Would you ever call someone's religion wrong?
There's a hook to this -- I just want to see if anyone finds it before I post it.
There's a hook to this -- I just want to see if anyone finds it before I post it.
Are there religions that are wrong?
- Thread starter AndrewR
- Start date
I'm not sure what you mean by wrong (bad for the world or a false perception of reality). Some religions do not deal with creation, god, afterlife, etc, and only deal with how to live day-to-day life, and never deal with unknowable issues.
well religion is based on personal beliefs...but seeing as beliefs can be wrong (like let's say i believe in santa claus...that belief is untrue=wrong) so i would think all or but one are wrong.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
I won't have the authority to say who is wrong until I die and find out for certain. Naturally I don't care to find out any time soon.
Zenmervolt
Zenmervolt
Some religions have aspects that preclude the others from being right. If Islam/Judaism/Christianity are right, then any religion which worships a God other than Yahweh/Allah are wrong. If traditional Western Christianity is right, then only through Jesus can mankind have salvation.
Other religions leave the question a bit more open - you can be a Hindu and still believe in the divinity of Jesus. But from what I understand, at best you would have to say that a Christian is somewhat narrow and mis-focused, from a Hindu perspective.
Recently, the view that "all religions are right" has become a more popular sentiment. But as appealing as this is, it can't logically be so.
On the other hand, you can believe that all religions point to the same divine force (for lack of a better phrase), and hence all are simply different paths to the same mountaintop. I suppose the Unitarian/Universalists would hold this. I myself hold something similar to this, though with somewhat more weight on the Christian religion (don't ask me how to reconcile this...after years and years, I am still searching for answers here). Yet to believe this, I would argue, is not to hold that the Christian religion is "true" as it is presented by most Christians. Most Christians would say that to deny that Jesus is the only way is to deny the truth of Christianity.
At the risk of sounding scarily similar to our former president, it hinges on what your definition of "right" or "true" is...
Other religions leave the question a bit more open - you can be a Hindu and still believe in the divinity of Jesus. But from what I understand, at best you would have to say that a Christian is somewhat narrow and mis-focused, from a Hindu perspective.
Recently, the view that "all religions are right" has become a more popular sentiment. But as appealing as this is, it can't logically be so.
On the other hand, you can believe that all religions point to the same divine force (for lack of a better phrase), and hence all are simply different paths to the same mountaintop. I suppose the Unitarian/Universalists would hold this. I myself hold something similar to this, though with somewhat more weight on the Christian religion (don't ask me how to reconcile this...after years and years, I am still searching for answers here). Yet to believe this, I would argue, is not to hold that the Christian religion is "true" as it is presented by most Christians. Most Christians would say that to deny that Jesus is the only way is to deny the truth of Christianity.
At the risk of sounding scarily similar to our former president, it hinges on what your definition of "right" or "true" is...
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2001
- 14,465
- 1
- 0
Heh, such a simple question shouldn't be so hard to answer. For someone viewing a religion from the outside its easy to see how a religion could be seen as wrong, but religion is by defition a matter of faith and if you are on the inside of a religion you thereby hold that faith and therefore would have to believe that the religion isn't wrong. It boils down to a subjective quagmire...which is why there shouldn't be any connection between government and religion.
BoberFett hits it right on the head. Despite all of the different beliefs there is only one truth. Its like this I am a believer in Jesus Christ. I believe I am a born again Christian. But what about the devout Buddist or the person who believes in Allah? Sure we all believe in God, but there is huge difference in Allah and God of the bible. In the end only that which is true will stand. The only thing belief will do is either condemn you or justify you, but it will be either or.
It seems like to me religions covers the Law and Knowledge when we didnt have Modern Laws and Science.
Thousand years ago, laws wasnt there therefore we had religion to 'limit' what we do and wat we should do, also it answers most peoples question about science, (where we come from and stuff). But now, we have Modern Laws and Science which is more 'scientific' and more 'trustable'. In my opinion, religion is just merely a way of getting Rules and Knowledges when we didnt have Modern Laws and Science.
Thousand years ago, laws wasnt there therefore we had religion to 'limit' what we do and wat we should do, also it answers most peoples question about science, (where we come from and stuff). But now, we have Modern Laws and Science which is more 'scientific' and more 'trustable'. In my opinion, religion is just merely a way of getting Rules and Knowledges when we didnt have Modern Laws and Science.
You can't say that religion is wrong... you can only speak in terms of probability.
As things are now, religions (who are based on the existance of (a) god(s)) are at this moment most likely to be wrong.
A 'religion' like Buddhism can't be 'wrong' in the way 'real' religions can possible be wrong, since they're not based on the existance of any gods, nor do they have strict rules for those who practise those 'religions', although they usually do have one rule: everyone who practices that particular way of life must become a vegetarian, something with which I 100% agree.
