Do you believe all religions are equally true, all are equally false, or that one is more valid than others?

blah blah yada yada

if the relgions were equally true there would only be one religion

I agree with that. Plus, all the major religions make claims that are mutually exclusive, so they can't all be true. That leaves you with the option that either all are false or that one is more valid than the others.

The same religion can be very different to different people, due to different reality filters or tunnels they may have. Different religions have different premises. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Personally, I prefer orthopraxy (correct practices, including but not limited to ethics, hospitality, personal excellence, accountability, social responsibility) to orthodoxy (correct belief, dogma).

Thanks for your reply. I like your thought processes.

One thought regarding orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy. I believe the belief/dogma should be the foundation of the practice. I also believe that incorrect belief (or misunderstood belief) is one of the primary sources of incorrect or oppressive tendencies sometimes seen by those in religious authority. What are your thoughts on that subject?

Like I said, I prefer orthopraxy (correct practices, including but not limited to ethics, hospitality, personal excellence, accountability, social responsibility and so on) to orthodoxy (correct belief, dogma). Such correct practices may be tied to dogma for some religions and only some religions.

That they tend to be in the majority in different places and times on earth doesn't change the fact that correct actions and related doctrines are not dependent upon rigid dogma for many but, yes, but some basic doctrines are wise.

Here, I care to differentiate doctrine and dogma.

Doctrines, to many, are formal statements of belief or disbelief that people hold but that can be tweaked should any correction be needed. This means a religion can remain progressive in a way that's in alignment with science, equality and just plain compassion, wisdom and decency.

Dogma is far more rigid -- dogma is what people are ordered to believe or disbelieve by a supposedly unchanging religious text and/or someone in religious power over them. A doctrine becomes a dogma when an institution has the power to literally or figuratively punish, excommunicate you, or somehow take/destroy/damage your life for disagreeing with said doctrine.

Religion ≠ Dogma
Doctrine ≠ Dogma

This doesn't mean that religion can't be dogmatic or that doctrine can't sometimes turn to dogma. It does mean these things are not wholly interchangeable terms for all people in all cases.

I've never really put much thought into the differentiation of doctrine and dogma. I can work with your definitions, and pretty much agree with your comment as it stands. I'd go a step further, if I may, and add in "Truth" as a consideration as well. What is actually true transcends what anyone believes about it, regardless of how intently they hold their belief. So a person can hold to a dogma that is actually based on real, viable truth, and that wouldn't be a bad thing. However, if a dogma is based in non truth, it can become harmful to those who don't hold the dogma. The doctrinal statements would be one step closer to the practical out working of the truth in life. So in that model, the way things SHOULD work would be:

Truth -> Dogma -> Doctrine -> Practice

I said "SHOULD" because there would be many ways to mess this up. First, to not know the truth, which could cause the entire chain to fall apart because the dogma would likely be wrong, leading to wrong beliefs and practices. Second, the Dogma could be developed wrong, based on either incorrect interpretation of the truth, or just on poor skill at moving forward from a known truth. Third, incorrect doctrine could develop out of not knowing the "why" of the dogma, leading to incorrect practice. Lastly, the same could be said of practice. Not knowing why a belief is what it is could lead to misapplication or misinterpretation.

Thanks for your comments.

Truth is actually a very loaded and debatable concept and I don't share your Truth -> Dogma -> Doctrine -> Practice logic. Yours is clearly influenced and or based on orthodoxy and it's models of reality and mine isn't. At this point it's best to agree to disagree.

No problem at all. We can't always agree on everything, the world would be quite boring if we did that.

If you don't mind my asking, I'd like to understand more about your models of reality and their foundation. I don't intend to goad you into a debate about it, just simply want to understand better how you process things. From our previous interactions, I really appreciate your thought processes, and even if we disagree about things, I see it as a learning opportunity.

If you don't care to enter into a discussion like that, no big deal. I do appreciate your replies to this and other threads. Take care.

there is one true God. Everything cant be true, because most of them say the others are not true; therefore, by saying all religions are equally true you are saying that they are not.

Very true. Most make claims that are mutually exclusive, so they can't all be true. That leaves you with the option that either all are false or that one is more valid than the others.

Exactly. Glad you are getting the message out in an orderly way. Keep it up.