What if we accepted each others Religion?

[Dawnofhope]

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.

To be clear, I said the use of the word proselytizing can be pejorative. The word itself is not pejorative. My concern is when individuals, groups or even whole religious communities are labeled as proselytizing for simply sharing their faith or teaching to other's who may be interested.

Words matter. When proselytizing is listed along with serious crimes such as murder and arson, then I wonder if we have the same views on what proselytizing is or isn't.

 

[Starise]

I hate most all religion, that is if by the term we mean a bunch of rules and regs in some mundane religious system.

I had to detach my Christianity from religious dogma to survive in it.

I already love everyone. So I accept all the people, but can't jive with all beliefs. Neither will I chase anyone around about what they believe.

 

[Vinayaka]

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.

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.

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.

Ideas can be expressed without stating where they come from or providing quotes from scripture. I think most of us here are stating what we believe without constantly stating where we got our world view from. The 'what's annoying (or it's opposite, what's insightful?)to who' is interesting, isn't it? I've noticed for a long time that 'likes' are shared between certain people only a lot of the time, and I'm no different for sure. But that that's also because I tend to follow (I don't actually follow anyone as per the forum's capability) certain people more than others.

Besides, 'annoying' is a conjecture for the most part. I really don't know just how annoyed anyone else gets at each other. I do know that some people have left this forum, because they were too annoyed. Annoyance is also on a range ... mild, slightly, to ticked right off.

Proselytizing, to me, is about the very core of it. The proselytizer (or salesman, or keen beginner at a new activity like a sport or a gameboard) has an attitude of 'I have something in my mind that you need'. Another analogy is the father or husband who orders the meal at a restaurant for everyone, and leaves no choices for his wife or kids. He thinks he knows what they want. You've seen those movies. So it has an inherent condescending nature to it. In a Hindu forum I go to, I counter it there just as vehemently as I counter it here. The Hindu world is incredibly diverse in and of itself, and the think I counter the most is the Hindu who thinks his version of Hinduism is the right one for all Hindus, showing a disdain for diversity.

My actual reason for countering proselytizing is some crazy attempt to help people see the harm and disunity it causes, my attempt to help mankind. But I've had little success, as far as I know.

 

[Vinayaka]

To be clear, I said the use of the word proselytizing can be pejorative. The word itself is not pejorative. My concern is when individuals, groups or even whole religious communities are labeled as proselytizing for simply sharing their faith or teaching to other's who may be interested.

Words matter. When proselytizing is listed along with serious crimes such as murder and arson, then I wonder if we have the same views on what proselytizing is or isn't.

You haven't seen what I've seen, so we probably do have different experiences that would affect our overall perception of it. As to 'simply sharing your faith' there is a time and place for everything. If we're having a discussion about cars, I don't think it's appropriate to insert something about you faith into it. I think I told you about my evangelical colleague who, when after we weren't colleagues because he transferred to a different school, would wither give me a subtle shot about Hinduism, or bring up how great he felt from last Sunday's sermon, I swear, within 5 minutes of being with him. After about 5 rounds of that, I avoided him.

 

[danieldemol]

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

It is irrelevant because as the definition shared clearly shows via the "or" statement the mere act of sharing one's beliefs is enough to be proselytizing regardless of whether they intend to convert someone or not in my view.

 

[Vinayaka]

It is irrelevant because as the definition shared clearly shows via the "or" statement the mere act of sharing one's beliefs is enough to be proselytizing regardless of whether they intend to convert someone or not in my view.

I can't see that we'll ever get around the definition of proselytizing, and I'm sure it's a headache for the moderators here. But I must say that the moderators are a group as opposed to an individual. Generally speaking, the opinions on definitions will put whomever is in the majority with the decision. Just because one person claims he/she wasn't proselytizing doesn't mean he wasn't, and the final decision is left to the moderators, who do a great job here. I certainly wouldn't be here at all if it was simply the War of the proselytizers.

 

[CG Didymus]

It is irrelevant because as the definition shared clearly shows via the "or" statement the mere act of sharing one's beliefs is enough to be proselytizing regardless of whether they intend to convert someone or not in my view.

I think that LH means well, but this thread is all about the Baha'i Faith. The OP says that we should accept all religions. We ask, "What should we accept about the other religions?" "The teachings about the virtues." Beyond that, what else do the religions have in common?

