What if we accepted each other's religion?

[Sees]

Calls for unity from positions upholding exclusivism and little genuine respect for diversity itself are typically confusing unity with uniformity.

Acknowledging that people can be, believe, see, etc. different, leads to peace...not even necessary to actually like or value their specific whatevers - just leave them to it. I don't think the Baha'i and Ahmadiyya faux-acceptance really does justice to the concept.

 

[1AOA1]

It is alright to have unity with abstract things like peace and love.

The fact that a Christ says you can only get that through Christ (external means)

And

A Buddhist says you can only get that through self (internal means)

Causes confliction.

When the inclusion of materialistic practice and materialistic definitions in a text causes conflict that would not otherwise be there, that conflict is born in materialism, even if the text is the Biblical text or the Koran.

 

[LuisDantas]

When the inclusion of materialistic practice and materialistic definitions in a text causes conflict that would not otherwise be there, that conflict is born in materialism, even if the text is the Biblical text or the Koran.

That does not seem to make a lot of sense at face value. Can you perhaps give an example?

It is difficult to imagine what a "materialistic" practice or definition would be, let alone why it would be so overpowering as to deny otherwise inspired texts.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When the inclusion of materialistic practice and materialistic definitions in a text causes conflict that would not otherwise be there, that conflict is born in materialism, even if the text is the Biblical text or the Koran.

What do you mean?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What if their religion tells them to make converts? If they don't make the effort, then aren't they not following their religion?

I guess I am going off of my experience with, say, Christianity. I never got that impression from the Bible, Christ, nor his father. Instead, I got that we should help others die to their sins (their wrong doings, say murder). Help other people as Christ has helped us (at the time), and basically, like Christ, be a servant to people (what you do for others, you have done for me) type of thing.

Christianity, biblicaly speaking, isn't about converts. It's about sacrifice, charity, and living as Christ would live.

Any person who try to convert others to Christ are missing the point of why Christ died for them. He didn't die for them to make others die to their sins. He died for them to die in their sins. He didn't die for them to force their beliefs on others. He died to where our sins are gone to where we are free to help others in Christ's name.

Conversion is the wrong word of helping others come to Christ. The word evangelize has got a bad connotation on it through the years. It doesn't mean force people to a person's belief. It means spread the word (the teachings) of a particular religion. Its not proselytizing.

Christ was a evangelist not an proselytizer. If people actually followed what Christ taught and not what they reflect on what they think Christ taught (their ego portrayed on Christ) then they'd know his message isn't about conversion but about his father.

Too many ex-Christians are so focused on words like dogma, conversion, evangalize, proselytizing, god, and so forth. Their personal experiences take away the objective nature of what many of these religions actually teach.

 

[arthra]

Since this is truly a Comparative Religion thread I wanted to share my own experience of searching...I was actually raised in Baptist church and read the Bible as a child... Later I became interested in studying other religions and being exposed to different religions. IMy friends and I also were interested in Yoga... I read a translation of the Bhagavad Gita by Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood that impressed me with it's devotional aspects..Later I met both Swami Prabavananda and Christopher Isherwood and spent some time in an Ashram.

Later I studied Theravada Buddhism... I went through a period where I really felt that Christ, Krishna and Buddha shared beautiful attributes but I also realized that among Christians Krishna and Buddha were of course less valued... It wasn't until I was a Baha'i that I felt I could accept Them all and recognize Them..

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

"But for Him no Divine Messenger would have been invested with the robe of prophethood, nor would any of the sacred scriptures have been revealed. To this bear witness all created things.” (Baha'u'llah)

The ultimate goal of each Faith is the appearance of their Promised One - Baha'u'llah. Every scripture prepares their followers for this eventuality. But it is also their supreme test. Will they stick with what they're used to or turn to the One foretold on their scriptures. That's their call.

 

[loverofhumanity]

"But for Him no Divine Messenger would have been invested with the robe of prophethood, nor would any of the sacred scriptures have been revealed. To this bear witness all created things.” (Baha'u'llah)

The ultimate goal of each Faith is the appearance of their Promised One - Baha'u'llah. Every scripture prepares their followers for this eventuality. But it is also their supreme test. Will they stick with what they're used to or turn to the One foretold on their scriptures. That's their call.

