Common ground.

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, what is the common ground? Not religion, God and his messengers. But can a religion that is told to go out and tell others about this new revelation from God actually not talk about it?

They certainly can. But then the differences will crop up and conflicts will sprout. Then talking of common ground will be lost.

 

[loverofhumanity]

He was not a prophet even according to Bahais, and if he claims prophecy, then it is falsehood. People have views different from what he had.

No he was not a prophet. But he was given authority by Abdul-Baha to lead the Baha’i Faith and interpretation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They have the new, better, more accurate truth from God.
And putting a person's religious beliefs aside is necessary if the goal is to get along.

They believe that they have a new, better, more accurate truth from God. People of all other religions differ with them and many (like myself) do not even believe in existence of any God or his sending out messengers at regular intervals.
That is what we do in normal life. Only the proselytizers or paid influencers will talk of religion unceasingly.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No he was not a prophet. But he was given authority by Abdul-Baha to lead the Baha’i Faith and interpretation.

Problems happen when the authority is passed over dynastic lines. Did Bahaollah say what Shoghi said - exactlty? Remember, for you what Bahaollah said was Allah's words and they must never be changed in any way, otherwise it is a corruption.

 

[Heyo]

Nothing secret and nothing personal. Know about them here: Know Your Moderators!

I formulated that wrong, it should have read "how they hide their actions in the shadows".

 

[Heyo]

How is that possible - do you think that God is pleased or appreciates those who deny His existence, and causes others to disregard His precepts?
Atheists should be ashamed of themselves - for it is only the fool who says in his heart that there is no God.
Do you think that it is a light matter to defy God to His face, by claiming that He has no authority or power in regard to His creation?
There should never, ever be agreement, accord or amicability between a theist and an atheist, unless the theist has hope that the atheist is corrigible. Otherwise, let them know your indignation and displeasure - it's better to warn them as soon as possible and not give them a false sense of security i.e. that their convictions are not offensive, subversive and condeming.

Are you serious?
We can find common ground on that basis, i.e. we can agree to put each other on ignore.

 

[Altfish]

How does religion do this? Is it not simply illegal?

Not in Switzerland and some other countries.
In the UK Humanists UK are fighting for the right to die. We are up against the religious lobby.

 

[Secret Chief]

Not in Switzerland and some other countries.
In the UK Humanists UK are fighting for the right to die. We are up against the religious lobby.

I see. I did only mean in this country.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I formulated that wrong, it should have read "how they hide their actions in the shadows".

Well everything need not be public. Modi or Shah do not tell me what is there in their minds. Information is passed to whom it is necessary and to the extent it is necessary.

 

[MikeF]

Thanks for explaining your experiences. I can see how this could work if a couple shares other things in common and if the religious spouse does not push religion on the other spouse.

My late husband of 37 years was a Baha'i as am I, and we both became Baha'is at an early age. Most Baha'is are married to Baha'is but not always. I know some Baha'is who are married to Christians although I don't know any who are married to nonbelievers. But that does not mean it never happens since I do not know very many Baha'is.

I hope to remarry and I had it in my head that I have to marry a Baha'i but that is a tall order finding one so I don't think that is going to happen. As an alternative, I am open to marrying a Christian or someone of another religion but I would probably prefer to marry an agnostic since there would be no conflict about whose religion is the true one and I believe agnosticism is a very respectable position since there is no proof that God exists.

Obviously if my wife felt I must accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior or I would burn in hell for eternity, or that my non-belief would affect her in some way we probably would not have been able to move forward in our relationship. And the same is true if I couldn't accommodate what she valued in her religious practice.

There is so much that goes into making and maintaining a good relationship. It would be unfortunate if views on religion were the only insurmountable stumbling block.

I wish you the very best of luck in finding a life partner with whom you can share the remainder of your life journey.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Atheists should be ashamed of themselves - for it is only the fool who says in his heart that there is no God.
Do you think that it is a light matter to defy God to His face, by claiming that He has no authority or power in regard to His creation?
There should never, ever be agreement, accord or amicability between a theist and an atheist, unless the theist has hope that the atheist is corrigible. Otherwise, let them know your indignation and displeasure - it's better to warn them as soon as possible and not give them a false sense of security i.e. that their convictions are not offensive, subversive and condemning.

