Why aren't Catholics more concerned about the existence of other Religions?

[Pier]

Originally Posted by slowly

I happen to know Catholics and non-Catholics that would disagree with this statement, but if it gets you to sleep at night...



How suspiciously convenient. But again, if it puts you to sleep at night...

Jesus told us to pray for everybody - not just our families & friends, like the pagans do...

His words, not mine. I'm confident that He's the One. Sleeping fine, thanks for asking

[clmowry]

Originally Posted by slowly

If it really was so obvious that Mormonism is false, how come millions of people still follow it? It really cannot be that obvious.

I believe that God will lead someone to that truth that is necessary to their salvation “if” they will let Him. However, people will tend to believe what they want to believe, even when confronted with the truth, usually what makes them “feel” best.

I think that very few folks “really” look at what they believe or why they believe it. In the absence of a complete crisis of faith people will, in general, simply stay on the path they are on. I think that people are very strongly influenced by what they are taught by their parents and that it is very difficult and painful to make a change in religions.

I also believe that in most religions there are large amounts of over lap of shared truths (i.e. the Natural Law). Usually there is enough truth that those things that are “obviously” false “can be” over looked by the members of that faith. Thus, most folks will stick to the religion of their parents. Billions of people will continue to “believe” what they have been taught even when they “see” that some of what they have been taught is false.

So sticking with Mormonism as an example, it is “obvious”, to an outsider, that a lost tribe did not come to North America and found a civilization; that a church that once taught that black men couldn’t go to heaven and then that they could; that once taught polygamy and then taught against it; that claims that the Christian bible is true but then teaches of “gods” that are not compatible with that bible is not “the” truth. It is a self refuting and frankly, this should be “obvious” to anyone taking a cursory look at the religion.

That said, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (and its members) has a very strong moral foundation and does a lot of good in the world. They offer a very attractive belief system and are very active in its promotion. (How strong would the growth in the Catholic Church be if all of its member contributed 10% of their gross income to the coffers and we trained our sons and sent them out to the world as missionaries?)

I was good friends with a Mormon family (so my very limited sample size = 1). They were wonderful people. They were married in the temple and etc. The husband (born and raised Mormon, did his missionary work etc.) believed everything that the church taught him. His wife (a convert from a protestant upbringing) looked at the church as just another Christian denomination. (i.e. she still held a Trinitarian view of God.)

I was towards the end of my faith journey at the time and was looking to learn as much as I could about the various “Christian” religions as I could. (Basically at this point I had come to be convinced there was a God and that Jesus Christ was God but had not yet concluded that He had founded “THE” Church.)

I was having discussion with the husband and the wife seemed genuinely surprised to find that her husband, though using very similar language, believed something very different than her about who Christ was and how he came to be God.

Now “obviously” only one of those views could be correct, but it didn’t seem to bother either one of them that they held diametrically opposed views on the subject. (i.e. They were quite happy in their different beliefs and searching for the “truth” was not going to improve that feeling for either one of them.)

So call me naïve if you like, but I still maintain that reading a good chunk of the Book of Mormon, searching through various apologetic works on the internet and discussions with my friend over a period of a few months provide plenty of time and evidence that this church was not “THE” church.

Over the course of about 5 years I went from being basically Agnostic to being (through the grace of God) convinced that there was a God and that He expects a response. If He expects a response He must have sent us a coherent message and the only coherent message I’ve seen comes from Jesus Christ. Once you accept Jesus Christ as God, it’s only a hop skip and a jump to realizing that there is only one possibility for “THE” Church he founded.

Does that mean I made an exhaustive study of the spirituality of all religions in the world and immersed myself in them to judge one from the other? Of course not. Do I think that’s necessary to identify the source of truth? Nope.

Quite frankly, I thought spending 5 years working on it made me a slow learner.

Chuck

[Randy Carson]

Why aren't Catholics more concerned about the existence of other Religions?

Because when you're standing on the highest point of the mountain, and you keep your eyes focused on Jesus above in heaven, you don't notice the others who are beneath you?

[StevenFrancis]

Thank you Chuck. (Post #47). I believe you are correct. The toughest nut to crack is the acceptance of Jesus as God incarnate. That one thing, well...... the Trinity actually, took me took me over 30 years of fairly significant soul searching, (finally ending in direct intervention by the Holy Spirit), to fully believe and accept. I hardly consider 5 years as slow .

