The "only true religion"

[Kirran]

If one does not believe in G-d that person should also be respected absolutely no compulsion.
In fact all revealed religions work for that.
Regards

My religion isn't a revealed religion though

 

[rusra02]

Three questions here...

1. Do you believe the religion you have chosen to be the only "true" religion?
2. If the answer to question #1 is "yes," what exactly does that mean to you?
3. If the answer to question #1 is "yes," what do you believe will be the fate of those who do not share your beliefs?

1. Of course. If I did not believe it to be the truth, why belong to it? Jesus spoke about true worship. " Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.” (John 4:23,24)
2. I believe true religion is based on realities and truth, not myths or lies. True religion is based on worship of the God of truth, Jehovah. (Psalm 31:5)
3. I am not the judge of others. I believe Jehovah will give each person living today opportunity to come to know and serve him. (Matthew 24:14) What each one decides to do is their choice.

 

[leibowde84]

That is not a proper way of gauging religions, IMO.

I never said that it was. My argument is that it is a proper way of gauging the word "true".

 

[Glaurung]

Do you think Pope Francis would take a view more similar to yours? I am incredibly impressed by this man and it's hard for me to imagine that he would say I'm going to be damned for not being a Catholic.

I didn't say that non-Catholics are automatically damned, I explicitly stated otherwise. Re-read what I said. As for Pope Francis, while he has said some rather dubious things (albeit often distorted by the media) he is bound to Church teaching. If you sincerely believe in the claims of Mormonism, and truly seek God then far be it from me or the Church to pronounce that you're damned. If however you reject the valid Church simply because you don't like what she teaches, then that will be between you and God. Anyone aware of the truth is obliged to accept it.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is dogma, this is simply not up to Pope Francis. But of course, it must be understood that those invincibly ignorant of the Church cannot be held to account for what they could not have possibly known. I do not presume to condemn anyone on this earth (I have no such right) ultimately it's up to God and all I can do is hope for the salvation of all.

 

[Glaurung]

I believe the Roman Catholic Church does not qualify. First it is not the one church since the one church is made up of many churches. Second it is not holy now and has not been holy in the past. Third it traded in Catholicism for elitism Fourth the claims to apostolic succession are spurious since the church has severed itself from the apostles by its beliefs.

What you believe is really not my concern.

I believe this to be a false belief.

I agree. I simply pointed it out as the most hardline approach taken by some. The Church actually condemns it.

I believe this is vague enough to incorporate a lot of things that aren't valid and I think it may also be false.

If you wilfully reject the Church, knowing full-well her claims with no sincere reason but to believe things to your own fancy, then you cannot be saved. This is infallible doctrine. However, those who though no fault of their own had insurmountable obstacles to recognising the Church, cannot be held to account for this alone. They will still be judged by God and will have to answer for their lives, but the mere fact they are not within the physical church will not in of itself reprobate them.

 

[Katzpur]

I didn't say that non-Catholics are automatically damned, I explicitly stated otherwise. Re-read what I said.

Sorry. I didn't mean to misquote you.

As for Pope Francis, while he has said some rather dubious things (albeit often distorted by the media) he is bound to Church teaching. If you sincerely believe in the claims of Mormonism, and truly seek God then far be it from me or the Church to pronounce that you're damned. If however you reject the valid Church simply because you don't like what she teaches, then that will be between you and God. Anyone aware of the truth is obliged to accept it.

Fair enough.

 

[mahmoud mrt]

Three questions here...


1. Do you believe the religion you have chosen to be the only "true" religion?

Yes, I believe Islam is the only true religion.

2. If the answer to question #1 is "yes," what exactly does that mean to you?

It means that I believe that the only right way to worship God and seek his reward in hereafter is through Islam known agreed upon morals and rituals. Including being kind to all creatures, charity, praying, fasting, pilgrimage, etc

4. If the answer to question #1 is "yes," what do you believe will be the fate of those who do not share your beliefs?

I believe the following:

They will be tried for their sins in the hereafter, including the sin of not worshipping God (Allah), then it’s to God to decide whether they are applicable to his direct mercy and forgiveness and thus entering heaven directly, or they will enter hell first for a period depended on their sins so as to be punished accordingly, then they will enter heaven provide that they have at least one atom of goodness in them, and goodness here always relate to love for God.


If they have zero love for God, then they will be eternal in hell, but the torture will not be eternal, hell for them will be first a punishment time with torture to perform justice according to their sins, then after wards hell for them will be a place for living, not joyful as heaven, but not torture, just a place to live in a low rank.


Heaven & Hell, and the Free will question | ReligiousForums.com



Regards

Mahmoud

 

[Katzpur]

I believe the following:

They will be tried for their sins in the hereafter, including the sin of not worshipping God (Allah), then it’s to God to decide whether they are applicable to his direct mercy and forgiveness and thus entering heaven directly, or they will enter hell first for a period depended on their sins so as to be punished accordingly, then they will enter heaven provide that they have at least one atom of goodness in them, and goodness here always relate to love for God.


