All Religions Are Right?

[guywithashovel]

Sometimes when religion is being discussed, someone will say something like, "I don't think there is a wrong religion. I think that all religions are right in their own way."

Granted, saying such a thing can certainly help you avoid some clashes with people who following different religious paths than you do. However, where is the logic in it?

Think about this. We have Christianity, a religion that believes in one God who exists in three parts, which all merge together to form a Trinity (I'm sure many people could pick that descrption apart, but I think that gives a good general description of what many Christians believe), believes that Jesus Christ came to Earth roughly 2,000 years ago to get tortured and killed as payment for everyone's sins, and that in the end, people will either go to Heaven to be with God forever or face some type of negative eternal consequence (not all Christians believe that there's a Hell with fire and eternal torture).

In addition, you have other religions such as Hinduism, Wicca, Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, etc. that believe in all sorts of other various things. Some of them are polytheistic. Some of them believe in caste systems. And so on.

How can all of these religions be right?

Christians believe in some variant of the Heaven/Hell dichotomy. Some other religions believe that people get reincarnated after they die. Christianity believes that there is only one god. Some other religions believe that there are many different gods and goddesses. Obviously, someone is wrong here. It seems that way to me, anyway.

[anriana]

When people say that they are focusing on the effect religion has on people's lives, not on what the religion says happens to people in the afterlife or how the religion defines supreme being/s. Almost all religions focus on improving the lives of the followers and their community. Most have some version of the golden rule, most have instructions to care for the less fortunate of society, most have an overall theme of love, most have rules to help society function, etc. They are all alike and all different - it just depends on what aspect you focus on.


Even looking at the more practical aspects, most religions that believe in reincarnation do believe in some form of heaven such as nirvana or moksha. They just believe it takes more than one lifetime to get there.

Most also believe in emulating the behavior of their diety.

I've also always found it fascinating that Wicca (maiden, mother, crone), Christianity (father, son, holy ghost), and Hindusim (Brahman, Vishnu, Shiva) all have a trinity as the head diety.

Also, props for mentioning Jainism!

[kiwi]

I believe the your spritiual path and relationship with God is completely personal.

I don't agree with organised religions at all simply because I have never found one that had a written doctrine that I could believe in. I don't believe in the BOM, I don't believe in transubstantiation and I do not believe in predestination. That rules out everything western religion but Judasim and because I believe that Christ is the messiah I can't convert to that either. I also have problems with the Buddist and Hindu religions although I admit I have not researched any Eastern religions outside of those two.

I personally think all organised religons are wrong. I have yet to find one that I could honestly follow. So I guess im at the opposite end of people who say all religions are right. The closest thing I could assoiate myself with is Christian humanism.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

All religions could individually end up being correct... but as there's no scientific and ethical way to prove any of them, this is merely a rule of thumb (that's right I said it) for people who may be tempted to foist their religion on other people as the 'right' religion... all the rest being BS.

Is religion a good thing?
Probably yes.
Most individual cases, very likely a good thing.
Entirely good? probably not.
Universally good? most incredibly NOT.

There is no perfect religion.
There are BAD religions.
Being religious is not necessarily a good trait.

This is a combination of human nature and the law of large numbers, and no amount of beating it with a stick can change that.

[Sylvia727]

When people say that they are focusing on the effect religion has on people's lives, not on what the religion says happens to people in the afterlife or how the religion defines supreme being/s.

This. The dogmas of the religions are irrelevant compared to how each religion's followers are affected by it.

[Boozy]

This. The dogmas of the religions are irrelevant compared to how each religion's followers are affected by it.

I agree, but I really don't think that's what some people mean when they say "I think that all religions are right in their own way."

Many people believe that stripping away the dogma and doctrine will boil a religion down to its underlying message, and that message in every religion is something like "Be excellent to each other."

