I've reviewed all the ones issued by its female members.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What if we accepted each other's religion?
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
What you describe here is division:
You're applying the Henry Ford approach ("you can have any colour you want, as long as it's black") to religion: "any religion as fine as long as we're only including the parts that agree with my religion."
It's a lot like the approach some Christians take by labelling other denominations as "not Christian", only they don't try to pass off their intolerance as tolerance.
If we search, according to our efforts we will be rewarded If we don't search we get nothing. That is Karma at work.
Until I became a Baha'i I never had looked at any other religion. Being a Baha'i was what caused me to revere all their Founders and Holy Books and buy them read them, cherish them until they became a part of my life. I stress the word 'revere' here because to me they are 'sacred'. As sacred as Baha'u'llah and His Words. Loving all truth is so fulfilling and so enriching and I feel I am now Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist and Hindu because I have stood up and defended most of these faiths in ways that even their own adherents don't do. The beautiful story of the Magi how they saved Jesus from being slaughtered by Herod by not returning to him to inform him they found the messiah, how the first martyr of Islam was a woman, how I've vehemently defended Aisha online against people calling Muhammad I won't say the name. I love all these Founder from the depths of my heart and my greatest wish is to meet Them maybe in the next world. They are all true and all taught truth. The Dhammapadda is so beautiful and I always have it near me. The Quran is so misunderstood because of wrong English translations. There is so much wisdom and beauty in all these Faiths I often say to God I should never have received the gift of loving them all. I can pray in a mosque, a synagogue, a Buddhist temple, a Hindu Temple and have as well as churches. Why lock myself in a small cage when I can fly like a bird through all these wonderful spiritual heavens? To accept all these faiths is the most beautiful blessing on earth. A feeling of contentment. I don't see any faith as an adversary or competition. No need to put people down. Accepting each other's Faith is so beautiful once you understand the reality behind each one.
Except you don't actually do this; you've admitted as much. You told us that you reject the parts of these religions that you disagree with as "man made interpretations" and not really part of the religion at all. It's dishonest to call this "accepting all these faiths."
Edit: if you're going to accept these religions, then accept them. If you're going to reject them, then reject them. If you're going to accept some parts and reject others, that's fine too... as long as you're honest about what you're doing.
So your saying things like I have to accept Jihad or stoning of women to death or cutting off a thief's hand ? We've moved on from laws that were clearly revealed for a more barbaric age. Each Messenger renews those laws.
We accept all the truth. Who defines what's true and what's not? Us people or the Buddhas, Christs and Prophets?
We fully accept the Founders of each Faith and their Holy Book. So what more acceptance do you want specifically? Be more specific and I'll be able to answer it better.
Keep in mind that the authentic Holy Book is the religion. So what is it in the Holy Books you think we are rejecting? Thanks for the question. It's a very fair question.
I want to thank everyone here for being so patient, tolerant, understanding and bringing up any errors you feel I am making because I'm here to learn and you're all teaching me a lot.
No, I'm not. But I am saying that you do not fully accept the forms of Islam that call for these things.
What's actually true is beside the point. It's hypocritical for you to simultaneously declare aspects of a religion false (e.g. by dismissing them as man-made) while also saying that you accept the religion.
It's okay to reject things you disagree with. It's not okay to claim that you're accepting what you actually reject, or to claim that something isn't a valid part of someone else's religion.
The holy book is not the religion. The religion is the shared beliefs and practices of the members. This might be informed by some sort of scripture, but it might not be. Different religions (and different denominations within religions) have varying approaches to scripture.
It's not your place to impose a "sola scriptura" requirement on other people's religions. It's also not your place to decide what should be the "authentic" interpretation of scripture for someone else's religion.
If you disagree with Christianity, Islam, or any other religion, go right ahead and say "I disagree - here are the issues where I think I'm right and you're wrong." Go ahead and talk to them about why you believe what you believe and why they believe what they believe - it might be an interesting conversation and a useful glimpse into someone else's point of view that can build tolerance and understanding.
