Many different religious opinions

[The Kilted Heathen]

It would apply to anyone who says "Y'know, very few religions actually set out to be "right". For the majority of us, it's not a race or contest. So the only question to ask is: Is it right for us? That is all that matters."
I thought I remembered you trying to show the beliefs of others to be wrong, so it was directed at you specifically initially.

Yeah, it'd be easier to just say "Yes, I was directing this at you" rather than directly quoting me in a weirdly vague manner.

I point out where there are academic inconsistencies in dogma and doctrine, and perhaps at times where I disagree with a belief. I do not show or attempt to show others beliefs to be wrong. There is a distinction.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Some personal exposure is required here (no not that).

I don't question things to be awkward or rain on any parades. I do so because I have to. As a child my mother tried to instill "table manners" in me. She failed, mostly. I couldn't see the point of using one particular utensil over another if either did the job, and demanded an explanation of why it mattered. Of course she couldn't come up with anything, because, at bottom there is no such reason. "Because people do" is semantically null to me.

This just one example. I have an insatiable curiosity, and a disinclination to accept anything that doesn't make sense to me. So it's always, why, how? So if you say that accepting a falsehood (like the prayer causing the rain) is acceptable it's just gibberish to me. Why would anyone believe anything that was not strictly true? "If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise" ... that has some attraction, and even makes sense to some extent, but I can't do it. Can't not won't. Would I be happier "ignorant"? Probably, but I CAN'T.

I do try not to be rude, or hurt people's feelings and have, with advancing years, walked away from many confrontations that I would never have done at one time.

The following true story may help. I once "tested" religious belief by asking "god" to tell me if he existed. It seemed to my logical mind that if a "person" exists then the best way to get answers about that person is to ask them, not rely on the beliefs of others or ancient documents. To my surprise, I got an answer, though not in words. Here's the point. All I "believed" at that stage was that "something" had communicated with me. All the rest was to be determined. I then proceeded stepwise, asking for knowledge to be revealed bit by bit. I spent some time as a member of a Christian church, but never came to believe the basic stuff like salvation, trinity, virgin birth and so on. Eventually it faded away. I can only conclude that I somehow cooked it all up in my mind.

That’s an interesting story. What changed your mind from believing this was a response from “something” having communicated with you to it was cooked up by your mind? Why did you give up after trying Christianity rather than exploring other spiritual callings?

 

[DNB]

Can they all be true?

No, for two or more opposing, conflicting or contradictory principles cannot all be true, obviously.
I'm a Christian, and I believe that God exists, and that He has established that all men must accept His ordained son, Jesus Christ, as lord and saviour in order to extricate themselves from this doomed planet and death, and obtain salvation.
And, I therefore, believe that any religion or philosophy that either modifies, contends or disagrees with the maxims stated above, are false and will lead to profound and irreversible consequence.

 

[YoursTrue]

That’s an interesting story. What changed your mind from believing this was a response from “something” having communicated with you to it was cooked up by your mind? Why did you give up after trying Christianity rather than exploring other spiritual callings?

I know you didn't ask me, but I'd like to say something here. The apostle Paul had an extraordinary experience motivating him to become a Christian, and when he related this to the Roman governor of the Roman province of Judea, Festus, notice the account, in part: And Festus' reply:
"But I have had God’s help to this day, and I stand here to testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen: 23that the Christ would suffer, and as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to our people and to the Gentiles.”24At this stage of Paul’s defense, Festus exclaimed in a loud voice, “You are insane, Paul! Your great learning is driving you to madness!”25But Paul answered, “I am not insane, most excellent Festus; I am speaking words of truth and sobriety. 26For the king knows about these matters, and I can speak freely to him. I am confident that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. 27King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.”

 

[YoursTrue]

That's probably because most theists understand the difference between a reliance on faith and your reliance on "objective evidence". So they see no reason to argue with the tenets of someone else's faith choice, as you do. They recognize the value of faith even if someone else has envisioned the object of that faith somewhat differently.
Not really. You're the only one that thinks the term "supernatural" refers to something absurd or unlikely. Most theists would see the "supernatural" more as the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of existence. Not an absurd or unlikely idea at all.
The belief that if God/gods were to exist, they would be able to find and recognize the "objective evidence" for it. Even though they have no idea at all what to look for or how to determine that it's God related.

You that's an interesting concept, because you have to start somewhere in deducing evidence or forming an opinion that is touching a logical base. (Don't you?) I'm speaking primarily of religion. And now that you mention it, what form of religion did Adam and Eve have, it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not: but logically, what form of religion did they have before and after their expulsion from the Garden of Eden?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Can they all be true?

If you break up religions into spiritual and social teachings you will find that their spiritual teachings are all in harmony. To be virtuous and of good character is common to all the major religions.

The social teachings are given for each age. So things like marriage, divorce, diet, prayer, punishments for crimes, prayer times, dress, and many more were given for the needs of the particular age and they differ from religion to religion.

Then there are the man made dogmas such as Shariah law and the sacraments which were formulated by the clergy. These are not the true teachings.

Also there are the interpretations of clergy and scholars but these are not authoritative and the true interpretations of the Holy Books is with God no one else.

So the basic spiritual foundation of each religion is the same and in harmony.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Having a mind that embraces the Oneness of God, also has the capacity to embrace the diversity of God, and start unravelling as to how and why that Oneness can be so diverse.

I like the metephor of the sun and the prism. God is the source of light, pure and white, containing all possible wavelengths of colour.

It is not until the light passes through a Prism that it is refracted and seen as the rainbow of colours.

