Too many religions

[charles brough]

No, certainly not today.

Here's what I think about the 'too many religions' issue:

I think you have to look at human biological and cultural/religious evolution as a long continuing process; from some small ape-like creature to modern humans to future humans. In this view it is a long struggle but the slope over the long run has been towards advancement.

Today we have pretty well advanced to the point that people believe good moral conduct is the way to please God, not sacrifices. I call that advancement.

a good point! New religious come, but they too get old and, in turn, they also have to be replaced. . .

For example: The social and economic problems of the Greek-Roman world are analogous to our own. The problems finally drove the people of the Roman Empire to abandon their old belief systems. Their thousands of old gods began to fall into their graves as people swarmed to a newer, more-realistic and practical world-view, one that was being spread by members of a close-knit Judaic sect, one that promised not only a similarly close sense of community but also that their executed leader would return and save them all. It was comforting to hear that their executed leader was backed by the omnipotent power of a “supreme God.” The old gods of The Empire seldom had any interest in the welfare of the people. The old gods all had human-like troubles themselves and exhibited no real ability or intent to help the people.

Instead,the idea of a vast powerful and omnipotent god who would lead his people offered renewed hope to the masses. His promise to destroy the old “beast” (The Roman Empire) and set up, instead, his own kingdom as his little community, one in which the rich (“who could not pass through the eye of a needle”) and all other “sinners” (such as their persecutors) would be punished with eternal torment. ​

Now, its past time for all the old faiths to be replaced again by a new and more scientific one that can solve the many and increasingly threatening world problems.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

One major reason for me, that keeps me from being a theist, is that there are too many religions. People seem to concentrate on one religion with blinders on and ignore everything else. How can a theist look at all the religions they don't belong to, past and present, and not wonder if their religion is just as made up or fictitious as all the religions they don't believe in? What makes today's gods more reasonable and credible than past gods like Zeus, Ra, and Odin? Religion still boils down to people believing incredible claims with zero evidence to support any of it. Additionally, if there was a god that wanted to communicate a message to us, I think it would be capable of doing a much better job of it then sending a middle man to preach it in one corner of the world to one group of people. A true god would be capable of sending multiple prophets to multiple people in the world with the same message at the same time. However, we don't see that.

In my view, all the major religions are from the same God. Fundamentally they give the same message. Anybody who invetigate them would see, they proclaim the same message. They only differ in the Laws, since God change those Laws according to the requirements of the Age that the Messengers came. There is no Final or Last revelations. But I believe the Baha'i Faith is the most recent one.

 

[9Westy9]

Mr. 9Westy9......................What does 'DWBHist' mean? I've seen it before, and I like to stay up on things..

Don't worry be happy ism

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In my view, all the major religions are from the same God. Fundamentally they give the same message. Anybody who invetigate them would see, they proclaim the same message. They only differ in the Laws, since God change those Laws according to the requirements of the Age that the Messengers came. There is no Final or Last revelations. But I believe the Baha'i Faith is the most recent one.

If this is the case, then why were Joseph Smith and Baha'ullah (edit: among others) both giving different messages during the exact same "age"?

 

[George-ananda]

Don't worry be happy ism

Now that's an 'ism' I'll join!

 

[George-ananda]

a good point! New religious come, but they too get old and, in turn, they also have to be replaced. . .

For example: The social and economic problems of the Greek-Roman world are analogous to our own. The problems finally drove the people of the Roman Empire to abandon their old belief systems. Their thousands of old gods began to fall into their graves as people swarmed to a newer, more-realistic and practical world-view, one that was being spread by members of a close-knit Judaic sect, one that promised not only a similarly close sense of community but also that their executed leader would return and save them all. It was comforting to hear that their executed leader was backed by the omnipotent power of a “supreme God.” The old gods of The Empire seldom had any interest in the welfare of the people. The old gods all had human-like troubles themselves and exhibited no real ability or intent to help the people.

Instead,the idea of a vast powerful and omnipotent god who would lead his people offered renewed hope to the masses. His promise to destroy the old “beast” (The Roman Empire) and set up, instead, his own kingdom as his little community, one in which the rich (“who could not pass through the eye of a needle&#8221 and all other “sinners” (such as their persecutors) would be punished with eternal torment. ​

Now, its past time for all the old faiths to be replaced again by a new and more scientific one that can solve the many and increasingly threatening world problems.

