Too many religions

[kfgran]

oh,It is right?

 

[charles brough]

If it goes that way then I would rather take up this god stuff we keep hearing about. I'd sooner believe in fictitious deities than real science ideologies. There be monsters that way.

You can hardly be criticized for believing that when you consider Nazism, Fascism, and Marxism. On the other hand, note that each of them failed, Marxism as well; it is no longer Marxian and only survives in China as a one party capitalistic system. What has happened is that they have all blatently failed; natural selection has occured as in past civilizations.

People will eventually turn to what will work when conditions finally grow unbearable as people finally realize their old faiths have failed and they have lost all hope. Then, they will be ready to change. By then, several new way-of-thinking and world-view systems will be available. The best one will be selected (natural selection). As with the birth and building of every past civilization, it will be based on a newer and more advanced ideology than that of the old civilization it replaced. What we need is what will work. We cannot judge it on present standards because those standards we now have are failing. It will be different or there would be no reason to change.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

None of those verses said anything about more teachings.

It is interesting you igonored, so clear messages about coming of future Messengers and revealing the verses.

Your religion and Islam are two seperate beliefs.

Well, if you haven't read Quran and Baha'i scriptures, your comment can only make sense to yourself. In fact the majority of early Baha'is were Muslems who were expecting the promised Ones of Islam.

Trying to crush all human religion into one super frankenstein religion isn't going to work.

What super frankenstein religion?

If most of these other religions have strayed, as you claim, why bother with them at all? ?

I do not claim. Every Messenger when came, claimed the teaching of previous Messenger was distorted. Refer to Bible and Quran for instance, you will learn about that.

Why not just teach the "original messages" as you view it and be done with it?

In fact IOV, the original Message has come with the Baha'i Revelation. Were you do investigataion of the Truth independently, you would see it.

-Peace

 

[JustWondering]

It is interesting you igonored, so clear messages about coming of future Messengers and revealing the verses.

I didn't ignore anything. You listed some passages that you somehow interpret as meaning there will be more teachings from god. I don't see it. For instance, you listed this verse below. What does this have to do with more teachings being sent?

"O children of Adam, take your adornment at every [Mosque] masjid, and eat and drink, but be not excessive. Indeed, He likes not those who commit excess." 7:31

Well, if you haven't read Quran and Baha'i scriptures, your comment can only make sense to yourself. In fact the majority of early Baha'is were Muslems who were expecting the promised Ones of Islam.

I simply read the verses you provided without your bias.

I do not claim. Every Messenger when came, claimed the teaching of previous Messenger was distorted. Refer to Bible and Quran for instance, you will learn about that.

If the message keeps getting distorted, why does god keep following the same recipe for failure, again and again? I see nothing more than people trying to put a new spin on already established religous beliefs.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I didn't ignore anything. You listed some passages that you somehow interpret as meaning there will be more teachings from god. I don't see it. For instance, you listed this verse below. What does this have to do with more teachings being sent?

"O children of Adam, take your adornment at every [Mosque] masjid, and eat and drink, but be not excessive. Indeed, He likes not those who commit excess." 7:31

7:35 has to do with sending Messengers.
If you read my previous post, it's clear why I put this verse Also.

If the message keeps getting distorted, why does god keep following the same recipe for failure, again and again?

He does not use the same ways. His revelations are progressive, and keeps improving from Age to Age untill humanity reaches the maturity!

 

[kjw47]

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.

1 corinthians 1:10--- i do believe discounts all disunified trinity religions. As well as i do believe--there is but one single religion that is unified in love and peace worldwide who actually listen to Jesus-- but Jesus said because they are no part of this world-they would be hated--Why??? Because the world hates truth.

 

[JustWondering]

7:35 has to do with sending Messengers.
If you read my previous post, it's clear why I put this verse Also.

Yes, messengers bringing verses from the Quran of Islam. The rest of the verses you provided showed nothing about further prophets or teachings. 33:40 says that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets. The last of the prophets. You are attempting to twist things to mean what you want them to mean, sorry.

He does not use the same ways. His revelations are progressive, and keeps improving from Age to Age untill humanity reaches the maturity!

Clearly this is what you believe, but I do not see convincing evidence of it. Is there an online resource with information on this for me to look at? Does Baha'i consider Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon part of god's teachings?

 

[JustWondering]

Because the world hates truth.

I kind of agree with this statement however I do not believe supernatural belief systems represent the truth.

 

[charles brough]

If it goes that way then I would rather take up this god stuff we keep hearing about. I'd sooner believe in fictitious deities than real science ideologies. There be monsters that way.

You already believe in a science ideology. You believe in your secular ideology with its doctrines of "freedom," "democracy," individualism, the "free-enterprise system," and achieving "the American Dream." That secular ideology shapes how we all think and, therefore, makes us think anything different has to be "a monster."

