A warning and a call to Baha’is from Baha’u’llah’s Universal House of Justice

[Vinayaka]

Out of curiousity, I did go and read, "One Common Faith". This is the first paragraph.

• • •
"One Common Faith
There is every reason for confidence that the period of history now opening will be far more
receptive to efforts to spread Bahá’u’lláh’s message than was the case in the century just ended. All the signs indicate that a sea change in human consciousness is under way."

Clearly it expresses optimism for further successes in the proselytising field. This very attitude of proselytising the Baha'u'llah message, is what, in my view is truly harmful in developing any kind of true religious tolerance. as long as folks think their way is the best way, and are unwilling to concede that other faiths may even have equal or perhaps better ways to get mankind together, it will fail miserably.

As I read the document, it was striking how I saw how nothing has changed at all. It was just much more of the same old same old. Nothing new at all. Sorry Jim, but unless there is some true fresh ideas of tolerance, other than tolerance my way, I'll be out. For awhile there, i thought you actually might be different. But it seems I was mistaken. The echo chamber has grown.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Clearly it expresses optimism for further successes in the proselytising field. This very attitude of proselytising the Baha'u'llah message, is what, in my view is truly harmful in developing any kind of true religious tolerance. as long as folks think their way is the best way, and are unwilling to concede that other faiths may even have equal or perhaps better ways to get mankind together, it will fail miserably.

That is the reaction I did expect if people did read the Message. What one has to consider is that it was for Baha'i to help them with their thoughts.

Having read what Baha'u'llah has said, I see that quote saying that the world is more open to the thought we are but one people, more open to finding unity, It is not saying people will see the requirement to change their faith in acceptance of this oneness.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

Thanks @Tony Bristow-Stagg and @adrian009 for responding to my questions.

In response I want to pick out a couple of points - please don't think I am being negative or argumentative.

I have said a number of times in different threads I am here to learn and I am - but sometimes learning - especially at the sharp end of spiritual/religious discourse - does require addressing the "hard questions". I have alluded to (but not delineated in any detail) my own "worldview" - and it entails humans being honest about where their "truths" come from - but also demands (of me only - because its only my "worldview") inclusiveness of widely different perspectives and I am really struggling with how that could possibly work when we have "revealed" truths set so starkly not only against one another (ideologically I mean not the societal and cultural struggles that they have engendered) but even more contrastingly against non-revealed, non-theistic and even atheistic worldviews. How can these possibly be harmonized - let alone unified? Anyway, that's the question I am struggling with conceptually in deciding how I might possibly persuade myself to believe in my idea of all views being valid - which I intuitively accept as true but - as you may have noticed - have great difficulty articulating in any way that is not trivially dismissed by simple reference to the reality of religious diversity - not to say discord.

Anyway - that's what I am looking for and I am very grateful for this thread because @Jim 's questions (although more specifically aligned with his worldview as a Baha'i than mine as essentially a possibly pantheistic, rational, skeptical humanist type person - if there even is any such thing and be warned I might have changed again before the sun goes down) resonate deeply with me even though I am, in a sense, looking at it from a more theoretical than practical angle at least for now. Anyway, the point is - he seems to be asking the same question from a different angle - how the heck can the diverse array of religious and non-religious worldviews that persist among the human family possibly be considered to be (or even to be on a path towards) "one common faith"?

Unless...unless...that "common faith" is faith in the human ability to see things differently from one another without rancour - to paint different (sometimes radically different) pictures from different (sometimes diametrically opposed) perspectives and to truly learn to appreciate all of them as equally valid representations of truth.

OK - I should get to the specific points I suppose:

"..At the deepest level, as Baha’u’llah emphasizes, there is but one religion. Religion is religion, as science is science. The one discerns and articulates the values unfolding progressively through Divine revelation; the other is the instrumentality through which the human mind explores and is able to exert its influence ever more precisely over the phenomenal world.

OK - lets say I can accept that - but which takes precedent - the "explorations of the human mind" facilitated and augmented by scientific discovery, or divine revelations of long ago? I agree we can learn from both - I wrote a short essay (none of my essays were ever published BTW - I put a few on a couple web sites I used to contribute to but those are now deceased) a few years ago about how "science and scripture" could be seen as the "two witnesses" leading us to "truth". That's a complete rehash of a biblical image - certainly not pretending to be what "John the Revelator" intended when he wrote about "two witnesses" - but what could he possibly have known of science? He probably meant law and prophecy (also symbolized in scripture by "Moses" and "Elijah" - perhaps but that's another story altogether). But there's a "progressive revelation" process for you...law-giver...prophet...scientist...But could I stand up and suggest that perhaps Einstein or Hawking...or (God-forbid) even the Archbishop of Atheism, Richard Dawkins...had superseded Baha'u'llah as a revealer of truth without falling foul of someone else's inviolable doctrine? I think not. So how can I sing from the same song sheet as a Baha'i or a Muslim or an evangelical Christian if I believe that science has superseded revelation?