Once one understands the nature and roll of Christ, and His Church in man's salvation, you are correct. It was literally just a matter of a few weeks, or a hop skip and jump, after that stumbling block that I found myself talking to a Priest about RCIA.

Slowly:

Here's the thing. ....please, if nothing else I've said in all my posts makes sense to you, check this out. All the years of my life, and they are many, no matter what path I was taking or studying. Lutheranism Protestantism, Baptist Protestantism, Scientology, Urantia, Seth, Carlos Cantaneda, Thervada Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Hopi Spirituality, Agnosticism, and finally Jodo Shinshu Buddhism for my last several years of searching, felt essentially the same to me. You know.....I FELT like a person on a quest or journey. It all seems so foreign to me now. I never felt secure in what I was learning or doing. Nothing completely made sense. They all had some good ideas, but in the end left me feeling empty in a way. Heck....that was even the POINT of some of my Buddhist Practice. . Becoming Catholic was different. I was this one person for 48 years of my life, and then I wasn't anymore. All of my doubt, confusion, and every other frustrating part of my existence ended. In all sincerity, I don't understand how I even held the other views I held in my life. I lost all ability to defend them. I couldn't possibly tell someone why they should be a Buddhist now, yet the bulk of my adult life was spent as a Buddhist. I experienced a complete physical/spiritual/emotional/intellectual/moral and ethical change that happened nearly "overnight" in comparison to the rest of my life, and it began with the acceptance that Jesus Christ was God on earth, and what he said, and what was said about him, and passed along to others through the Apostles was TRUE. He died, rose, and will come again. As a result, death is conquered for us all. John Lennon used to quip "War is over (if you want it)". That's how I look at The Church now. Fulfillment. The new covenant with man is here! (if you want it). I wanted it, and so it came (after a long long time), and now, if it's possible, I'd like to help others get here. But, there are LOT'S of people who don't want it. and tons more who don't even KNOW ABOUT IT!! That doesn't mean that it isn't here, and isn't true. It doesn't mean that those who can't or don't find it aren't saved. Only God can decide on something like that. It does mean, however, that those who DO know about it, and STILL don't want it, or are unwilling even try to understand it MIGHT have some 'splainin to do.

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by clmowry

No it's based on a belief that it's awfully easy to see that some things are not true.

Some things, sure. But major world religions are not among them.

A look does not need to be dismissive nor scornful nor does it need to be exhaustive to eliminate a possibility.

Why does one need to get to the "end of" Mormonism, for example to see it is not "the truth"?

Well, Mormonism is a lot easier than most. But I would still say that the fact that Mormonism seems pretty obviously false to me could well derive from my superficial knowledge of Mormonism.

You don't need to get much past the "beginning" of most religions to see that they contain many elements that are simply false.

Of course, because at that level you are judging them by the standards of your own worldview. The only way you could really make an informed judgment would be to get to the point where you could empathetically see why a sincere, intelligent person believed the religion in question. That would be an absolute minimum.

If what you are proposing is true then how could any man ever be expected to pursue, much less find the truth.

We are called to pursue the truth as it presents itself to it. However, we don't stand any chance at all of finding the Truth in an ultimate sense--it can only be given us by divine revelation. It's a matter of faith, not of having empirically eliminated all the alternatives. Anyone who claims to have done that is delusional.

Edwin

[Larry1700]

Originally Posted by slowly

How do you know for sure that you might not find an even better more profound answer in another Religion if you immerse yourself in it?

Such as?

Can you top God Himself? And His Son, giving up everything to face persecution, rejection, and a cruel death because of His love for us? How about 2000 years of saints, miracles, and a treasure trove of inspiring writings for living a good life?

[slowly]

Originally Posted by Contarini

I was less than clear. My point was that few religions make exclusive claims in the sense of saying that all unbelievers are damned. So you have to look at the religions that actually are exclusive, and now that Catholicism has rejected exclusivism it doesn't seem to me that there's much to worry about. Of course, this may be because of my overly shallow knowledge. But if I had to choose between fundamentalist Protestantism (for instance), and atheism (i.e., if you convinced me that every other religious view could not be true), I'd reluctantly have to be an atheist, because there's simply no way that fundamentalists can be right. It's more likely that this computer is really a magical shape-shifting pumpkin than that the fundamentalist view of the world is true. I am not going to lose any sleep over that.

Conservative Calvinism, also an exclusive tradition, is much less ridiculous, though I'm still not very worried about it. Furthermore, I am a Trinitarian Christian who believes that I can only be saved by God's free grace (even though I don't understand this exactly as Calvinists do). So most conservative Calvinists would not completely rule out the possibility that I might be saved, though some of my beliefs would make them worry.

