There are so many different religions in the world, there doctrins are so diverse that they can’t all be right. Who and why do you think one or more are correct?
ObbieWon
Because I never argue with the voices in my head.
“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Hunter Thompson
The first thing to do, of course, is find out the ones that can be proven fraudulent. For example, the Book of Mormon is supposed to be a miraculously accurate translation of a miraculously preserved pre-Columbian document recording (among other things) appearences of Jesus in the New World after His life in Judea. But it quotes from the King James Bible, and, in particular, it includes the medieval addition, “For thine is the Kingdom…” in the Lord’s Prayer. Ergo, the Book of Mormon is a forgery. Similarly, it is well known that Wicca is no older than the 1930’s.
Other cults, like Scientology, can be pretty well identified by their behavior. Still others (most attempts at “modern” religion) can be traced to plain wishful thinking of one sort or another, usually either something like, “Take away all this icky theology and give me some nice religion,” on the one side or, “The modern world is too confusing; I want everything to be in sharp black and white,” on the other.
Those rules don’t eliminate everything, but they eliminates a lot.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
Baloney. The book of mormon is true. The Lord told me so. Use whatever “proof” you want but I trust the Lord. If you would read the book of mormon, and pray, with real intent, to know if it was true, the Lord will also tell you that it is true. Now, as for your elininating churches that can be proven fraudulent, you would have to first decide which teachings of the lord are not fraudulent. You cannont discount a religion without knowing what it is that a religion should be.
The Church of the Holy Frisbee.
That’s where your soul goes up on the roof and you can’t get it down.
Uhm . . . From everything I’ve read, Wiccan-style rights have been traced back thousands of years, pre-dating Christianity. Wicca is not an “organized religion” per se, but the basic tenants have been around for a loooong time.
There is no way to determine the “true” religion, or, for that matter, there’s no way to prove, beyond a doubt, that supernatural deities exist at all. It’s all a matter of your own personal faiths and beliefs. The Moslem believes in his faith as passionatly as the Christian or the Hindu. Why does any religion have to be “wrong?”
Personally, I like to think of God/ess as a warm, loving, compassionate figure who watches his/her children, but doesn’t directly intervene. And a creature of such greatness wouldn’t be as petty as to debate minor points of theology. S/He would love the Buddhist, the Moslem and the Christian all the same.
Lissa, would your perfect God/ess love the atheists just the same, too? If s/he/it is perfect, it would have to follow that s/he/it does.
I don’t know who first said “everyone’s a critic,” but I think it’s a really stupid saying.
Hardly anybody “decides” on a religion! With the exception of a few pockets of freethinkers (I’ll bet almost everybody on this board falls into this minority) people blindly follow the faith of their forebearers. Tradition (and lack of birth control) is the driving force in the success of any religion.
As for the idea that you can reconcile all religions as being valid: Can’t be done. The Unitarian and Universal Churches have given that one a try and are constantly running up against contradictions that simply must be ignored to maintain peace within the church.
Someone told me a story about a church in the mid-west who’s only requirement for membership was that you believe in a single god. Then a debate broke out over the Holy Trinity and half the congregation built a new church across the street!
To the extent that all of them can tell us what’s right or wrong [morally that is] they’re All right. But even non-religious people can do that.
To the ridiculous extent that they all argue about WHO is right—they prove themselves wrong-----chiefly because .as the feller sez, "No body ain’t come back yet to tell us who is or who AIN’T .
“Who is right” is the biggest bunch of bull the world has ever been subjected to—and to hell with that infinitive!
John W. Kennedy wrote:
(Bolding mine–Snarkberry)
Of course it contains quotes from the Bible. The original writers of the Book of Mormon had the Old Testament on brass plates up to 600 B.C.E., and they quoted from it because they felt that the message was important to preserve for future generations. The Book of Mormon is no more a forgery because it quotes from the KJV Bible than the KJV New Testament is for quoting the KJV Old Testament.
Ezstrete writes:
Please what you mean by this.
I agree that it might be impossible to prove who is right and who is wrong. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that there isn’t a right and wrong here. Some religions have beliefs which are incompatible with some other religions, and therefore they cannot both be correct, so at least one of them is wrong, even if we cannot prove which one. But that does not mean that all religions are wrong! If you feel it does, then please show how!
Lissa wrote
I’d like to make two points about this:
(1) Indeed the Parent would love all the children. But that would not stop the Parent from being unhappy if the children misbehave. In fact, my guess is that the more a parent loves the children, the more s/he is upset when the children do misbehave.
(2) When a parent informs the child that the child is misbehaving and should improve, an all-too-common reaction is for the child to accuse the parent of being “petty”. I’d advise such children to spend some time learning the parent’s value system.
According to Richard Lederer, the preferred politically-correct, gender-neutral, third-person singular pronoun is “he-or-she/it”, which can be abbreviated as “horshit”.
“For what a man had rather were true, he more readily believes” - Francis Bacon
<< * Personally, I like to think of God/ess as a… * >>
A god (one that is immortal, and not specifically given a gender) does not need to reproduce (No Greek Mythology please) and therefore has no “real” gender. So according to English, as a being (real or not), is assigned as being male. If it were a force of nature, or nature “herself”, or even a big ship, as a non-being, is assigned as being female.
<< * According to Richard Lederer, the preferred politically-correct, gender-neutral, third-person singular pronoun is “he-or-she/it”, which can be abbreviated as “horshit”. * >>
I think that trying to simplify the use of English by using “they”, “them”, and “their” as a gender neutral, third person, singular pronoun is not being politically correct (whatever that means) but more efficient than saying s/he/it, or “he or she”.
