Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Saving humanity is not truth. Truth is something that is factual and can be shown to exist. How do you prove "saving humanity" exists? It is a concept, not a fact, and not a truth
-
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
Saving humanity is not truth. Truth is something that is factual and can be shown to exist. How do you prove "saving humanity" exists? It is a concept, not a fact, and not a truth
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
You and I were both talking about serving humanity.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Love all - but only actually included if they hold your religious views.
What about those Pagan religions?
What about homosexuality - which science is telling us they are born with?
"... Yet, in a widely circulated letter (published in its entirety in this post) from the faith’s Department of the Secretariat of the faith reinforces:
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and sexual relations are only permissible between husband and wife.
Because of his legal same-sex marriage (since 2008 to Rich Tarpening), Sean faces the loss of his Administrative Rights and/or expulsion from the Baha’i Faith...." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-snow/brokenhearted-bahais-lgbt_b_7111164.html
The above site has a recording of a radio broadcast of this info.
So, like the other Abrahamic religions that Baha'i come out of, you hold onto ancient ridiculous, or erroneous ideas. Not seeing THEM as just for that time.
*
We must love all. But our Faith only accepts marriage between a man and a woman as legitimate .
So your "love" comes with conditions.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Marriage is a religious institution. The state shouldn't even be involved. Government got it's foot in the door under the pretense of the necessity for blood tests. While most states have done away with that requirement, they all still require a license. Why? In a word, c-o-n-t-r-o-l. All that's needed is equality under the law for all voluntary partnerships, including even polygamy etc.
Does love come with conditions, you bet it does. If your spouse becomes a violent person, to you or others, it should be hit the road Jack/queline.
No, it isn't. Marriage in religious in the same way that the pipe organ is: it can often be seen in churches, but there's nothing inherently religious about it.
Nonsense. You can live with your significant other without a government license. The government only gets involved when you want to make a legal partnership with your significant other.
No. Love all is love all.
But as the Baha'i Faith only accepts marriage between a man and a woman then people who want things like same sex marriage will have to look elsewhere.
Last edited:
I thought you wanted everyone to accept everyone else's religions. Plenty of religions accept same-sex marriage.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Marriage is a religious institution, legal partnership is a state institution. Yes, I know the left wants to co-opt religion marriage to increase it's own hegemony (i.e. control); and of course the last thing they'd want to do is admit it.
S'what I said.
Same sex marriage is not a religion.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
It will never happen, we are too much into what we ourselves believe in, how can we all accept all religions when all religions go against what we believe in, it just will never happen, we are too proud of what we already believe in.
We can all accept the golden rule and all humans as equal and serve humanity together, work for world peace together and we already have interfaith and can build on that. We have the belief in virtues in common and spiritual matters as well as character building. We have way too much in common not to unite and we will.
Same-sex martiage is a sacrament in many religions. By rejecting same-sex marriage, you are rejecting a part of those religions.
Look at it this way: if someone rejected interracial marriage, would they be accepting the whole of the Baha'i faith? In the same way, by rejecting same-sex marriage, you reject part of the religions that you claim to accept.
No Prophet of God or Holy Book ever taught homosexuality or same sex marriage. They forbade these things. It is not part of any Divinely revealed religion. It is a man made law.
The Baha'i laws on marriage are clear. Only between a man and a woman. It is a part of the Baha'i Faith one must accept to be a member. If one disagrees then they shouldn't join our religion.
The Baha'i laws on marriage are clear. Only between a man and a woman. It is a part of the Baha'i Faith one must accept to be a member. If one disagrees then they shouldn't join our religion.
Whateverist
Active Member
I was going to say they love all equally conditionally, but as I think about it I suspect that isn't true.
Servant_of_the_One1
Well-Known Member
I accept the reality that there are other religions. Respect is alright.
Give respect and thou shall receive respect.
Give respect and thou shall receive respect.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Earn respect and respect will follow.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I'm leery about this kind of approach as it is neither practical nor is it particularly realistic. Plus, in a very real psychological sense, one is setting themselves up for failure and the guilt that will surely follow when they try to thwart nature with such a high ideal. By way of example, for the most part, I like most people I meet. I do not love them, though I frequently quite like them and find them charming for whatever reasons. The feeling is likely reciprocated.
On very rare occasions I meet someone I have an instant (inexplicable) dislike for, it is usually an involuntary physical reaction and an emotion recoil effect. Something creeps me out about the person. Without exception when I was in a position to know someone like this better I began to understand why I had that initial reaction and it was again, without exception, for very good reasons.
I save my love for those who genuinely deserve it and who have earned it.
Likewise, I see it more as an act of naivety to treat all religions as if they were all somehow brilliant expositions of the nature of the human condition. Some religions have very wonderful core principles that have always been true, are true today and will likely be true forever.
That said, they also have their seamy underbellies that might be wise for any thinking person to avoid like the plague. Do we just sweep all the naughty bits under the carpet and pretend they are not there? Embrace those who quietly pray for our destruction or demise at the hands of their oh, so benevolent god?
Last edited:
Whateverist
Active Member
Yep. I agree with most all of this but would only add on to the bolded bit. It would really be naive to think that any religion was a brilliant exposition on the human condition. No religion would give a complete enough account, nor is it the mission of any religion to do so. Religion doesn't exit for that purpose.
However I do think every religion gives clues regarding the whole god-belief phenomenon, something that is too ancient not to be an important aspect of human nature. I am myself very interested in how postulating a wise and powerful other (lets just drop the omni-crap) capable of communicating through signs and dreams and visions could have played a role in our psychological development. That isn't at all an argument in favor of remaining religious (too late). But I would like to give sufficient credit of the right kind to religious experience. (Religious institutions interest me less.)