I think that many people can never belief in any of those religions who are build around the existance of god(s), that is as long as none of those gods will bother to come pay us a visit, which is, of course, impossible, due to the fact that gods are not influenced by any laws of physics (got this 'fact' from a Christian friend) and can therefore not interact with the universe.
Most religions just need too many complicated explanations to explain what's happening right now and what has happened in the past.
As things are now, religions (who are based on the existance of (a) god(s)) are at this moment most likely to be wrong.
A 'religion' like Buddhism can't be 'wrong' in the way 'real' religions can possible be wrong, since they're not based on the existance of any gods, nor do they have strict rules for those who practise those 'religions', although they usually do have one rule: everyone who practices that particular way of life must become a vegetarian, something with which I 100% agree.
I think that many people can never belief in any of those religions who are build around the existance of god(s), that is as long as none of those gods will bother to come pay us a visit, which is, of course, impossible, due to the fact that gods are not influenced by any laws of physics (got this 'fact' from a Christian friend) and can therefore not interact with the universe.
Most religions just need too many complicated explanations to explain what's happening right now and what has happened in the past.
Since when does logic apply to religion?
They are all wrong to a certain extent. Religions attempt to describe in indescribable. Gotta be some error factor in that endeavor.
But really, saying "Religion X sub 1" is wrong is akin to telling someone their favor color of "Blue" is wrong.
They are all wrong to a certain extent. Religions attempt to describe in indescribable. Gotta be some error factor in that endeavor.
But really, saying "Religion X sub 1" is wrong is akin to telling someone their favor color of "Blue" is wrong.
I don't believe that any particular religion is more right or wrong than another one. It will always be right to the believers of the religion.
It is such an objective subject. I don't think there's really an answer to your question - it's way too vague.
It is such an objective subject. I don't think there's really an answer to your question - it's way too vague.
There's a hook to this -- I just want to see if anyone finds it before I post it.
How can someone find a 'hook' before you make a post? Sounds like mind-reading would be required.
As to religions that are wrong, I think I'll leave that one to the philosophers out there to figure out.
How can someone find a 'hook' before you make a post? Sounds like mind-reading would be required.
As to religions that are wrong, I think I'll leave that one to the philosophers out there to figure out.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
<< As things are now, religions (who are based on the existance of (a) god(s)) are at this moment most likely to be wrong. >>
You seem unable to see the forest for the trees. Whatever you believe, god or no god, whatever opinion you have about the nature of the universe, is likely to be as wrong as you paint religions with gods to be. Until you know everything, you are wrong.
For those who claim that religion is all just subjective:
Nope. WRONG.
There may be aspects of religious belief that is indescribable, irrational (or, perhaps beyond rationality). But for you to try to reduce a religious assertion down to pure subjectivity is horribly wrong.
In fact, religious assertion does the OPPOSITE! It asserts that there is Something BEYOND the subjectivity of the world we experience. It asserts that there is Something whose existence is not constrained by the limitations of how we can perceive It.
Perhaps some religions are false, perhaps all of them. But the one thing religious belief is NOT is subjective. The evidence may be subjective, but the assertion is most definately not.
When you understand what religious assertions ARE - the belief that Something exists *beyond* our collective subjectivity, THEN you can address the question. As long as you dismiss it as just personal taste, your position is ignorant.
Call it groundless, call it superstitious, call it contradictory...but if you call it subjective, you're dead wrong.
Nope. WRONG.
There may be aspects of religious belief that is indescribable, irrational (or, perhaps beyond rationality). But for you to try to reduce a religious assertion down to pure subjectivity is horribly wrong.
In fact, religious assertion does the OPPOSITE! It asserts that there is Something BEYOND the subjectivity of the world we experience. It asserts that there is Something whose existence is not constrained by the limitations of how we can perceive It.
Perhaps some religions are false, perhaps all of them. But the one thing religious belief is NOT is subjective. The evidence may be subjective, but the assertion is most definately not.
When you understand what religious assertions ARE - the belief that Something exists *beyond* our collective subjectivity, THEN you can address the question. As long as you dismiss it as just personal taste, your position is ignorant.
Call it groundless, call it superstitious, call it contradictory...but if you call it subjective, you're dead wrong.
Azraele
Elite Member
- Nov 5, 2000
- 16,524
- 29
- 91
Depends on how you define wrong. Potentially, all religions can be wrong, or all of them right in varying degrees.
Personally, I would not call anyone's religion wrong. Religion is based a lot of faith and how can I judge what one person believes on blind faith if I believe something different on blind faith?
Personally, I would not call anyone's religion wrong. Religion is based a lot of faith and how can I judge what one person believes on blind faith if I believe something different on blind faith?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter