"a" or "the" true religion

[Susma Rio Sep]

Maybe it's already very clear to everyone here, that the word true cannot be predicated of religion, so that the term "true religion" is a misnomer like true fool's gold(?).

Yet I must confess to a personal uneasiness that there might still be a true religion, and I might miss it.

And one of the things I want to be relieved about when I lay dying is the thought that I had missed anything which I should have experienced of, as being experienced by everyone else, or the greatest majority of mankind.

So, is there a true religion and which is the true religion?

For my own purpose, I don't want to go into all the writings of past thinkers or authorities on religion, I just want to think for myself and obtain reactions from posters here, so as to think better, and reach my own conclusions.

Right away, and as a man in the street, I would say that there is such a thing as a true fool's gold, and there is true gold.

A thing can be a true false version of an item that is the genuine article, namely: anything that is claimed to be that genuine item but is not that genuine item.

No offense to our gay brothers and corresponding sisters, there are true homos but false women, and also true tomboys and false men.

Where am I heading to?

Perhaps I am making a distinction between true in regard to the purpose of a thing, and true in regard to the essential oneoness of a thing, and true in regard to the essential composition of a thing.

Let's leave essential composition of a thing aside for our discussion here, because there are things of which the essential composition requires that there be only one numerical item of it: and thus focus our attention on the numerical oneness quality of a thing as qualifying it to be the true article.


There is only one true Pachomius2000, so that in one board some years back I had a naughty guy who registered himself as Pachomius2OOO, with the three circles not numeric but alphabetic (in my case they are numeric), to confuse people about my views.

But for the purposes pursued by the true Pachomius2000 or the roles he plays in life at home and in society outside, there can be several true Pachomius2000; just as we say true Einsteins even though there is only one numerically unique Einstein.

What do you guys say, is religion true in regard to the purposes sought by people in religion, or is there a true religion in the sense of "the" religion, the one and only religion that is the genuine article and only one of its kind?

An aside: How do you find my English, is it understandable? My 'favorite' moderator here (only one, no other moderators ever paid me any attention) in the past told me that English is not my mother tongue, but in what connection I could not then fathom.

Pachomius2000

 

[Quahom1]

Good day Sus,

For me this is a no brainer. Jesus said, the only religion worth salt was the religious attention to taking care of orphans and widows.

I think He was describing religion here as a compulsion, or obsession (both of which carry negative connotations), but who's results could only benefit man.

Any other "religion" only distracted man, or worse, set him at odds with his fellow man.

I have to laugh at the sense of humor God seems to have, everytime I go to a "soup kitchen" to help out. Aside from the obvious pain and suffering I sense from these "orphaned people", I find laughter, gratitude, humor, wisdom, accolades and admonishment...

Kind of like adopting into a BIG family. It could be described as a "religious experience"...or more appropriately, family coming together.

v/r

Q

...give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day - teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.

 

[Erynn]

Personally, I think there are a lot of religions that carry truths (without a capital T) but that none of them are The Truth.

 

[Chela]

How can we express this? I am not able to.

Even though I know the true religion, I cannot say, "This or that is the true religion."

It is not difficult to find the connections between any two religions. So, to think one "true" doctrine is exclusive is nothing more than ignorance or pride or deceit by the misguided sectarians. I have studied religion in its methods taught by those who are considered authorities on the matters, and I must say that the only reason they are considered authorities is do the precise fact that they appeal to the lowest common level of understanding. There is nothing wrong with that, just do not get caught up in the hatred of those who have yet to understand; but we must be even more careful of those that we do not understand (even though we think we understand perfectly, which is the exact cause of our misunderstanding).

How can someone who has never experienced anything but the rigid materialism (so adored by society) of our modern day speak about the Heavens and God and Angels?

It is incongruent. It is absurd!

They say, "That is not what that passage means, look, all these other scholars agree that it means this..." Silly people! You will not find the meaning of those texts in the remains of some 2000 year old village! You will find the true meaning of that passage in meditation, you will live it, then you can teach it to others! Why do people look for the Heavens in the mud of the earth? Don't we know that Heaven is internal?

The true religion is life itself.

