One correct religion with the Truth (part 2)?

Dear friends we can continue our friendly dialogue here :slight_smile:

Those who wish to know where this is continued from. It is here:

In answering to the dead body in the morgue.

The body is what leads the spirit to sin. When a person dies, their life ends.

So for those who have truly died to Christ in this life, the second death has no meaning because now they can see the Lord, Giver of Life, and await the final resurrection where their bodies left behind here on earth are now rejoined to them, but bodies glorified.

After all, the apostles and disciples of Christ had been with Him for over 3 years. But 3 days later on the 8th day, the Resurrection, they did not recognize Him. Nor did they when they walked with Him on the Road to Emmaus.

They still could not understand Scripture, but when they stopped to have a meal, and He broke bread, they then recognized the Lord, and likewise they could now understand,.

The Eucharistic Lord gives us the answers to life, eschatology, who we are, where did we come from, where are we going, and how we will end, the God Made Man, the only Tangible Truth we can fathom…and digest.

We consume the Word Made Flesh.

Beyond this I have nothing else to say. You either have the desire to ask for grace to believe or to find another path. But all religions that do good have elements of the Truth of Jesus in them.

I really don’t think it’s morally right for any one religion to say they are the only true religion and that everyone else is wrong. If any one religion claims to be the only truth, then they must surely be a lie? What do you think?

This is your original question.

There are many religions but only one truth. Either all the religions except one are true, or all the religions are untrue.* It would be perfectly moral for the hypothetical true religion to say that their teachings are true, wouldn’t it? If that religion were true, it would not be a lie, so not immoral to state that.

As to the religions which are not true, it is not necessaily immoral to claim they are true; it would always be an error, and in that way wrong, but if the person were merely mistaken, then it would not be a lie per se.

The question is, do all religions claim they are true? I am surprised to find that many “Bible-based” churches do not actually claim that: they claim merely to be based on a true or infallible Book.

I would eliminate all religions which do not claim to teach the truth, then investigate the truth-claims of those which are left.

*Edited to fix ghastly error of writing true instead of untrue.

[quote=ggarcia19]I really don’t think it’s morally right for any one religion to say they are the only true religion and that everyone else is wrong. If any one religion claims to be the only truth, then they must surely be a lie? What do you think?

I think you need to consider what an intellectual giant has to say on this subject:

Cardinal Newman on One Church

…There is such a thing as religious truth, and therefore there is such a thing as religious error. We learn that religious truth is one—and therefore that all views of religion but one are wrong. . . . our religious creeds and professions at this day are many; but Truth is one: therefore they cannot all be right, or rather almost all of them must be wrong. That is, the multitude of men are wrong, so far as they differ; and as they differ, not about trivial points, but about great matters, it follows that the multitude of men, whether by their own fault or not, are wrong even in the greater matters of religion.

…Doubtless if men sought the truth with one tenth part of the zeal with which they seek to acquire wealth or secular knowledge, their differences would diminish year by year. Doubtless if they gave a half or a quarter of the time to prayer for Divine guidance which they give to amusement or recreation, or which they give to dispute and contention, they would ever be approximating to each other. We differ in opinion; therefore we cannot all be right; many must be wrong; many must be turned from the truth; and why is this, but on account of that undeniable fact which we see before us, that we do not pray and seek for the Truth?

…Some men will tell us that this difference of opinion in religious matters which exists, is a proof, not that the Truth is withheld from us on account of our negligence in seeking it, but that religious truth is not worth seeking at all, or that it is not given us. The present confused and perplexed state of things, which is really a proof of God’s anger at our negligence, these men say is a proof that religious truth cannot be obtained; that there is no such thing as religious truth; that there is no right or wrong in religion; that, provided we think ourselves right, one set of opinions is as good as another; that we shall all come right in the end if we do but mean well, or rather if we do not mean ill. That is, we create confusion by our negligence and disobedience, and then excuse our negligence by the existence of that confusion. It is no uncommon thing, I say, for men to say, “that in religious matters God has willed that men should differ,” and to support their opinion by no better argument than the fact that they do differ; and they go on to conclude that therefore we need not perplex ourselves about matters of faith, about which, after all, we cannot be certain.

