Are there degrees of false religions?

[Herr_Mannelig]

I'd still say that there are varying degrees though.  For example, let's imagine a math problem . . . there's only 1 right answer but some answers are going to be closer to it than others.  It's perfectly reasonable, I think, to imagine a "hierarchy" of faiths, with only one being fully right but with a variance of falsehood in the rest.

Ah. That is a good example to prove my point.

Take a math problem...there is only 1 right answer. All others are false. It doesn't matter how close they are, they are false. You can't, in normal space-time, put a 3" diameter peg into a 1" hole, and it isn't any easier to put in a 2" diameter peg in that hole either. Wrong is wrong.

Is it so blasphemous to say that one is more true than the other?

I didn't say it was blasphemy.

I'm not talking about how much they have right, but their proximity to Truth. One has Truth, or doesn't. Moral cuplability increases as knowledge increases, so by the time you get up to the Eastern Orthodox, you have them in a very bad situation as they are almost there, but highly aware of what they are rejecting. Demons only sinned once to damn them. Only once.

[alaric]

I really completely disagree here, Rosarium.

I think different religions (just like different philosophies) have varying degrees of truth.  Some are true in some areas while others are true in others.  Some have much more truth than others.  One has only to look at, say, Judaism and Buddhism to see that there is much more truth in Judaism. 

I think you have that backwards.

[Vetus Ordo]

All religions besides the holy catholic religion are necessarily false and wicked. In and of themselves, they cannot lead souls to Heaven.

However, a false religion that recognizes the natural law and the Commandments would be "better off", so to speak, than one who doesn't, in the sense that those truths that it holds may predispose a soul to accept Christ more easily. We can only wish that this is so but, frankly, it's just hypothetical on my part.

Nevertheless, we must stress the absolute necessity of conversion and baptism to be saved. This is what we know for sure. And we must beg for the mercy of God to enlighten those men blinded by the darkness of error and idolatry, so that they may become aware of the truths of the Gospel and accept it.

[Nic]

I'd still say that there are varying degrees though.  For example, let's imagine a math problem . . . there's only 1 right answer but some answers are going to be closer to it than others.  It's perfectly reasonable, I think, to imagine a "hierarchy" of faiths, with only one being fully right but with a variance of falsehood in the rest.

Ah. That is a good example to prove my point.

Take a math problem...there is only 1 right answer. All others are false. It doesn't matter how close they are, they are false. You can't, in normal space-time, put a 3" diameter peg into a 1" hole, and it isn't any easier to put in a 2" diameter peg in that hole either. Wrong is wrong.

Is it so blasphemous to say that one is more true than the other?

I didn't say it was blasphemy.

I'm not talking about how much they have right, but their proximity to Truth. One has Truth, or doesn't. Moral cuplability increases as knowledge increases, so by the time you get up to the Eastern Orthodox, you have them in a very bad situation as they are almost there, but highly aware of what they are rejecting. Demons only sinned once to damn them. Only once.

I agree with Rosarium here.  When it comes to religion, it is actually kinda like mathematics - there really are no gray areas, only black and white.  There is only one right answer - and no matter how "close" another answer may be, it is still erroneous.  With religion, there is only one truth - and that, as we all know on this board, is the Roman Catholic Church.  It doesn't matter how close some Protestant sects or the Eastern Orthodox are, they are, in the long run, still short of that one perfect "answer" to the religion "problem."  The only correct answer is the Catholic Church.  BUT, in the modern post-conciliar Church, the illusion is taught that the Catholic Church is just one of many valid denominations looking for truth.  This is evident in Vatican II's often ambiguous and at times erroneous language, namely that "the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church."  This type of strange ambiguity places into the minds of blindly obedient faithful that other denominations can also be involved, and that is EXACTLY what the innovators where shooting for.  As a matter of fact, the original document stated, as other councils clearly stated, that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church.  NO ambiguity - completely clear and to the point.  But this document was thrown out in favor of one that would incite revolution and pollute the beliefs of Catholics who would obey no matter what.  This is precisely why many Catholics these days believe in "levels of truth" contained in certain religions.  But, when the council stated that our "seperated brethren" are active in Christian churches that are good and worthy of praise - and that offer the "means to salvation," no wonder why these kinds of errors would sneak into the minds of Catholics.