True religion is nothing but the great Reunion with That Which We Came From. Truly, if you want that, then a Will of That must exist. That is to say, everyday one should strive to be a better person than they were in the day past. If one is can do this, then nothing will stop that one from perfection.

If everyone was reunited with their location of departure then religions would be nothing more than a fading thought...

24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (King James Bible, Matthew)

People believe the false teachings will come with a title, "Writings of the False Prophet," or something silly of that like. The true aspect of this quote is in reference to those beliefs you already hold, to those unbreakable dogmas that you already believe to be true. People believe that the false teachings will not be told by someone with a Bible in their hand. We think that if someone mentions the Christ then they are speaking in the name of the authentic Christ, but do not be fooled. The most popular false teachings are taught by those who believe in them, but have never witnessed them.

By knowing the false religion you will know the true religion.

 

[Quahom1]

How can we express this? I am not able to.

Even though I know the true religion, I cannot say, "This or that is the true religion."

It is not difficult to find the connections between any two religions. So, to think one "true" doctrine is exclusive is nothing more than ignorance or pride or deceit by the misguided sectarians. I have studied religion in its methods taught by those who are considered authorities on the matters, and I must say that the only reason they are considered authorities is do the precise fact that they appeal to the lowest common level of understanding. There is nothing wrong with that, just do not get caught up in the hatred of those who have yet to understand; but we must be even more careful of those that we do not understand (even though we think we understand perfectly, which is the exact cause of our misunderstanding).

How can someone who has never experienced anything but the rigid materialism (so adored by society) of our modern day speak about the Heavens and God and Angels?

It is incongruent. It is absurd!

They say, "That is not what that passage means, look, all these other scholars agree that it means this..." Silly people! You will not find the meaning of those texts in the remains of some 2000 year old village! You will find the true meaning of that passage in meditation, you will live it, then you can teach it to others! Why do people look for the Heavens in the mud of the earth? Don't we know that Heaven is internal?

The true religion is life itself.

True religion is nothing but the great Reunion with That Which We Came From. Truly, if you want that, then a Will of That must exist. That is to say, everyday one should strive to be a better person than they were in the day past. If one is can do this, then nothing will stop that one from perfection.

If everyone was reunited with their location of departure then religions would be nothing more than a fading thought...

24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (King James Bible, Matthew)

People believe the false teachings will come with a title, "Writings of the False Prophet," or something silly of that like. The true aspect of this quote is in reference to those beliefs you already hold, to those unbreakable dogmas that you already believe to be true. People believe that the false teachings will not be told by someone with a Bible in their hand. We think that if someone mentions the Christ then they are speaking in the name of the authentic Christ, but do not be fooled. The most popular false teachings are taught by those who believe in them, but have never witnessed them.

By knowing the false religion you will know the true religion.

Jesus hated religion. That was my point. Jesus said "have faith". But if you have to have a religion, be it the taking care of those that can not take care of themselves. That is the only religion Jesus implied He would tolerate.

The obsession of taking care of those who can not take care of themselves is a good obsession, a good religion. One can't go wrong with wanting to help others first.

What backs this statement of Jesus' up? "What so ever you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me...".

And life itself is no true religion according to scripture. "For whoever loves his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake...".

Finally, the ultimate coup d'etat. "Greater love hath no man than he who lays his life down for his brother (friends, fellow man)".

That is not religion my friend. That is faith, hope, and love. And the greatest of these is love.

v/r

Q

p.s. man (woman) the more I interact with all y'all, the more I understand and appreciate the book, and all it entails...thank you!

 

[littlemissattitude]

My advice? If you come upon a person or an institution that claims to have the True Religion, run like hell.

I used to participate in such a religion. Not that they preach that anyone who doesn't believe the way they do will go to Hell - they don't exactly believe in that particular place, althought they do have what they call Outer Darkness. But you have to be really, really horrible to go there. Basically what that means is having a knowledge of Christ (and I mean certain knowledge, as in having seen him - which some of the leaders of this church claim to have done through the years) and then denying that knowledge. There is some debate about it, but even the real stinkers of history, folks like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, will not end up in Outer Darkness according to most authorities. Instead, there are different levels of the afterlife (they don't even really call it Heaven). One cannot reach the highest level and dwell with God the Father and Christ unless one is a member of the church and married in the Temple. Otherwise, you will go to one of the lesser levels and be a servant to those in the highest level. But even the lowest of the levels is described as being more glorious than any human can imagine.

But even without the teaching that those who are not members of the chruch will burn in hell forever, there is a way these people have of treating anyone who is not a member of the church, or who is not a "good" member of the church as somehow lesser human beings. They can be very cold, very dismissive, very rude to anyone who they perceive as not being one of "the elect".

I got out. I just can't see the logic in a system where a god creates all these billions and billions of people and then makes rules such that all but a very, very small minority of them will be left out of the highest rewards of the afterlife because there is only "one way" to get to those rewards. That seems, to me, stupid and a waste of time and organic material.

Sorry if that offends anyone, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. It's like having school, and making the rule that no matter how good the students' work is, only one person in each class will pass the class...and furthermore that it's more than likely that no one will pass the class, because there are so many rules that must be followed in addition to just learning the subject.

I don't know. It's late, and I don't know if I have explained myself well. What this all ends up to be saying, I suppose, is that I do not believe that there is "One True Religion".

 

[mandrill]

missattitude makes a very good point, I think.

Unfortunately, one of the consequences of being a "true believer" in any religion has to be the condemnation of others' beliefs, whether you do it unkindly or gently. Accepting others' beliefs as equally valid with yours would mean, at least to many religious people, having a less strong faith. The very existence of alternative beliefs is a real threat to many, presenting a challenge to their system and more than a bit of insecurity. A lot of xenophobia arises simply from fear, I think .. fear that one could be wrong and headed down the wrong path, fear that one's faith might waver in light of this thought and one's soul might be lost. Many "true believers" rely heavily on their religion to get them through life and keep them sane and NEED so badly to be sure they have not made an error in judgement. So, they ban together with their fellow church members and loudly condemn, or at least self-righteously pity, any deviation. I can sympathize with the need, life can certainly be difficult to get through unassisted, but, personally, I am uneasy just accepting anything simply "on faith" just because it might make me sleep easier .. I'd rather toss and turn and wrestle honestly with the larger questions and find my own anwers as I go along. And these answers that I have found have been largely personal, putting my own personal spin on something that exists, out there, independently of all the trappings and labels.

 

[Erynn]

I'm not so sure. I consider myself a "true believer" in a Pagan path, but since Paganism is polytheistic, there's a lot of room for other truths out there, and no serious need for other truths to deeply challenge the beliefs one holds as a polytheist.

I find that my beliefs aren't weakened by acknowledging that others may also have parts of a greater truth. I tend to see it as another feature of the greatness that is life, and to try to appreciate other human understandings of the spirit world and the divine. What I tend to see is that it's monotheistic faiths who find acknowledging others to be some sort of threat -- though whether that's major or minor seems to depend on sect and individual believer.

Monotheism insists on a total investment on the particular way being followed being not just the best, but the only way. Most polytheists are happy to see many paths as equal and reasonable expressions of different types of truth, some of which are more suited to their personal practices than others. When one's belief and identity don't rest on holding a one, true, and only truth, there's less reason to cling desperately or to reject or challenge the beliefs of others. It's easy to see why monotheists might have these issues on a regular basis.

 

[littlemissattitude]

After reading mandrill's post, I was going to say something about how this "true believer" tendency seems to be more of a problem in monotheistic religions, but I think that Erynn did a good job of pointing that out, so I won't.

I do think that a lot of people in Christianity, at least, make a lot of assumptions from scripture that aren't particularly warranted about there being only one God. I haven't been able to find anywhere in the Bible where it clearly and plainly says that. It says "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3, NIV). It says that Christ is "the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6, NIV). And there are numerous references in both the Old and New Testaments to God being a jealous god.

But "no other gods before me" doesn't say "no other gods", period. In Exodus 18:11, Jethro (Moses's father in law) says, "the Lord is greater than all other gods," (NIV), not, "God is the only god." And that verse in John, quoted above, only implies one way to that god, not that there are no other gods with ways to connect to them.

So Christians do have grounds, scripturally, to claim that there is only one way to their god. And that's fine, if that's the god they choose to follow. They do not, as far as I can see, have grounds to claim that no other gods exist or ever have existed, based on the information found in their scriptures.

One verse from Exodus (23:13, NIV) especially intrigues me. It demands of the Israelites, "Do not invoke the names of other gods." This would not seem to be a problem if there were no other gods. At worst, invoking other gods would be wasting people's time. However, as I read it, the prohibition seems to imply that maybe there are other gods, gods who also have power, gods in direct competition with the God of the Old Testament.

This, of course, is only my opinion, and my personal interpretation of the Bible. I don't mean this to say that anyone else needs to agree with this interpretation and I only put it out there as food for thought in the discussion of whether there really is "one true religion".

 

[Quahom1]

After reading mandrill's post, I was going to say something about how this "true believer" tendency seems to be more of a problem in monotheistic religions, but I think that Erynn did a good job of pointing that out, so I won't.

I do think that a lot of people in Christianity, at least, make a lot of assumptions from scripture that aren't particularly warranted about there being only one God. I haven't been able to find anywhere in the Bible where it clearly and plainly says that. It says "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3, NIV). It says that Christ is "the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6, NIV). And there are numerous references in both the Old and New Testaments to God being a jealous god.

But "no other gods before me" doesn't say "no other gods", period. In Exodus 18:11, Jethro (Moses's father in law) says, "the Lord is greater than all other gods," (NIV), not, "God is the only god." And that verse in John, quoted above, only implies one way to that god, not that there are no other gods with ways to connect to them.

So Christians do have grounds, scripturally, to claim that there is only one way to their god. And that's fine, if that's the god they choose to follow. They do not, as far as I can see, have grounds to claim that no other gods exist or ever have existed, based on the information found in their scriptures.

One verse from Exodus (23:13, NIV) especially intrigues me. It demands of the Israelites, "Do not invoke the names of other gods." This would not seem to be a problem if there were no other gods. At worst, invoking other gods would be wasting people's time. However, as I read it, the prohibition seems to imply that maybe there are other gods, gods who also have power, gods in direct competition with the God of the Old Testament.

This, of course, is only my opinion, and my personal interpretation of the Bible. I don't mean this to say that anyone else needs to agree with this interpretation and I only put it out there as food for thought in the discussion of whether there really is "one true religion".

I agree with your thoughts here. In fact there are gods other than Yahweh. And yes they are apparently in competition with GOD over man. These gods are called "Devils" in Judeao/Christian lore. The term "Devil" means Little god.

v/r

Q

 

[Ciel]

True religion lives beyond any name given. There is God, and there is the image of God. Only the real thing can fill the void with wonder and awe, inspiration and unity, beyond the level of intellect, where all humanity is equal to its self. And life becomes an appreciation and gratitude of being on a level superseeded to existence.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Like the true apple or the true Miss Universe?

Thanks, everyone for your contributions.

I introduced this thread -- embarrassingly though, with the intention that it be for my personal guidance; for after everything is said by me, I am still, if for no other reason except one of self-interest, concerned about getting into a better fate in the ultra biological world if any there be, and it be also of relevancy to me.


If getting the true apple is important to a housewife for her table recipe, is religion or can religion be true in that respect; so that there are unlimited true religions just as there are unlimited true apples.

In which case I maintain on my own criteria that I do have the true or a true religion, upon my own understanding of what a religion should be to be a true religion and to be the true religion for me.

How do I understand religion? In the following oft-repeated definition of my own drafting of a very broad but I maintain to be valid embrace:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

Or is a religion true in the same sense as a certain winner of a Miss Universe contest of 2004 is the true Miss Universe 2004?

In which case we just have to depend upon a set of judges for the year concerned who will decide on their individual criteria of what is beautiful and God knows what other standards which might have nothing to do with beauty.

And also in that case there is an only one true religion, but with the qualification of time, place, and human judges.

I would not subscribe to that kind of the one true religion, unless my life depends upon it, or also more probably making a good living. But no killing for me or injuring other people, from ascribing to that kind of a religion. It does seem impossible, though.

Pachomius2000

 

[louis]

"the" true religion

From Louis .....

It seems to me that the notion that only "one religion"
can be the "true religion" is something promoted by
"church".
I have always made a distinction between "religion"
and "church" - the man-made organization that sets
itself up as a conduit between man and God.
( "None cometh to the Father save by Me ... " )
The more I read in this forum, the more convinced I am
that religion is something personal and private that does not depend on any kind of "go-between" - be it the
memory of a "magical" guy like Jesus or an idol or an
officially-sanctioned set of rules.
If I were seeking a "true" religion, I would go for
something like the old concept of "Gnosis" - where
each person chooses his own way - regardless of how
many "churches" define that as "sin" .

 

[Quahom1]

True religion lives beyond any name given. There is God, and there is the image of God. Only the real thing can fill the void with wonder and awe, inspiration and unity, beyond the level of intellect, where all humanity is equal to its self. And life becomes an appreciation and gratitude of being on a level superseeded to existence.

So, in other words, one must look at life and the universe through the eyes of a child, with the wonder of a child, in order to see the true face of GOD.

Yes, I'll buy that.

v/r

Q

 

[sword and silver]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and "Truth is Beauty and Beauty is Truth", so is Truth in the eye of the beholder?

Having looked at so many of the religions of the world, having read so many opinions here, it seems to me if there were only one 'Truth', then only one person somewhere out there has got it right and everyone else whose opinion varies is damned. I can't believe that's the case. Too much of life, including religion, depends on a person's point of view, and this point of view affects how we perceive the Divine. I'm sure everyone here has had different ideas of Truth at different times in life, many people have changed religious beliefs over their lifetime. Some peope have merged different doctrines. Some people have dropped religion from their life entirely.

If there is only one Truth, then just about everyone is going to wherever those who don't have the one Truth go.

I think any religion that claims to have the one and only way to salvation, or to God, or to enligtenment, or whatever their claim is, is running on human arrogance rather than Divine inspiration. It would be wiser to say that there is much truth in the religions of the world than to say one religion is right and the others are wrong.

However, if you are determermined to find the "one Truth", I'd suggest you look within, to do otherwise would be to look without.

 

[Ciel]

How about one truth filtered through many different channels, call these channels religion or religious aspiration. But above all one truth, filtered through many different interpretations corresponding to the many different personalities of life on earth. Therefore all religions carry the essense of truth according to their alignment of time, place and culture, as does humanity.
The realisation of ultimate truth is beyond all boundaries.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

No one true religion?

From our contributions here I think I am justified in drawing the conclusion that posters who have contributed do not ascribe to the idea that there is only one true religion, not as there is only one true person called, say, Julius Caesar.

On that basis which I think is concerned with numerically unique identity or in one word, unicity, it is safe from us here in this thread to say that there is no true religion, meaning -- to make it explicit, there is no one true religion.

What do you guys think? Can you accept the proposition that there is no one true religion?

But Chela says: "Even though I know the true religion, I cannot say, "This or that is the true religion."

The statement seems in a way quite categorical and it literally maintains that there is a one true religion; only Chela can't say which is the one.

And yet when I read the totality of his post, I get the certain impression that Chela is not very definite about there being one true religion; his inclination seems to be as I said there is no such one and only one true religion.

My purpose now is to draw a number of propositions that we all can profess without any hesitancy.

And the first one, though not first in logical order, is the following:

There is no one true religion.

That proposition saves all people seeking the true religion from the anxiety that they might never come to the one true one.

So for my own equanimity, I am dispensed from that quest which I think is also impossible at least from my own part, considering that I don't have the resources.

Consider this analogous situation, if there is only one true religion:

You are lost in a forest during a snow storm, and there is only one way to get out and head for the town, moreover you have only so much time and strength until you freeze to death.

But we are assuming that religion is critically important for this life and for the ultra biological world if any there be.

So there are still other propositions to formulate, perhaps like this one:

Religion is not necessary for this life nor for the ultra biological world if any there be.

AT this point however, let us just see whether we can all agree that there is no one true religion.

Pachomius2000

09-01-2004 06:13 PM Chela

How can we express this? I am not able to.

Even though I know the true religion, I cannot say, "This or that is the true religion."