I think we basically agree that advancement is always needed.

I reject what I call 'narrow religion' and 'narrow science' in favor of 'broad science/spirituality'.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree though on the 'narrow science' view that life and conciousness are just a consequence of physical phenomena. I think we live in a universe with multiple planes/dimensions and intelligences not grasped yet by 'narrow science'. (I'm guessing at your position based on your 'non-theist' self-description).

 

[JustWondering]

No, certainly not today.

Here's what I think about the 'too many religions' issue:

I think you have to look at human biological and cultural/religious evolution as a long continuing process; from some small ape-like creature to modern humans to future humans. In this view it is a long struggle but the slope over the long run has been towards advancement.

Today we have pretty well advanced to the point that people believe good moral conduct is the way to please God, not sacrifices. I call that advancement.

The fact that seperated cultures developed their own unique religions and the very fact that religions "evolve" over time is evidence that humans are the authors of religion, not some mysterious divine source that refuses to show itself yet still interferes in human affairs.


Additionally, I see religion as an obstacle to progress. I think religion encourages irresponsible behavior and stagnation.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

If this is the case, then why were Joseph Smith and Baha'ullah (edit: among others) both giving different messages during the exact same "age"?

In our view, All major religions are from the God. These well known religions are Jewish Faith, Christianity, Islam, Buhddism, Hinduism, zoroastrianism and perhaps some earlier religions which are unknown or not well known.
So, the Baha'i Faith does not consider Joseph Smith as a Messenger of God.
Moreover, we believe any Messenger would confirm His previous Messenger, While He Himself has to be prophesized by previous Messenger. The reason is that, God would tell people about the next Messenger, so, people would expect His comming.
Regarding Joseph Smith, He did not confirm His previous Messenger (Muhammad) and also was not prophesized by previous messengers. Joseph smith maybe can be considered as an offshoot of Christianity.
But Baha'u'llah was promissed by All previous Major Manifestations of God. Even some of those Messengers had given many signs and even alluded to His name "Baha" in their scriptures.

 

[crocusj]

In my view, all the major religions are from the same God. Fundamentally they give the same message. Anybody who invetigate them would see, they proclaim the same message. They only differ in the Laws, since God change those Laws according to the requirements of the Age that the Messengers came. There is no Final or Last revelations. But I believe the Baha'i Faith is the most recent one.

Alternatively, if they fundamentally give the same message then that source would be just as, or more likely to be human. Particularly if - as you point out - the message suits its environment. And of course, since you mention the major religions, the idea that the son of a god sacrificing himself for the salvation of all humanity or this not happening in any way at all and in fact being blasphemous being fundamentally the same is just preposterous.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Alternatively, if they fundamentally give the same message then that source would be just as, or more likely to be human.

Considering that some of these messengers came within thousands of years from each other, and they appeared in totally different cultures and countries, and yet they fundamentally said the same thing would show the likelihood of bringing the Message from the same source.
For example Baha'u'llah appeared in the middle of 19th century in Iran in a Moselm country, which there is little known about Buhdda or Krishna. While there is no historical evidence that Baha'u'llah had any religious studies, and being in prison and excile for 40 years because of bringing a revelation after Islam, which was opposed by religious leaders of His time.But yet He produced 17000 works which fandamentally has many of the same teachings that you would find in Hindu Scriptures shows the likelihood that they both must have been inspired by the same source.

For example, both Hindu scriptures and Baha'i Scriptures says that every about 1000 years religion of God is renewed by another Messenger.

Particularly if - as you point out - the message suits its environment.

The laws suit the Age.
Consider a perfect All-knowing teacher. To a 1st grade school student He would teach at that level but not too much more. To a university student He would teach at that level and to a mentally challenged person according to the level of ability to understand. So, it is clear, sinse people of every Age as they lived thousands of years far from each other, they had a different social system, different level of understanding, and even different problems. So, the All-knowing God would bring laws to suit the people of that particular Age.