We already have one common faith, but find it hard to see the connections. The traditions of our culture often obscure this truth. It’s those blind men again, but as you said on an earlier post, they are not wrong but simply hold a different part of the same truth. We’re all blind and we all hold truth. The same applies for your worldview as for a Baha’i perspective.

OK - so what is the Baha'i faith "blind" about? Could it be that it is blind to the fact that the "traditions of our culture" far from "obscuring this truth" in fact elucidate the truth more eloquently (in some respects) simply by the fact of their existence? Could it be, in fact, that if you were to get a couple of fans, some tree stumps, a wall, a snake, a spear and a rope and arrange them in a particular fashion depending on the various angles of the observers, you would in fact have something that much more closely resembled - whilst clearly not actually being, an elephant? And wouldn't the best way to do that be to ask the various blind men to stand up and each hold up their particular versions of "elephantness" in the "place" they felt it might most accurately reflect their perception? And then - if you wanted them to get a glimpse of the overall picture, have them move around - changing places and feeling the different parts rather than simply listening to second-hand descriptions? And wouldn't that work better if you hadn't already declared "no you're all wrong - its not like a fan, a wall...etc. at all" but rather simply suggested "OK why don't we all get together and try to see what each of us sees".

I think I've said enough.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. people who believe in Messiahs, Messengers and Mahdis are also part of the 'vasudhaiva kutumbakam' - one world, one family - and it takes all kinds to make a world.

They are part of the family, it is the evangelists who spoil the works.

The point is, one does not have to be ever insulted by any of Gods Messages. As the message is given for each person to consider and implement the change required.

God has found no other way to send messages! Very disingenuous of him.

“How to help people see this” is exactly the kind of discussion I want to have.

But you have your robes on, Jim. Or should I say that you are trying to do just the same without putting your robes on?

Paar, how much do Ahmadiyya's proselytise, if at all?

They are heavily into proselytization. Don't they have a message from God to share with people just like other monotheists excluding perhaps the Jews and the Zoroastrians?

 

[paarsurrey]

OK - maybe my wording was a bit over the top, but the insistence - clearly stated in both the 2002 letter and the "One Common Faith" document - on the adoption of a particular theological position (i.e. "Abrahamic" monotheism) as a prerequisite for the success of the interfaith movement is immediately disrespectful of traditions that do not share that theology - those statements, in and of themselves, relegate any non-monotheistic ideologies to theological error - and given the "apocalyptic" language of both documents impute at least part of the blame for the ills of human society to the failure of the very religious traditions it purports to be seeking "interfaith dialogue" with. For example, on page 7 of "One Common Faith", we read:

"The world order, if it can be so described, within which Bahá’ís today pursue the work of sharing Bahá’u’lláh’s message is one whose misconceptions about both human nature and social evolution are so fundamental as to severely inhibit the most intelligent and well-intentioned endeavours at human betterment. Particularly is this true with respect to the confusion that surrounds virtually every aspect of the subject of religion."​

And then, a couple paragraphs later:

"What all such differing conceptions have in common is the extent to which a phenomenon that is acknowledged to completely transcend human reach has nevertheless gradually been imprisoned within conceptual limits —whether organizational, theological, experiential or ritualistic — of human invention."​

Clearly, the implication of such statements is that "religion" (read "non-Baha'i religion") is to blame for the problems Baha'is now have to tackle by attempting to understand (but certainly not embrace) the errors in other religions more clearly through "interfaith dialogue".

If paragraphs like that - and there are plenty of them - are not intended to be derogatory about other faiths, what is the purpose? How would a Baha'i read that last paragraph in any way other than to impute responsibility for the failure of religion to address human problems to religious traditions other than Baha'i?

Anyway, that is what I meant by "sticking the knife in". And on reflection, perhaps it wasn't such an overstatement on my part after all.