Our own system has been focussed on world unity such as with the UN and the World Bank. In other words, we have sought "world government," one in which we led the world. Unfortunately, we are not succeeding. We are increasingly less able to solve the many growing, threatening, world problems.

There is only one way that our secular ideology is unscientific: its in our social theory. All the mountain of social science data has been missinterpreted by social theorists in a way that is in harmony with the old religions. That enabled it to spread across the Earth and bring what unity to it that we did manage. However, since it is now failing because world problems are piling up, we should see that what our secular system needs is to replace all the old religions. Our secular system is so shaped that that is not possible.

There is no scientific justification at all for the belief in any "spirit" or "god" that alters cause and effect. An effective all-scientific world view system (ideology) would have to be uncompromising on that. It would have to be dead set against any and all such theistic world-view ("religion") systems.

We need one that can, will and must, in time, replace all such now-obsolete faiths . . .

 

[charles brough]

There is only one religion and can we even call it a religion? Is it not the case that we all simply are what we are. Religious difference is merely a matter of geography. Consider what religion you might follow if you were born in a different part of the world and exposed to different teachings from an early age?

What is this "one religion which might not be called a religion?" Are you referring to our secular ideology? "Religions" (ideological systems) are geographic because people have to live in some sort of geographic area and need some sort of ideological way of thinking in common so they can cooperate to solve their common problems and feel a sense of community. Nearly all the religions started one place and spread out to other geographic regions. Their geographic areas are still changing, especially in Africa.

Evidently, I missed your point. What is it?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yes, messengers bringing verses from the Quran of Islam. The rest of the verses you provided showed nothing about further prophets or teachings. 33:40 says that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets. The last of the prophets. You are attempting to twist things to mean what you want them to mean, sorry.

Question: the seal of prophets means, God shall never send another Messenger?

Clearly this is what you believe, but I do not see convincing evidence of it. Is there an online resource with information on this for me to look at?

It is not only what I believe. It can also be seen from other religions.
For the Progressive revelation, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_(Bahá'í)

Does Baha'i consider Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon part of god's teachings?

I have already replied to this question to someone else in this thread. Please refer to it.

 

[crocusj]

You already believe in a science ideology. You believe in your secular ideology with its doctrines of "freedom," "democracy," individualism, the "free-enterprise system," and achieving "the American Dream." That secular ideology shapes how we all think and, therefore, makes us think anything different has to be "a monster."

No. One world order would be the monster, not because it is different but because it's ideology must, by definition, preclude all other ideologies. How can this be a way forward for diverse humanity?

Our own system has been focussed on world unity such as with the UN and the World Bank. In other words, we have sought "world government," one in which we led the world. Unfortunately, we are not succeeding. We are increasingly less able to solve the many growing, threatening, world problems.

I would dispute that "we" have sought any of this. It has suited some in power to increase that power to the detriment of those not at the high table (both secular and religious) but I would also dispute that we are any less able to solve world problems than we have ever been.

There is only one way that our secular ideology is unscientific: its in our social theory. All the mountain of social science data has been missinterpreted by social theorists in a way that is in harmony with the old religions. That enabled it to spread across the Earth and bring what unity to it that we did manage. However, since it is now failing because world problems are piling up, we should see that what our secular system needs is to replace all the old religions. Our secular system is so shaped that that is not possible.

There is no scientific justification at all for the belief in any "spirit" or "god" that alters cause and effect. An effective all-scientific world view system (ideology) would have to be uncompromising on that. It would have to be dead set against any and all such theistic world-view ("religion") systems.

We need one that can, will and must, in time, replace all such now-obsolete faiths .

I can't go with this, it is the real monster. Humans believe, it's what they do. They may believe in all sorts of crap but where would we be without this trait? Humans are not robots, our intelligence allows us logic but it also allows us imagination and that imagination is and has been crucial to our species. That we can imagine the supernatural, or even ask the question in the first place, is not for science to set itself against. Are you suggesting that people must stop asking these questions and having strange beliefs on the premise that science can answer them all? Science explains the natural world at the level that it can at any particular point in time, the idea of building some sort of ideology around this horrifies me. For example, the secular beliefs you say I hold are a bit at odds with my being an old commie. How is this going to work in your brave new world? Even if science did suggest that a god was not neccessary for our creation, it does not say that was not one nor does it say that we don't need one nor does say that it is an ideological replacement. Humans decide these things on more than one criteria. Crazy-as-a-box-of-frogs humans, more power to their diverse elbows.

 

[charles brough]

No. One world order would be the monster, not because it is different but because it's ideology must, by definition, preclude all other ideologies. How can this be a way forward for diverse humanity?

Why do you think that we, as the human race, should be more and more diverse? "Diversity" has become a secular ideal and doctrine only because the West has to praise it in order to keep its waining influence over the world. Diversity is growing not because of genetic differences or because all cultures and belief systerms are equal. It is growing because our secular ideology and way of thinking is losing its appeal. The world is pulling back from it to their more ancient beliefs. Our growing materialistic and hedonistic culture is losing its appeal and hence its influence.