But this approach you've taken, where you refuse to even acknowledge that the parts of other religions that you disagree with are real parts of their religion, puts up a wall that interferes with communication, tolerance, and understanding.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
@arthra and @loverofhumanity you don't have to comment on all three of my posts. This one is long** but if you want to read it in sections, as I'll try to make it easier to read, that would be cool. Loverofhumanity, this is from your posts. I didnt quote the whole thread since, well, that will be too long. Also, the comments will be short.
Dogma are just principles dictated by authorities. God is your authority. Bahaullah sets the principles. There is dogma.
Peace of humanity can be made by taking out having a single authority such as a creator, bahaulla, spirits, or christ and find the core of each religion.
We cannot do that. Why? We need to accept that the foundations of the peace you all share differ.
You must find unity in differences not in similarities.
If you cant see love without god, then accept unity among differences rather than (in my humble opinion) trying to make everyone share the same goal from a god that does not exist in the people you are trying to have peace with.
Peace among diversity.
That isn't true. Christ came for all. The Buddha came for all. They didn't come for just the age they taught in. They are the same level as Bahaullah and the same level as myself and others. Why? Because The Buddha taught there is no authority or heir achy between him and other people. We are all Buddhas (Mahayana). As such, we are the remedy for all ages.
Many religions disagree with this. How do you reconcile that with your faith?
Do you need to reconcile it or can you find unity among diversity?
Cant do that without accepting diversity. Cant make every color one color because one persons says that's how it should be. All messengers say that but their foundation for their statements differ. As a result, you must find unity among diversity.
By whose standards? It can't be Bahaullah. It cant be Christ. It cant be me. We cant speak for peace for humanity. (sorry to be blunt. I put myself in because I am not the center of the universe)
That would be nice. I'm just saying it starts with accepting our differences not trying to make a one-party system.
Another thought. This could just be not understanding your belief system. If all messengers are sacred, why would Bahaullah be the sole authority to interpret other religions rather than accepting other religions on their terms not your messenger's terms?
Remember, when you accept other religions, you accept the foundations to which their faith, love, and definition of peace are founded on. The core not just the results.
All religions are man-made. We are not scum (my word not yours). The Spirits (or god if you like) works through us to bring peace. The holy books, practices, and what is written is not by an invisible hand but by us. We are the authors. The inspiration is by whomever or whatever we believe moves us to write or express our faith.
Dogma are just principles dictated by authorities. God is your authority. Bahaullah sets the principles. There is dogma.
Peace of humanity can be made by taking out having a single authority such as a creator, bahaulla, spirits, or christ and find the core of each religion.
We cannot do that. Why? We need to accept that the foundations of the peace you all share differ.
You must find unity in differences not in similarities.
All humanity cannot be loved by god. That is your faith. Peace is universal. Acceptance is saying "our faith believes humanity is loved by god and we know we cannot find peace without accepting other peoples' truths that there is no god and there is still equality and love.
If you cant see love without god, then accept unity among differences rather than (in my humble opinion) trying to make everyone share the same goal from a god that does not exist in the people you are trying to have peace with.
Peace among diversity.
That isn't true. Christ came for all. The Buddha came for all. They didn't come for just the age they taught in. They are the same level as Bahaullah and the same level as myself and others. Why? Because The Buddha taught there is no authority or heir achy between him and other people. We are all Buddhas (Mahayana). As such, we are the remedy for all ages.
Many religions disagree with this. How do you reconcile that with your faith?
Do you need to reconcile it or can you find unity among diversity?
Cant do that without accepting diversity. Cant make every color one color because one persons says that's how it should be. All messengers say that but their foundation for their statements differ. As a result, you must find unity among diversity.
By whose standards? It can't be Bahaullah. It cant be Christ. It cant be me. We cant speak for peace for humanity. (sorry to be blunt. I put myself in because I am not the center of the universe)
Religions don't convert. People do. If people found unity among their diverse beliefs and accept that their foundations cannot be accepted by each others (or it will break the foundation), then peace will develop.
That would be nice. I'm just saying it starts with accepting our differences not trying to make a one-party system.
Another thought. This could just be not understanding your belief system. If all messengers are sacred, why would Bahaullah be the sole authority to interpret other religions rather than accepting other religions on their terms not your messenger's terms?
