• 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 others Religion?

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I wish we were all One again. We'll get there some day, stay cheery!
I don't know what you mean by One again?
I do not want to be 'One' with everyone because I value my individuality.
On the other hand, I would like to see the whole human race as one people in the Baha'i sense.

When I said "I wish I was anyone other than me sometimes" I was referring to my overall life situation, especially since I was widowed in 2022.
Meanwhile, everyone I know is still married. Being suddenly alone is a hard load to carry, especially with everything I am responsible for. :(
 

Mark Charles Compton

Pineal Peruser
I don't know what you mean by One again?
I do not want to be 'One' with everyone because I value my individuality.
On the other hand, I would like to see the whole human race as one people in the Baha'i sense.

When I said "I wish I was anyone other than me sometimes" I was referring to my overall life situation, especially since I was widowed in 2022.
Meanwhile, everyone I know is still married. Being suddenly alone is a hard load to carry, especially with everything I am responsible for. :(
Spiritual Oneness. A return to the source.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
From

To

This brings to mind something about a pot and a kettle.
For what it’s worth, I had no idea the OP was written by a Baha’i when I looked at it.

It started if with an appeal towards inclusiveness, then the very first sentence is:

Which is of course exclusionary.
And the jumped straight to:

Which I read as:
Christians would “accept” Buddha and Muhammad as legitimate prophets or intermediaries to “salvation”.
Buddhists would “accept” Christ and Baha’u’llah and presumably Muhammed as a path towards enlightenment and liberation.

It’s important to note, this is not the same as
say Christians “accepting” (as in being tolerant of) Buddhists and Muslims and Baha’i and
vice versa.
But specifically “accepting” their prophet/founders presumably as being at least theoretically legitimate.
I must admit to my spidey sense being alerted at this point.

Of course about half way through it became apparent with the quote


I was content merely reading along until 83 posts in when the “switch” came with:

To which I pointed out:

To the part about a “link” connecting the religions and being part of “one unfolding process “.

And further pointed out:

To the part about “we” (Baha’is) believing that Baha’u’llah was “prophesied” by, and an “integral” part of “their” beliefs and “fulfills” their prophecies.

I then finished with:


Thus the criticism was not “simply because it is Baha’i”, but rather because it went of the rails of reality with the bait of…..

“why can’t we be inclusive and all get along”,
to the switch of……

“we’ve incorporated the parts of your religions that we accept (while eschewing the core parts that differentiate each from the other) so why can’t you accept the part that you deem heretical which differentiates our religion and be like “us” so we can all get along.”


This is a debate forum.
If you are adverse to criticisms and have a thin skin it would appear you’re in the wrong place.
The thing is tolerance and friendship between the religions is most important. I don’t think we have got to that stage yet but with things like interfaith we are moving in that direction and that’s good for all mankind.

As a Baha’i, I accept all the major religions, their Founders and Holy Books. I do believe that each religion prophecies the next religion but that the priests prevent their followers from accepting it which ends up with humanity being divided into several religions when in reality there was only ever one evolving religion.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
None of the above will agree with the Baha'is on that one but I've never heard Christians or Muslims complain the Baha'is have misappropriated their religion.
I doubt that they would have used "misappropriated". Heresy and blasphemy would probably be more like it. The Baha'i coopt Jesus as a Proto-B. Set the Bible as a stepping stone that supports Baha'i. Something that the Christians have misinterpreted. They re-interpret the NT as being true "symbolically". Not literally as the Christians see it. The Baha'i reinterpretation is both audacious and (from my POV) hilarious.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
You'd need to develop very strict behavior protocols to make such visitations a success. Catholics, Orthodox, Jews and Buddhists have means of visiting one another. That has already been worked out. These each have a large contingent of people who do not have any problem with the other three religions. That would be your place to begin perhaps. I think protocols are needed. Its easy to offend people when you don't know how to behave around them. I think you should investigate how Catholics, Jews and Buddhists visit one another and what the rules are; and you should publish some etiquette rules.


Staring at the problem and thinking about it rarely leads to solutions. On large state university campuses you can observe what really divides people, but finding solutions to division finding a way around problems. If you visited enough campuses you might find a campus that has made some progress. Then you could study that success and perhaps find something there which can be replicated, to add to what you learn from the Catholics Jews and Buddhists. Its very important because campuses are absolutely caked with social fear, isolation and cliques. People there want to meet the right people, network, then get out of there. They don't generally want to know everyone, because many people are toxic, dangerous, losers, etc. My idea is to find a campus or some campuses that have managed to overcome the fear and cliques. This should lend some light to your problem.


I'm envisioning a large glass window at each place. At each meeting hall participating religious places could have a large room that visitors could stand in and observe services through such a window, and visitors could be seen, too through that same large window. Its a two way window, possibly soundproof. They could visit, and the congregants or meditators could be assured of some level of normalcy. There could still be interruptions, but they'd be less likely because of the window pane. I think this idea needs work, but its an idea. You might be able to get some participation at a lot of places.

