What if we accepted each others Religion?

[Vinayaka]

The threads were discussing principles not beliefs. The principle of oneness exists in many religions. Oneness of all beings can be found in Hindu and Buddhist teachings. The thing here is that in mentioning oneness I’m promoting a principle not my personal religion.

The idea of starting the thread on teaching the oneness of humanity in schools was prompted by news from multiple sources which cited Hamas schools teaching children to hate and kill Jews. I believe that the oneness of mankind being taught replacing the demonisation of Jews can bring about peace and harmony. It had nothing to do with trying to promote my religion but an honest and sincere attempt to offer a remedy for an illness called prejudice. So I had no reason to come out in the open because there was no hidden agenda to promote my religion just try and offer ways to stop massacres and wars in the future. Yet I have been misconstrued and misunderstood. My only intention was peace .

With the thread about what if we accepted each others religion it’s the same. If we did I believe wars would stop. It’s nothing to do again with my religion but us all seeing the merits in other religions, befriending them and trying to appreciate the beauty in each. There is so much hatred between religions that I believe can be mended by accepting each because they all teach basic truths.

“If only the whole world would acknowledge the greatness of Muhammad and all the Heaven-sent Teachers, strife and discord would soon vanish from the face of the earth, and God's Kingdom would come among men.”‘Abdu’l-Bahá

It is the PRINCIPLE I’m promoting NOT the Baha’i Faith. If I want to promote my religion I would start topics like Christ’s return etc and sometimes on these threads it did get off topic but I categorically state that my purpose in starting these two threads was out of compassion for a deeply suffering world. I want people to be happy, enjoy life and not do unimaginable horrendous things to each other so I promote education throughout the whole world that we are all one human family which is not the case today and to teach to love all religions and religionists because this will make our world better and happier.

So whatever anyone deems me guilty of ban me, report me , ignore me but my sole intention is to try and humbly offer ways and attitudes and mindsets that can stop this madness of hate and killing going in. I cannot be silent while people butcher each other. So condemn me and accuse me of whatever anyone wishes but my sole intention is promoting principles which can bring about peace.

Hindu Leaders Reflections on Oneness

How is Hinduism’s teaching about Oneness relevant in the modern world? Find out from some of the Hindu tradition’s most widely respected teachers.

www.hinduamerican.org

What Is Oneness - That Buddha Guy

I am neither a minister nor a scholar. I am simply “bonbu”, a foolish, ignorant being. My name is Bill Bohlman. I live in Kenosha, WI, but was born in NYC.

thatbuddhaguy.com

'Oneness', I can see is a troublesome word, much like 'God' from the thread that Salix started. It means different things to different people. Then you throw in the obligatory Baha'i quote that says we should all acknowledge the greatness of Muhammad, and all the heaven sent teachers, when many of us don't think Muhammad was all that great nor do we believe in heaven sent teachers. Then, in the very next sentence you claim you're not promoting the Baha'i faith. Then why the quote?

I don't see how ranting about the situations of this planet is of any use whatsoever. Ranting isn't action, it's ranting. Best wishes in calming down and enjoying life a bit. I worry for your health, and send prayers your way.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Baha'is, Christians and some "cult-type" religious groups go out and try to make friends with people. They shower them with love. That tactic works very well. Here on the forum LH has started threads that wanted the "oneness" of humanity to be taught in school. And then this one that wants us to accept all religions. This is basic Baha'i teachings. But it's not coming out and saying, "These are Baha'i beliefs, and the world would be better off if we all followed them."

I personally like the threads started by Baha'is, because it stirs things up a lot. But it is still promoting and teaching Baha'i beliefs. I kind of wish that the forum had a section for people in the different religions to just go for it and teach, preach and proselytize. It's happening anyway. Why not do it out in the open.

What I see is an eclectic, somewhat disparate gathering of individuals on this forum debating and discussing. We each have our personal interests. There's a natural difference of approach and skill level.

The whole process requires rules and regulations otherwise it would be chaos.

I tend to enjoy threads some started by Baha'is too. The forum has a few Baha'is and ex-Bahai's which is good to see.

The word proselytizing is often used in a pejorative manner in this forum. According to some definitions, most of us proselytize to some degree including those who staunchly deny they do.

It's hard getting the balance right.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Baha'i don't proselytise they teach.

There are also explanations in the Baha'i Writings as to what constitutes proselytising.

The current dictionary definition would mean anyone debating religion is proselytising.

Thus the quandary for a religious forum that has a debate section.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

For a Christian to accept Buddha, or Allah, or Zeus, is logical nonsense. and the other way round.

It is all about our frame of reference, which education can alter.