[John92]

I'd still say that there are varying degrees though.  For example, let's imagine a math problem . . . there's only 1 right answer but some answers are going to be closer to it than others.  It's perfectly reasonable, I think, to imagine a "hierarchy" of faiths, with only one being fully right but with a variance of falsehood in the rest.

Ah. That is a good example to prove my point.

Take a math problem...there is only 1 right answer. All others are false. It doesn't matter how close they are, they are false. You can't, in normal space-time, put a 3" diameter peg into a 1" hole, and it isn't any easier to put in a 2" diameter peg in that hole either. Wrong is wrong.

Is it so blasphemous to say that one is more true than the other?

I didn't say it was blasphemy.

I'm not talking about how much they have right, but their proximity to Truth. One has Truth, or doesn't. Moral cuplability increases as knowledge increases, so by the time you get up to the Eastern Orthodox, you have them in a very bad situation as they are almost there, but highly aware of what they are rejecting. Demons only sinned once to damn them. Only once.

I agree with Rosarium here.  When it comes to religion, it is actually kinda like mathematics - there really are no gray areas, only black and white.  There is only one right answer - and no matter how "close" another answer may be, it is still erroneous.  With religion, there is only one truth - and that, as we all know on this board, is the Roman Catholic Church.  It doesn't matter how close some Protestant sects or the Eastern Orthodox are, they are, in the long run, still short of that one perfect "answer" to the religion "problem."  The only correct answer is the Catholic Church.  BUT, in the modern post-conciliar Church, the illusion is taught that the Catholic Church is just one of many valid denominations looking for truth.  This is evident in Vatican II's often ambiguous and at times erroneous language, namely that "the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church."  This type of strange ambiguity places into the minds of blindly obedient faithful that other denominations can also be involved, and that is EXACTLY what the innovators where shooting for.  As a matter of fact, the original document stated, as other councils clearly stated, that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church.  NO ambiguity - completely clear and to the point.  But this document was thrown out in favor of one that would incite revolution and pollute the beliefs of Catholics who would obey no matter what.  This is precisely why many Catholics these days believe in "levels of truth" contained in certain religions.  But, when the council stated that our "seperated brethren" are active in Christian churches that are good and worthy of praise - and that offer the "means to salvation," no wonder why these kinds of errors would sneak into the minds of Catholics.

A couple of points, though I generally agree with you - I'm starting to think that most of us in this thread believe the same thing but express it in different ways:

1.) The statement that "the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" is poorly worded, I'll grant that.  It's easy to interpret it in a fallacious way.  But, as Pope Benedict XVI argued, the Latin verb "subsistere" in this context means clearly what we all believe: that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.  The problem is that most people (myself included until a couple of months ago) don't understand what "subsists" means and it can be easy to read the sentence as saying "the Church of Christ is present in the Catholic Church," leaving open the possibility that it may also be present in other churches.

2.)  You say " This is precisely why many Catholics these days believe in "levels of truth" contained in certain religions.  But, when the council stated that our "seperated brethren" are active in Christian churches that are good and worthy of praise - and that offer the "means to salvation," no wonder why these kinds of errors would sneak into the minds of Catholics."

This view that you critique is not, necessarily, unorthodox.  The Catholic Church and Her theologians have generally approved of the Greek and Roman Pagans, have loved their philosophy and history, and have praised their virtue, even going so far as to, for example, argue that Seneca was a crypto-Christian.  There's nothing wrong, so far as I can tell, with appreciating the virtues in other religions.  I love the simplicity of the low-church Protestants: they love Jesus and don't necessarily worry too much about dogma.  There's a lesson there, and I'm not saying we Catholics don't have it too, but in terms of general practice . . . as Thomas a Kempis said "on Judgment Day we will not be asked what books we have read but what deeds we have done."  On forums like this, in particular, a tendency emerges of a love of learning, a depth of knowledge of Scripture and the Church Fathers, but if this learning isn't borne out in action it's totally useless and I think most of us (including myself) need to remind ourselves of that fairly often.  The Catholic Church has such a beautiful history, has so much sublime philosophy, so much carefully reasoned theology, that it's easy to get caught up in "all that" and forget the "basics": Love God with all your heart and with all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself.  See?  I can appreciate the virtues in another religion without claiming that religion is true and recognizing that whatever goodness it has is found in Catholicism.  And in terms of a "hierarchy of truths", again, the fact that many in the Church have approved of members of other religions - Paganism at that! - implies by the very act of "approving" that some religions are better and some worse.

