If you are a religious believer, do you have to?

[stvdv]

Its a fascinating question which I dont know the answer to without further study

For example the Baha'i National Spiritual Assembly in Australia states regarding becoming a Baha'i;

"It is a heartfelt decision to recognise Baha’u’llah as the Manifestation of God for this age, strive to live life in accordance with the Baha’i laws and teachings, and join the Baha’i community in its efforts to contribute to a better world."1

I like the way they phrased this. Not making it a rule at all. And I do like their goal, how they phrase it here.

So according to my understanding the Baha'i community's administrative heads or spiritual assemblies might take action such as refusing you a vote in Baha'i elections if you do not believe Baha'u'llah to be the Manifestation of God for this age.

That might be true. Would be interesting to ask Bahaullah what He would think of this

 

[Vinayaka]

For those who follow a religion or spiritual teaching, do you feel it is so that you HAVE TO be only one way, you can only have one set of thoughts and can not think outside of the religious scripture you follow?

If you then meet people from your own faith, and they say things that is more free thinker than 100% as the scripture say, do you find your self thinking, He/She is not of my religion, because how they think or believe must be wrong.

What if those you meet have understood deeper wisdom from the scripture, and by this see that being more free thinker is actually fully ok? would you think you could be more free thinker too?

(I guess this thread is more toward Abrahamic believers, but feel free to take part, no matter what you believe)

Tricky question, in my view, as it covers so much. Are you referring to information based on scripture alone, or on how people live their lives as well? Much of Abrahamism is designed for leaders to tell others how to think. I see images of pastors speaking, and an audience all nodding in agreement.

Then there is the conditioning to think that you're a free thinker, but a deeper look indicates you're not. Dogmatism has an ability to hide itself.

 

[Vinayaka]

I do not think I can be a more free-thinker than I already am.

And yet you insist with utmost certainty to be a hard atheist. Is that really free thinking? I don't think a free thinker would be quite that certain about it, lol.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Tricky question, in my view, as it covers so much. Are you referring to information based on scripture alone, or on how people live their lives as well? Much of Abrahamism is designed for leaders to tell others how to think. I see images of pastors speaking, and an audience all nodding in agreement.

Then there is the conditioning to think that you're a free thinker, but a deeper look indicates you're not. Dogmatism has an ability to hide itself.

It can be both scriptual but also non scriptual information this thead is about. its a bit up to the person who answer how they want to see it too

 

[Vinayaka]

It can be both scriptual but also non scriptual information this thead is about. its a bit up to the person who answer how they want to see it too

With scripture, and some prophets, it's very close to the infallibility question. Those who believe in infallibility, either of scripture or of prophet, HAVE TO believe in what they believe, or drop the infallibility stuff.

But I see scripture as not covering life either. Let's take whether or not to get a vaccine. Sure, some folks might find some sort of scripture that they think tells them not to get it, but within many religious groups, everyone would have free choice, which means free thinking. My point is that so much of life isn't covered by scripture, and what can people turn to other than their own common sense, or lack of common sense?

 

[Spirit of Light]

With scripture, and some prophets, it's very close to the infallibility question. Those who believe in infallibility, either of scripture or of prophet, HAVE TO believe in what they believe, or drop the infallibility stuff.

But I see scripture as not covering life either. Let's take whether or not to get a vaccine. Sure, some folks might find some sort of scripture that they think tells them not to get it, but within many religious groups, everyone would have free choice, which means free thinking. My point is that so much of life isn't covered by scripture, and what can people turn to other than their own common sense, or lack of common sense?

You hit some very important areas of interests

 

[Link]

For those who follow a religion or spiritual teaching, do you feel it is so that you HAVE TO be only one way, you can only have one set of thoughts and can not think outside of the religious scripture you follow?

If you then meet people from your own faith, and they say things that is more free thinker than 100% as the scripture say, do you find your self thinking, He/She is not of my religion, because how they think or believe must be wrong.

What if those you meet have understood deeper wisdom from the scripture, and by this see that being more free thinker is actually fully ok? would you think you could be more free thinker too?

(I guess this thread is more toward Abrahamic believers, but feel free to take part, no matter what you believe)

Salam

Although people and even Muslims have given up on uniting on truth, I still believing in enjoining truth, seeking knowledge, teaching it and never saying about God what we don't know and even in general try to not speak in knowledge and claim it when we don't know.

There is my view never an official creed, Ibrahim (a) understood God and his revelation/scripture, at a level higher then Muslims, Christians, Jews, and so these are all not the religion of Abraham, but in general, he submits to God and is upright, so if we do that, we have similarity to that, and if we believe some of the key things he knows and primary things emphasized by God for humans to know, we are then of the right creed.

I hate falsehood, I hate people speaking what they don't know, and I hate people arguing for the sake of argument and not reaching truth.

 

[firedragon]

With scripture, and some prophets, it's very close to the infallibility question. Those who believe in infallibility, either of scripture or of prophet, HAVE TO believe in what they believe, or drop the infallibility stuff.

Err. I think you nailed it. Though it hurts.

 

[Vinayaka]

Err. I think you nailed it. Though it hurts.

Yes indeed. Personally, I try to avoid judging how much of a free thinker I am, because I think it's harder to see yourself that many people believe. Just because a person says, "I'm a free thinker" doesn't mean they are. Further investigation, or responses to situations can reveal the opposite.

 

[osgart]

Free thinking is how I developed my own path. But it is very good to say I don't know when that is the truth of the matter.

I don't know how people can subject themselves to a rigid doctrine and not even think outside of that box. That's very confining to me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And yet you insist with utmost certainty to be a hard atheist. Is that really free thinking? I don't think a free thinker would be quite that certain about it, lol.

