What if we accepted each others Religion?

[RestlessSoul]

There is a lot of benefit to knowing that you don't know, and that building a philosophy grounded in speculation is not skillful.

There may well be a lot of benefit to admitting what we don’t know. But is that a good reason for not even asking the question? And doesn’t all philosophy begin with speculation?

 

[Secret Chief]

all religions are true

False, as per Bahai. Bahai misrepresents those religions it considers to be "proper."

all our Houses of Worship have the symbols of all religions ‘engraved’ in their architecture.

Yes, and they are unwelcome, misleading, disingenuous and misappropriated.

Prophets of God is one and the same. Their unity is absolute. God, the Creator,

Once more with feeling: The Buddha was not a prophet. Buddhism is not concerned with creator deities.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Perhaps you are not aware that interfaith groups are on the rise? They share what their religions have in common. I do believe that this will continue to grow, I guess you probably wouldn't. There are plenty of issues that cause disunity, including among atheists.

Do you envision a bleak future for humanity?

I am fully aware of interfaith trends in the US and Western Europe on the rise on the coat tails of the rise of the “Nones”.

As per Hartford International;
(Changing U.S. Demographics and the Impact on Interfaith Dialogue)
“Part of that change can be attributed to cultural upheavals that started in the 1960s and 1970s, leading to a rise in those who call themselves humanists, agnostics, atheists, or just unaffiliated. That trend has only increased, and now one in three adult Americans has no religious affiliation.”
“The other slice of the pie represents a cornucopia of different faith traditions. While the country has been religiously diverse since its founding, much of the present-day diversity in the U.S. can be traced to the shifting demographics of new arrivals after immigration laws changed in 1965. That shift brought significant numbers of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and others into the mainly Judeo-Christian mix.”

However, I wonder if you are aware of the fact that…..
“at the same time, large parts of the world now have low birth rates. This includes not only Western Europe and North America, but also China, where a majority of the world’s religiously unaffiliated population lives”
“Meanwhile, some highly religious regions are experiencing rapid population growth.”
“Differing fertility rates and other demographic data are factored into our population growth projections for the world’s major religious groups, which forecast that the percentage of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated will shrink in the decades ahead – in contrast with the trend seen in the U.S. and Western Europe.”

Key Findings From the Global Religious Futures Project

The Global Religious Futures (GRF) project is jointly funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and The John Templeton Foundation. Here are some big-picture findings from the GRF, together with context from other Pew Research Center studies.

www.pewresearch.org

Or from the same Pew Research report:
“Overall, government restrictions on religion have been rising globally. As of 2020, 57 countries now have “very high” levels of government restrictions on religion, up from 40 in 2007, the baseline year of the study. These restrictions can take many forms, including efforts by governments to ban particular faiths, prohibit conversions, limit preaching or give preferential treatment to certain religious groups.”
“For many people in these countries, religion can’t be separated from the power of the state.”

So actual research (as opposed to an individual’s opinion) would indicate otherwise when considering on a global scale, at least for the short term. (Projection to 2050)

There are plenty of issues that cause disunity, including among atheists.

Of course there are, I never suggested otherwise.
However, would you deny that religion is a major cause on its own (both historically and currently) and often a contributing factor in some of the others? (i.e. political, nationalism, acceptance of other ethnicities, xenophobia, claims to geographical regions, etc.)

Do you envision a bleak future for humanity?

I share your optimism for the near future when contemplating North America and Western Europe considering the rise of the “Nones” particularly among younger generations and the rising proliferation of people being raised with mixed religious backgrounds.
See;

One-in-Five U.S. Adults Were Raised in Interfaith Homes

Roughly one-in-five U.S. adults were raised with a mixed religious background, according to a new Pew Research Center study.

www.pewresearch.org

Unfortunately, that trend is not worldwide and in fact losing ground in many regions.

However, if I’m anything, I’m a realist and can envision it going either way.
I certainly hope that in the not too distant future we would be able to slip the yoke of religions, superstitions, and xenophobic tendencies and learn to work together for the mutual benefit of all of humanity.
I don’t envision it happening in the lifetime of anybody living today, and find it unlikely within the lifetime of my grandchildren, but perhaps one day…..in future generations.
Like I said:

Unfortunately, change on such a scale takes a long time due in no small part to necessity of multitudes of people to actually change their entrenched beliefs; which some are incapable of doing.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I do not see that is the meaning.