And of course, since you mention the major religions, the idea that the son of a god sacrificing himself for the salvation of all humanity or this not happening in any way at all and in fact being blasphemous being fundamentally the same is just preposterous.

Not so. The idea that, after Jesus no other Messenger would come is not Biblical. Also, the Idea that before Jesus, other Messengers did not show the truth or were sinfull, is also not Biblical. I had already discussed this with others, in other Thread, and repudiated that based on Bible and reasoning. I refer you to those threads.

 

[George-ananda]

The fact that seperated cultures developed their own unique religions and the very fact that religions "evolve" over time is evidence that humans are the authors of religion, not some mysterious divine source that refuses to show itself yet still interferes in human affairs.

God changes things gradually. He is nature. He does not revolutionise things with some grand event.

I doubt a human of 50,000 years ago could grasp/appreciate the understanding of science/spirituality that I have. The foundations of my understanding were built slowly over time. And humans of 5,000 years in the future will know much more than I'll ever know in this lifetime.

The major religions of the current time, appear different because of their different starting points. Christianity, for example, came out of a Judaic background. Hinduism started way before that without contact with Jewish thought. Starting in different places, the path to the goal may look different but as the entire world advances these religions pretty much converge on the essence; good moral conduct, brotherly love and a reverence for God. The future will show increasing convergence in the religions by their higher-minded members. Narrowism and fundamentalism will continue to lose ground among the better educated of the future.

 

[crocusj]

Considering that some of these messengers came within thousands of years from each other, and they appeared in totally different cultures and countries, and yet they fundamentally said the same thing would show the likelihood of bringing the Message from the same source

I still don't see why this source cannot be human. And, what evidence have you that this message is consistent with religions outwith the major ones (which must be in a position to cross pollinate). For instance, Africa and South America have had large religions, what was the message to them?

For example Baha'u'llah appeared in the middle of 19th century in Iran in a Moselm country, which there is little known about Buhdda or Krishna. While there is no historical evidence that Baha'u'llah had any religious studies, and being in prison and excile for 40 years because of bringing a revelation after Islam, which was opposed by religious leaders of His time.But yet He produced 17000 works which fandamentally has many of the same teachings that you would find in Hindu Scriptures shows the likelihood that they both must have been inspired by the same source.
For example, both Hindu scriptures and Baha'i Scriptures says that every about 1000 years religion of God is renewed by another Messenger.

It would suggest to me that he knew Hindu Scriptures

The laws suit the Age.
Consider a perfect All-knowing teacher. To a 1st grade school student He would teach at that level but not too much more. To a university student He would teach at that level and to a mentally challenged person according to the level of ability to understand. So, it is clear, sinse people of every Age as they lived thousands of years far from each other, they had a different social system, different level of understanding, and even different problems. So, the All-knowing God would bring laws to suit the people of that particular Age.

Alternatively, the laws would perfectly suit that age if they were from people of that age.

Not so. The idea that, after Jesus no other Messenger would come is not Biblical. Also, the Idea that before Jesus, other Messengers did not show the truth or were sinfull, is also not Biblical. I had already discussed this with others, in other Thread, and repudiated that based on Bible and reasoning. I refer you to those threads

That was not my point. In fact it is the opposite of my point. Christians do not have Jesus as a messenger, they have him as god himself. Is this idea not fundamentally different to other major religions?

 

[JustWondering]

In our view, All major religions are from the God. These well known religions are Jewish Faith, Christianity, Islam, Buhddism, Hinduism, zoroastrianism and perhaps some earlier religions which are unknown or not well known.
So, the Baha'i Faith does not consider Joseph Smith as a Messenger of God.
Moreover, we believe any Messenger would confirm His previous Messenger, While He Himself has to be prophesized by previous Messenger. The reason is that, God would tell people about the next Messenger, so, people would expect His comming.
Regarding Joseph Smith, He did not confirm His previous Messenger (Muhammad) and also was not prophesized by previous messengers. Joseph smith maybe can be considered as an offshoot of Christianity.
But Baha'u'llah was promissed by All previous Major Manifestations of God. Even some of those Messengers had given many signs and even alluded to His name "Baha" in their scriptures.