The window room needs have a good name, because you'd need to get funding to buy these window rooms. You'd need to call it something savvy that would encapsulate its purpose.
Or maybe a friendly picnic. Just casual so we can get to know one another. We can help each others social or humanitarian projects. I know Baha’is who work at lifeline and the Salvation Army and assist them as volunteers as well as St Vincent de Paul. However they seem troubled why we dont become Christians but we feel perfectly at home because we believe in Jesus and the Bible.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Why not be as brothers? If we were then wars would be no more? Monies spent on war would be used on people to elevate our quality of life. Or is it better we hate on one another watching our governments spend $100,000 on missiles and such? Arms dealers play on our prejudices to start wars and get rich on our hate. And the biggest weapon to end all wars is love and brotherhood.

Praise be to God that thou hast attained!... Thou hast come to see a prisoner and an exile.... We desire but the good of the world and happiness of the nations; yet they deem us a stirrer up of strife and sedition worthy of bondage and banishment.... 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.... Do not you in Europe need this also? Is not this that which Christ foretold?... Yet do we see your kings and rulers lavishing their treasures more freely on means for the destruction of the human race than on that which would conduce to the happiness of mankind.... These strifes and this bloodshed and discord must cease, and all men be as one kindred and one family.... Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country; let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind....

(Words spoken to E. G. Browne, from his pen portrait of Bahá’u’lláh, J. E. Esslemont, “Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era”, 5th rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1987), pp. 39-40)
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I doubt that they would have used "misappropriated". Heresy and blasphemy would probably be more like it. The Baha'i coopt Jesus as a Proto-B. Set the Bible as a stepping stone that supports Baha'i. Something that the Christians have misinterpreted. They re-interpret the NT as being true "symbolically". Not literally as the Christians see it. The Baha'i reinterpretation is both audacious and (from my POV) hilarious.
Heretics tend to be those who challenge faith from within rather from outside. The phrase blaspheme isn't used too much these days where I live.

In regards Christians who view the Return of Christ as important, Baha'u'llah in all likelihood would meet few if any of their expections. Baha'u'llah would be considered a 'false prophet' and the Baha'is misguided and deluded for following him.

Any claim to be "The Return of Christ" is certainly audacious and many have made the claim throughout the centuries.

 

Dao Hao Now

Active Member
As a Baha’i, I accept all the major religions, their Founders and Holy Books.
Here we go with the equivocation and obfuscation again.

When you say you “accept” their religions, founders, and holy books…
Do you mean you acknowledge them and feel there are one of many prophets and their books contain wisdom that may benefit you along with others?

Or do you mean it the same way they do?
Do you “accept” Jesus as the promised messiah and acknowledge him as your lord and savior and “accept” that only through him will you be able to enter heaven?
Do you “accept” the Bible as the inerrant and/or inspired word of God?
Do you “accept” Muhammad as Allah’s final prophet?
Do you “accept” the Quran to be the literal words of Allah spoken through Muhammad?
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Heretics tend to be those who challenge faith from within rather from outside. The phrase blaspheme isn't used too much these days where I live.
[shrug]
In regards Christians who view the Return of Christ as important, Baha'u'llah in all likelihood would meet few if any of their expections. Baha'u'llah would be considered a 'false prophet' and the Baha'is misguided and deluded for following him.
Um. If you are agreeing with me, then yup. If you are disagreeing, I don't see the relevance.

Any claim to be "The Return of Christ" is certainly audacious and many have made the claim throughout the centuries.
Again...this just seems like a random disconnected statement. It's true, but ..so, what?
 

Dao Hao Now

Active Member
I do believe that each religion prophecies the next religion but that the priests prevent their followers from accepting it which ends up with humanity being divided into several religions when in reality there was only ever one evolving religion.
You do understand that is heretical to each of those religions……right?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: ppp
I at least find it interesting how a thread on the topic "Why don't we all love each other so much?" now spans thirteen of fourteen pages and deals almost exclusively with the question of why "we all" do not finally share the Baha'i view of God, man and the world. Well, my gods don't think very highly of Abrahamic religions, so as an outsider I am perhaps in the right position to offer a few impressions:

I sympathise with some of what the Bahá'i believe to be right, and never would I ever offensively question anything that goes against my faith (I'm not mission-minded enough), and I too (we pagans don't have it easy at the moment as far as our position in the world is concerned) try to treat all religions with the same respect in everyday life that they show me. Some religions are much better at showing respect than others. But there is a difference between acceptance and support. My guiding god would probably find it funny if I saw him as a manifestation of the Bahá'í God, but that's not the point.

Even "the major religions" have irreconcilable contradictions with each other. Is the Pope important? The Dalai Lama? Why and for whom do they speak? I accept their existence and their faith, but their authority is not authority over me.

Perhaps we should first abolish beliefs in authority before we seek acceptance.
 
Top