Edwin

I only noted now that you are not Catholic so the relevance of your comments about the Catholic Church being more inclusive makes sense now. I am a bit slow sometimes

[slowly]

Originally Posted by Neil_Anthony

...
For me, a pantheon of gods raises more questions than it answers. I see the development of monotheistic religions as a step in mankind's undrestanding of the divine much like the other steps we have made in our knowledge and understanding throughout history.
...

You could be right about this. However logically you have no basis to exclude this as a possibility. Your view on this could instead indicate a bias based on what you are used to. If you grow up or worship within a culture/Religion where this concept has been made understandable then perhaps it may be easier to take seriously.

Originally Posted by Neil_Anthony

Also, I think you made the claim that all religions are exclusive.
...

No I did not claim this (at least not intentionally). All Religions lay claim to being superior with regards to an understanding of what God wants from us, i.e. all Religions claim that only they have the full Truth. This is not the same as being exclusive.

[slowly]

Originally Posted by rwoehmke

...
There are three types of people on this green earth. Some who "know" they have the truth, some who are uncertain and searching, and a third group who just don't care.
...

I hope you are not implying that only Catholics fall in the first group. (I suspect not.)

Originally Posted by rwoehmke

...
Being a life long, educated Catholic, gifted with Faith, I "know" I have the truth and don't worry about being wrong. I sleep well at night. How this can be with so many choices out there? I would be hard put to try and answer the question in a scientific manner.. It just is.

See this is what I just don't get. How can you just rely on your inner intuition about one truth whilst disregarding everything out there that could potentially cast doubt on the accuracy of this "truth".

I have difficulty explaining what I mean here so please read my post #42.

[Neil_Anthony]

Originally Posted by slowly

You could be right about this. However logically you have no basis to exclude this as a possibility. Your view on this could instead indicate a bias based on what you are used to. If you grow up or worship within a culture/Religion where this concept has been made understandable then perhaps it may be easier to take seriously.

There really are logical reasons for there to be one god. You can study this in philosophy, independent of any formal religion. The philosopher's god is a very basic concept of god, but it's still something arrived at purely though logic.

Now, this doesn't disprove that there could be one all-powerful god who created other inferior gods, but there has to be a 'prime mover' or first cause for everything, an all-powerful god.

So why do people still believe in polytheistic religions? In the west I think it's often a way to rebel against the establishment. Hinduism is passed from generation to generation, but I don't think it has many new converts. You don't hear of Hindu missionaries. I think people slowly will gravitate to religions which make more sense to them, and to many thinkers, monotheism seems more logical.

No I did not claim this (at least not intentionally). All Religions lay claim to being superior with regards to an understanding of what God wants from us, i.e. all Religions claim that only they have the full Truth. This is not the same as being exclusive.

Certainly some religions claim that only they have the full truth, but not all religions. The western religions tend to make claims like this, but in eastern religions that isn't always the case. This is part of what makes the religions that developed from Abraham's covenent with God special. Picking a religion isn't just case of choosing from an infinite supply of belief systems that differ only in a few superficial details. If it were, your question would be much more difficult to answer, maybe impossible.

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by slowly

I only noted now that you are not Catholic so the relevance of your comments about the Catholic Church being more inclusive makes sense now.

Right. Although of course the current official teaching (many Catholics interpret it more liberally) remains (as of Vatican II) that those who believe Catholicism is true and refuse to become Catholic cannot be saved. So it's not that I as a non-Catholic have nothing to worry about. I'd better be sure that my remaining outside the Catholic Church proceeds from genuine conviction and not from less admirable reasons, or I'm not "safe" from the Catholic point of view.

This is, of course, somewhat of a catch-22. The more likely I think Catholicism to be true, the more seriously I am going to take its claims--and the more in danger I am according to those claims. The less likely I am to care whether Catholicism is true or not, the less in danger I am according to Catholicism (assuming that my opinions were reached in good faith and not through "vincible ignorance").

Actually I guess it's the reverse of a catch-22. I.e., Catholicism only condemns those who believe it to be true and thus are likely to act on the basis of its teachings. It does not, at this point, condemn those who sincerely believe it to be false, who are the people whose sleep is not going to be disturbed by what it teaches anyway!

