Are all religions simultaneously true and false?

I propose that it is not only possible, but likely, that all religions are simultaneously true and false and here's why.

There are many myths in the world. No educated person can deny that most of these are fables at best, and should not be accepted as authentic accounts of the past. However, there are some myths that are so widespread and similar that it should not be ruled out that they are started on a foundation of some sort of truth. For example, many cultures have myths about great floods and/or mass extinctions before ever there was a thought of "archaeology."

Many world religions are based on people whose lives have become either legendary or entirely mythical. All of these people had one message. Do unto others. The golden rule. This is the foundation of peace and all the world's peaceful religions. Some thought they could build this rule into a kingdom using a complete denial of self and this took root. Others thought that they could force others to follow the rule, what they called Law, or face punishment, and this also took root. All of them had the same foundation "Do unto others" but they added their own word to the end. "Do unto others nothing" or "Do unto others because if you don't" or "Do unto others if they do not do unto you." They all followed the golden rule, but they all added to it, distorting its message. The messages were never wrong, but they said different things to different people, and this is why there are so many voices saying the same thing in different ways.

If I accept this interpretation of basic religion as true, then I can open my mind to believe that perhaps the ones who started this religion were all followers of the same truth, but gave it their own shape and flavor, to reach the audience that the other voices could not reach.

Maybe that should say most religion. I hereby declare it to mean "most religions are true and false" because all is too inclusive for the diversity of religion in the world for me to say conclusively without extensive study. Fair enough?

If you extend that line of thinking just a little you may also conclude that in most mainstream religions there is also the "There is only one God".

What if that is the simple truth. God approaches the races / tribes of humans and deals with them as separate groups. In each language the name is different, so what.

Is their only one God for Christians, Muslim and Buddhists? They all have the same concept of heaven, angels and such like.

They only diverge because of man's greed for wealth and power.

Nice thread.

P

reply to post by pheonix358


Thank you so much! Your praise means much to my faith.

Yes, I do believe that there is only one God and He is just perceived differently by different cultures. Who can deny the similarity of The Holy Trinity of Christian and Islamic faith to the Three Pure Ones of Chinese Taoism? How about the nearly universal principle of dualism?

Some might question how to reconcile the truth of One God with some religions that believe in more than one God, and the simple answer is that those gods were there to reconcile heavenly principles with earthly knowledge, to bring Man closer to the Most High God.

reply to post by GodIsRelative


I think man's belief in the supernatural is a part of our psychology but its when one embroiders the supernatural into a personal being and credits the supernatural with acts beyond imagination, such as making the planet and the universe that we get our egos coming to the fore.

We forget that this planet has had numerous startups of life with Gorgonopsis, Dinosaurs etc etc Today man has taken his role at the 'top being' but we have also grabbed the idea of a creator as belonging to us alone and personally in communication with us. We forget that in the animal world communication is not spoken, but its shared between species and may even be 'cross-understood' by various species. Its something perhaps we once had but have developed language and privacy of thought as our mode of operation. Having separated and now with so many of us living in concrete cities etc we are further apart from the holistic world we live in, we have lost the synergistic attributes that could be a part of our nature.

The Gods or God are surely the aspects of human nature that we have identified and admire most. Some people split these attributes into many Gods, whilst others put them into one God. Does it matter, its really our humanity and compassion, empathy and originality that should be IMHO brought to the fore and admired? Some people like to think that God gave us all the things that make up our individual personalities which is fine. Its not though when we start to become warriors for a set of rules that prohibit compassion etc etc and work against human unity and that is the crux of religion today for me.

reply to post by GodIsRelative

That is a little like asking whether all maps are simultaneously true and false.
They are true to the extent that they match up to reality.
The maps that people draw up to suit themselves, because they would like Alaska to be on the latitude of Florida, are not matching up to reality and so less true.
If two maps contradict each other outright, because one places California on the west coast and one places it on the east coast, they cannot both be true at the same time. We may not know which one is true, and it is possible that both are false, but it is a logical necessity that at least one of them is false.
To the extent that the different religions of the world are offering different maps, we know there must be falsehood around somewhere.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Who says one map isn't a distortion of florida that looks like california? Or that one map of california is drawn from a perspective that we would perceive backwards, ie right is left. There is no reason this cannot be true.

reply to post by Shiloh7


God is greater than man, that's why mankind needs religion. Even atheism is a religion.