Theists should be ashamed of saying something like this. Since when you have assumed the mantle of a judge? Atheist will deal with God, if he/she encounters him. Who are you to make the judgement?
This topic is about finding common ground. If there is not going to be a common ground, then a theist should not float such an idea.
Atheists are secure enough. We do not need an assurance of security from theists.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In the Bhagavad-Gita, the Torah, New Testament, Buddhists Suttas, Zoroastrian scriptures, and Quran there are promises of a Teacher to come. It’s what is written in their Holy Books.
So people how are they going to find out that the Promised One has come?

Do you think all what is written in the books is true?
Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Bahaollah or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad; none of them gave any evidence for existence of God/Allah nor any for the validity of their mission.
There was no way to find that in the past, there does not seem to be any way to find that out in future too.

 

[LuisDantas]

As if the beliefs of some, if not all, religions should be questioned. I agree. There is a significant need. Beliefs of some of the major religions, like Christianity and Islam, have caused tremendous harm. People have been killed because they didn't believe or didn't believe correctly. And what were those beliefs based on? Something written in a book saying, "God demands this", or "forbids this". Is it wrong to ask for more proof than that?

That is a major reason for questioning.

Another is that there is no other way to keep doctrines and practices relevant and morally sound. Even taking for granted that all doctrines are valid at first, understandings will stray.

 

[LuisDantas]

How is that possible - do you think that God is pleased or appreciates those who deny His existence, and causes others to disregard His precepts?
Atheists should be ashamed of themselves - for it is only the fool who says in his heart that there is no God.
Do you think that it is a light matter to defy God to His face, by claiming that He has no authority or power in regard to His creation?
There should never, ever be agreement, accord or amicability between a theist and an atheist, unless the theist has hope that the atheist is corrigible. Otherwise, let them know your indignation and displeasure - it's better to warn them as soon as possible and not give them a false sense of security i.e. that their convictions are not offensive, subversive and condeming.

Your god is welcome to come challenge me.

If and when it does, I will point out how senseless and destructive are the claims made on its name by the Bible, the Qur'an, and many or most of its followers.

If you think that I should be afraid or ashamed... I guess I will have to accept that I failed your expectations, for good or worse.

 

[Polymath257]

So then, perhaps there isn't a common agreement on what really is peace and harmony?

Exactly. Peace and harmony is a very general phrase that can be interpreted by anyone to be what *they* like.

Living in 'peace and harmony' with those you disagree with fundamentally is the real trick.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How can believers and atheists find common ground to be able to say. You know, I see you as a human being, no matter if you believe in a religion or not. I want to know you as a person, but if you believe or not, that is your private choice. I can love you for just being you.

A good start would be leaving your religious beliefs out of the relationship unless asked.

Are not atheists doing exactly that toward believers?

You responded to, "Common Ground will only be found if religious people stop trying to influence the lives of non-believers."

Humanists don't care what theists believe until it intrudes into their world. When invasive religions are detoothed, humanists will likely never think about any of the religions, just as scientists don't think about gods. Why would they? These other belief systems are of no value or interest to him. Just consider the religions that have no effect on the humanist's life, like Druidry or Jainism. Humanists don't care that people believe those things, because it doesn't overlap into their lives. Christians often ask why skeptics criticize Christianity more than Islam or other religions. Maybe because they never hear from them and aren't affected by them.

There should never, ever be agreement, accord or amicability between a theist and an atheist, unless the theist has hope that the atheist is corrigible. Otherwise, let them know your indignation and displeasure - it's better to warn them as soon as possible and not give them a false sense of security i.e. that their convictions are not offensive, subversive and condeming.