But then it includes, "We should accept all religions and all the manifestations/messengers, including Baha'u'llah." So just with those... We accept all religions, and we accept all the messengers. That's gets a person as close to being a Baha'i as a person can get. Only thing left is to sign the Baha'is declaration card.

But why accept all the religions? And why accept all of the messengers? The reality of what the different religions teach is that if a person believes it, they don't believe some of the other religions. And, with only a couple of them, will they believe anything from any of the other religions. And, even with that, they will believe their religion has replaced those other religions.

Even with Baha'is, I think there is a lot they don't believe about the other religions. Some more than others. And that's okay with me, if they were more open about what they believe and what they don't believe about the other religions.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You haven't seen what I've seen, so we probably do have different experiences that would affect our overall perception of it. As to 'simply sharing your faith' there is a time and place for everything. If we're having a discussion about cars, I don't think it's appropriate to insert something about you faith into it.

I agree.

I think I told you about my evangelical colleague who, when after we weren't colleagues because he transferred to a different school, would wither give me a subtle shot about Hinduism, or bring up how great he felt from last Sunday's sermon, I swear, within 5 minutes of being with him. After about 5 rounds of that, I avoided him.

I do recall. I can't imagine such an evangelical Christian being any more sympathetic to the Baha'i Faith and in all likelihood would probably do the same.

 

[Bthoth]

I think that LH means well, but this thread is all about the Baha'i Faith. The OP says that we should accept all religions. We ask, "What should we accept about the other religions?" "The teachings about the virtues." Beyond that, what else do the religions have in common?

But then it includes, "We should accept all religions and all the manifestations/messengers, including Baha'u'llah." So just with those... We accept all religions, and we accept all the messengers. That's gets a person as close to being a Baha'i as a person can get. Only thing left is to sign the Baha'is declaration card.

But why accept all the religions? And why accept all of the messengers? The reality of what the different religions teach is that if a person believes it, they don't believe some of the other religions. And, with only a couple of them, will they believe anything from any of the other religions. And, even with that, they will believe their religion has replaced those other religions.

Even with Baha'is, I think there is a lot they don't believe about the other religions. Some more than others. And that's okay with me, if they were more open about what they believe and what they don't believe about the other religions.

The concept and ideal of accepting other interpretations is actually a key.

All are trying to levy benchmarks of truth.

Finding the universal is the next layer

 

[CG Didymus]

The concept and ideal of accepting other interpretations is actually a key.

All are trying to levy benchmarks of truth.

Finding the universal is the next layer

Finding the universal truth is kind of what the OP is suggesting. It came out that what each religion has in common is that they all teach leading virtuous lives and to leave off all the man-made doctrines and dogma. But a strong/true believer in a religion isn't going to do that. The doctrines and dogma are important parts of the religion.

Now if we are talking about "weak" and very liberal believers in a religion, then I think that they would have no problem dumping the doctrines and dogmas of their religion, if the people in the other religions do the same. But then are we really talking about Christians, Jews, Muslims learning to get along? Those people aren't the "fundy", hardcore believers. Then some Hindus and Buddhists seem to have a more accepting way of looking at the different religions... more like they are just different paths to the same destination.

My complaints here have been aimed at the Baha'is because I don't think they intend to drop any of their religious beliefs for the sake of unity. So, they are sort of in the same position as the "true believers" in the other religions... They believe their doctrines and dogmas are true and came straight from God to their prophet. So, why would they drop them? But... that's what the OP is asking the other religions to do.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is irrelevant because as the definition shared clearly shows via the "or" statement the mere act of sharing one's beliefs is enough to be proselytizing regardless of whether they intend to convert someone or not in my view.

Give it up for lost. Unless a person is attempting to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another it is not proselytizing.

proselytize: convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
Google

You have no way to know if anyone is attempting to convert anyone else.
To say you know the mind of another person is very arrogant, but go ahead, knock yourself out!
You obviously have nothing better to do than pick on Baha'is and that says a lot more about you than it says about the Baha'is.

 

[loverofhumanity]

'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.

The quote is to support the principle of being accepting towards other religions. If you can find a quote from any scripture of any other religion which says the same I’ll be happy to replace it.