God has many Names and Attributes. All it requires is for us to embrace that the source of all the goodness enables us to become One in the goodness.

Regards Tony

 

[danieldemol]

There are also explanations in the Baha'i Writings as to what constitutes proselytising.

The current dictionary definition would mean anyone debating religion is proselytising.

Thus the quandary for a religious forum that has a debate section.

Regards Tony

I believe there is a difference in explaining one's semantic definition of proselytising openly and the Bahai way, which is to falsely claim they are not proselytising without explaining that they are using a super semantic definition so as to deflect attention from the exact nature of what they are doing in my view.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are also explanations in the Baha'i Writings as to what constitutes proselytising.

The current dictionary definition would mean anyone debating religion is proselytising.

No, I do not think so, since proselytizing means convert or attempt to convert, and debating does not mean that anyone is trying to do that.

Proselytize: convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another. https://www.google.com

Proselytizing implies intent to convert people from one opinion or belief to another.
It is impossible to know another person's intent unless they tell you. It is highly arrogant to claim to know another person's intent, especially after they tell you that is NOT their intent.

What Baha’is are enjoined to do is share our Faith.

“Consort with all men, O people of Bahá, in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship. If ye be aware of a certain truth, if ye possess a jewel, of which others are deprived, share it with them in a language of utmost kindliness and good-will. If it be accepted, if it fulfil its purpose, your object is attained. If anyone should refuse it, leave him unto himself, and beseech God to guide him. Beware lest ye deal unkindly with him. A kindly tongue is the lodestone of the hearts of men. It is the bread of the spirit, it clotheth the words with meaning, it is the fountain of the light of wisdom and understanding….” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 289​

But that does not mean we share it with people who are not interested. However, in a conversation about religion on a public forum, we cannot know who is interested and not, so it is perfectly appropriate to share what we believe, just like everyone else does.

Sharing is not proselytizing. Proselytizing implies intent to convert but sharing does not imply intent to convert.
Nobody has any way of knowing the intent of any other person.

Baha’is are only supposed to “teach” the Baha’i Faith to people if they have shared and someone is interested in learning more about it.

Share: give a portion of (something) to another or others. https://www.google.com

Teach: show or explain to (someone) how to do something.https://www.google.com

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe there is a difference in explaining one's semantic definition of proselytising openly and the Bahai way, which is to falsely claim they are not proselytising without explaining that they are using a super semantic definition so as to deflect attention from the exact nature of what they are doing in my view.

Proselytizing means intent to convert people from one opinion or belief to another.
It is impossible to know another person's intent unless they tell you. Imo, it is arrogant to claim to know another person's intent, especially after they tell you that is NOT their intent.

 

[danieldemol]

Proselytizing means intent to convert people from one opinion or belief to another.
It is impossible to know another person's intent unless they tell you. Imo, it is arrogant to claim to know another person's intent, especially after they tell you that is NOT their intent.

Intent isn't a requirement as I see it. Here is what Oxford languages has to say about it;
'convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
"the programme did have a tremendous evangelical effect, proselytizing many"

• advocate or promote (a belief or course of action).
  "Davis wanted to share his concept and proselytize his ideas"'
  source: define proselytize - Google Search
  
  
  
  Note the "or" statement. If you convert someone you are proselytizing to them regardless of your intent.
  
  
  
  Note the example includes the sharing of concepts.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I believe there is a difference in explaining one's semantic definition of proselytising openly and the Bahai way, which is to falsely claim they are not proselytising without explaining that they are using a super semantic definition so as to deflect attention from the exact nature of what they are doing in my view.

Except, when you look back we have attempted to explain this in detail, also posted the definition many times.

That people glance over it and dismiss it, that is their issue,no skin off my nose.

It is a fine line, especially on a debate forum.

Where the Baha'i fail, and obviously fail time after time, is offering the teachings of the Faith to those that do not want to hear.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Proselytizing means intent to convert people from one opinion or belief to another.
It is impossible to know another person's intent unless they tell you. Imo, it is arrogant to claim to know another person's intent, especially after they tell you that is NOT their intent.

Intent isn't a requirement as I see it. Here is what Oxford languages has to say about it;
'convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
"the programme did have a tremendous evangelical effect, proselytizing many"

• advocate or promote (a belief or course of action).
  "Davis wanted to share his concept and proselytize his ideas"'
  source: define proselytize - Google Search
  
  
  
  Note the "or" statement. If you convert someone you are proselytizing to them regardless of your intent.
  
  
  
  Note the example includes the sharing of concepts.

The nature of debate is to convince the other side you have the right explanations. One side attempts to convince the other that their arguments are correct.