Why would a humanist be interested in anything a person like you has to say? What do you have to offer somebody like me that I should listen to your opinions. Your moral system is unappealing. I'm perfectly content with you keeping your distance, and not particularly interested in what offends you. And why shouldn't humanists be subversive regarding a religion that teaches people to think like this? What do you think it adds to the world but contention and division.

But you come by this honestly. You've been reading your Bible. It's filled with this kind of bigotry and hate speech for unbelievers. And it's the attitude that powers my antitheism. I don't believe that your religion has the moral right to teach such things to anybody. It has always been destructive for unbelievers, who have a moral obligation to oppose the institution that teaches people things like what it taught you. Isn't that what I'm doing right now?

I do not see religious people doing that but maybe you see something I don't see.

You responded to, "Common Ground will only be found if religious people stop trying to influence the lives of non-believers." You don't see that? The theist above just explained that he has no interest in atheists except to convert them.

Also, I doubt you missed the SCOTUS ruling overturning Roe, but apparently you missed that it was an attempt to influence people's lives according to Christianity's idea of what Jesus wants his church to impose on the piece of humanity in the court's jurisdiction. Maybe you don't look at or read much news. There's also been some backlash from those uninterested in what Christians think Jesus wants for American women.

That religion needs to be weakened until it affects only volunteers. And as I indicated above, once that happens, they'll be no reason to think about that religion at all or care what any of its adherents believe. I explained to you that I wouldn't care if my neighbor danced around a tree at midnight shaking a stick with a bloody chicken claw nailed to it at the moon if that's what centers him and gives his life meaning, as long as he keeps the noise down. Nor would I ask him what he believes beyond trying to get a sense of whether he is dangerous or insane. If he's harmless and considerate of his neighbors, then he doesn't get a second thought, because it would have no effect on me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Living in 'peace and harmony' with those you disagree with fundamentally is the real trick.

That might be difficult if you were married to the person but otherwise I do not see it as a problem.
We are all very different and I think we can live in harmony despite our differences.

BEAUTY AND HARMONY IN DIVERSITY

 

[nPeace]

That might be difficult if you were married to the person but otherwise I do not see it as a problem.
We are all very different and I think we can live in harmony despite our differences.

BEAUTY AND HARMONY IN DIVERSITY

I think the operative word he used is fundamentally.
That goes beyond having mere differences, I think. It refers to major differences, like what's allowed, or not allowed.

For example, say your husband thinks it's okay to sleep with a pig, would you accept that?
I don't mean sleep with, as in snoring.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic human advice is first.

A mother human a father human. All animals. Nature. A planet. A heavens we live within. Presence. Natural. Life now all human babies.

Human.
Family. Natural life living self mutual purpose our survival. Hierarchy natural order in aging.

No Civilisation then. No fake human scientific thesis nor inventions.

Modern life human warnings about or unnatural chosen human behaviours after implementing fake inventive controls upon mass. Changed human mind.

As mass is one. Dust body types each a one as thought upon as position two. Humans neither term.

The realisation rich man and scientist man are human life's hypocrites.

Natural family life is gone and cannot be returned to by natural law

Hence hypocrite humans are hypocrite human's self stated. So should hence now make better hypocritical choices. Instead of lying. So family life can emerge into a more loving acceptance.

 

[CG Didymus]

Do you think all what is written in the books is true?
Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Bahaollah or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad; none of them gave any evidence for existence of God/Allah nor any for the validity of their mission.
There was no way to find that in the past, there does not seem to be any way to find that out in future too.

We know that Baha'is don't believe everything in the Scriptures of the other religions are true. Unless it is a prophecy that they can use and say their guy has fulfilled it.

And that last line that says, "how are they going to find out that the Promised One has come?" Unless Baha'is go tell everybody. Just like Christians are told to go tell people the "good news" about Jesus. Seeking common ground isn't the goal of proselytizing religions... it is to make converts.

In the Bhagavad-Gita, the Torah, New Testament, Buddhists Suttas, Zoroastrian scriptures, and Quran there are promises of a Teacher to come. It’s what is written in their Holy Books. So people how are they going to find out that the Promised One has come?