[Nic]

I'd still say that there are varying degrees though.  For example, let's imagine a math problem . . . there's only 1 right answer but some answers are going to be closer to it than others.  It's perfectly reasonable, I think, to imagine a "hierarchy" of faiths, with only one being fully right but with a variance of falsehood in the rest.

Ah. That is a good example to prove my point.

Take a math problem...there is only 1 right answer. All others are false. It doesn't matter how close they are, they are false. You can't, in normal space-time, put a 3" diameter peg into a 1" hole, and it isn't any easier to put in a 2" diameter peg in that hole either. Wrong is wrong.

Is it so blasphemous to say that one is more true than the other?

I didn't say it was blasphemy.

I'm not talking about how much they have right, but their proximity to Truth. One has Truth, or doesn't. Moral cuplability increases as knowledge increases, so by the time you get up to the Eastern Orthodox, you have them in a very bad situation as they are almost there, but highly aware of what they are rejecting. Demons only sinned once to damn them. Only once.

I agree with Rosarium here.  When it comes to religion, it is actually kinda like mathematics - there really are no gray areas, only black and white.  There is only one right answer - and no matter how "close" another answer may be, it is still erroneous.  With religion, there is only one truth - and that, as we all know on this board, is the Roman Catholic Church.  It doesn't matter how close some Protestant sects or the Eastern Orthodox are, they are, in the long run, still short of that one perfect "answer" to the religion "problem."  The only correct answer is the Catholic Church.  BUT, in the modern post-conciliar Church, the illusion is taught that the Catholic Church is just one of many valid denominations looking for truth.  This is evident in Vatican II's often ambiguous and at times erroneous language, namely that "the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church."  This type of strange ambiguity places into the minds of blindly obedient faithful that other denominations can also be involved, and that is EXACTLY what the innovators where shooting for.  As a matter of fact, the original document stated, as other councils clearly stated, that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church.  NO ambiguity - completely clear and to the point.  But this document was thrown out in favor of one that would incite revolution and pollute the beliefs of Catholics who would obey no matter what.  This is precisely why many Catholics these days believe in "levels of truth" contained in certain religions.  But, when the council stated that our "seperated brethren" are active in Christian churches that are good and worthy of praise - and that offer the "means to salvation," no wonder why these kinds of errors would sneak into the minds of Catholics.

A couple of points, though I generally agree with you - I'm starting to think that most of us in this thread believe the same thing but express it in different ways:

1.) The statement that "the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" is poorly worded, I'll grant that.  It's easy to interpret it in a fallacious way.  But, as Pope Benedict XVI argued, the Latin verb "subsistere" in this context means clearly what we all believe: that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.  The problem is that most people (myself included until a couple of months ago) don't understand what "subsists" means and it can be easy to read the sentence as saying "the Church of Christ is present in the Catholic Church," leaving open the possibility that it may also be present in other churches.

2.)  You say " This is precisely why many Catholics these days believe in "levels of truth" contained in certain religions.  But, when the council stated that our "seperated brethren" are active in Christian churches that are good and worthy of praise - and that offer the "means to salvation," no wonder why these kinds of errors would sneak into the minds of Catholics."