Have you read "One Common Faith"? Is there anything whatsoever in it that makes any possible conciliation to non-religious modes of thought? Its opening salvo is a diatribe against "materialism" that either mistakenly or deliberately conflates the philosophy of materialism (that fundamentally only the physical world exists) and the "materialistic" consumerism of recent decades. But suppose there is no God - suppose the "spiritual world" is emergent from the physical - you would not be able to tell the difference. You have only "divine revelation" to tell you that this is not so. Suppose that is mistaken? What then? Surely, a genuine "interfaith dialogue" that purports to address the social and spiritual needs of humanity as a whole must take seriously what OCF (on page 2) calls:

"a materialistic interpretation of reality [that] had consolidated itself so completely as to become the dominant world faith insofar as the direction of society was concerned."​

But no! The document goes on to detail the "bankruptcy of the materialist enterprise" and the "iron dogma of 'scientific materiliasm'" and how all that had resulted in "the civilizing of human nature" to be "violently wrenched out of the orbit it had followed for millennia" and the establishment of "regimes of totalitarian control prepared to use any means of coercion in regulating the lives of hapless populations subjected to them."

In fairness, it does acknowledge the possibility of a more genuinely benevolent beginning for the "scourge" (my word not theirs) of "materialism" :

"Whatever humanitarian ideals may have inspired some of its early proponents,..."​

But where in the document is there any opening for a fairer re-evaluation of those "humanitarian ideals" as part of a more inclusive "interfaith dialogue" that draws in also those whose "faith" is in the naturally innate human capacity for empathy, altruism and fairness?



Right so where are they? So far, with the exception of your good self, most of the Baha'i comments seem to be defending the Baha'i religious position - and that, it seems to me, is the overriding concern of the document taken at face value and assuming a mostly Baha'i readership. If that perception is incorrect I would like to see a coherent Baha'i response to my earlier three questions:

1. Should the aim of interfaith dialogue be "one common faith"? And if so why is it so important that we all believe the same things?

2. Does the Baha'i approach mistake religious "sameness" for spiritual "oneness"?

3. Should secular humanism be part of the interfaith dialogue? Why or why not?

So far, I don't see any answers.

I have little questions on your questions, please:

1.Will you get satisfied if the differences are evened out by convincing heart and souls by the individuals of revealed religions and also the non-believing no-religions?
2. How does one differentiate between the concepts of "religious sameness" and "spiritual oneness"?
3. I belonging to Ahmadiyya peaceful Islam, am in favor of inclusion of "secular humanism" or the like in the interfaith dialogue so that these are exposed being wrong, so easy. Right, please?

Regards

 

[TransmutingSoul]

God has found no other way to send messages! Very disingenuous of him

Well you have chosen that way to look at it. To me it seems reasonable.

Baha'u'llah has said it is within thier power to utter one word and all would beleive. I see this would disrupt the order of all things.

As you know I am happy for you to choose your path in life, as most others also have the same ability to do so. It is only fair they also have that choice, without any person getting in their way.

 

[paarsurrey]

I agree totally. The problems arise when the two concepts get mixed up. They should be separate. One's personal religion is what gives them strength, satisfaction, love, and character. But then you have to recognise that that's the same for all other peoples' personal religion, and then just get along amiably on all the non-religions things. It's like two neighbours who get along amicably and can build a fence together, laugh together, because they never discuss religion. My Mormon neighbours were great that way, but the fundamentalist neighbour around the corner is just so irritating she no longer has any friendly neighbours. We all can't stand her. She's pushy, she's obnoxious, and she keeps inviting everyone to her church. People walk away when they see her coming.

It's when folks figure it's their duty to change everyone to their way, or to talk religion all day long, trying to convince themselves they're right. The fact of the matter is thee are many many POVs, and nobody should be declaring theirs is the one for all of humanity. You don't. I don't. Lots of us don't. I have no idea how we can get the rest to join us in this regard. Once you think yours is right, and everyone else is wrong, well, that's clearly not going to work.

"Once you think yours is right, and everyone else is wrong, well, that's clearly not going to work." Unquote

It is so easy to understand, my friend.
Some people or most of them, if they think they could be wrong, they get upset and lose confidence in their "selves". Please, don't counter them and let them speak, and when they are finished they become friends, then one could tell them one's own POV. It works.

Regards

 

[Jim]

Unless...unless...that "common faith" is faith in the human ability to see things differently from one another without rancour - to paint different (sometimes radically different) pictures from different (sometimes diametrically opposed) perspectives and to truly learn to appreciate all of them as equally valid representations of truth.

siti ... For me, seeing that was like seeing an oasis in the desert.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

siti ... For me, seeing that was like seeing an oasis in the desert.

Jim have you read up about 'Frame of Reference'? The other is inattentional blindness. They at7e both great studies and note that no one is wrong when putting forward a POV.

Abdul'baha could see this, so you will note he only offered another POV. Each of us has to learn how to open up new frames of references.

Regards Tony

 

[Jim]

Unless...unless...that "common faith" is faith in the human ability to see things differently from one another without rancour - to paint different (sometimes radically different) pictures from different (sometimes diametrically opposed) perspectives and to truly learn to appreciate all of them as equally valid representations of truth.

Besides being like an oasis in the desert for me, seeing you saying that reassures me about your intentions here, and gives me an answer to my question about what you and I can do together about our common interests: exactly what we’ve been doing.

 

[siti]

1.Will you get satisfied if the differences are evened out by convincing heart and souls by the individuals of revealed religions and also the non-believing no-religions?

I don't understand the question. Are you asking me if I would be satisfied that everyone believing the same things was appropriate if I saw that everyone had finally been convinced of the truth of a particular revelation? If that's the question then my answer is probably not - and the reason for that is the fact that nature - including human nature - is so incredibly and inextricably complex that simple, one size fits all, answers simply will not do. Probably the biggest mistake humanity has made is the assumption that there is such a thing as "the truth". I believe we will grow out of this eventually - if we don't render ourselves extinct first.

2. How does one differentiate between the concepts of "religious sameness" and "spiritual oneness"?

Can I illustrate? "Religious sameness" is a choir of 100 identical voices all singing precisely the same notes, "spiritual oneness" is 100 different voices all singing different parts tenor, counter tenor, bass, baritone, alto, soprano but in harmony. "Religious sameness" is saying we have "God's word" and that's the final word - anything "other" is less than ideal (if not downright wrong), "spiritual oneness" is recognizing that whatever the "greater reality" is, it is far greater than ever could be contained in books and we each relate to it in our own ways and that's not only OK but worthy of celebration in its own right.

3. I belonging to Ahmadiyya peaceful Islam, am in favor of inclusion of "secular humanism" or the like in the interfaith dialogue so that these are exposed being wrong, so easy. Right, please?

If you say so. But that's not interfaith dialogue or spiritual oneness - its religious conceit - no matter how peacefully islamic (submissive) you might present yourself as being. And it is not going to win you any friends among the non-believers - so I'm not really sure that's "peaceful" - "passive" perhaps - but probably not even that given that you have already determined to "expose as wrong" a worldview that you probably don't even understand very well.That approach is not an attempt to "make peace" with dissenting voices is it?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm not sure of your original intent. Certainly other Baha'is (amongst other proselytising faiths) use that sort of language ... (you just haven't looked hard enough yet) So I don't know.

I’m interested in learning about religion in its entirety and having conversations with others who share similar interests. l’m good with you being a Hindu as I’m good with @siti being a secular humanist. We’ve been talking to each other for over one and a half years now. I know the Baha’i Faith is not for you as Hinduism isn’t for me. If either of us were primarily concerned with proselytising we wouldn’t still be talking to each other.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Baha'u'llah has said it is within their power to utter one word and all would believe.

Allah never used that option. "Their"? Whose? If all believe, would that be a disruption? Then why do monotheists talk of "one common faith"? Do they want to disrupt Allah's design? You are being a bit funny. Well, I must accept a little fun is not a bad thing at all.

If either of us were primarily concerned with proselytising we wouldn’t still be talking to each other.

Proselytizers/Evangelists weigh their chances of where they may succeed and where they may not. So, if you are a Proselytizer/Evangelist, you know that Vinayaka is a tough nut to crack, so you don't even try.

 

[Marcion]

Clearly it expresses optimism for further successes in the proselytising field. This very attitude of proselytising the Baha'u'llah message, is what, in my view is truly harmful in developing any kind of true religious tolerance. as long as folks think their way is the best way, and are unwilling to concede that other faiths may even have equal or perhaps better ways to get mankind together, it will fail miserably.

[Some thoughts I had this morning:]
I think the reason for this difference and your problem with it is that Western culture has more of a tendency to believe in the continual progress of ideas and of ideology and the gradual improvement of human destiny. In Eastern culture this belief is much less strong.
Christians believe that their faith or religion is an improvement or advancement on Judaic faith and that Judaic faith is an improvement on primitive forms of idolatry.
Then Islam comes and thinks it is a syncretic improvement on all of the preceding faiths followed by Baha'i and Sikhism who think they have found an even better syncretic faith.

In the East people believe more in age old traditions that need to be kept and protected such as staying true to your caste and sect and its traditional rules and regulations.
They feel much less that one truth can trump an older one and are firm believers that the old order that was invented in the distant past should be honoured eventhough they have no problem with adding newer branches, as long as these don't disturb the age old order too much.
Buddhism and Jainism perhaps broke through this conservative mentality for a while.

The question whether monotheism was really an improvement on older forms of religion and whether Christianity was really an improvement on Judaism isn't very easy to answer. The reason is that these faiths do not have a single brilliant founder but are a bric-a-brac of contributions from people with real improvements and people with much less enlightend ideas. Nevertheless the followers believe that their faiths are somehow superior to what went before.

So are all these so-called improvements just false sentiments and no true improvements at all? Are all the religions and spiritual paths equally valuable for human spiritual development and should none of their elements be discussed or judged on merits or weaknesses?

I think Baha'i has a strong missionary feeling and belief that its founder has come to improve the whole world order of religions, just like many christians believe that everyone needs to believe in Christ in order to be "saved" and muslims believe that the best option is to join the "best and holiest" version of religion.

My own tradition is atypical in that it has an Eastern philosophical base but has that same missionary zeal and the belief that it represents a revolutionary new way of thinking about human civilisation and human society.

The real problem with all those Western faiths with their idea that they had found "the unique final" ideological answer is that they lack the deep spiritual practices that can be found in the East nor do they have the deep philosophy that goes with such spiritual practices but only weaker echoes of these.
And their huge (Abrahamic) ego's prevent them from accepting this. Sufism is the exception to this because it was heavily influenced from the East.

The many Eastern traditions aren't religions claiming to be unique paths that need to be adopted by all because they have an "ultimate universal truth". Sweeping them all into one amorphous heap as an "outdated form of religion" is a great distortion and misrepresentation of what they are.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thanks @Tony Bristow-Stagg and @adrian009 for responding to my questions.

You’re welcome.

In response I want to pick out a couple of points - please don't think I am being negative or argumentative.

Ok then.

I have said a number of times in different threads I am here to learn and I am - but sometimes learning - especially at the sharp end of spiritual/religious discourse - does require addressing the "hard questions". I have alluded to (but not delineated in any detail) my own "worldview" - and it entails humans being honest about where their "truths" come from - but also demands (of me only - because its only my "worldview") inclusiveness of widely different perspectives and I am really struggling with how that could possibly work when we have "revealed" truths set so starkly not only against one another (ideologically I mean not the societal and cultural struggles that they have engendered) but even more contrastingly against non-revealed, non-theistic and even atheistic worldviews. How can these possibly be harmonized - let alone unified? Anyway, that's the question I am struggling with conceptually in deciding how I might possibly persuade myself to believe in my idea of all views being valid - which I intuitively accept as true but - as you may have noticed - have great difficulty articulating in any way that is not trivially dismissed by simple reference to the reality of religious diversity - not to say discord.

I appreciate you are here to learn as I am too. I like it that you are prepared to ask whatever questions need to be asked along the road to a better understanding. I find it interesting that you have come from being a Jehovah Witness to embracing secular humanism. I personally feel much more aligned to humanism than the exclusive theism of the Jehovah Witnesses. Then again I feel quite comfortable talking to either group. Its helpful to hear your views more openly and clearly stated. It’s hard at times to know where you’re coming from.

Why is it so hard to make sense of the contradictions? Although there is just one truth or ultimate reality, none of us can truly see the whole truth.

Anyway - that's what I am looking for and I am very grateful for this thread because @Jim 's questions (although more specifically aligned with his worldview as a Baha'i than mine as essentially a possibly pantheistic, rational, skeptical humanist type person - if there even is any such thing and be warned I might have changed again before the sun goes down) resonate deeply with me even though I am, in a sense, looking at it from a more theoretical than practical angle at least for now. Anyway, the point is - he seems to be asking the same question from a different angle - how the heck can the diverse array of religious and non-religious worldviews that persist among the human family possibly be considered to be (or even to be on a path towards) "one common faith"?

It’s an important question for Baha’is to resolve and for anyone considering the Baha’i POV. An obvious criticism of the Baha’i Faith is how can the polytheism of Hinduism, the atheism of Buddhism, and the discordant versions of monotheism of the Abrahamic Faiths be reconciled?

1/ The critics rightly say this is impossible.

2/ Baha’is rightly say it can easily be done.

Therein lies the contradiction.

Your approach is to say they all reflect humanities immaturity and the time has come to abandon religion altogether. The momentum in Western liberal democracies is towards secularism not theism.

I think we accept our differences and agree to disagree.

Unless...unless...that "common faith" is faith in the human ability to see things differently from one another without rancour - to paint different (sometimes radically different) pictures from different (sometimes diametrically opposed) perspectives and to truly learn to appreciate all of them as equally valid representations of truth.

OK - I should get to the specific points I suppose:

I’m fine with us all having a measure of truth.

OK - lets say I can accept that - but which takes precedent - the "explorations of the human mind" facilitated and augmented by scientific discovery, or divine revelations of long ago? I agree we can learn from both - I wrote a short essay (none of my essays were ever published BTW - I put a few on a couple web sites I used to contribute to but those are now deceased) a few years ago about how "science and scripture" could be seen as the "two witnesses" leading us to "truth". That's a complete rehash of a biblical image - certainly not pretending to be what "John the Revelator" intended when he wrote about "two witnesses" - but what could he possibly have known of science? He probably meant law and prophecy (also symbolized in scripture by "Moses" and "Elijah" - perhaps but that's another story altogether). But there's a "progressive revelation" process for you...law-giver...prophet...scientist...But could I stand up and suggest that perhaps Einstein or Hawking...or (God-forbid) even the Archbishop of Atheism, Richard Dawkins...had superseded Baha'u'llah as a revealer of truth without falling foul of someone else's inviolable doctrine? I think not. So how can I sing from the same song sheet as a Baha'i or a Muslim or an evangelical Christian if I believe that science has superseded revelation?

That’s certainly a rational approach. Science has convincingly demonstrated some of religions long cherished truths to be false. The Baha’is, Muslims and Christians all claim a Revelation from an infallible God, yet the teachings appear very fallible and contradictory. Therefore it stands to reason that God isn’t infallible. If God is fallible then He is just like us. Logically religions must be man made. It certainly sounds convincing to many and that’s why so many in our countries are abandoning religion altogether.

OK - so what is the Baha'i faith "blind" about? Could it be that it is blind to the fact that the "traditions of our culture" far from "obscuring this truth" in fact elucidate the truth more eloquently (in some respects) simply by the fact of their existence? Could it be, in fact, that if you were to get a couple of fans, some tree stumps, a wall, a snake, a spear and a rope and arrange them in a particular fashion depending on the various angles of the observers, you would in fact have something that much more closely resembled - whilst clearly not actually being, an elephant? And wouldn't the best way to do that be to ask the various blind men to stand up and each hold up their particular versions of "elephantness" in the "place" they felt it might most accurately reflect their perception? And then - if you wanted them to get a glimpse of the overall picture, have them move around - changing places and feeling the different parts rather than simply listening to second-hand descriptions? And wouldn't that work better if you hadn't already declared "no you're all wrong - its not like a fan, a wall...etc. at all" but rather simply suggested "OK why don't we all get together and try to see what each of us sees".

Sure, why not? It makes sense. How is the Baha’i Faith blind? Baha’is can be blind just like anyone else. Was Bahá’u’lláh blind? We both know each other’s answers to that one.

I think I've said enough.

It’s good to clarify what we believe in and why. You have your truth and I don’t see that anyone has a problem with that.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Proselytizers/Evangelists weigh their chances of where they may succeed and where they may not. So, if you are a Proselytizer/Evangelist, you know that Vinayaka is a tough nut to crack, so you don't even try.

That must be why I don’t try to convert you either lol.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Your assessment is correct again. But why should you try to convert anyone to your faith in an internet forum? Is it not against the forum rules?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Your assessment is correct again. But why should you try to convert anyone to your faith in an internet forum? Is it not against the forum rules?

Perhaps I have no real interest or expectations of converting anyone to the Baha’i Faith?

Have you ever traveled outside of India btw?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Have you ever traveled outside of India btw?

Yes, once or twice. But how does it matter?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, once or twice. But how does it matter?

Curiosity. The reason I’m on RF is to learn about other faiths. I learn more from some than others. You’ve taught me some essential truths about Hinduism that I wouldn’t have learnt from any Hindus I have come in contact with in New Zealand.

How much time have you spent abroad if you don’t mind me asking?