Last edited:
To me it's so simple and so straightforward. It's like I've been converted to each and every Faith like an ordinary person would except I've been converted to all of them.
People can worship statues and have sacraments and such no problem. But the Bahai Faith defines their religions not as the followers do and Baha'is accept that definition.
But please try and keep in mind that the crux of the matter in redefining all these religions is that their Promised One has redefined their religion not the Baha'is.
For example. Buddha returns and He says that there is a God and Buddhists are not understanding that. Christ returns and says He doesn't approve of the sacraments. Muhammad returns and says that the Seal of the Prophets never meant He was the last Prophet.
Can you grasp what I'm getting at? The Promised One of all these religions is stating that what they are following is not in accordance with what He initially taught them.
So this Promised One established a new faith 'without' all this extra baggage that He considers against what He taught.
And does Christ have the right to change Christianity - you bet! Does Buddha have the right to come out and say He originally taught there was a God? Of course as He founded Buddhism.
Now, we believe that Promised One , as you know, to be Baha'u'llah. And it's HIM not the Baha'is, not me or any other Bahai but the Promised One of ALL Faiths Who is making these calls.
So Baha'u'llah has 'redefined' and restored these religions to their pristine purity in the Bahai Faith as the followers do not want to do so but to continue doing what they are used to.
We believe and it is a fundamental belief of 'unity in diversity' of the human race. But Baha'u'llah teaches diversity of religion should cease and there be one religion in unity. I understand you don't see it that way but there always has only been one religion. The followers never accepted the next Teacher so religions accumulated instead of integrating.
True peace is only possible once there is full respect. And full respect is actually a major challenge. It is very much a form of sacrifice, although it can nonetheless be very worthwhile indeed.
It is fairly common to misunderstand what respect demands and entails. Not everything that is an alternative to open conflict and hatred is respectful.
Respect is not keeping a distance; that would be isolationism, which can often be very disrespectful indeed.
Nor is respect preferring to be polite and to avoid confrontations if that is at all possible. That would be diplomacy, or perhaps pragmatism. Those are not bad things, but have little to do with respect proper. They are just protocols to avoid immediate, unintentional harm.
True respect involves attaining a working understanding of something or someone and deciding that we like them well enough to want to suffer on their stead in order to protect them if it comes to that. Respect is active, bold, courageous and loving. It is also expensive, or at least it takes effort and resources to materialize.
I fear that, honest mistake as it may usually be, the goal that many Abrahamists have of attaining "unity of belief" is inherently misguided, and to a very large degree at that. People can and will hold very divergent religious beliefs, and that is far more of a solution than it is a problem. Religious beliefs are to a large degree the expression of one's values, hopes and dreams. Attempting to force them into conforming to some impersonal, one-size-fits-all expectation is rarely defensable, let alone constructive.
It is actually fine if people disagree on their religious beliefs. That is even necessary in practice, because we can hardly respect other people if we do not have a working knowledge of what they believe in.
Hinduism has the right of it for the most part in that particular issue. Religious beliefs should be shaped to conform to the believer, not the other way around. People can and will connect as befits them, with concepts such as Shakti, Shika, Bhakti, Jnana, Karma and Dhyana. Some people will have a call to nurture and express gratitude for existence and for the creator that they believe in, others will crave the opportunity to learn from and with the challenges of this everyday existence. Some will seek abstract wisdom, others will be eager for concrete brotherhood and mutual support. There is no need to particularly care about any disagreements, as long as each person has the space and the acceptance that he or she needs.
While there is such a thing as religious truth and not all of it is subjective and personal, that truth will not be found in scriptures in the Abrahamic mold, that try way too hard for anyone's good to insist on the need for unified beliefs about matters that lack true religious significance, such as the belief that there is a creator, monotheistic God with remarkably human characteristics. Those are not part of universal religious truth, and never will.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Im re-reading this.