…How are the sheep of Christ’s flock scattered abroad in the waste world! He came to gather them together in one; but they wander again and faint by the way, as having lost their Shepherd. What religious opinion can be named which some men or other have not at some time held? All are equally confident in the truth of their own doctrines, though the many must be mistaken.

(Parochial and Plain Sermons, Vol. 8, Sermon 13: “Truth Hidden When Not Sought After,” 1843)

*Edited to fix ghastly error of writing true instead of untrue.

Maybe God was trying to send you a message. :slight_smile:

Hello again Kathleen. Again I appreciate your thoughts and understand where you are coming from.

I think one may wish to look at the role that FREE WILL plays here :slight_smile:

I personally do not believe that there is a mechanism within the physical body that urges me to sin. It is my free will, which is an inherent spiritual faculty that leads me to sin.

I would appreciate your thoughts on these passages:

Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.

For example, if he wishes, he can pass his time in praising God, or he can be occupied with other thoughts. He can be an enkindled light through the fire of the love of God, and a philanthropist loving the world, or he can be a hater of mankind, and engrossed with material things. He can be just or cruel. These actions and these deeds are subject to the control of the will of man himself; consequently, he is responsible for them.
Now another question arises. Man is absolutely helpless and dependent, since might and power belong especially to God. Both exaltation and humiliation depend upon the good pleasure and the will of the Most High.

It is said in the New Testament that God is like a potter who makes “one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour.” 1 Now the dishonored vessel has no right to find fault with the potter saying, “Why did you not make me a precious cup, which is passed from hand to hand?” The meaning of this verse is that the states of beings are different. That which is in the lowest state of existence, like the mineral, has no right to complain, saying, “O God, why have You not given me the vegetable perfections?” In the same way, the plant has no right to complain that it has been deprived of the perfections of the animal world. Also it is not befitting for the animal to complain of the want of the human perfections. No, all these things are perfect in their own degree, and they must strive after the perfections of their own degree. The inferior beings, as we have said, have neither the right to, nor the fitness for, the states of the superior perfections. No, their progress must be in their own state.

Also the inaction or the movement of man depend upon the assistance of God. If he is not aided, he is not able to do either good or evil. But when the help of existence comes from the Generous Lord, he is able to do both good and evil; but if the help is cut off, he remains absolutely helpless. This is why in the Holy Books they speak of the help and assistance of God. **So this condition is like that of a ship which is moved by the power of the wind or steam; if this power ceases, the ship cannot move at all. Nevertheless, the rudder of the ship turns it to either side, and the power of the steam moves it in the desired direction. If it is directed to the east, it goes to the east; or if it is directed to the west, it goes to the west. This motion does not come from the ship; no, it comes from the wind or the steam. **

In the same way, in all the action or inaction of man, he receives power from the help of God; but the choice of good or evil belongs to the man himself. So if a king should appoint someone to be the governor of a city, and should grant him the power of authority, and should show him the paths of justice and injustice according to the laws—if then this governor should commit injustice, although he should act by the authority and power of the king, the latter would be absolved from injustice. But if he should act with justice, he would do it also through the authority of the king, who would be pleased and satisfied.
That is to say, though the choice of good and evil belongs to man, under all circumstances he is dependent upon the sustaining help of life, which comes from the Omnipotent. The Kingdom of God is very great, and all are captives in the grasp of His Power. The servant cannot do anything by his own will; God is powerful, omnipotent, and the Helper of all beings.

(empahsis added by myself)

So again, without the soul of man, the body makes no decisions, it makes no movements or actions, or works, or deeds. A body without a soul has no free will at all. It is a lifeless piece of flesh. We must not underestimate the power of the soul. The “steam” or “wind power” it is given, is from the All-Merciful Lord and it, in turn powers the entirety of the body.

And there is a clear demarcation between body and soul. “That which is flesh is flesh, and that which is spirit is spirit”…

The empirical evidence is absolutely clear. It is in the obvious evidences of a dead body which cannot do anything without the powering capacities given it by the soul of man. When the soul detaches, the body is nothing more than a piece of flesh, a natural body. ALL the honour, the glory and the strength of the body is given it by the soul. When the soul detaches, it leaves the body in dishonour, and weakness, as described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9.