Regards Tony

So you’re saying that you don’t see the statement……“the realisation that God is One and there is no exclusive faith” has been shown to actually mean……”the realisation that God is One and there is no other exclusive faith other than mine”….by the majority of those that might utter such a phrase……
You do not see that is the meaning, yet you contend

I am unable to see how unity can take hold until the councels of the Pen of the Most High are embraced, this is a prerequisite to unity.

You don’t see that as a claim that your faith “is the prerequisite to unity” and therefore the “exclusive faith” necessary to achieve unity?
Looks like the exact same meaning to me!


In context….you said:

Unfortunately there is really no bandaide approach. Our oneness has to be build upon the realisation that God is One and there is no exclusive faith.

In response to @Saint Frankenstein saying:

Newsflash: You can be respectful of others without compromising your own beliefs!

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So you’re saying that you don’t see the statement……“the realisation that God is One and there is no exclusive faith” has been shown to actually mean……”the realisation that God is One and there is no other exclusive faith other than mine”….by the majority of those that might utter such a phrase……
You do not see that is the meaning, yet you contend

You don’t see that as a claim that your faith “is the prerequisite to unity” and therefore the “exclusive faith” necessary to achieve unity?
Looks like the exact same meaning to me!


In context….you said:

In response to @Saint Frankenstein saying:

The key here is, the Councels of the Pen of the Most High, is the essence of all the Messages.

I have been contemplating for quite some time to start an OP that explores what these Councels are most likely to be.

I see each Faith could contribute to the list.

Regards Tony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, Baha'is do not say that Christianity is false. We only say that some of the man-made Christian doctrines are false.

You say that what any modern Christian would recognize as their own religion is false and you deny the validity of their religion.

You're implying something like a Great Apostasy without coming out and actually saying it directly.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The key here is, the Councels of the Pen of the Most High, is the essence of all the Messages.

And of course your faith is the one faith that “accepts” the “essence of all the messages” and exclusively so……..right?

I see each Faith could contribute to the list.

But only your faith exclusively manages to compile the entire list……the rest are just cogs in your faiths wheel……..right?

Or in other words: ”the realisation that God is One and there is no other exclusive faith other than mine”…………is spot on!

 

[Trailblazer]

You say that what any modern Christian would recognize as their own religion is false and you deny the validity of their religion.

I am saying I believe that many beliefs of Christianity are false because they are based upon misinterpretations of the Bible by Christians.

For example:

“It has long been generally believed that Jesus Christ was a unique incarnation of God such as had never before appeared in religious history and would never appear again. This tenet made the acceptance of any later Prophet impossible to a Christian. Yet there is nothing in Christ’s own statements, as recorded in the Gospel, to support this view, and it was not generally held during His lifetime.

Another opinion which Christians universally hold about Christ is that His teaching was absolute and final. They believe that if the Truth were partly withheld from them for a time because they could not bear it, it was divulged at Pentecost in its fullness and that now nothing remains to be revealed. But there is nothing in the account of Pentecost to suggest such an interpretation and there is no one who will believe that Jesus would have named the false prophets as characteristic of His age if this warning was to be followed by an immediate release of all Truth to the Church. What the Bible shows is rather a succession of teachers—Abraham, Moses and Christ, each measuring His Revelation to the needs and maturity of His authors….

Many of these false interpretations involve repudiation of the Word of God in favor of the word of man. This impious act is so craftily performed, with such an air of humility, that it might escape the notice of the most sincere and devout of worshippers. Probably few churchgoers realize today that the Gospel of Christ as known to the few in the pulpit is wholly different from the Gospel which Christ preached in Galilee as recorded in the Bible.

In spite of Christ’s promise of further revelation of Truth, through the Comforter, through His own return, through the Spirit of Truth, the Christian Church regards His revelation as final, and itself as the sole trustee of true religion. There is no room for the Supreme Redeemer of the Bible to bring in great changes for the establishment of the Kingdom of God. In fact this Kingdom is often described as a world-wide Church.