"We believe and it is a fundamental belief of 'unity in diversity' of the human race
but then you say
"Bahaullah teaches diversity of religion should cease and there be one religion in unity....but there always has only been one religion"
These two contradict each other. It is better to say "we do not believe unity in diversity because Bahaullah teaches diversity of religions should cease and there be one religion in unity."
I disagree; and, I find it confusing how Bahai can accept the messenger's teachings but still uphold that the diversity of their teachings should cease and they should follow one teacher.
That is not what Christ taught.
That is not what The Buddha taught.
Can you see the confusion in your statements?
I don't know his name, but someone above posted that to be honest and say you disagree with some tenants and agree with others would be better than saying we accept the messengers but disagree with the teachings that make them conflict with each other.
The question is what is best for humanity? We have disunity, strife wars and conflict over religion. If religions united as one wouldn't that help? I tend to believe that without spiritual unity, human conditions will grow worse.
Baha'u'llah states that we need unity of religion to survive...
"… That all nations should become one in faith and all men as brothers; that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons of men should be strengthened; that diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race be annulled — what harm is there in this? … Yet so it shall be; these fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the 'Most Great Peace' shall come.… Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country; let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind." Baha'u'llah
Baha'u'llah states that we need unity of religion to survive...
"… That all nations should become one in faith and all men as brothers; that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons of men should be strengthened; that diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race be annulled — what harm is there in this? … Yet so it shall be; these fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the 'Most Great Peace' shall come.… Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country; let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind." Baha'u'llah
Tell me about disunity of religion. I posted a bit in #193 (just a few posts above) about why disunity is actually a good thing.
Do you disagree? If so, may you please tell me a bit of why and how so?
Yes I know what I wrote. Accepting the Founders of all Faiths and being united in that is not unity in uniformity because we are accepting 'diverse religions' as we accept 'diverse people'
Oneness can be with diversity and that's what it is.
There's only one sun in the sky. We can call it the sun of Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday but it's still the same one sun that has been around for millions of years.
The multiplicity of religions occurred because the followers refused to follow the new Teacher and so fragmented.
The only difference is that Baha'is have accepted all the Teachers not just one. That doesn't make us any less diverse. The existence of the different religions was never meant to be.
"This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future." - Baha'u'llah
All these religions are the same 'sun' the same religion. Only man has fragmented them. When the next Teacher appeared all the followers were supposed to move on to the next class. But they chose to stay behind so we have thousands of religions or sects.
One United religion doesn't mean diversity is gone, it means fragmentation and conflicting and warring sects are gone and that is good for humanity.
Sorry, but you are quite wrong about that. That is not acceptance, but instead co-optation, perhaps enabled by a failure to understand other religions.
Take for instance the earlier offer of this link in this thread.
The text is reasonably well researched. But then it says that
That is not acceptance, but rather co-optation. It is a statement that Buddhism is a precursor or incomplete form of the Bahai Faith. And yet, it is painfully obvious from the very form, language and goals of Bahai practice that it lacks basic understanding of Buddhism.
I don't doubt that someone who has little awareness of non-Abrahamic religion may sincerely feel that all religions must have and emphasize some form of scripture, a God and a Founder. But such is simply not the case. Despite often immense and sincere efforts, the Bahai Faith is lacking in compability with other religions, and even in functional understanding of non-Abrahamic religion.
Had it a better understanding of diversity, it would by necessity become not too much unlike the UU Church in that it would be a lot less directed than the Bahai Faith is, and deal a whole lot more with the considerable challenges of mutual understanding.
It is fine to be or follow an Abrahamic Faith (although it has definite downsides, but let's leave that for some other time), but that can't really be reconciled with religion in general. Abrahamics are much too restrictive, much too limited in goals, models and scope.
Last edited:
What if their religion tells them to make converts? If they don't make the effort, then aren't they not following their religion?
And they are all theistic religions because you defined them as such based on your own lifestyle, just as you could define ethical human rights in such a manner that justifies and values the acts of materialism against self and others.
And based on your own life, you believe that he is something besides that.
If a Christian applies Christian definitions to a text like the Quran, to reject it would be to reject his own definitions. And if the Quran is the text with definitions from the Islamic lifestyle, to reject it would be the rejection of a Christian text.