Pros and cons of attempts at perceiving many or all religions as pointing to the same conclusions

[Sees]

So meaningful that one religion should destroy other religions?

Unless it is a threat, why would something different be destroyed?

All other traditions are different from mine, some in many more ways than others and with a larger gap...I don't like others just as much as mine and dislike some more than others.

I wouldn't want to completely destroy any. All is well and they can be as strange and wacky to me as imaginable - as long as it isn't negatively impacting me and isn't forced on me or others.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am a person who thinks that all religions are correct. There are differences among religions, so what?

Some of those differences are very difficult to reconcile.

Maybe we can agree that people can be reasonable and develop a measure of empathy and wisdom under a wide variety of belief systems and doctrines and work from there?

 

[syo]

Unless it is a threat, why would something different be destroyed?

All other traditions are different from mine, some in many more ways than others and with a larger gap...I don't like others just as much as mine and dislike some more than others.

I wouldn't want to completely destroy any. All is well and they can be as strange and wacky to me as imaginable - as long as it isn't negatively impacting me and isn't forced on me or others.

Freedom of religion. If people don't have freedom of religion then that is problematic.

 

[syo]

Some of those differences are very difficult to reconcile.

Maybe we can agree that people can be reasonable and develop a measure of empathy and wisdom under a wide variety of belief systems and doctrines and work from there?

Why reconcile differences?

Aren't differences in religions a nice thing?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why reconcile differences?

Aren't differences in religions a nice thing?

No, not always, not automatically.

It is certainly good to have room to accept and respect diversity of belief.

But on the other hand, it is just as important and arguably more necessary to attain a measure of mutual understanding as well.

Also, it must be acknowledged that we interact and interfere with each other. Our beliefs and values shape those interactions and there is definitely a place for understanding those of others, so that the best possible balance can be reached.

 

[syo]

No, not always, not automatically.

It is certainly good to have room to accept and respect diversity of belief.

But on the other hand, it is just as important and arguably more necessary to attain a measure of mutual understanding as well.

Also, it must be acknowledged that we interact and interfere with each other. Our beliefs and values shape those interactions and there is definitely a place for understanding those of others, so that the best possible balance can be reached.

True true. And that's not tough because religions aren't completely alien to each other. Or I'm being too optimistic.

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems to me that there is a lot to be desired in the mutual understanding of religions, yes.

 

[Sundance]

It seems to me that there is a lot to be desired in the mutual understanding of religions, yes.

I absolutely agree, Luis!

 

[1AOA1]

The issue is not that apple trees should reach the same conclusion as orange tress and produce oranges, or that orange trees should do the same with apples. When both apple trees and oranges are filed under trees, then you have one source, trees, producing different, contradictory and conflicting fruits.

 

[Vinayaka]

True true. And that's not tough because religions aren't completely alien to each other. Or I'm being too optimistic.

I personally believe it's too optimistic, yes. The 'completely alien' is true in some pairs of religions. Others, not so much. Then, the only way to find common ground is to distort the views of one or the other or both, which can do no justice to one, or the other, or both. The distortion often comes in the form of 'But ______s don't really believe that.' It's sad, especially when a more realistic and loving alternative is right there in front of you, which is to see both as correct, as is, for the individual adherents.

 

[paarsurrey]

No, not always, not automatically.
It is certainly good to have room to accept and respect diversity of belief.
But on the other hand, it is just as important and arguably more necessary to attain a measure of mutual understanding as well.
Also, it must be acknowledged that we interact and interfere with each other. Our beliefs and values shape those interactions and there is definitely a place for understanding those of others, so that the best possible balance can be reached.

I agree with you here.
Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

No, not always, not automatically.

It is certainly good to have room to accept and respect diversity of belief.

But on the other hand, it is just as important and arguably more necessary to attain a measure of mutual understanding as well.

Also, it must be acknowledged that we interact and interfere with each other. Our beliefs and values shape those interactions and there is definitely a place for understanding those of others, so that the best possible balance can be reached.

We share the planet. In order to survive there has to be harmony between us despite chasms of difference.

 

[Kartari]

Hi paarsurrey,

One can believe in any religion to start with, then one can search/research to find the best in them. One shouldn't be a non-believer. Right?
Regards

I do not agree that one should automatically begin with belief in what a religion tells us. I personally think it best to begin with doubt, and to see the merit of a given religion demonstrate itself through practice. First and foremost though, we would all benefit remarkably imo if we all began as independent, rational, and equanimous thinkers coming from a moral foundation in compassion.

 

[Sundance]

Bahaullah, the manifestation of Allah, never even mentioned Indian religions. They were added to the list later. Unless one does not accept Bahaullah as a manifestation of Allah, one is not a Bahai. Is this any different from Christians asking for acceptance of Jesus or Muslims asking for acceptance of Mohammad? Such seemingly benign approaches are known as strategies.