Can anyone, including ** Mark Mal ** , answer this question: Would you use “he” or “she” as a pronoun, for a nurse, which is a predominately, but ** not ** all female profession? It’s not a political question, just a question of what makes more sense.
** Sorry ** for going off on a tangent.
“If you are going to tell people the truth, be sure to make them laugh, for otherwise they will kill you.” --George_Bernard_Shaw
Keeves said:
<<I agree that it might be impossible to prove who is right and who is wrong. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that there isn’t a right and wrong here. Some religions have beliefs which are incompatible with some other religions, and therefore they cannot both be correct, so at least one of them is wrong, even if we cannot prove which one.>>
For all we know they may* all* be wrong.
Pete said:
<<Lissa, would your perfect God/ess love the atheists just the same, too? If s/he/it is perfect, it would have to follow that s/he/it does.>>
Of course. Perfect love trancends all earthly definitions of creed, race, sexual orientation and gender.
Keeves, a parent would be angry at us for misbehavihng, but we don’t know for certain what the rules are. They’re subject to interpretation. People argue about this sort of thing constantly.
Were you referring to Judeo-Christian law? Just as confusing. I live in a very religious community and I have seen many Protestant churches split over a minor point of doctrine.
No one knows for sure. I live by one rule: harm none. It seems to be pretty accepted on all fronts.
I just believe that all religions deserve respect and despite how strongly we believe that we, and only we, are right, it’s disrespectful to stomp on another’s beliefs and try to tell someone that they’re wrong in everythng they hold sacred.
It’s only when your religion tries to overshadow and muscle out mine that I get angry. Or when “morals” are forced on the masses through censorship.
“Trust in Allah, but tie your camel securely.”
Whoops!
Keeves said:
“I agree that it might be impossible to prove who is right and who is wrong. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that there isn’t a right and wrong here. Some religions have beliefs which are incompatible with some other religions, and therefore they cannot both be correct, so at least one of them is wrong, even if we cannot prove which.”
And Pete said:
“Lissa, would your perfect God/ess love the atheists just the same, too? If s/he/it is perfect, it would have to follow that s/he/it does.”
Man, I have got to learn how to do that cut and paste thing properly.
Sorry 'bout that.
For Keeves------
When a religion maintains that they are RIGHT, and everybody else is WRONG, they immedietly assume an attitude incorporating intolerance, self-righteousness, bigotry, bias and egotism which is alien to the teachings of Christianity, Islam, Confucionism, Bhuddism Shinto, Unitarianism, Quakerism and all the rest of the ‘isms’.
We’ll know who is “right” on the day that some one of the ‘departed’ returns, grabs a bull-horn and shouts “listen up! - That group is right”
However, don’t be surprised if another bull horn [that’s bull-HORN] operator is heard shouting - “He’s got it all wrong! According to our book”-------and so forth.
Sort of the “Six Million Jesus Fans Can’t be Worng” philosophy.
Intolerance is the true evil.
MARK MAL – Let this be a lesson to you – never attempt to introduce a little levity to a religion thread. 
As a comparative “newbie,” but one who read many, many threads before deciding to speak up, I just want to point out a contradiction I’ve noticed and see if others have noticed it or think I’ve got it wrong. What I think I see here . . . (could I be any less precise? I run the risk of heading into “weaseldom” by attempting not to offend) . . . is that while many posters say they embrace religious tolerance, many others exhibit great disdain, even contempt, for religion in general. The irony is that it seems that some of people are in both camps, as if to say “believe what you want, I don’t care – but what you believe is stupid.” I guess I just get the distinct impression that many believe that adherence to a religion (especially an established one) somehow relegates one to the second-tier of intellectualism. Whadaya think?
Wicca itself doesn’t date back 1000’s of years. Wicca is a “revival” of older beliefs, but a much modified version - it was revived in the 40’s by Gerald Gardner, who incorporated old Witchcraft beliefs as well as some Masonic and Golden Dawn (which Aleister Crowley founded and which also derives from Freemasonry) practices and added and removed a few things. Most Pagan beliefs are derived in part from the ancient Pagan practices that do predate Christianity - in fact, most Christian holidays have their origins in ancient Pagan celebrations of the solstices, equinoxes, etc. Even the terms “Christ” and “Christians” are based on the Pagan terms “Christos” and “Chrestian.”
For the most part, the Neo-Pagan movement today is mostly comprised of reconstructionists, although there are pockets here and there of people who practice beliefs that have been passed down through the generations of their families.
My own beliefs fall into the latter category, and the closest I can come to describing them is to say that they’re similar in nature to Native American beliefs. I do call myself “Witch” or “Pagan,” although I look and dress just like anybody else. Most Pagans are freethinkers and tolerant of others.
Most religions/spiritual paths do have similarities - one example would be the great flood myths.
I tend to think all religions/spiritual paths are valid. No one way is “right” or “wrong.” How can we prove the existence of God/Goddess/the Divine? We can’t, so that’s why we humanize it - we put it into terms or forms we can more easily comprehend.
Skat
Do not say, ‘I have found the Spirit walking on my path,’ for the Spirit walks on all paths… Just as there are many names for water, so also are there many names for God. Do not scoff where another bows down, for there your God is worshiped also ~ Kalil Gibran
JODIH – I consider myself to be a junior member – er – hanger on – of this message board. A couple of times i’ve posted people have taken me too seriously and once even inferred i was a Nazi. I never get emotional, but do we have to always put smileys after each post to show we don’t take ourselves too seriously I have really enjoyed your posts on the Prayer thread
“If you are going to tell people the truth, be sure to make them laugh, for otherwise they will kill you.” --George_Bernard_Shaw