Humans regardless of where they are in the world want the same things and have the same creative, inventive nature. Humans wherever you find them have developed their own traditions, style of music, food, clothing, arcitecture, social customs, etc... Saying that all religions must come from the same source because they fundamentally have the same core teachings is correct. The common source of these religions teachings is humanity. If religions around the world shared the same symbol or name of a god or prophet that would be overwhelming evidence to support your claim and someone would have pointed it out by now. However, that is clearly not the case. Saying that all religions come from the same god is just another unsupported claim from a supernatural belief system. I have yet to hear a convincing or rational reason for me to believe this claim. I admit I am highly skeptical of claims of the supernatural, but if someone can show some actual evidence to support their claims I'd be willing to look at it. If a higher power of some sort is comminicating with us there should be a way to show that in a concrete, unbiased, scientific way. Perhaps someday that will happen, who knows.

 

[crocusj]

God changes things gradually. He is nature. He does not revolutionise things with some grand event.

I doubt a human of 50,000 years ago could grasp/appreciate the understanding of science/spirituality that I have. The foundations of my understanding were built slowly over time. And humans of 5,000 years in the future will know much more than I'll ever know in this lifetime.

The major religions of the current time, appear different because of their different starting points. Christianity, for example, came out of a Judaic background. Hinduism started way before that without contact with Jewish thought. Starting in different places, the path to the goal may look different but as the entire world advances these religions pretty much converge on the essence; good moral conduct, brotherly love and a reverence for God. The future will show increasing convergence in the religions by their higher-minded members. Narrowism and fundamentalism will continue to lose ground among the better educated of the future.

I'm not convinced that this is true either. I do not see a convergence between Christianity and Islam, for one, on the horizon. They may have had the same common ancestor but they would appear to be different species now who might share a few common traits because of this but they are so far apart now that they cannot interbreed. Don't get me wrong. I do not see hundreds of different religions as a reason not to believe in the existence of a god or gods but i do think that any supposed message from this god is fuzzy to the point of possibly not being from a god or gods at all but only that humans wish it to be so. Let's face it, if you want to be heard in religious cultures then your message has to purport to come from a god if you want anyone to pay attention to it.

 

[arthra]

Just wondering posted:

One major reason for me, that keeps me from being a theist, is that there are too many religions. People seem to concentrate on one religion with blinders on and ignore everything else. How can a theist look at all the religions they don't belong to, past and present, and not wonder if their religion is just as made up or fictitious as all the religions they don't believe in?

Whatever keeps you from being a "theist" is your business..but in my view if you studied the major religions (and I'm not saying you personally haven't) I think you'd see a lot of similarities...this is sometimes overlooked because there are varying cultures and symbols.

Gatherings like the World Parliament of Religions

Parliament of the World's Religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

indicate there is a lot of common ground between religions.

Baha'is believe there is one religion of God over time and the various Messengers and Manifestations of God have appeared from time to time emphasizing the same spiritual truths. Baha'is have encouraged particpation in the World Parliament of Religions such as the last one in Melbourne Australia:

http://news.bahai.org/story/739

 

[charles brough]

Just wondering posted:

One major reason for me, that keeps me from being a theist, is that there are too many religions.
I think you'd see a lot of similarities...this is sometimes overlooked because there are varying cultures and symbols.

Baha'is have encouraged particpation in the World Parliament of Religions such as the last one in Melbourne Australia. Parliament of the World's Religions under way in Melbourne - Bahá'í World News Service

It is one of the doctrines of the Bahai faith that there be a tolerance of the other faiths. It is also doctrine that the Bahai faith can bring them together. It is not happening though. A few years ago, Hindus tore down a Muslim mosque into rubble. The Western (Christian) world is at war against militant Islam. Hinduism is battling Maoists in Northern India. Orthodox Judaics in Israel directly influence government policy and they want to re-take the large part of the Near East they call "The Promised Land." Naturally, opposition to them by Muslim Arabs involves threats of destruction.

All this destructive antagonism explains why the world is unable to cooperate and solve its many and increasingly threatening problems. You know them all: nuclear proliferation, terrorism, laying waste the environment, global warming, polution, loss of species, obesity, etc.