Peace and many Blessings to you, dear Aupji! As a Bahá’í, I would like to offer a reply to your points:

Although, yes, it is true that the explicit inclusion of Indian Religions did not begin to occur until the successorship of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, that was only because they were unknown to Him. Even so, He did, truly, state:

“There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion (the peoples of India, and their various Religions included), derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God.”

and in the same chapter,

“All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose (once again, Indian Religions included).”

So these verses unto themselves sow the seeds for that explicit inclusion of Indian Religions as being especially Revealed, later made explicit by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, as he became more aware of them.

As for your second point, concerning the declaration of faith in Bahá’u’lláh as the Messenger of God for our Day and Age, this is undoubtedly true! It is called ‘the Bahá’í Faith’ for some reason...Anyway, one thing you must understand is that through accepting Bahá'u'lláh (thereby becoming a Bahá’í), one also accepts the validity of all of the Messengers of God (There are countless Messengers, found in every culture and nation. Plus, there is really no definitive list of those Sanctified Mirrors.), one of whom is Lord Krishna, who is considered God, Svayam Bhagavan in Hinduism, yes?, as well as their various Religions and Sacred Writings as being Divinely Revealed and Inspired!

Finally, to address your comparison of ‘declaring’ with the act of conversion as done in Christianity and Islam, becoming a Bahá’í is not a rejection of your previous Religion (whether that Religion is Abrahamic, Dharmic, or whatever), rather it is accepting that your Religion is but one Facet, one Glimpse, one Step, one Revelation in an ever-unfolding Divine Plan, you got me? Do you understand now?

 

[Sundance]

Sassimaa, many are under the spell of 'maya' and are in no position to guide others. Such people can only misguide. Bahaullah claimed that there would not be any more manifestation of Allah for at least 800 years after him. What is the logic of that statement? Do not mention my own views about it. As you know even a mad dog is a manifestation of Brahman for me. My philosophy does not accept any differentiation.

Hello, once again, Aupji! I think a bit of clarification is in order: when we as Bahá’ís speak of ‘Manifestations of (the Names and Attributes of) God’, we mean ‘Messengers’, ‘Prophets’...not Incarnations. We do not teach that God incarnates Himself among the human form.

For further clarification, please read the following articles

http://www.bahai.org/beliefs/god-his-creation/revelation/manifestations-god

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifestation_of_God

Peace and blessings!

 

[psychoslice]

I think those who are truly Spiritual. or who are Mystics do see all rivers pointing to the ocean, its the one who is of the mind that see's the differences, and clings to their own believing their's is the only way, or only river.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Finally, to address your comparison of ‘declaring’ with the act of conversion as done in Christianity and Islam, becoming a Bahá’í is not a rejection of your previous Religion (whether that Religion is Abrahamic, Dharmic, or whatever), rather it is accepting that your Religion is but one Facet, one Glimpse, one Step, one Revelation in an ever-unfolding Divine Plan, you got me? Do you understand now?

I understand it perfectly, in science it is known as phagocytosis.

"Phagocytosis is what occurs when an amoeba surrounds a solid food particle with its pseudopods to form a vacuole (known as a phagosome) in which digestion ..."

The problem is that you are too small to eat us up.

 

[Sundance]

I understand it perfectly, in science it is known as phagocytosis.

View attachment 13694

"Phagocytosis is what occurs when an amoeba surrounds a solid food particle with its pseudopods to form a vacuole (known as a phagosome) in which digestion ..."

The problem is that you are too small to eat us up.

Dearest Aup, I did not know of phagocytosis before now, so thank you immensely for the biology lesson! I am more than willing and very capable to exponentially grow my spiritual stomach size (or, in the case of phagocytosis, number of pods.... bad reference?) if eating yall's the issue, y'know? Don't tempt me... Although, most definitely nowhere near wide enough to fully consume everything which is the infinitely large food particle of Truth and Wisdom called ‘Hinduism’, but that's why I study, I read, I ask questions, I am willing to learn and be taught, and be corrected in my misperceptions. I'm, all in all, an investigator of Truth, Aupji, which I am convinced is found in other Religions, including the Hindu family of religions. I'm working my way up to try my pods at the full particle.....

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you are an investigator of Truth, then jettison all - ALL - your prejudices. Truth cannot be found by those who start with presumptions. You have to start anew.

 

[Sundance]

If you are an investigator of Truth, then jettison all - ALL - your prejudices. Truth cannot be found by those who start with presumptions. You have to start anew.

I agree with you here, Aupji, but how can I start anew? Indeed, from where?