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

[Sees]

I think transplanting the traditions of a culture into a vastly different one via translation is much of the problem....

There is a lack of immersion in all the different aspects of the culture which provides for true context. The difficult and complex concepts within "religion" are hard to adopt or to give the universalism/same-ism treatment. You typically get hollow versions manipulated into matching what is easiest to digest/familiar.

For various reasons, the majority have come to see religion/spirituality as something relatively easy to pluck out and throw on. If any differences are just deemed as more or less cosmetic, why not?

 

[Vinayaka]

It is understood commonly that Rig is beyond desha, kala, and mana (beyond constraints of space-country, time, and mind). It is immaterial whether X or Y wrote truth.

Rig Vedic sukta "The truth is one, which sages call differently", applies universally to the general that runs through the diversity (and for sayings sages). It probably never applies to particulars themselves and surely does not apply to mental level preferences and arguments. Yet, Rig Veda itself considers all the splendorous difference-diversity to be due to operation of Maruts (mind-senses) on Rudra (on the non dual Self).

Still, it is 'differently' ... and not 'any and all things'.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think transplanting the traditions of a culture into a vastly different one via translation is much of the problem....

I concur, and proof can be seen by looking at various translations, in many directions. When behaviour and practices are largely ignored, scripture in and of itself doesn't quite represent it. The very idea of scripture varies widely in terms of how much a paradigm views its importance. We've seen this a lot here, and it doesn't work.

 

[atanu]

Still, it is 'differently' ... and not 'any and all things'.

I edited the post a bit.

 

[atanu]

I think transplanting the traditions of a culture into a vastly different one via translation is much of the problem....

There is a lack of immersion in all the different aspects of the culture which provides for true context. The difficult and complex concepts within "religion" are hard to adopt or to give the universalism/same-ism treatment. You typically get hollow versions manipulated into matching what is easiest to digest/familiar.

For various reasons, the majority have come to see religion/spirituality as something relatively easy to pluck out and throw on. If any differences are just deemed as more or less cosmetic, why not?

Vedanta points to sleep, wherein we exist... And we exist without difference. The diversities of dream and waking are work of mind-senses. If the seeds in subconscious are sweet, the world is sweet.

This discussion and the notion that differences are absolutely real and unsurmountable, IMO, is of mind.

 

[Vinayaka]

It is, IMO, important that I myself follow tenets of my own religion, before finding deficiencies elsewhere.

I agree wholeheartedly, and this is in tune with the OP I think. I don't see 'differences' as deficiencies at all. In fact the diversity is quite welcomed.

 

[LuisDantas]

It does, in my opinion.

I fear we may have to agree to disagree on that point.

I would like an explanation of how this so.

In a nutshell, it is much too theocentric and tends to assume a monotheistic origin and Abrahamic goals and parameters for other religions, sometimes in frank challenge to their own claims.

As of late it really strikes me as very similar to Ahmadiyya Islam: earnest to reach constructive understandings with other religions, but somewhat delusional (far as I can see) about what that involves.

I am willing to bet that there are lots of interesting stories about how your two faiths relate to each other. While Hinduism and Islam are almost completely at odds with each other, Ahmadiyyas and Bahais seem to be too much alike to confortably coexist.

Both of your faiths would to well to lend a page from Hinduism about how to deal with diversity. But I fear that their way is simply too deeply at odds with your central directives - among other reasons, because there is a political authority component to them (to the best of my understanding, anyway).

Translate it into terms which work for you.

I do. But there is not much left of the concept after I do.

I agree, but He does give us a starting point.

A starting point to a certain goal that may or may not be desirable or reasonable.

Myself, I think of it as a solution to a problem that is in truth a blessing.

I cannot disagree with you, here.

Thank you!

I understand why you feel this way, but rest assured, the Bahá’í Faith does offer a different framework, a solid basis for accepting non-Abrahamic religions.

It certainly tries very hard. I will have to ask for your understanding if I stand unconvinced that it succeeds at that, though. It seems to me that there would be discernible evidence if it did, and so far that evidence has eluded me.

Bahá’u’lláh does teach that there are a few “religions” which are the results of human perversity.

That is news to me, and a sensible thing too. Do you know if he said anything about sincerely mistaken religions as well?

Luis, I don't think you truly understand.

Me, truly understand your beliefs? Or anyone else's?

Of course I don't. I do dare to try, and quite a lot at that. But let's be sensible here ...

Although I absolutely agree with you, once again, that's why the Bahá’í Faith teaches us to study other religions. So that we, as Bahá’is, are more informed on other religions. Misunderstandings are, verily, rooted in ignorance.

No argument from me. I quite agree.

I'm a very open-minded person, Luis.

Of course you are. You have suffered me this long already, after all. That in and of itself says a lot!

I'm perfectly capable of accepting the differences between my religion and others. Heck, I will even give props to religions for offering me a new perspective on something, or if I discover something unique in another religion.

Quite commendable.

Though, I think you may need a bit of an education when it comes to what I believe about God and the implications of that belief:

God is one, yes, but ultimately, God is Unknowable, Inaccessible to the human mind. What does this mean? This would make each and every conception of the Divine inaccurate but at the same time, perfectly valid. How does this translate in my evaluation of the different religions? Ultimately, I believe that The Truth is Unknowable by human beings directly, which is the different Religions were created. To give us varying glimpses, each beautiful, all valid, into that which is – I believe – Unascertainable directly.

A bit dicey for my tastes... but then again, I am not you.

I would never rely so much on a God-belief, nor feel quite so drawn to the idea of unknowability. But my needs can't be expected to match yours.

For all I know you have better tools to deal with the downsides of that model than I can conceive of. Perhaps somehow what you call God works as that what I call the Sacred and you have very good defenses against the dangers that I see in theism. How would I know?

You have, and I make mention of it.

Indeed. I was just reminding you.

 

[George-ananda]

Pros: I think there is only one Universal truth and so as all religions evolve, I see them merging to the one truth. I am reminded of the analogy of a mountain with many roads and starting points that are all pointed to the same summit. The places and roads may look different at their starting points. Some religions may not have evolved to the point of even realizing a single summit exists, but it is there for the pure-hearted aspirant.

Cons: None

 

[Katzpur]

Great topic, Luis!

There are always people and, in fact, whole religions that seem put a lot of value in attempting to disregard the differences among religions.

Very often it is presented as an act of good faith, and often enough it is. It is always wise and prudent to remind ourselves that differences of belief are not to be overdone and should not be taken as reason for bitter rejection of other people.

I'm going to start out by disagreeing with you! I think that the various denominations of Christianity do an exceptionally good job of acknowledging our differences and a pretty darned pathetic job of recognizing our similarities. Finding common ground takes effort; spotting differences is easy.

Still, it is definitely possible and harmful to overdo it. We run the risk of attempting to tell people what their beliefs "really are", and that of course is not anyone else's call to make. It amounts to deciding that other people are holding wrong beliefs and should submit to our own judgement on the matter.

Even were that true - and even from a statistical perspective it just can't be true very often at all - the fact remains that it is invasive and disrespectful to reinterpret other people's beliefs without somehow being invited to.

I have found that people have a very easy time of reinterpreting my beliefs to make them even "more different" from those of traditional Christianity than they already are.

But a mistake is still a mistake, and misjudging whole religious communities is not something to be taken too lightly.

But does this really have anything to do with "attempting to disregard the differences among religions"? To me, it's every bit as closely related to "attempting to disregard the similarities among religions."

It seems to me that ultimately we all need to make allowances to a degree of unpredictability from others, be as genuinely interested in understanding others as we can comfortably be, and hope for the best. I don't think there is much of a point in attempting to find out "which belief is true". Our religious duty does not involve finding out what is the true doctrine nearly as much as making our own valid, useful and true.

A Muslim friend of mine on another forum explained his perspective so well. His feelings as a Muslim pretty much mirror mine as a Mormon. He said:

"If someone believes something I say, no matter how much proof I present, they are believing for the wrong reasons.

If someone happens to agree with me, it should be because they themselves have found reason to, not because of anything I do or say.

As each of us is accountable for our beliefs and will reap the results of them, it is essential that we our self are certain they are true. If we are going to be condemned or rewarded for what we believe, it should be for what we actually believe, not what someone thinks we should believe.

I have neither the need nor desire to convince any one else that God(swt) exists. Each person has to find their own reason to believe or not believe.

In my opinion the important part is that every person acknowledge responsibility for what they believe or do not believe. How they verify and what they accept as proof is individual. But, each person must be aware they them self are willing to accept the consequences of their choices.

None of us can be complacent, we must always be seekers and to constantly refine our methods. If it is my desire to accept the teachings of Ivan Badinov as the ultimate authority of truth, I alone will be responsible for the results. It is in my own best interest to always seek verification to the best of my ability.We become sheeple when we stop questioning."

 

[LuisDantas]

Great topic, Luis!

Thanks!

I'm going to start out by disagreeing with you! I think that the various denominations of Christianity do an exceptionally good job of acknowledging our differences and a pretty darned pathetic job of recognizing our similarities. Finding common ground takes effort; spotting differences is easy.

I have found that people have a very easy time of reinterpreting my beliefs to make them even "more different" from those of traditional Christianity than they already are.

But does this really have anything to do with "attempting to disregard the differences among religions"? To me, it's every bit as closely related to "attempting to disregard the similarities among religions."

I don't really disagree. That was not what I had in mind when I wrote the OP, but far as I can tell you are correct here.

A Muslim friend of mine on another forum explained his perspective so well. His feelings as a Muslim pretty much mirror mine as a Mormon. He said:

"If someone believes something I say, no matter how much proof I present, they are believing for the wrong reasons.

If someone happens to agree with me, it should be because they themselves have found reason to, not because of anything I do or say.

As each of us is accountable for our beliefs and will reap the results of them, it is essential that we our self are certain they are true. If we are going to be condemned or rewarded for what we believe, it should be for what we actually believe, not what someone thinks we should believe.

I have neither the need nor desire to convince any one else that God(swt) exists. Each person has to find their own reason to believe or not believe.

In my opinion the important part is that every person acknowledge responsibility for what they believe or do not believe. How they verify and what they accept as proof is individual. But, each person must be aware they them self are willing to accept the consequences of their choices.

None of us can be complacent, we must always be seekers and to constantly refine our methods. If it is my desire to accept the teachings of Ivan Badinov as the ultimate authority of truth, I alone will be responsible for the results. It is in my own best interest to always seek verification to the best of my ability.We become sheeple when we stop questioning."

Fair enough. I do however feel a need for a bit more allowance for dealing with uncertainty, even embracing it. Taking steps of faith, so to speak.

 

[Sundance]

I fear we may have to agree to disagree on that point.

Aye, agreed.

In a nutshell, it is much too theocentric and tends to assume a monotheistic origin and Abrahamic goals and parameters for other religions, sometimes in frank challenge to their own claims.

Well, Luis, what else do you expect from a monotheistic, Abrahamic faith? Though, to be fair, we are dealing with His (Bahá’u’lláh’s) perspective on the origin and purpose of religion in general, not the evaluations of each, and the only ones He knew of specifically were Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Zoroastrianism. Go figure.

As of late it really strikes me as very similar to Ahmadiyya Islam: earnest to reach constructive understandings with other religions, but somewhat delusional (far as I can see) about what that involves.

I disagree, but to each his own.

I am willing to bet that there are lots of interesting stories about how your two faiths relate to each other. While Hinduism and Islam are almost completely at odds with each other, Ahmadiyyas and Bahais seem to be too much alike to confortably coexist.

Actually, this is something I've wanted to know, myself. Perhaps I will PM @DawudTalut about this, and we could converse more.

Both of your faiths would to well to lend a page from Hinduism about how to deal with diversity. But I fear that their way is simply too deeply at odds with your central directives - among other reasons, because there is a political authority component to them (to the best of my understanding, anyway).

Bahá’ís, we don't really possess a political core or authority, being as we are apolitical. I'm not sure about Ahmadis, though. Also, what might you suggest in terms of accepting diversity? Luis, what do you believe Hinduism can show us in terms of this?

 

[LuisDantas]

In my experience, Bahais are highly organized at a municipal level and have a central authority in the Universal House of Justice. There is considerable indication of a strict delimitation between "proper" Bahais who acknowledge the UHJ's authority and covenant breakers who do not, IIRC.

 

[serp777]

Cons--most religions are contradictory--example polytheism vs monotheism. THe entire reason why there are multiple religions is because they're not consistent.

 

[DawudTalut]

Post 31
LuisDantas said: ↑
I am willing to bet that there are lots of interesting stories about how your two faiths relate to each other. While Hinduism and Islam are almost completely at odds with each other, Ahmadiyyas and Bahais seem to be too much alike to confortably coexist.

Actually, this is something I've wanted to know, myself. Perhaps I will PM @DawudTalut about this, and we could converse more.

Peace be on you both.
So "@" worked and even without a PM, here is what you asked for:

1= Ahmadiyya Muslims believe and testify the proclamation
La ilaha illallaho muhammad ur rasoolullah (There is none worthy of worship except Allah Muhammad is His Messenger)

Bahais do not have it.

2=Ahmadiyya Muslims believe Holy Quran is the last Book.

Bahais have Kitab Aqdas as last Book.


3= Ahmadiyya Muslim believe and act in basic Islamic creed Five daily Prayers (Salaat), Ramadahn Fasting, pay Zakat. Hajj (pilgrimage). They follow Allah and Holy Prophet Muhammad ohammad (pbuh).

Bahais have not these things.


4=Ahmadiyya Muslim beleive Shariah of Islam is complete.

Bahais have their own shariat. They invalidate Islamic shariah.


5=Ahmadiyya Muslims have has 30 or 29 days in a month, and 12 months in a year. Based on lunar calendar.

Bahais have 19 days in a month and 19 months in a year, based on solar calendar.

6=Ahmadiyya Muslim follow the marital relation as prescribed in the Holy Quran.

Bahais do not follow it (best of my knowledge, correct pls it is wrong).

7= Ahmadiyya Muslims greet others (Ahmadis or others) by saying Assalam o alaikum, as taught by Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Bahais greet their people by saying “Abu al-bahar”.

8= Ahmadiyya Muslim name themselves Muslims (or Ahmadiyya Muslims, Jama'at Ahmadiyya Muslimah)

Bahais call themselves as Bahais.


More about Bahais in oficial Ahmadiyya Muslim website @
https://www.alislam.org/r.php?q=bahais&sa=

Good wishes to all human whatever their faith is.

 

[Vinayaka]

Pros: I think there is only one Universal truth and so as all religions evolve, I see them merging to the one truth. I am reminded of the analogy of a mountain with many roads and starting points that are all pointed to the same summit. The places and roads may look different at their starting points. Some religions may not have evolved to the point of even realizing a single summit exists, but it is there for the pure-hearted aspirant.

Cons: None

So you have no line in the sand. Whatever version of Islam is the driving force for ISIS is heading to the same place? The evangelical right wing anti-gay anti-dharmic Christian sects are heading to the same place?

 

[wizanda]

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

Doesn't it all depend on the conclusion we're trying to reach.... Like if the religion is talking about Heaven, there is only one place or Hell the same.

Find it ridiculous in modern scientific understanding, that we've got so many theories on something we should be trying to quantify.

This in its self makes many religions silly, as people choose not to believe in things that exist, and then believe in things that don't.

Personally would always like the clearest data available, and would work with others to achieve it; yet apparently that isn't what religions are about.

 

[LuisDantas]

Doesn't it all depend on the conclusion we're trying to reach.... Like if the religion is talking about Heaven, there is only one place or Hell the same.

Find it ridiculous in modern scientific understanding, that we've got so many theories on something we should be trying to quantify.

What is it that we should be trying to quantify?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Cons--most religions are contradictory--example polytheism vs monotheism. THe entire reason why there are multiple religions is because they're not consistent.

Indeed, and they cannot all be correct.

 

[Vinayaka]

There are always people and, in fact, whole religions that seem put a lot of value in attempting to disregard the differences among religions.

Thoughts?

Luis, it's so basic. The extremely basic concept of God, for example, actually varies a ton from faith to faith. When adherents say 'God' they project their version of that onto whomever is around, reading or listening. They just assume, falsely, that the other person holds the same idea. So when someone says 'God bless you' it has no meaning whatsover to a monistic or atheistic thinker, because their concept God simply can't do that.

Thank you for your reasoned and rather intricate exploration of this topic, not that it's likely to alter anyone's views much.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks, @Vinayaka