I wish the Bahai doctrines were true rather than mere wishes, and the situation is getting worse by the year. The way I see it, when conditions finally become bad enough, people all over the world will, in deperation, flock to a new and science based world-view or ideology, one that will unite mankind for the first time and enable us to recover and build a new, one-world civilization. That could all take place in one or two decades now that we have world-wide communication that is in the speed of light.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I still don't see why this source cannot be human.

I think you would require a lot of investigation to find out. But the subject of the thread is not to prove if the Messages are from God or Not.
I don't think it is possible that any person proves to another person if these Messengers are from God. What I believe is that these messengers themselves can prove that they are from God to anyone who sincerely wants to know. But that has to do with each indivisual to make an effort and read their scriptures as well as the history of their revelation in details. I believe if any sincere person does that, he can see they are from God. But it's not my Job to prove it to anyone.

And, what evidence have you that this message is consistent with religions outwith the major ones (which must be in a position to cross pollinate). For instance, Africa and South America have had large religions, what was the message to them?

The major ones that I investigated (and took many years) are Christianity, Jwish Faith and Islam in details. Also Hinduism, Buhddaism and Zorasterism to some extend (fundamental beliefs).

It would suggest to me that he knew Hindu Scriptures

Surely He knew the Hindu Scriptures. But as there is clear history suggests He did not learn them from any person or school , but must have been inspired by God.
But as I said, I believe once you investigate the History in details you would see that.
Have you read about the History of Baha'i Faith as well as some major Faiths in details? There is a 400 page history Book as well as a few thousands pages other Books describing the historiy of the Baha'i revelation.

Alternatively, the laws would perfectly suit that age if they were from people of that age.

But the laws that for example Baha'u'llah revealed was new, and was unknown to the people of His time and yet perfectly suits the problems of our Age. I think you would see that once you actually read them and think about them.
Please also see my responce below for JustWondering.

That was not my point. In fact it is the opposite of my point. Christians do not have Jesus as a messenger, they have him as god himself. Is this idea not fundamentally different to other major religions?

What you are saying is that Christians believe Jesus was God and not Messenger. My responce is that, if Christians believe Jesus was God and not a Messenger, this idea is not as per original teachings of Jesus. Jesus did not claim to be God, as can be seen from the Bible. He claimed to be a Prophet. In fact in the entire Bible, you cannot even find the word "Trinity". These doctrines were added to Christianity many years after Jesus. I have already discussed this in details in other threads, I refer you to those.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Humans wherever you find them have developed their own traditions

Yes, So, I believe if you investigate the scriptures of Main Religions, as well as the Historical evidence in details what you would find is that whenever a Messenger came and brought that Truth from God, centuries after centuries and gradually people changed those teachings of the Messenger and addapted their own beliefs and claimed those are the teachings of the Messenger, to the point that when a thousands year later, you would see those teachings that originally was brought by the Messenger was fundamentally changed.
So, when centuries later another Messenger came, the original teachings of previous Messenger was totally distorted in the society that the new Messenger comes. Then this new Messenger restores and renews the original teachings which are the truth. This is one of the main reasons that the new Messenger is opposed by the people. Because to the view of People, what the new Messenger says is totally different from the previous Messenger, where as a matter of fact, if we read the scriptures we see, they are fundamentally the same.

Saying that all religions must come from the same source because they fundamentally have the same core teachings is correct. The common source of these religions teachings is humanity.

If you see above, IMO, you would see the common source cannot be human, for what the Messengers always brought to their people was the opposite of what commonly known as the religious teachings.

If religions around the world shared the same symbol or name of a god or prophet that would be overwhelming evidence to support your claim and someone would have pointed it out by now. However, that is clearly not the case.

If you mean God must be called by the same name in all languages, my responce is that, God does not have a name. But in every language they called the creator by a name in their language. The Messengers spoke with the language of People they were sent to. So, just because in different languages, they use a different language to refer to Him, does not mean they are different beings.
For example consider the earth. in every language a different word is used to refer to it. Does it mean it is not the same earth?

If a higher power of some sort is comminicating with us there should be a way to show that in a concrete, unbiased, scientific way. Perhaps someday that will happen, who knows.