Thankyou for reading and providing your thoughts :slight_smile:


Are you suggesting that more than one religion can be true?

Did Noah follow God’s instructions? Was Abraham a follower of God? Was the religion of Moses and the Israelite prophets true?

How is it possible that two ideas which contradict each other can both be true?

How is it that a child can believe that the existence of Father Christmas is absolutely true?



The contradiction is ours not Gods or the Prophets.

The Purpose of Gods religion is for us to Know Him and Love Him. God in His bounty has given that message in Progressive Revelations.

This has to be so because Man easily Rejects Gods Truth. It is a massive subject but a subject worth a lifetime of reflection :thumbsup: :wink:

God Bless and Regards Tony

That last part is the point at which it all becomes rather tricky. The relevant truth-claims are claims about metaphysics, a field which remains stubbornly unprovable.

Does the fact that the child believes in Santa Claus make him real?

Does the fact that you believe that God (true God from true God, in His essence) can be born from the womb of a mother make it real?

If so, by what basis do you judge what you believe to be true, is actually true?



I imagine that each religion which claims it is true would have some line of reasoning to back up its claim. If one considers the logic and truth of the elements if the reasoning, verifies the individual assertions, and *prays, *then I believe the truth will become clear to one who seeks.

God created the universe and everything in it from nothing. Do I think He can cause Himself to be born of a woman? Sure!

Do i believe that He did? Yes, I do. It was prophesied, it is claimed by virtuous people, and it is backed up by other acts, both miraculous and virtuous, of Christ.

If so, by what basis do you judge what you believe to be true, is actually true?



Different truths require different forms of verification. In the 20 years since I returned to the Church, I have not had one instance of a truth not working out, a teaching which contradicted another, or even a question without an answer if that question were on a human level. I see that the teaching of the Church is so comprehensive and so integrated that it is beyond human ability to put together, and that the Church’s history and formation are verified by the writings of the Apostles and the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

And I have considered claims from competing religions, none of which have been able to stand up to scrutiny.


Amen to that dear friend!


God bless you dear friend. I in no way wish to sway you from such a pure and sincere devotion to your (and my) Beloved.

I would ask you to possibly consider the following.

In order for virtuous people to claim that Jesus was God, they would need to know what God is in the first place.

In order for me to claim that this round, orange object is an orange I would have had to have the experience of that said object in the past to verify such a thing.

How many of these virtuous people were in direct contact with God,** before meeting Jesus**, in order to verify that Jesus was God?

Even if Jesus claimed to be God, for which there is no Biblical evidence for such a thing, how would a virtuous person know that Jesus was telling the truth?

Even if Jesus did many miracles that proved to many observers to conclude that He is God, how do we know that He was not God, “from the puny, limited perspective of the human being”?

To a plant, human beings are God. It’s all relative dear friend.

If Hod can create degrees if creation from mineral, to plant, to animal, to human, then surely we can assume that there are other degrees of creation to which we are not privy. To a mineral, there is ABSOLUTELY no knowledge that human beings even exist. It’s beyond the capacity for a mineral to even discern the existence of humans.

Why cannot this apply to humans too? It seems rational to me, how about you dear friend?




What we are trying to avoid, dear friend, is to limit God.

When we begin to restrain the infinite nature of God, then we are moving closer towards idol worship. It is for this very reason that the statement “God is Spirit” is explicitly made in the New Testament.



You seem to be saying that because God is of a higher order than we are that we can have no knowledge of Him, just as a mineral, at a lower order than we are, can have no knowledge of us. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of the entities involved. Minerals have no knowledge of us because they lack any of the things necessary for perception or knowledge. They do not even perceive or have knowledge of other minerals or themselves.

OTOH, animals, who are of a lower order than humans, still have perceptions and knowledge of humans. Dogs may not understand how it is that their owners have this apparently endless supply of food, but when they are hungry, they know how to interact with their human to get some :slight_smile:

It is true that our perceptions and ability to know God are limited, but not non-existent. Thus, we can know that a Being which can do certain things is well beyond human. Thus we can sufficient knowledge and perception of God for His purposes for us on earth.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit