• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can you answer this?

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Mike. I can't present any statistics on how much influence religions have on a secular society, secular laws, etc, or the flip side on how much influence secular philosophy has on religious societies, but it is only most probable that both influence each other.

Think of the scientific method. A lot of people have this idea that religion and religious thought is against science and scientific thought. But that's wrong. The scientific method was developed by a person called Ibn Haitham and he was motivated by his religious background. And his scientific method influenced science as a whole. Martin Luther was motivated by his religious rebellion or "protest" and the church was against him with one reason being his influence on the organisation of society which influenced secular societies.

This will go on forever.

Anyway, I have a doubt I understood you properly. Can you please clarify your final question?
The take-away I got from the OP was the premise that all religious belief is beyond the verifiable and therefore is it never appropriate to question or challenge someone's religious beliefs, that personally held religious beliefs affect no-one but the belief-holder.

I take some issue with this position, in that what people believe informs the decisions they make as members of society and can't help but have impact beyond themselves. And as the number of people who share the same belief grow, the greater the influence on society.

If a belief is based on a fallacy and has significant social impact, how is one to address this? Religion in general impacts society on many fronts, including abortion, science education, school prayer, medical research, gender roles and trans-gender issues, etc.

If the argument is abortion is wrong because God said it is wrong, what is one to do but argue against God if one is in favor of abortion rights? If the bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old, what can one do but argue against the bible if a 6,000 year old earth is not supported by the facts?

If one wants a society that makes the best possible decisions base on the best available information that is continually improved and updated, then one finds themselves continually in opposition to religious belief.
 

Moonjuice

In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey
I was not implying that what all the religions teach is true, I was only saying that what was revealed in their scriptures is true.
I'm speaking specifically about what the actual scriptures say. They contradict each other on the exact details that make them different religions in the first place. This is irrefutable. In order to convince any rational person that the worlds major religions are all true or they were all true at one point seems impossible. It would take a mountain of evidence to convince people this is actually true. Do you have any actual evidence, or are you going to go with "Bahá’u’lláh says so".
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Wow. I didnt expect that honestly. Did you ask a question or impose your perception or bias upon someone else's disposition?
No, I was not stating my perception of @Link 's position.

This is in response to the "insanity of the west" comment. @Link was advocating the mixing of religion and government and this was an illustration of an extreme version of that. It's purpose was to highlight where such mixing can lead and that it may not be your personal religion that is adopted by the state. There are many real world examples where the minority religions do not fair well.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
No I wouldn't.
I replied elsewhere before responding here. My example is, in my opinion, a worse-case scenario of mixing religion and politics, but this worst-case scenario exists and is being advocated today in some regions of the world.

It is these extremes that the "insane West" is trying to avoid. Mixing politics and religion posses risks, such as institutional discrimination towards minority religions. There is good reason to avoid such mixing as plenty of examples show throughout the world.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
If you discuss against a religious belief that you do not hold/follow your self, how can you be sure you are correct and the actual believers and followers of the belief in discussion is wrong?

Maybe listening is better than claiming to know :confused:

Discussion is dangerous.....it leads to wisdom.

Some Christians are afraid to say or write the name of their God, so they write G_d, assuming, of course, that God (the all-knowing) won't be able to figure it out.

Many Christians fear mentioning God lest they take God's name in vain.

Many Christians refuse to read the bible, but they quote God by saying it is in the scriptures (somewhere.....who knows where).

Reverend Savonarola had the Bonfire of the Vanities, in which art and books were burned. Many times since, books have been burned because of their prurient nature (Catcher in the Rye) or portrayal of Demonic forces (Harry Potter, or Buffy the Vampire slayer), and some have been burned (perhaps along with their authors) for containing science, which some Christians claim is anti-religion. However, I know of very few scientists who have burned theists at the stake. There were, of course, Nazi doctors who practiced human experimentation (using humans as Guinea pigs.

The Dark Ages were a period in which the prim Christians were in charge, wielding their cruelties.

Puritans believe that dance produces joy, and joy is sinful. And, singing, music, and most books also seem to be banned.

The Amish refuse to allow anyone to talk to shunned members (those who stray from the teachings of the church and go out into the world to find out how it is). It is common for the Amish to forgive young adults who experience the outside world, and eventually accept them as members of the community again.

To a great extent, theists define themselves, by their actions.

The world is messed up now (forest fires, debt, pandemic, ecological collapse, Global Warming accelerating, trade imbalances, homelessness, objections to universal health care (Jesus healed folks)). W. Bush embroiled the nation in wars, recession, outsourced factories, etc.

The world got this way when the Religious Right rallied in great numbers and took over the political system.

Christians no longer follow Christ.
"Thou shalt not kill" should prevent the war in Iraq.

There is still a lot of soft money political campaigning, such as the funds that keep Rush Limbaugh on the air, even after his demise. Year round politicking filled with lies and half truths (from the political party allied with Christians).

The son of Reverend Robert Schuller (Crystal Cathedral founder) was photographed in public with booze in one arm, a scantily clad buxom blonde in another arm, and his penis sticking out from his pulled down trousers. Is this how a reverend is supposed to behave? Is this the best use of church funds? Are the poor being fed, the sick healed? Are they doing what Jesus would have done? When you live in a glass house you shouldn't have your pants down.

It's easy to use Christian forgiveness to hid the boy molesting Catholic priests, and Boy Scout of America troop leaders who raped little boys. But, eventually such stories do make headlines. Of course the Catholic Church and BSA have both declared bankruptcy in order to deprive their innocent victims of just compensation because their love of mammon exceeds their devotion to God.

How can I tell if I am wrong? How can I tell if it is a sin to rape little boys? How can I tell if it is a sin to have one's penis sticking out in public? How can I tell if Reverend Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker were wrong to steal from starving Africans to air condition their mansion? Tammy said that she learned from this....learned not to get caught next time.

The Lord says "judge not lest ye be judged." Yet, we must judge that those who do Satanic things and want us to follow in their footsteps are leading us down the primrose path. So we must judge in order to recognize and avoid Satan.

We can be sure that we recognize Satan when we see him ruling by fear (Orange alerts issued by W. Bush and Dick Cheney), and bearing false witness against our neighbors (Axis of Evil, and Doctor of Death)....all motivations for war. We can be sure that we recognize evil by seeing tax breaks for the super-wealthy (who used their vast wealth to outsource American jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap Chinese slave boys), and don't help the hoards of homeless people.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
I replied elsewhere before responding here. My example is, in my opinion, a worse-case scenario of mixing religion and politics, but this worst-case scenario exists and is being advocated today in some regions of the world.

It is these extremes that the "insane West" is trying to avoid. Mixing politics and religion posses risks, such as institutional discrimination towards minority religions. There is good reason to avoid such mixing as plenty of examples show throughout the world.

Indeed, the mixing of religion and politics is around the world (and has been for countless thousands of years). Snake and cat worship abounded in ancient Egypt. Modern Israel is predominately ruled by Jews (not other religions). The Religious Right of the United States made it possible for several modern presidents to get elected (all Republican). Afghanistan had been ruled by the Taliban (their religious leaders).

US soldiers can only be as honorable as the one issuing their orders. If they are told to fight a third world nation with little fire power, and told that they have Weapons of Mass Destruction (though they don't) and told that they are fighting evil (though they are not), and told that they are fighting a nation that has links to terrorism (though they don't), they are literally slaughtering anyone that the leader tells them to. They get confused about defending America's freedom or helping a hot-headed and impulsive aggressor attack and take down a "relatively" peaceful nation. Such actions only make matters worse, because it recruits new members for the al Qaeda (aka ISI, aka ISIS).
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I'm speaking specifically about what the actual scriptures say. They contradict each other on the exact details that make them different religions in the first place. This is irrefutable.
Of course the religions are different. Why would God send a new Messenger to establish a religion that is exactly the same as the other religions that already exist? But differences are not contradictions, they are differences. The reason the religions are different is because humanity has different requirements in every age.

“The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288

Scriptures of various religions all contain the truth because the essential spiritual truths are the same in every religion -- faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love God, love your neighbor, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy.

Only the message from God that is pertinent to the age and the social teachings and laws differ between religions.
In order to convince any rational person that the worlds major religions are all true or they were all true at one point seems impossible. It would take a mountain of evidence to convince people this is actually true. Do you have any actual evidence, or are you going to go with "Bahá’u’lláh says so".
I am going with what Baha'u'llah wrote coupled with reason. There is no reason to believe that God would not reveal religions that are different in every age, yet all true, since the needs of humanity in every age have been different; so just as science evolves over time, religion must evolve over time. That is the core teaching of the Baha'i Faith called Progressive Revelation.

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
If you discuss against a religious belief that you do not hold/follow your self, how can you be sure you are correct and the actual believers and followers of the belief in discussion is wrong?

Maybe listening is better than claiming to know :confused:


If I take an airplane and fly around the entire globe, I would see that the world is round. If you are to tell me the world is Flat, am I really supposed to listen to your belief that the world is flat regardless of how you might insist it is?? Further, If I value Truth at all, isn't it my duty to at least place the Real Truth within your reach?

Now, if the Real Truth is not known, then the argument over beliefs merely widens the view along with showing each other who you really are and what you value. This does have it's merits regardless of any drama generated.

God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than any one person could have. One might not see Real Truth in the other, however there is always something that can be learned and taught through the experience. Truth isn't about what feels good or what avoids drama.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 

Moonjuice

In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey
By the way, using the writings of Baha’u’llah to justify your own beliefs doesn’t do anything to explain to the rest of us why we should think any of it is 1. Actually the word of god 2. True. If it’s true, like everything else that is true, it shouldn’t be so hard to provide evidence for it.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
And that is why they can’t all be true. But, they can certainly all be wrong.
Sorry, but that is not logical, for reasons I already explained.
They can certainly all be right, because the primary message as the social teachings and laws were right for the ages and for the people to whom they were revealed and the spiritual teachings are eternal so they will always be right.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
By the way, using the writings of Baha’u’llah to justify your own beliefs doesn’t do anything to explain to the rest of us why we should think any of it is 1. Actually the word of god 2. True. If it’s true, like everything else that is true, it shouldn’t be so hard to provide evidence for it.
I do not expect anyone to think that my beliefs are 1. Actually the word of god or 2. True.

I do not know what you mean by evidence. I could provide evidence that proved to me that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, but like every skeptic and nonbeliever you'd just say "that's not evidence." But it is the only evidence there is.

No, religion is not like everything else that's true because it cannot be proven true in the same way as other things for obvious reasons: Nobody can prove as a fact that God exists so obviously nobody can prove that God sent Messengers.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I replied elsewhere before responding here. My example is, in my opinion, a worse-case scenario of mixing religion and politics, but this worst-case scenario exists and is being advocated today in some regions of the world.

It is these extremes that the "insane West" is trying to avoid. Mixing politics and religion posses risks, such as institutional discrimination towards minority religions. There is good reason to avoid such mixing as plenty of examples show throughout the world.

There is worse case scenarios with any type of government.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If you discuss against a religious belief that you do not hold/follow your self, how can you be sure you are correct and the actual believers and followers of the belief in discussion is wrong?

Maybe listening is better than claiming to know :confused:
One can argue against a belief, without one having The Truth.
Such a belief could be erroneous or evil.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Of course the religions are different. Why would God send a new Messenger to establish a religion that is exactly the same as the other religions that already exist? But differences are not contradictions, they are differences. The reason the religions are different is because humanity has different requirements in every age.

“The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288

Scriptures of various religions all contain the truth because the essential spiritual truths are the same in every religion -- faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love God, love your neighbor, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy.

Only the message from God that is pertinent to the age and the social teachings and laws differ between religions.

I am going with what Baha'u'llah wrote coupled with reason. There is no reason to believe that God would not reveal religions that are different in every age, yet all true, since the needs of humanity in every age have been different; so just as science evolves over time, religion must evolve over time. That is the core teaching of the Baha'i Faith called Progressive Revelation.

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

Jesus preached salvation or damnation and that some people standing while he was alive on earth will not taste death til the second coming that never happened. Jesus preached about bringing a sword of truth.

How is Jesus a Messenger of God. If I thought that each religion had truth, I would see clearly that the truth in each was delivered in a very faulty, harmful and erroneous way.

I could never be a Ba'hai knowing the falsehoods in each major religion.

I would expect that true divinity would not mince and mix his message with a bunch of human perspectives, and false manipulations in their stories.

It's like Bahullah was refereeing all the religions and telling them to drop their holy wars so that the entire human race can all get along.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I assume when you're spiritually awakened negativity sticks out like a sore thumb... but it could be hidden pride. I'm just throwing things out.
Yeah, it does not look good on the person. They are not supposed to say so. Dear friend, I differ. Why the charade? If something is wrong, I would have no hesitation in saying that it is wrong. Stating truth is not pride. It is being straight forward and not devious.
No, i only ask the one can respect each others even we have different religious belief
As a person, yes. But IMHO, one can talk about religions freely. How can a person who goes for truth, respect a false belief? Like I respect you but differ from the belief that you follow.
When a soul decides not to blindly follow and let goes of all it doesn't know, at first, it will be lost, but if seeks signs and proofs, it will find the insights and from the right sources, in my perspective. That is because God will be there for the seekers of truth and knows how to guide back his creation.
Kindly do not presume that everyone believes in your belief of God, soul and messengers. As an atheist I have different views. I have sought and have not seen signs and proofs in monotheistic religions. Many would not agree to your view that Quran is a right source.
We cannot objectively know if a persons belief system is wrong.
So, if the room is dark, there is necessarily an elephant in it!
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
.. but they have right for religion and for mixing it with the government.
Yeah, we see that in many Islamic countries, and its effects also.
I know this is not a Christian belief, but I believe that all the major religions are true. I could never believe any other way because it would not make sense for God to favor only one religion and leave everyone else out in the cold.
What about minor religions? Are they true or not? Like the wannabe Bahais, and the Ahmadiyyas who have poor representation in the forum? 5 million in 7800 million does not make any a major religion. Why make this distinction of major and minor? Is there a God and souls? First establish that, then we will talk of prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis.
The scientific method was developed by a person called Ibn Haitham and he was motivated by his religious background. And his scientific method influenced science as a whole.
That is a tall claim to make. There were people of science evenbefore ibn al-Haytham.
 
Last edited:
Top