I think you would require a lot of investigation to find out. But the subject of the thread is not to prove if the Messages are from God or Not.
I don't think it is possible that any person proves to another person if these Messengers are from God. What I believe is that these messengers themselves can prove that they are from God to anyone who sincerely wants to know. But that has to do with each indivisual to make an effort and read their scriptures as well as the history of their revelation in details. I believe if any sincere person does that, he can see they are from God. But it's not my Job to prove it to anyone.
But what I would suggest is this: If you believe that the World must have Justice, then you would see that what ever is worthier, must require more effort to obtain.
Therefor, as it is clear that, there is nothing more worthy than knowing the truth, it must be understood that, reaching the truth requires making an effort more than anything else. So, it's not easy to see it, it requires siginificant investigation, sincerity and effort.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It is one of the doctrines of the Bahai faith that there be a tolerance of the other faiths. It is also doctrine that the Bahai faith can bring them together. It is not happening though. A few years ago, Hindus tore down a Muslim mosque into rubble. The Western (Christian) world is at war against militant Islam. Hinduism is battling Maoists in Northern India. Orthodox Judaics in Israel directly influence government policy and they want to re-take the large part of the Near East they call "The Promised Land." Naturally, opposition to them by Muslim Arabs involves threats of destruction.

All this destructive antagonism explains why the world is unable to cooperate and solve its many and increasingly threatening problems. You know them all: nuclear proliferation, terrorism, laying waste the environment, global warming, polution, loss of species, obesity, etc..

If you ask me, humanity in general and over all is better now in comparison to previous Ages and specially before the mid 19th century.
Even in recent years and in the last couple of centuries we see great and unbelievable changes.
Up till just a few decades ago, the women in America and Europe didn't have the right to vote.
Just a couple of hundred years ago, the slavery was a normal thing to do, in America and European countries, who are the most advanced.
Even Black people used to be treated unfairly in America, but Now president of USA is a Black man.
We see generally a better social system. We have UN, although not perfect, but still a kind of world government to monitor the world justice.
We have many human right organizations.

None of these existed ever before in previous Ages.
In terms of science, Medicine, and etc, humanity is also in a much advanced level, which is not even comparable in previous Ages.

Surely I agree that there are negative things in the World. I also believe the kind of evilness that exist in the World is by far eviler than every other previous Age.
But at the same time, I would say, humanity from the time it came to existence had gone through stages in Ages, that just like an embryonic would go until it reaches the stage of maturity. So, I believe that humanity would become more mature, gradually.

I wish the Bahai doctrines were true rather than mere wishes, and the situation is getting worse by the year. The way I see it, when conditions finally become bad enough, people all over the world will, in deperation, flock to a new and science based world-view or ideology, one that will unite mankind for the first time and enable us to recover and build a new, one-world civilization. That could all take place in one or two decades now that we have world-wide communication that is in the speed of light.

The Baha'i Faith does not believe that majically the world becomes a perfect place all the sudden. It believe that through a "gradual process", which at times even disasters can appear too, the World of Humanity eventually will evolve untill it reaches to the stage of Maturity.

 

[Caladan]

One major reason for me, that keeps me from being a theist, is that there are too many religions. People seem to concentrate on one religion with blinders on and ignore everything else. How can a theist look at all the religions they don't belong to, past and present, and not wonder if their religion is just as made up or fictitious as all the religions they don't believe in? What makes today's gods more reasonable and credible than past gods like Zeus, Ra, and Odin? Religion still boils down to people believing incredible claims with zero evidence to support any of it. Additionally, if there was a god that wanted to communicate a message to us, I think it would be capable of doing a much better job of it then sending a middle man to preach it in one corner of the world to one group of people. A true god would be capable of sending multiple prophets to multiple people in the world with the same message at the same time. However, we don't see that.

I actually disagree. It may not make me a theist, but I find it incredibly interesting to see how different cultures developed their traditions and ideologies in different geographical locations. One of the best part is the diversity. I celebrate the fact that the Norse had distinct traditions from the Inca, it gives us a much wider psychological range to explore. Also, one of the things I believe you will discover if you look at all cases, is that the idea that only one message is meant to be absolute for everyone is a later historical invention as many past civilizations did not necessarily attempt to convert each other, but at the same time produced philosophical fusion.