If they have zero love for God, then they will be eternal in hell, but the torture will not be eternal, hell for them will be first a punishment time with torture to perform justice according to their sins, then after wards hell for them will be a place for living, not joyful as heaven, but not torture, just a place to live in a low rank.

That was extremely interesting to me. I was actually intrigued by the similarities in this regard between Islam and Mormonism. Obviously there are differences, as well, but the similarities were really what caught my eye.

 

[1AOA1]

Three questions here...

1. Do you believe the religion you have chosen to be the only "true" religion?

It depends on the definition of theism being used. If it is defined as a chair then a chair is the one true theism. If it is defined as a bottle then a bottle is the one true theism. If there are two people and one person defines it as a chair and another person defines it as a bottle then both a chair and a bottle are the one true theism.

 

[JoStories]

1. No I believe Islam to be a true religion. Judaism might qualify if it were not so far from God in its present state. Other religions have some truth but I believe have some things that are false as well.

2. I believe it doesn't impact me much because I believe in following the best religion.

3. I believe it will be difficult for a non-Christian to get into the Kingdom of God and/or Heaven. I also believe a non-Christian will be more likely to sin.

Regarding #2. Is the best religion, using your words, your opinion? Because what is best for you, may not be best afford another. Does that negate your faith or the other's?

Regarding #3. Why do you think others would be more likely to 'sin'? I follow a Buddhist path and in that endeavour, I strive to not harm others, be as kind as I can, and so on. I remain celibate in memory of my partner, and so on. How is that any worse than you? Please be specific if possible.

 

[JoStories]

I believe 3. has three parts a. Kingdom of God b. Heaven and c. sin. Do you lack confidence in all three?

I think confidence is the wrong word. I don't believe any those three you mention. Does that mean I am less than you? Imo, no. It just means that we view God differently and hold God's truths to be different. I am not sure confidence has much to do with it really. It is more about belief.

 

[JoStories]

What if you don't believe in God?

Also, just because the purpose of religion is to know God, doesn't mean that only one religion works for that.

I agree Kirran but I don't really think that poster said only one religion. I may be wrong but what I read was that, in their view, getting to know God, however viewed is the goal. ,if one chooses to not believe in God, then finding truth would be just as valid.

 

[gsa]

Three questions here...

1. Do you believe the religion you have chosen to be the only "true" religion?
2. If the answer to question #1 is "yes," what exactly does that mean to you?
3. If the answer to question #1 is "yes," what do you believe will be the fate of those who do not share your beliefs?

1. Not exactly. First, I do not really have a chosen religion. Atheism is not a religion. Second, scientific or naturalistic pantheism is also "true," as far as it goes. So are some forms of religion without supernatural claims. The vast majority of religions, however, contain communally binding creeds that are either demonstrably false or so improbable and without empirical or rational support as to be the equivalent: Mosaic authorship, infallibility or inerrancy of scriptures, claims of historical resurrections and mass miracles, etcetera.

2. A true belief is one in accord with fact or reality.

3. All signs point to death, and no strong signs point any further than that.

 

[OneLife]

Because they will find the truth eventually, on those few and not particularly important matters that involve belief as such.

But even more because they will create the critical mass of mutual support, teaching and encouragement that is true religion as I understand it.

It will take many forms, of course.

so a lie uttered often enough but many enough becomes truth...*S*

 

[LuisDantas]

so a lie uttered often enough but many enough becomes truth...*S*

"Lie"?

You did not understand what I mean at all, now did you? Or else you have an understanding of "religious truth" that is very much at odds with mine.

 

[Muffled]

Useful, constructive, honest to itself and to wider reality.


It does not. That is not at all what I meant.

Numbers are useful for attaining a measure of mutual cooperation and diversity of skills. They say nothing about how true a religion is, although too few people may be a significant challenge for a religion to take care of its own health.

I believe I have a different definition. True means exatly representing the standard. So a true lb would not be 1 lb 2 ozs. A true foot would not be thiteen inches. The way this works in religion is that the religion would not express a belief contrary to what God has said, God being the standard.

 

[Muffled]

Pick mine! Pick mine!

But no, I don't adhere to the concept of the one true faith. Religions are fingers pointing at the Moon, they're not the Moon. And more than one finger can point at the same thing.

I can't help myself. Does the flying fickle finger of fate really point to God? I believe the Calvinists might chime in on this one.

 

[Muffled]

When it comes to claims about the existence of deity, It appears that all religions are equally true, in the way that dividing any number by zero yields an equally meaningful result.

I believe you are defining truth as provable fact. I believe there are some things that are true even though there is not an absolutely dependable proof.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe I have a different definition. True means exatly representing the standard. So a true lb would not be 1 lb 2 ozs. A true foot would not be thiteen inches. The way this works in religion is that the religion would not express a belief contrary to what God has said, God being the standard.

That is certainly a different definition. Not necessarily an useful or defensable one, but certainly different.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I believe you are defining truth as provable fact. I believe there are some things that are true even though there is not an absolutely dependable proof.

Indeed, people irrationally and/or baselessly believe all sorts of things are true.