[Flyndaran]

They simply can't be all right. They are mutually incompatable. Most of them are incapatible with reality as evidence / common sense shows.
Some of the things believed by individual religions require absurd mental gymnastics to mesh with reality. I fear the mind that can jam all human religions into something.
At its heart religion is merely a rationalization to do what people were already going to do anyway. Good people will do good with or without religion. Bad people will do bad.

[anriana]

I agree, but I really don't think that's what some people mean when they say "I think that all religions are right in their own way."

Many people believe that stripping away the dogma and doctrine will boil a religion down to its underlying message, and that message in every religion is something like "Be excellent to each other."

That is a much more succint way of what I was trying to say.

[lordlundar]

Many people believe that stripping away the dogma and doctrine will boil a religion down to its underlying message, and that message in every religion is something like "Be excellent to each other."

Count me among them. When you do just the opposite (ignoring the underlying message but keeping the dogma and doctrine) you would be surprised at just how many religions are simply politically motivated orders on how to run your life.

So along the lines of that, if you simply follow the underlying message, then all religions are right, as they all have the same message. But in the same prospect, if you simply follow the other stuff and ignore the underlying message (as most fanatics do) then it becomes all religions are wrong.

It's all a matter of perspective.

[kiwi]

"Be excellent to each other."

Ahh Bill and Ted, how I miss thee

[Nyoibo]

Well if you follow the idea that beliefe in asomething shapes reality then each person is going to their own believed end.

Otherwise there's go be a bunch of dissapointed dead people.

[Flyndaran]

...
So along the lines of that, if you simply follow the underlying message, then all religions are right, as they all have the same message. But in the same prospect, if you simply follow the other stuff and ignore the underlying message (as most fanatics do) then it becomes all religions are wrong.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Absolutely. Esepecially when we atheists and humanists also believe in kindness, it means that everyone is right and therefore religion holds no special place.

[Slytovhand]

In the Tibetan 'Book of the Dead', it is said that when a person dies, their soul will go to whatever afterlife the person believes they should experience - be it a Heaven, a Hell, or whatever. Thus, they will experience 'God' if they believe that they are deserving of it. (of course, being a Buddhist book, it continues on to say that eventually, you will see through the illusion...).

Secondly - IFF God is capable of anything, which it is presumed that is one of God's powers (for Monotheists), then it should be perfectly possible for all religions to be true and correct - and non-contradictory if He so wills it (and, as humans, ours is not to reason at this apparent contradiction, because it is so far above our ability to understand, that it isn't even worth considering).

IFF God is not capable of it, then it stands to reason that God did not create the universe... and, for that matter, that perhaps we are only one of an infinite number of universes... including many of the hypothetical ones (at least, ones we consider hypothetical). In those universes, there are an infinite number of possibilities... including that we reincarnate, or that there is no afterlife, or there is Nirvana, or Heaven, or Hell.....

IFF the Buddhists have it correct (and those of similar ilk), then all of this 'creation' stuff is just an illusion, and like any illusion, you can make it however you like it... no matter how apparently contradictory (like an MC Escher drawing...).

So, yeah, it's sort of possible for all religions to be correct... but it's going to stump a human mind on how... other than to realise that just because we can't accept contradiction doesn't mean that the universe can't as well.... (which is how I approach the 'God' question... such a thing - that created all of creation... all the galaxies, all the dimensions, the mathematics, and all that.... that's way beyond anything I'm going to be able to conceptualise... so I just live my life the way I think best (other than being a right lazy slacko! )

[Flyndaran]

No. God doesn't get to make a round square.
Trying to mental gymnastic your way around impossibilites is the one thing about religion that really irritates me.

[Slytovhand]

No. God doesn't get to make a round square.
Trying to mental gymnastic your way around impossibilites is the one thing about religion that really irritates me.

Why not?

If the definition of 'God' is omnipotence, then why can't a God make a round square?

I don't have a problem in arguing whether the term 'omnipotence' should be applied to something, but if it's about what the word means, then that's a different argument.

So, I'm suggesting that the terms 'omnipotence' and 'impossibility' are mutually exclusive...isn't that 'fair'? Or at least logical??