This view that you critique is not, necessarily, unorthodox.  The Catholic Church and Her theologians have generally approved of the Greek and Roman Pagans, have loved their philosophy and history, and have praised their virtue, even going so far as to, for example, argue that Seneca was a crypto-Christian.  There's nothing wrong, so far as I can tell, with appreciating the virtues in other religions.  I love the simplicity of the low-church Protestants: they love Jesus and don't necessarily worry too much about dogma.  There's a lesson there, and I'm not saying we Catholics don't have it too, but in terms of general practice . . . as Thomas a Kempis said "on Judgment Day we will not be asked what books we have read but what deeds we have done."  On forums like this, in particular, a tendency emerges of a love of learning, a depth of knowledge of Scripture and the Church Fathers, but if this learning isn't borne out in action it's totally useless and I think most of us (including myself) need to remind ourselves of that fairly often.  The Catholic Church has such a beautiful history, has so much sublime philosophy, so much carefully reasoned theology, that it's easy to get caught up in "all that" and forget the "basics": Love God with all your heart and with all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself.  See?  I can appreciate the virtues in another religion without claiming that religion is true and recognizing that whatever goodness it has is found in Catholicism.  And in terms of a "hierarchy of truths", again, the fact that many in the Church have approved of members of other religions - Paganism at that! - implies by the very act of "approving" that some religions are better and some worse.

Loving God with all your heart and with all your mind is just fine as long as that love is placed correctly.  You state that you "love the simplicity of the low-church Protestants:  they love Jesus and don't necessarily worry too much about dogma."   I find that statement atrocious!  They don't care about dogma because they don't know it.  They have created a simplified formula and have stripped many essentials from the True Religion, which is the eventual evolution of a banal, man-made "Christianity."  They don't "love" the same Jesus that Catholics do, only what they percieve Jesus to be.  Also, praising the virtues in another person is not the same as praising their religion.  They may have praised the fact that the pagans had a zeal for their religion, as many of us praise Moslems for having a zeal for theirs (one that often puts Christians to shame), but to praise the tenets of their religion is something else entirely, something that no Church Father ever did.

[Walty]

I really completely disagree here, Rosarium.

I think different religions (just like different philosophies) have varying degrees of truth.  Some are true in some areas while others are true in others.  Some have much more truth than others.  One has only to look at, say, Judaism and Buddhism to see that there is much more truth in Judaism. 

I think you have that backwards.

You do realize that half of Scripture comes from Judaism?  And our spiritual heritage?  And Christ Himself?

You may think those are buzzwords, but the Jews were closer to Christ then and now, overall, compared to the Buddhists.  Now, modern Jews (the practicing kind, and the ones who balls, like the ultra-orthodox) do not often hate on Christianity or blaspheme Christ. 

[Walty]

I'd still say that there are varying degrees though.  For example, let's imagine a math problem . . . there's only 1 right answer but some answers are going to be closer to it than others.  It's perfectly reasonable, I think, to imagine a "hierarchy" of faiths, with only one being fully right but with a variance of falsehood in the rest.

Ah. That is a good example to prove my point.

Take a math problem...there is only 1 right answer. All others are false. It doesn't matter how close they are, they are false. You can't, in normal space-time, put a 3" diameter peg into a 1" hole, and it isn't any easier to put in a 2" diameter peg in that hole either. Wrong is wrong.

Wrong is wrong, but not all things are equally wrong.  2+2 does not equal 5, but we'd be much less concerned about a child that answered as such as opposed to a child who said 2+2= 72,000 or 2+2= camel.  One is nearer to the correct answer than the other.

I think that your approach is "all or nothing" and that can't apply to Truth and objects in relation to it.  Those things can be talked about both quantitatively and qualitatively.  It also leaves no room for people who are partially right (which I think all religions are).  Most people here would say that Traditional Catholicism is the fullness of religious truth.  Well, with your logic, we'd have to say that NO Catholics (or Anglicans or what have you), in not being completely correct, are entirely false and that certainly isn't the case.

If a child points to a crayon and says it is sky blue when in fact it is robin's egg blue he may not be entirely correct, but he didn't say orange either.

[Vetus Ordo]

Now, modern Jews (the practicing kind, and the ones who balls, like the ultra-orthodox) do not often hate on Christianity or blaspheme Christ. 

I believe they do, Walty, since their Talmudic religion compells them to do it. The Talmudic religion is the Synagogue of Satan.

[Walty]

Now, modern Jews (the practicing kind, and the ones who balls, like the ultra-orthodox) do not often hate on Christianity or blaspheme Christ. 

I believe they do, Walty, since their Talmudic religion compells them to do it. The Talmudic religion is the Synagogue of Satan.

Please...

