I made in a similar 'one religion' thread, the thread asked if all religions share the same enlightenment:

Major religions may include global instinctual truths 'enlightened' men and women think of in various societies and cultures across the globe. simple things like the golden rule, be kind to others because it makes sense, don't provoke a powerful enemy- this is one thing both Jesus and some of the Jewish prophets have agreed on.
however, when it comes to 'spiritual' and fundamental truths. no I don't really believe that for the most part.
for example, Jesus might have said many things I agree with. but not because he was holy for saying it, but because its something any decent Jewish man would say and think anyway. Christian dogma as a whole though is something I have pretty much an instinctual knee jerk reaction to, it stands against everything my instincts tell me.
Ironically, while Islam today is the rival of people who carry the Jewish tradition, the basic wisdom of Islam is something that is engraved in my instincts whether I can fight it or not. things like hospitality and manners, passion and respect. however I'm guessing that when it comes to the 'big universal truths' me and the Prophet would not see eye to eye on most things. and that's OK. Saladin, the most legendary Muslim ruler had Maimonides, perhaps one of the most legendary Jews as his court's physician, Maimonides criticized Islamic dogma and justified Jewish one day in and day out.
as long as the alliance and friendship are strong, there is no need to share the same religious dogma.

well said.

Certainly, it is not my place to denounce all other religions as false. Nor would I presume to do so. I assume that other people are at least as serious about their beliefs as I am, if not more so.

i have a real issue with this as well. i hole my beliefs, but to call another's beliefs false is not my style.