Even the Quran says it is only for a thousand years. All these religions and their laws always prophesied a time when they would be renewed. So I can't see the problem in laws being replaced because those laws were only ever meant for a time not forever and that time has long gone.

 

[LuisDantas]

"But for Him no Divine Messenger would have been invested with the robe of prophethood, nor would any of the sacred scriptures have been revealed. To this bear witness all created things.” (Baha'u'llah)

The ultimate goal of each Faith is the appearance of their Promised One - Baha'u'llah. Every scripture prepares their followers for this eventuality. But it is also their supreme test. Will they stick with what they're used to or turn to the One foretold on their scriptures. That's their call.

That is true for a very specific subset of Faiths, not in general.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is what Baha'u'llah says about the unity of all the Messengers, Teachers, Prophets, Messiahs etc

“If thou wilt observe with discriminating eyes, thou wilt behold Them all abiding in the same tabernacle, soaring in the same heaven, seated upon the same throne, uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith. Such is the unity of those Essences of Being, those Luminaries of infinite and immeasurable splendor”

Excerpt From: Bahá’u’lláh. “Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh.”

 

[LuisDantas]

One can really feel the Muslim inheritance in that perspective, don't you think?

 

[loverofhumanity]

All the religions come from the same One Source. The laws and teachings were tailored for the needs of each age. Now we need the oneness of humanity.

“These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated”

Excerpt From: Bahá’u’lláh. “Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh.”

 

[Ingledsva]

Ingledsva,

I'm a Baha'i man and have a family .. for forty some years now. My wife and I consult on our decisions. Her decisions are valued as much as my own. I know other Baha'i families that have the same values.

As to inheritances...the model only applies if you do NOT leave a Will. Every Baha'i is supposed to leave a Will ... if they do not there is a pattern which can be applied. I couldn't calculate how many attorney fees can be saved in this case but it would likely be astronomical. Finally this aspect of inheritances has yet to be applied. It's for a future Baha'i society and the manner it will be applied has yet to be decided.

As to the Universal House of Justice you are correct that women do not serve on that body. But this does not mean the institution favors men over women. Find one statement or issue where the House has favored men over women.

After the passing of Abdul-Baha in 1921 His sister Bahiyyih Khanum assumed a defacto role as basically the administrative head of the Faith until Shoghi Effendi could assume his duties..Read more at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahiyyih_Khánum#Headship

I know all of that - and it doesn't change a thing that I said.

They do not want TRUE equality. They still want men to be head of household, head of religion, etc.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

The Holy Books speak not only literally but symbolically. This is where many cannot decipher which are literal and which are symbolical. Baha'u'llah was the manifestation of kindness and if you read history you will find He was known as the Father of the Poor. He was also descended from the Zoroastrian Kings and was born into one of the most prominent families of Persia at that time.

"“There are prophecies concerning this Manifestation in the Buddhistic books, but they are in symbols and metaphors, and some spiritual conditions are mentioned therein, but the leaders of religion do not understand. They think these prophecies are material things; yet those signs are foreshadowing spiritual occurances.”

Excerpt From: Bahá, Abdu’l. “Tablets of ‘Abdu’l-Baha

Well isn't that convenient when claiming other's religious leaders.

What YOUR GUY says is the meaning of what THE OTHER GUY said, obviously doesn't make it true.

*

 

[LuisDantas]

All the religions come from the same One Source.

... according to the Bahai Faith and some other groups of monotheists.

Or else, if you take an anthropological, secular view of the matter that demands a very broad, secular, non-theistic understanding of what the One Source would be.

The laws and teachings were tailored for the needs of each age.

So I take it you mean that revealed religion is the one you are interested in?

Fair enough. But you should acknowledge that revealed religions are not the be all, end all of religion as a whole.

Now we need the oneness of humanity.

What exactly do you mean here? What would that oneness be? Is it any more or any less necessary now that it used to be in other times or will be in the future? What will it the place of?