There is much that is commendable in ultra-orthodox Judaism in comparison with the modern atheism that defines contemporary western society.  The Jews are wrong and their decision to reject Christ as the Redeemer is a sad and sick one.  I would not want to be them.  Of course Satan has been influential in keeping anyone from Christ, including the Jews, but they also retain many truths and at least some of the spirit of the Gospels.  I don't see how Islam and Hinduism and everything else wouldn't be considered Satanic if Judaism is.

And they show respect for Christianity.  All of the crap that people post in here about Jews blaspheming Christ or finding offense in orthodox Christianity always comes from the most liberal and atheistic Jews.

[Herr_Mannelig]

I really completely disagree here, Rosarium.

I think different religions (just like different philosophies) have varying degrees of truth.  Some are true in some areas while others are true in others.  Some have much more truth than others.  One has only to look at, say, Judaism and Buddhism to see that there is much more truth in Judaism. 

I think you have that backwards.

You do realize that half of Scripture comes from Judaism?  And our spiritual heritage?  And Christ Himself?

You may think those are buzzwords, but the Jews were closer to Christ then and now, overall, compared to the Buddhists.  Now, modern Jews (the practicing kind, and the ones who balls, like the ultra-orthodox) do not often hate on Christianity or blaspheme Christ. 

Walty, my point is that the people "closer" have more responsibility. They may know more, but the reject what they do with more will.

[Walty]

I really completely disagree here, Rosarium.

I think different religions (just like different philosophies) have varying degrees of truth.  Some are true in some areas while others are true in others.  Some have much more truth than others.  One has only to look at, say, Judaism and Buddhism to see that there is much more truth in Judaism. 

I think you have that backwards.

You do realize that half of Scripture comes from Judaism?  And our spiritual heritage?  And Christ Himself?

You may think those are buzzwords, but the Jews were closer to Christ then and now, overall, compared to the Buddhists.  Now, modern Jews (the practicing kind, and the ones who balls, like the ultra-orthodox) do not often hate on Christianity or blaspheme Christ. 

Walty, my point is that the people "closer" have more responsibility. They may know more, but the reject what they do with more will.

Yes, but that is another thing altogether.  They may be held even more responsible for the comparatively lesser amount that they reject or fail to find, but when speaking purely about truth they are indeed closer to fullness.  I think you could even rank religions to some extent.

Anglicanism
Protestantism
Judaism
Islam
And here it gets fuzzy...
Buddhism
Hinduism
Animism
Voodoo

Notice how more and more primitive and depraved the religions get as well as you descend down our world religions ladder of theological truth.

[veritatem_dilexisti]

I voted for: "No. They are equally false, but one can be more desirable than another (ease of conversion, practical reasons, etc)." I might as well have voted, however, for: "Yes, there are degrees of falsehood." The problem here is that the author of the poll did not say what he meant by "equally": quantitatively (absolute value of the religion), or qualitatively (content of the religion)?

Either a religion is true, or it is false; if it have but one false doctrine, it is a false religion, and in this degree no different, in terms of the salvation of its members, from the next false religion, though the latter have many more false doctrines. At the same time, a religion can be said to be closer to the truth than another, insofar as its doctrines bear a greater propinquity to those of the Church.

As regards "ease of conversion", I recall reading that missionaries, for instance, find it easier to convert animists than they do Muslims.

[Vetus Ordo]

And they show respect for Christianity.  All of the crap that people post in here about Jews blaspheming Christ or finding offense in orthodox Christianity always comes from the most liberal and atheistic Jews.

I'm afraid you're deadly wrong.

Contrary to liberal and atheist Jews, the orthodox or "ultra-orthodox" are pretty much faithful to the Talmud and hence they vividly blaspheme Our Lord and the Blessed Mother. It's an integral part of their wicked religion. There's no respect for Christianity whatsoever, quite the contrary. These "orthodox Jews" are renowned, amongst other things, for spitting in front of crucifixes, churches or christian graveyards.

[StrictCatholicGirl]

At the time of Jesus, who was the most orthodox in their teaching?
The Pharisees, the Sadducees, or the Essenes?

Answer: The Pharisees!

The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, the immortality of the soul, and the existence of angels. The Sadducees and Essenes were way off the beaten track. Clearly there are degrees of falsehood, yet the Pharisees were condemned for their arrogance. Go figure.