View attachment 69071
The Prism of our world has the white light entering, refracted in all the Names of God, thus our vision of the world becomes our chosen frame of reference. We can embrace all the colours of the rainbow.

Regards Tony

A bit ironic though, given that the rainbow is used symbolically as to inclusiveness with regards sexuality and gender issues, that so many religions are not onboard as to this - and where some actively discriminate against some over others.

As I've mentioned so often, perhaps this one aspect is why so many leave religions - given the more natural feeling is to not discriminate but to be more tolerant with regards differences. But perhaps the understanding required for such just passes some by.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I suspect this is true for more people than that are consciously aware of it.
Most everyone takes what religions gives them and makes it into something they are comfortable with.

Yeah, all humans with a sufficient cognition create personal narratives of what matters and how to deal with that.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I was going to argue with you but I suppose there is a difference between religion and a business that offers a commercial product at least in the subtlety of how they go about it.

The greatest difference being, the things of greatest value are beyond price.

 

[PureX]

I don't question things to be awkward or rain on any parades. I do so because I have to.

But you dont have to. Or wouldn't have to if you realized you have a choice.

Faith is a choice. And it works a lot of the time for a lot of people. Even you. (Yes, you choose faith regarding lots of things, too.) So your skepticism is not being forced on you. You are choosing it. And we all choose it in many instances. No one is totally faithful or totally skeptical. So why do people claim they have no choice?

I think it's because they don't understand that they do have a choice, and so they don't take conscious control of their options.

 

[PureX]

Legal history begs to differ.

Again, your getting religion caught up in politics. Politicians and their minions will use anything to justify their desire to control and exploit other people. Not just religion.

 

[PureX]

It is easy to keep customers as long as you can continually reset their expectations.
I suppose if eternal hope is the product then religions have delivered that.

The "customers" reset their own expectations. That's partly why faith is effective. It helps us to be able to do that in a world that often requires it.

 

[PureX]

I guess for some people, gratitude is impossible on its own -- you appear to need something to be grateful TO, even if you have to invent or imagine it.

Gratitude works equally well just being grateful FOR.

I don't really buy that. The gift and the source are part-n-parcel. Just because you can't name the source doesn't magically make that concept not exist. The mystery remains, however you choose to conceptualize it. And for most people, it's just faster and easier to give that mystery source a label, or a name. And you're not especially clever for denying yourself that convenience and then trying to ignore the obvious.

 

[Brian2]

I point out where there are academic inconsistencies in dogma and doctrine, and perhaps at times where I disagree with a belief. I do not show or attempt to show others beliefs to be wrong. There is a distinction.

OK

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can they all be true?

No. But on the flip side, the CAN all be wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A better question might be, what fundamental truths do they all hold in common?

or what fundamental falsehoods.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't really buy that. The gift and the source are part-n-parcel. Just because you can't name the source doesn't magically make that concept not exist. The mystery remains, however you choose to conceptualize it. And for most people, it's just faster and easier to give that mystery source a label, or a name. And you're not especially clever for denying yourself that convenience and then trying to ignore the obvious.

And do you accept the obvious corollary? Let's take the issue of good health and longevity, for exampe. What, in the end, is the reason that some men in a given family seem to enjoy long and healthy lives, while some do not? If you are going to thank something for the gift of a long, healthy life, what or who do you blame for those who mysteriously were left out?

Sometimes, things just are what they are. Inheriting "good genes" isn't a given, and you can't point to anyone or anything that decides which of your father's DNA met up with which of your mother's.

As to your point about the mystery remaining, and thus why not label it -- I put it to you that it already has a label: the one you gave it first -- mystery. That's the problem, we humans just find it so damned hard to say "I don't know." So we invent stuff, make up labels and concepts that seem to explain, but in fact explain nothing.

 

[PureX]

And do you accept the obvious corollary? Let's take the issue of good health and longevity, for exampe. What, in the end, is the reason that some men in a given family seem to enjoy long and healthy lives, while some do not? If you are going to thank something for the gift of a long, healthy life, what or who do you blame for those who mysteriously were left out?

Sometimes, things just are what they are. Inheriting "good genes" isn't a given, and you can't point to anyone or anything that decides which of your father's DNA met up with which of your mother's.

As to your point about the mystery remaining, and thus why not label it -- I put it to you that it already has a label: the one you gave it first -- mystery. That's the problem, we humans just find it so damned hard to say "I don't know." So we invent stuff, make up labels and concepts that seem to explain, but in fact explain nothing.

Since gratitude for my good fortune is good for me, and for others, while assigning blame for my bad fortune is not. I see no reason to assign blame for my bad fortune. I know it may be a 'natural inclination' but so are a lot of behaviors that are bad for us, and that we should therefor try to avoid. And by fortune I mean happenstances beyond my control.

Everything is "just they way it is". I have no control over that. What I can control is how I choose to perceive/conceive of it. And then how I tespond to it as a result. This is how faith can produce positive results when doubt and skepticism cannot. And it's why so many people feel that their faith 'works' for them.

The concept of a universal, existential mystery is not an easy concept for most people to grasp. And certainly not to grasp quickly or easily. Giving it a label, with an easy to conjure image attached, like "God" (however one chooses to imagine God) makes that a much faster and therefor more effective process.

 

[Nakosis]

The "customers" reset their own expectations. That's partly why faith is effective. It helps us to be able to do that in a world that often requires it.

Except the customers who decide to stop relying on promises and move on to something that provides more reliability.
Likely why parts of the world have been becoming less religious.
Still I can see for many, faith is more important to them than reliability.

 

[Muffled]

Can they all be true?

I believe RF considers everything an opinion but I consider what the Holy Spirit tells me to be truth. Opposite views are false.