God is the infinite potential allowed infinite space to manifest Itself. We are Its descendants.

reply to post by GodIsRelative

The acid test is "How successful is the map in getting you home?" A map that sends people off in the wrong direction is failing in its purpose.

reply to post by GodIsRelative


There is no denying the similarities, but I do not see them as unifying and/or something good, as you seem to -- I think they are meant to be similar in order to lead you astray.

In Christianity, it is known as Mystery Babylon.

That is, the false doctrines, and idol worshiping, lead you to sin.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Exactly, and this answers the poster below you as well.

The problem is and has always been perspective. A map that leads you astray could still be a correct map! Sometimes the path leads through areas that are frightening and we think we should turn back, but we have a light to guide us.

God lead Moses through the desert. God can lead us through the wilderness as well. Even if you get lost, you can still be found.

Any questions?

reply to post by GodIsRelative

Your example does not describe "a map that leads you astray".
It describes "a map that gets you home through unexpected paths".
My point about maps that genuinely fail to get you home still stands.

reply to post by GodIsRelative

If I accept this interpretation of basic religion as true, then I can open my mind to believe that perhaps the ones who started this religion were all followers of the same truth, but gave it their own shape and flavor, to reach the audience that the other voices could not reach.

Calling it a mere reshaping is like saying poisoned koolaid is thirst quenching. It is not... it is poison.

reply to post by DISRAELI


I'm only saying that perhaps it's not the map that is wrong, but the one following it, and that maybe, just maybe, there is no path that leads you away forever.

reply to post by GodIsRelative


I said God is part of our psyche I didn't say we are descendants. If you think about it, your claim to be a descendant means you come from a line of universe creators - look at us, we aren't even in the same league! What we create we either build with our hands or we think, but its all stuff that is tangible or explainable and never on the powerful and immense scale of that attributed to some men's idea of what can be done by a God.

Also why would he have started with other species that dominated the world first? Why not simply produce a planet with a Garden of Eden and still be living there with us if his nature is how you reckon it to be? Why did he design and create a universe that is expanding and why did he design it so that eventually our universe will collide with our neighbouring universe and what will happen then?

The point I made was that there is a supernatural world, but just how far does man expect its realms to extend, once he opens his eyes and looks around? Belief is fine, but when you hit the realm of impossible that makes your ideas of God's accomplishments impossible because of the flaws that show up when one looks.

reply to post by Shiloh7


I agree with your method, however I dissent your opinion.

God is not just a line of descendants and ancestors, but an infinite line of descendants and ancestors, with the only linking trait being being.

Edit: Sorry. I didn't realize I did not completely answer your dissent. Apologies.

To answer concisely your question "How far should man believe the supernatural realm extends," I answer honestly and truthfully "infinitely."

As long as there is up, there is down. If there is above, there is below. As long as there is High, there will be the Most High.

All religion is false. Why so one will ask? The simple answer is that religion is learned behavior and invented to console and control the masses. Following a religion does not require any sort of intelligence, just obedience without question. As to the 'truths' proclaimed, one sees truth where one wants to see truth. On the other hand, religiousness does not require a religion to follow and definitely requires intelligence.

reply to post by TatTvamAsi


You have "religiousness" confused with spirituality. I believe that any good follower of the Truth knows they are a completely spiritual being.

I am proposing that any follower of any religion that follows their religion with good faith will accept the truth of spirituality and eventually (though it sometimes takes literal lifetimes of learning) any path they choose will lead the Righteous back to the Truth.

GodIsRelative
reply to post by TatTvamAsi

 

You have "religiousness" confused with spirituality. I believe that any good follower of the Truth knows they are a completely spiritual being.

I am proposing that any follower of any religion that follows their religion with good faith will accept the truth of spirituality and eventually (though it sometimes takes literal lifetimes of learning) any path they choose will lead the Righteous back to the Truth.

For me, religiousness and spirituality are equal, there is no confusion. So, in essence, what you are postulating is that religion is required for spirituality to emerge. Well, all I can say, we all have our own wishful thinking.

reply to post by GodIsRelative


I believe that all religions contain aspects of eternal truth. Though I would not call what some have as false, they all have error in discernment of the truth. Most all also contain human ideas and ideals which more often than not are designed for selfish gain.

I do believe that most all religions start with the best of intentions. I believe the error comes in translation. We are trying to put into mortal words things that are eternal truths. So much is lost in translation. It would be like trying to explain the stock market to a primitive tribesmen who can barely count.

There is such a vast gulf between the human and the divine that error will be present. Also, anything that human hands touch cannot be infallible. So we must resort to our inner spirit for guidance. When studying a given religion ask yourself, what does this do for the soul? If you feel it benefits, then it is something worth your efforts. If not, move on.