It is not difficult to find the connections between any two religions. So, to think one "true" doctrine is exclusive is nothing more than ignorance or pride or deceit by the misguided sectarians. I have studied religion in its methods taught by those who are considered authorities on the matters, and I must say that the only reason they are considered authorities is do the precise fact that they appeal to the lowest common level of understanding. There is nothing wrong with that, just do not get caught up in the hatred of those who have yet to understand; but we must be even more careful of those that we do not understand (even though we think we understand perfectly, which is the exact cause of our misunderstanding).

How can someone who has never experienced anything but the rigid materialism (so adored by society) of our modern day speak about the Heavens and God and Angels?

It is incongruent. It is absurd!

They say, "That is not what that passage means, look, all these other scholars agree that it means this..." Silly people! You will not find the meaning of those texts in the remains of some 2000 year old village! You will find the true meaning of that passage in meditation, you will live it, then you can teach it to others! Why do people look for the Heavens in the mud of the earth? Don't we know that Heaven is internal?

The true religion is life itself.

True religion is nothing but the great Reunion with That Which We Came From. Truly, if you want that, then a Will of That must exist. That is to say, everyday one should strive to be a better person than they were in the day past. If one is can do this, then nothing will stop that one from perfection.

If everyone was reunited with their location of departure then religions would be nothing more than a fading thought...

24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (King James Bible, Matthew)

People believe the false teachings will come with a title, "Writings of the False Prophet," or something silly of that like. The true aspect of this quote is in reference to those beliefs you already hold, to those unbreakable dogmas that you already believe to be true. People believe that the false teachings will not be told by someone with a Bible in their hand. We think that if someone mentions the Christ then they are speaking in the name of the authentic Christ, but do not be fooled. The most popular false teachings are taught by those who believe in them, but have never witnessed them.

By knowing the false religion you will know the true religion.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Still no takers?

The preceding post was published on 091304; it is now in my part of the world 092204.

I am asking people here to tell me if they can be comfortable saying clearly this statement:

There is no one true religion.

If people cannot say that comfortably, then I guess they don't agree with me, namely, they maintain that there is only one true religion.

Are they saying then that theirs is the one true religion, also?

Vajradhara used to be a Baptist, trained to be a preacher or pastor but never ordained one, and according to his own description never worked as one either -- correct me though if I am wrong.

Now, he is a Buddhist and even I gather learned Pali or is it Sanskrit? to go deep into Buddhism. (Let's see now, Nibbana is Pali but Nirvana is Sanskrit, right?)

Maybe Vajradhara has now found the one true religion which is Buddhism, the school he ascribed to, of course, and of course again for himself, that is.

So, do we have people here who can be comfortable reciting that statement above:

There is no one true religion.


A bit of humor before ending this post.

There was a priest starting to read the Bible in chant before the congregation, "A brave woman who will find...?" And he kept turning the pages of the Bible he was using to find the location for that text, meanwhile repeating again and again: "A brave woman who will find...?"

After futilely trying to get to the place for that text, he finally stopped singing, "A brave woman who will find...?" and sang instead:

"And I have not found her."

Amen to that, and have a good day.

Pachomius2000

 

[Quahom1]

Re: Still no takers?

"There is no one true religion, save the taking care of orphans and Widows..."


I don't think fault can be found in that "religion" Sus. Do you?

v/r

Q

 

[Lady_Selune]

Hi all,

It my humble opinion there is a true religion. It is the one that fills you heart with the certain knowledge that the path you take is the correct one for you.

Religion is a tool by which we find our path to our God(s). Since none of us are the same I think it is foolish to think that we could all find the same path by which to get there.

Some religions are threatened more then others but the fact remains, when you find the religion that fills you and answers your need, then it is for all intents and purposes the one and only true religion for you.

When you are part of a religion and do not feel comfortable with it then its clear you have not found your true religion yet and should continue to seek the path.

I know that this sounds like a cop out, but it really is that simply to say. It is by no means the easy to do. I didn't know the true religion for me for many years. I was lucky that I finally found the religion that fills me completely. Many are not, many don't chose to even look becuase it takes to much time or effort on thier part or would require them to look at things that they just don't want to.

But in the end, no, I do not agree that there is no true religion.