“These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated”

That strongly suggests that only Abrahamic religions (and only in their less enlightened forms at that) are considered legitimate by Baha'ullah.

Other religions and even other Abrahamic faiths besides Islam and some forms of Christianity tend to know better than to define themselves as a function of "firmly-established laws from one Source".

Excerpt From: Bahá’u’lláh. “Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh.”

 

[LuisDantas]

Even the Quran says it is only for a thousand years.

Most Muslims seem to disagree. May I ask where you got that period from?

 

[loverofhumanity]

I know all of that - and it doesn't change a thing that I said.

They do not want TRUE equality. They still want men to be head of household, head of religion, etc.

*

We can't honestly placate an ardent feminist so I won't try. All I can say is we don't know now why women cannot serve on the Universal House of Justice but we don't put it down to sexism or things like that. I don't know why so do with me as you please on this matter.

In a Tablet to an early woman believer 'Abdu’l-Bahá stated: 'O maidservant of God! Know thou that in the sight of God, the conduct of women is the same as that of men… From the spiritual point of view… there is no difference between women and men…' He added, however: 'As to the House of Justice: according to the explicit text of the Law of God, its membership is exclusively reserved to men. There is divine wisdom in this which will presently be made manifest even as the mid-day sun.'

The beloved Guardian in reply to the same query from a believer pointed out in a letter written on his behalf on July 15th 1947: 'People must just accept the fact that women are not eligible to the International House of Justice. As the Master says the wisdom of this will be known in the future, we can only accept, believing it is right; but not able to give an explanation calculated to silence an ardent feminist!'

 

[Ingledsva]

No. They are all part of the same religion except they have fragmented themselves from the whole. The religion of God accepts all His Messengers and all truth and all Holy Books and does not segment itself into differing and conflicting fragments. Men have done that. Truth is one and does not contradict itself. Each religion only accepts its own religion but all of them are true.

What harm is there in accepting all truth? Division has not made the world any better. Claiming this or that religion is the only way has achieved nothing except wars. Accepting the truth of all religions is a better way forward for humanity. What keeps us is only man made interpretations and theories but these religions all taught truth.

LOL! Except for those darn religions you don't accept as having messengers from God!

You obviously DON'T accept all truth.

You folks have very plainly said that ALL your ACCEPTED religions have the same CORE BELIEFS, and things they say that don't match what you think, are add-ons to the teachings of their Messengers.

*

 

[loverofhumanity]

Taken in general, women today have a stronger sense of religion than men. The woman's intuition is more correct; she is more receptive and her intelligence is quicker. The day is coming when woman will claim her superiority to man.Abdul-Baha

By My Life! The names of handmaidens who are devoted to God are written and set down by the Pen of the Most High in the Crimson Book. They excel over men in the sight of God. Baha'u'llah

If there is not money enough in a family to educate both the girl and the boy the money must be dedicated to the girl’s education, for she is the potential mother. Abdul-Baha

It's clear to an unbiased observer that women are exalted in the Bahai Faith. We understand that there is a good reason why they cannot serve on the Universal House of Justice which will become very obvious in the future.

 

[Ingledsva]

All the religions come from the same One Source.

That is your opinion.

The laws and teachings were tailored for the needs of each age. Now we need the oneness of humanity.

“These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated”

Excerpt From: Bahá’u’lláh. “Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh.”

And my opinion, is rather, that they were made-up out of the beliefs of those ages, and are not religions created by any God for those ages.

A real God - interacting, - would not be held back by any man-made condition, - such as patriarch, or slavery, or rape.

One would suppose that Gods either interact, or they don't.

I doubt any God would say, Well darn it! They treat women as half-human male-owned wombs, and own and breed other people! Hummmm! I have no power to change that! I'll just leave it as it is!

A God that supposedly commands things like - thou shall not commit murder, -could just as easily say - Thou shall treat males and females as equals, - or - Thou shall not hold and rape slaves.

All we actually have are the writings of Patriarch religions, - created by patriarchal men.

*