Vinayaka, you forget that I am an enlightened person (there are others too in the forum. @Revoltingest is one example). I have arrived at my current position only after years of research and analysis. There are things about which myself (and science) are not sure, and we acknowledge that freely.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Believing that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for this age is not by definition orthodoxy, it is a belief.
Orthodoxy: authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice.

That Bahaollah is whatever is the authorized position of the HoJ, it is the generally accepted doctrine among Bahais. Therefore Bahais are another orthodox religious group. They insist that they worship the God of Abraham whom Moses, Jesus and Mohammad, worshiped; though they say that the uneducated 19th Century Iranian preacher got the most recent message from Allah which does away with the corruption that has happened in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The three onenesses is the primary message of Baha'u'llah.

Messages come from Allah, and not from Bahaollah. Bahaollah should not take any credit for the message. That will be plagiarism.

“The first duty .. of Divine inspiration.”

Yeah sure. That is why you sould agree that Bahais are orthodox.

@stvdv I think @Trailblazer 's post #11 covers your question in Baha'u'llah's style of writing.

Though Shoghi translateth. So, that is Shoghi's style that you are reading. Readeth, thinketh, decideth, etceth.

 

[Jainarayan]

For those who follow a religion or spiritual teaching, do you feel it is so that you HAVE TO be only one way, you can only have one set of thoughts and can not think outside of the religious scripture you follow?

No, we’re encouraged to think, explore, question by sages, teachers, saints. Sri Ramakrishna was very big on exploring. Even the Rigveda, one of, if not our most revered scripture asks questions. The Nasadiya Sukta (Hymn of Creation) scratches its head.

6. But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

7. Whence all creation had its origin,
the creator, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
the creator, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows — or maybe even he does not know. Rigveda 10.129.6-7

Then there’s the (in)famous* Rv verse ekam sadviprah bahudha vadanti, “One Truth the sages give many names”.

* ”Infamous” because it’s often used and cited incorrectly, which annoys the snot out of many Hindus.

 

[Jainarayan]

Haha, we expect Hindus to have various views. Having just one for a billion people will be so boring.

I always say something like “Ask one billion Hindus one question and you’ll get two billion answers”.

 

[Jainarayan]

All religions are one
All people are one
All God's are one

I think you’ll find that most Hindus are firm believers in #2 and #3 but not #1 except in a qualified form. As @Aupmanyav said, each religion is valid for its followers.

 

[robocop (actually)]

For those who follow a religion or spiritual teaching, do you feel it is so that you HAVE TO be only one way, you can only have one set of thoughts and can not think outside of the religious scripture you follow?

If you then meet people from your own faith, and they say things that is more free thinker than 100% as the scripture say, do you find your self thinking, He/She is not of my religion, because how they think or believe must be wrong.

What if those you meet have understood deeper wisdom from the scripture, and by this see that being more free thinker is actually fully ok? would you think you could be more free thinker too?

(I guess this thread is more toward Abrahamic believers, but feel free to take part, no matter what you believe)

I believe I have the true church, but others will be judged by what they knew about it.

 

[Trailblazer]

As a principle of a system of belief (ie the Baha'i faith) the principle of Baha'u'llah being the Manifestation of God for this age qualifies as a doctrine by your definition (note: the Merriam webster dictionary is saying the same thing as Cambridge dictionary using different words, the definitions do not cancel each other out).
In my opinion.

The belief that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for this age is not a doctrine because it was not taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

Doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+a+doctrine

It was taught by Baha'u'llah, so it is not a doctrine, not anymore than the teachings of Jesus in the Bible are a doctrine.

 

[Trailblazer]

So there are many Baha'i that believe that Baha'u'llah isn't a manifestation of God?

If not, the belief that Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God, by your own definition, is Baha'i orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy: authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+us+orthodxy

"Believing" that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for this age was not authorized by anyone and it is not a generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice; it is a belief.

Definition of belief
: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.
Definition of BELIEF

 

[Trailblazer]

Thank you for the quote

I do not see the name "Bahaullah" mentioned in the quote (or me or mine or I). Very interesting/intriguing. Seems Divine Inspiration to me.

Indeed fascinating, that Bahaullah uses these descriptions and not mentions His own Name, or use words as (I, me, mine etc.)

The 'reason' you do not see the name Baha'u'llah mentioned in the passage is because the passage is not about Baha'u'llah per se, it is about Him Who is the Day Spring of God's Revelation and the Fountain of God's laws. In this age, that just happens to be Baha'u'llah, but in any other age it could be another person.

All colorful descriptions "Day Spring of His Revelation" ... "who representeth the Godhead" ...
These descriptions could mean also Krishna, Jesus, Sai Baba, Rama etc. and of course also Bahaullah. But not exclusively Bahaullah.

That's right, if it was any other age it could be Krishna or Jesus or Muhammad, etc., but in this age it is exclusively Baha'u'llah, Who is the Day Spring of God's Revelation and the Fountain of God's laws..

“The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof, hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 330-331

 

[stvdv]

The 'reason' you do not see the name Baha'u'llah mentioned in the passage is because the passage is not about Baha'u'llah per se, it is about Him Who is the Day Spring of God's Revelation and the Fountain of God's laws

In this age, that just happens to be Baha'u'llah, but in any other age it could be another person.

In 1850 it was Bahaullah

That's right, if it was any other age it could be Krishna or Jesus or Muhammad, etc., but in this age it is exclusively Baha'u'llah, Who is the Day Spring of God's Revelation and the Fountain of God's laws..

I know it is also Sai Baba