You think we are as able to solve world problems as in the past. Then, we ended Nazism, ended Soviet Marxism and looked forward in the early 1990s to bringing our secular world-view and way of life (commonly referred to simply as "democracy") to the whole world. That has not materialized and depression, suicide, sleeplessness rates are climbing, some are going berserk or building bunkers (the "preppers") which they load with food and guns. With nuclear proliferation, dwindling resources, polution, water shortages, climate change, growing obesity, more terrorism, our political corruption and deadlock all growing, how can you claim we are just as able to solve world problems (be the world's policeman, that is) as well as a generations or so ago?

You also claim that immagination (the "spiritual" world?) is essential to us. Our secular ideological goals ("democracy," "equality," "the pursuit of happiness," "the American dream," and "free-enterprise") are not "spiritual." Do you see them as "immaginations"? The whole function of ideological systems is to bring people together in common belief so they feel a sense community and have the unity they need to work together to solve common problems. They serve a social binding function that has nothing to do with "the spiritual" or the immagination or "the Truth."

Another example is Marxism. It is not an immaginative system, nor is it "spiritual" It is also not "the truth," but it holds a half dozen nations together. It is also failing not because it is atheistic but because it has immense ideological flaws. For one, it has no moral code or standard. Its goals and means are actually destructive. And its D.M. is total nonsense.

 

[Astravalon]

There is no scientific justification at all for the belief in any "spirit" or "god" that alters cause and effect. An effective all-scientific world view system (ideology) would have to be uncompromising on that. It would have to be dead set against any and all such theistic world-view ("religion") systems.

We need one that can, will and must, in time, replace all such now-obsolete faiths . . .

How delightfully Orwellian.
Good luck with that.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

I agree with your above sentences which I have coloured in magenta.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I agree with your above sentences which I have coloured in magenta.

So, which religion you believe is the most recent one?

 

[charles brough]

So, which religion you believe is the most recent one?

How about Reverand Moon?

 

[shivadas]

There is only one religion...

But an infinite amount of people willing to try and explain it...

most of the Religious BS is started by overzealous followers not Prophets.

 

[crocusj]

Why do you think that we, as the human race, should be more and more diverse?

I didn't say that, I said that we are diverse. That a Himalayan mountain dweller and a rain-forest Indian should give up their gods because of big bang theory is just ludicrous and arrogant, particularly if one of them happened to have read Einstein because he had been told that science had all the answers. Why should he or anyone else trust you now.
There is no "scientific justification" for saving pandas, for opera singing, allowing dwarfs to live, bikinis. Must we forgo these too?

"Diversity" has become a secular ideal and doctrine only because the West has to praise it in order to keep its waining influence over the world. Diversity is growing not because of genetic differences or because all cultures and belief systerms are equal. It is growing because our secular ideology and way of thinking is losing its appeal. The world is pulling back from it to their more ancient beliefs. Our growing materialistic and hedonistic culture is losing its appeal and hence its influence.

All dynasties fall.

You think we are as able to solve world problems as in the past. Then, we ended Nazism, ended Soviet Marxism and looked forward in the early 1990s to bringing our secular world-view and way of life (commonly referred to simply as "democracy") to the whole world. That has not materialized and depression, suicide, sleeplessness rates are climbing, some are going berserk or building bunkers (the "preppers") which they load with food and guns. With nuclear proliferation, dwindling resources, polution, water shortages, climate change, growing obesity, more terrorism, our political corruption and deadlock all growing, how can you claim we are just as able to solve world problems (be the world's policeman, that is) as well as a generations or so ago?

Nazism ended when it overstepped geographical boundaries not moral ones. Soviet Marxism was not ended while Stalin slaughtered millions. Bunkers have been around since we have, as have arms races, as have famines. We have already survived an ice age. Terrorism was much more prevalent in the UK forty years ago than it is now. Political corruption is as old as prostitution. "We" are not the worlds policeman.

You also claim that immagination (the "spiritual" world?) is essential to us. Our secular ideological goals ("democracy," "equality," "the pursuit of happiness," "the American dream," and "free-enterprise") are not "spiritual." Do you see them as "immaginations"? The whole function of ideological systems is to bring people together in common belief so they feel a sense community and have the unity they need to work together to solve common problems. They serve a social binding function that has nothing to do with "the spiritual" or the immagination or "the Truth."

Imagination is essential to us. Science can build an aeroplane but only a man looking at a bird might want to in the first place. Imagination and curiosity are the source of our scientific creativity. If that also includes us asking the question; "Why are we here?" then so be it. Clearly, this has not been answered to everyones satisfaction, even if it has been for you. Must we stop asking the question because you have arrived at your "truth"? What else must we give up in order to join with your one world order?

 

[paarsurrey]

So, which religion you believe is the most recent one?

I said the name of the religion is not important; it is the basic beliefs and the attributes of the creator God which are important.