Our approach is through education and promoting principles. Education has a very powerful influence on civilisation as we can see in the world today. The action part is replacing violent ideologies with peaceful ones.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ideas can be expressed without stating where they come from or providing quotes from scripture.

Sure ideas can be expressed, but invariably people ask me "why do you believe that?"
When people ask me why I believe something I am talking about, I am not going to say I came up with the belief myself, because I didn't.
I am going to be honest I tell them why. I believe something because that is what my religion teaches.

I think most of us here are stating what we believe without constantly stating where we got our world view from.

No, I do not think that is what most people do, if they have a religious belief. A religion is not a world view, it is a belief derived from scriptures. In a discussion, Christians will say they got their beliefs from the Bible, and Muslims will say they got their beliefs from the Qur'an, so why aren't Baha'is allowed to say where they get their beliefs from, and even quote Baha'i scriptures if necessary to explain something, as Christians quote the Bible or Muslims quote the Qur'an?

I don't see anyone complaining about Christians and Muslims sharing their beliefs and accusing them of proselytizing. It is always the Baha'is who are accused, so there seems to be a double standard.

Proselytizing, to me, is about the very core of it. The proselytizer (or salesman, or keen beginner at a new activity like a sport or a gameboard) has an attitude of 'I have something in my mind that you need'. Another analogy is the father or husband who orders the meal at a restaurant for everyone, and leaves no choices for his wife or kids. He thinks he knows what they want.

I cannot speak for other Baha'is, I speak only for myself.
I do not have an attitude of "I have something in my mind that you need" or "I think I know what everyone really wants."
Nothing could be more offensive to me than such an attitude because it is very arrogant. Doing it in the name of "the Cause" is no excuse.

My actual reason for countering proselytizing is some crazy attempt to help people see the harm and disunity it causes, my attempt to help mankind. But I've had little success, as far as I know.

I suggest that you 'identify' who us actually proselytizing before you attempt to help people see the harm and disunity they are causing.

proselytize: convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
Google

As I said above, you have no way of knowing if anyone is attempting to convert anyone else, so it is rather arrogant to assume you know.
Just cause a person discusses their religion that does not mean they are trying to convert others to it. I have zero interest in concerting anyone since I firmly believe what Baha'u'llah wrote:

“For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings, p. 143

 

[loverofhumanity]

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

All these divinities are mutually exclusive. So, it would be like asking a physicist to accept the theory of flat earth. It won't do.

So, the only belief you all guys should embrace in the interest of diversity, is the belief that there are no divinities. What a great way to celebrate your diversity, by actually finding a common denominator by utterly denying it. Isn't that the greatest compromise of all?

So, you should not all meet in your respective churches, synagogues, mosques, which are still a symbol of diversity, but you should simply destroy them buildings. Or turn them into some nice condos.

What do you think about it? Don't you think all religious conflicts would be solved then? At the end of the day, accepting mutually exclusive beliefs is like accepting none.

I am just trying to help you guys, since you seem rather confused with all those gods, goddesses, and such.

Ciao

- viole

Actually we are most likely centuries away from being so tolerant towards one another. At this time in history just accepting all human beings as one human family is difficult enough. From all the wars going on we cannot even accept each other let alone our religions. it’s not religion which is causing the conflicts but disobedience to it. Religion teaches to love. If people choose to hate that’s their fault. Nothing to do with religion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Finding the universal truth is kind of what the OP is suggesting. It came out that what each religion has in common is that they all teach leading virtuous lives and to leave off all the man-made doctrines and dogma. But a strong/true believer in a religion isn't going to do that. The doctrines and dogma are important parts of the religion.

Now if we are talking about "weak" and very liberal believers in a religion, then I think that they would have no problem dumping the doctrines and dogmas of their religion, if the people in the other religions do the same. But then are we really talking about Christians, Jews, Muslims learning to get along? Those people aren't the "fundy", hardcore believers. Then some Hindus and Buddhists seem to have a more accepting way of looking at the different religions... more like they are just different paths to the same destination.

My complaints here have been aimed at the Baha'is because I don't think they intend to drop any of their religious beliefs for the sake of unity. So, they are sort of in the same position as the "true believers" in the other religions... They believe their doctrines and dogmas are true and came straight from God to their prophet. So, why would they drop them? But... that's what the OP is asking the other religions to do.