Regards Tony

 

[danieldemol]

The nature of debate is to convince the other side you have the right explanations. One side attempts to convince the other that their arguments are correct.

Regards Tony

I've never claimed that debate is not a form of proselytizing.

Except, when you look back we have attempted to explain this in detail, also posted the definition many times.

That people glance over it and dismiss it, that is their issue,no skin off my nose.

It is a fine line, especially on a debate forum.

Where the Baha'i fail, and obviously fail time after time, is offering the teachings of the Faith to those that do not want to hear.

Regards Tony

That's not what I've noticed Tony. What I've usually noticed is that when someone accuses Baha'i of proselytizing they deny it without providing their semantic definition then *when called out on it* they provide their definition. I don't see that as an honest M.O.

 

[Trailblazer]

Intent isn't a requirement as I see it. Here is what Oxford languages has to say about it;
'convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.

The problem is that you do not know what anyone else's intent is, not unless they tell you what it is. You can only know your own intent.

 

[danieldemol]

The problem is that you do not know what anyone else's intent is, not unless they tell you what it is. You can only know your own intent.

Irrelevant in my opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

The nature of debate is to convince the other side you have the right explanations. One side attempts to convince the other that their arguments are correct.

Regards Tony

That might be what most people do but that is not what I do. I have absolutely no interest in 'convincing' anyone that I have the 'right' explanations.

 

[Trailblazer]

Irrelevant in my opinion.

Completely relevant.
you do not know what anyone else's intent is since you are not thinking with their brain.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why share your religion at all, without being asked? What is it about that action that satisfies you so much that when people call it out as annoying, you still do it? There must be some sort of adrenaline rush to state your views to total stranger, as it makes no sense logically.

 

[Vinayaka]

What I see is an eclectic, somewhat disparate gathering of individuals on this forum debating and discussing. We each have our personal interests. There's a natural difference of approach and skill level.

The whole process requires rules and regulations otherwise it would be chaos.

I tend to enjoy threads some started by Baha'is too. The forum has a few Baha'is and ex-Bahai's which is good to see.

The word proselytizing is often used in a pejorative manner in this forum. According to some definitions, most of us proselytize to some degree including those who staunchly deny they do.

It's hard getting the balance right.

I'm against proselytizing, but I don't see it as pejorative. It's the word for an action. Now if I called you scum or degenerates, that would be pejorative. I'm also against deception, murder, arson, and more but is calling someone an arsonist pejorative.

Then again, I'm not against the idea that it might be pejorative to you, just like 'filthy idol worshipper' could be to some of my fellow Hindus.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why share your religion at all, without being asked?

Normally I am asked before I share my religion, or it is related to something else I am discussing with someone.
I cannot avoid sharing what I believe and still discuss the subject at hand, since my views on that subject comes from my religion.

What is it about that action that satisfies you so much that when people call it out as annoying, you still do it?

No, if someone called me out as being annoying, I would not talk about it with that person anymore.

However, I cannot avoid annoying 'some people' who read my posts since this is a public forum.
Conversely, what some people post about their religious beliefs annoys me, but they still have a right to post what they do.

There must be some sort of adrenaline rush to state your views to total stranger, as it makes no sense logically.

No more than sharing anything else with a total stranger.
Why would one's religious beliefs be a private thing on a public forum? That makes no logical sense to me.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That's not what I've noticed Tony. What I've usually noticed is that when someone accuses Baha'i of proselytizing they deny it without providing their semantic definition then *when called out on it* they provide their definition. I don't see that as an honest

I asked the forum to provide a definition under the rules, so there was no grey area. I also suggested the Baha'i explanation was an excellent choice.

Until there is such guidelines, then it will always be open to one's own opinions and will be moderated by those opinions.

So it seems, given the amount of time it is raised, then about every 2nd post you would want a Baha'i to post the definition (exaggerated, but you get the idea)

Basically it is a tactic used by many, a cop-out by those that see merit in an answer that trumps their opinions. Let's just say the person is proselytizing, that will trump them.

Personally I have not tried to convert any person on this forum, but how many warnings and accusations have been made over the years is astounding.

What I have done is supplied valid views and answers, either from or based upon the Baha'i Writings.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That might be what most people do but that is not what I do. I have absolutely no interest in 'convincing' anyone that I have the 'right' explanations.

By supplying answers in a debate forum, one is by default offering what they see is the best solution.

I can also say I am not here to convince anyone, as we know full well none of us can change a heart, it is by God's Word and Grace alone that can do that. But that will not stop the accusations when one participates in a debate.

Regards Tony