Edwin

[slowly]

Originally Posted by clmowry

...
So sticking with Mormonism as an example, it is “obvious”, to an outsider, that a lost tribe did not come to North America and found a civilization; that a church that once taught that black men couldn’t go to heaven and then that they could; that once taught polygamy and then taught against it; that claims that the Christian bible is true but then teaches of “gods” that are not compatible with that bible is not “the” truth.
...

I think you are oversimplifying and forgetting about similar anomalies within the Catholic Church.

To an outsider it is "obvious" that the world wide flood just did not happen, that it really is not acceptable to stone people to death just because they had sex out of wedlock, that it really is not sensible to instruct wives to submit to the authority of their husbands, that homosexuals are part of God's creation and should be regarded as equals in all spiritual matters. And as far as I know Catholic doctrine has hardly been cast in stone since the days of its conception.

Sure, I know, the flood should be seen as symbolic (OK, I am guessing. I don't know the official Catholic view on this, but it doesn't really make a difference), that Jesus came to replace the old Covenant with the new one, God continuously reveals his truth to his Church (hence the changes in doctrine) etc. The point is that these anomalies within the Catholic religion seem just as unconvincing to outsiders as the Mormon anomalies seem strange to you now. Because you have immersed yourself within the Catholic life and way of thinking you don't even notice these anomalies. You cannot fairly judge another Religion without immersing yourself within their way of thinking and living.

Returning to the question in my original post I guess Catholics do judge other Religions from the outside. That is why these Religions do not worry them.

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by Neil_Anthony

There really are logical reasons for there to be one god. You can study this in philosophy, independent of any formal religion. The philosopher's god is a very basic concept of god, but it's still something arrived at purely though logic.

Now, this doesn't disprove that there could be one all-powerful god who created other inferior gods, but there has to be a 'prime mover' or first cause for everything, an all-powerful god.

So why do people still believe in polytheistic religions? In the west I think it's often a way to rebel against the establishment. Hinduism is passed from generation to generation, but I don't think it has many new converts. You don't hear of Hindu missionaries. I think people slowly will gravitate to religions which make more sense to them, and to many thinkers, monotheism seems more logical.

First of all, people do convert to Buddhism, and even Hinduism--ever heard of the Hare Krishnas?

In the second place, you dismiss the concept of the "philosopher's God," but in fact Hinduism developed this notion in the Upanishads and made it the foundation of the classical form of the religion. I.e., there is an ultimate reality--Brahman--from which the world we know comes. And the strictly polytheistic gods of the Vedas came to be seen as lesser beings subject to birth and death, with the "Hindu Trinity" of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva (really Vishnu and/or Shiva, with Brahma as the link between the Supreme Being and the lesser gods) as a personal manifestation/personal manifestations of Brahman.

I am of course oversimplifying radically, but this view of the world is quite coherent, I think. It raises some questions that Semitic monotheism doesn't, but the reverse is also true.

And then you have the Buddhist view that the world is simply a "bundle of forces" interacting, with all beings, including the gods, as temporary collections of phenomena. Again, I think this is a coherent position with strengths and weaknesses of its own.

I would argue that these two well-developed Asian traditions represent the two basic options implicitly underlying polytheism: either the gods derive from one ultimate divine Reality, or they are simply manifestations of the flux of the universe. And these alternatives have to be taken seriously by Christians.

Edwin

[clmowry]

Originally Posted by Contarini

The only way you could really make an informed judgment would be to get to the point where you could empathetically see why a sincere, intelligent person believed the religion in question. That would be an absolute minimum.

Why?

I'm not looking to discover why someone who is in a certain religion would beleive everything that religion teaches.

All I need to see is "some things" which are clearly "false" in order to conclude that particular religion does not contain "the fullness of truth".

Some are a whole lot easier to see than others.

i.e. Why are the Catholic Churches claims any more valid than those of the Orthodox Churches. That could take a life time.

That Mormonism is self contradictory and false. I'm guessing with some good apologetics from this sight it could be done in about an hour.

Chuck

[Neil_Anthony]

Originally Posted by Contarini

First of all, people do convert to Buddhism, and even Hinduism--ever heard of the Hare Krishnas?

Yes, I don't think Buddhism is polytheistic... am I wrong? Certainly people convert to Buddhism. I didn't mean to knock Buddhism with anything I said.

I suppose people are attracted to Hinduism because of the meditation. I doubt many people are converted because of the logic of their many gods. I think the Hare Krishna's fall under the "rebellious" cetegory, but of course that's a generalization. And I'm glad to hear that within Hinduism there's a recognition that there must be a Supreme Being.