I liked this post and I think you said many true things. I’m just not sure which doctrines or dogmas you think we should drop. We don’t say our Manifestation is the last. We are not permitted to exalt any Manifestation over another (Baha’u’llah) we don’t have priests or rituals. We read from all their holy books in our services and even have their symbols engraved on our temples. We can’t take money from non believers. All donations are voluntary and secret. Can you mention a few you consider to be dogma? Doctrine is teachings isn’t it? All religions have teachings so are you talking about man made doctrine ?

 

[McBell]

Give it up for lost. Unless a person is attempting to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another it is not proselytizing.

proselytize: convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
Google

You have no way to know if anyone is attempting to convert anyone else.
To say you know the mind of another person is very arrogant, but go ahead, knock yourself out!
You obviously have nothing better to do than pick on Baha'is and that says a lot more about you than it says about the Baha'is.

Interesting that you left out half of your own sources definition of the word:

advocate or promote (a belief or course of action).​

​

It is this type of dishonesty that makes it difficult to take you seriously.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think that LH means well, but this thread is all about the Baha'i Faith. The OP says that we should accept all religions. We ask, "What should we accept about the other religions?" "The teachings about the virtues." Beyond that, what else do the religions have in common?

But then it includes, "We should accept all religions and all the manifestations/messengers, including Baha'u'llah." So just with those... We accept all religions, and we accept all the messengers. That's gets a person as close to being a Baha'i as a person can get. Only thing left is to sign the Baha'is declaration card.

But why accept all the religions? And why accept all of the messengers? The reality of what the different religions teach is that if a person believes it, they don't believe some of the other religions. And, with only a couple of them, will they believe anything from any of the other religions. And, even with that, they will believe their religion has replaced those other religions.

Even with Baha'is, I think there is a lot they don't believe about the other religions. Some more than others. And that's okay with me, if they were more open about what they believe and what they don't believe about the other religions.

It’s all about peace nothing else. What the result would be from such an action would be peace and brotherhood. An end of all wars and human happiness and prosperity.

 

[Trailblazer]

Interesting that you left out half of your own sources definition of the word:

advocate or promote (a belief or course of action).​

​

It is this type of dishonesty that makes it difficult to take you seriously.

Nothing was left out because I am not advocating or promoting a belief or course of action.
Dishonesty? It would be dishonest if I said I was advocating or promoting a belief or course of action when I am not doing so.

I only share what I believe within the context of a discussion. That is what people do on a religious forum.

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

Certain people on this thread are continually speaking for other people and their motives on this forum.
That is beyond arrogant, and the fact that these people cannot even recognize their arrogance makes it all the worse.

Maybe the other Baha'is are too sheepish to speak out against this kind of injustice, but I'm not. I speak up when I see an injustice.

I will remind the other Baha'is of what Baha'u'llah said about Justice.

2: O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 3-4

 

[McBell]

Nothing was left out because I am not advocating or promoting a belief or course of action.
Dishonesty? It would be dishonest if I said I was advocating or promoting a belief or course of action when I am not doing so.

I only share what I believe within the context of a discussion. That is what people do on a religious forum.

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

Certain people on this thread are continually speaking for other people and their motives on this forum.
That is beyond arrogant, and the fact that these people cannot even recognize their arrogance makes it all the worse.

Maybe the other Baha'is are too sheepish to speak out against this kind of injustice, but I'm not. I speak up when I see an injustice.

I will remind the other Baha'is of what Baha'u'llah said about Justice.

2: O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 3-4

Actually, what you did there was play loose and free with the definition of the word to support your argument when the definition that was being presented to you is ALSO a definition of the word.

That is dishonest.

The rest of your sermon holds no interest to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually, what you did there was play loose and free with the definition of the word to support your argument when the definition that was being presented to you is ALSO a definition of the word.

That is dishonest.

The rest of your sermon holds no interest to me.

Definition of WHAT word?
Your obfuscation will get you nowhere, because I am only going to keep repeating what I said before..

I am not advocating or promoting a belief or course of action.
Dishonesty? It would be dishonest if I said I was advocating or promoting a belief or course of action when I am not doing so.

I only share what I believe within the context of a discussion. That is what people do on a religious forum.

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

Certain people on this thread are continually speaking for other people and their motives on this forum.
That is beyond arrogant, and the fact that these people cannot even recognize their arrogance makes it all the worse.