Another universal opinion among the Christians is that Christ was the Lord of Hosts of the Old Testament. Yet the Jewish Prophets had foretold that when the Lord of Hosts came He would not find the Jews in the Holy Land, all would have been scattered among the nations and would have been living in misery and degradation for centuries; but when Jesus came Palestine was full of Jews and their expulsion did not begin until the year 70 A.D.; it may be said to have continued till the year 1844.

Having thus closed God’s Covenant with the Bible, sacred history—God-directed—came to an end, and secular history, having no sense of divine destiny nor unity, began…..

“Well might Christ warn His followers that false prophets would arise and misinterpret His teachings so as to delude even the most earnest and intelligent of His believers: from early times Christians have disputed about Christian truth in councils, in sects, in wars.

To sum up, if Christians say “our acts may be wrong,” they say truly. If they say “however our Gospel is right” they are quite wrong. The false prophets have corrupted the Gospel as successfully as they have the deeds and lives of Christian people.”

The False Prophets, pp. 25-30

 

[crossfire]

It is not the people I talk about, it is the mindset.

I am unable to see how unity can take hold until the councels of the Pen of the Most High are embraced, this is a prerequisite to unity.

It may be possible this can happen without acknowledgement of the source, but humanity is not showing this will be the path.

Regards Tony

Now this is going back to JRR Tolkien's One Ring. It's a top-down, rather than a bottom-up approach, which will always leave some stragglers that would have to be herded by force back into the herd for there to be unity. With the bottom up approach of each individual having the divine spirit and the fruits of the spirit, there is no force needed.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And of course your faith is the one faith that “accepts” the “essence of all the messages” and exclusively so……..right?


But only your faith exclusively manages to compile the entire list……the rest are just cogs in your faiths wheel……..right?

Or in other words: ”the realisation that God is One and there is no other exclusive faith other than mine”…………is spot on!

If that is God for you, for it. Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Now this is going back to JRR Tolkien's One Ring. It's a top-down, rather than a bottom-up approach, which will always leave some stragglers that would have to be herded by force back into the herd for there to be unity. With the bottom up approach of each individual having the divine spirit and the fruits of the spirit, there is no force needed.

There would be education needed. The would be guidance by example needed, otherwise the bottom can not rise.

No force, loving and wise guidance.

Life is top down, learning by our mistakes where the wisdom of the elders should make things better, not worse.

Regards Tony

 

[Secret Chief]

There would be education needed. The would be guidance by example needed, otherwise the bottom can not rise.

No force, loving and wise guidance.

Life is top down, learning by our mistakes where the wisdom of the elders should make things better, not worse.

Ooh good, paternalistic religious fascism. Shoot me now.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

If that is God for you, for it. Regards Tony

Using your words……not mine.

I’ve never seen any objective evidence of a god existing; only a multitude of different peoples claiming their understanding of a god is the actual god and that everyone else has it wrong.
(Sound like anybody you know?)

Unfortunately, each claim their scriptures as “evidence” that their version is the only one that got it right, all while not being able to show that theirs is any more authentic than the others without using their own scriptures to confirm their scriptures. (Again, sound like anybody you know?)
Which of course the others do as well, all while contradicting the scriptures of others.


Of course, here in reality, none of them have been able to objectively demonstrate that any of them are accurate to anybody that wasn’t caught up in the same circular reasoning.

 

[Trailblazer]

I’ve never seen any objective evidence of a god existing;

And you never will see any.

only a multitude of different peoples claiming their understanding of a god is the actual god and that everyone else has it wrong.

Yes, you will see a lot of that.

Unfortunately, each claim their scriptures as “evidence” that their version is the only one that got it right,

Yes, you will see a lot of that.

all while not being able to show that theirs is any more authentic than the others without using their own scriptures to confirm their scriptures.

That depends upon what you mean by scriptures that are 'authentic.'

Of course, here in reality, none of them have been able to objectively demonstrate that any of them are accurate to anybody

No, none of them will be able to objectively demonstrate to anybody that their scriptures are accurate in the sense that they came from a God, since God can never be objectively demonstrated to exist.

 

[CG Didymus]

Once more with feeling: The Buddha was not a prophet. Buddhism is not concerned with creator deities.

I don't know, but I was under the impression that anybody could become "enlightened" in the way Buddha had become enlightened. But it would take many "rebirths" for a person to finally reach enlightenment. Is that close? If not, could you explain it?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

That depends upon what you mean by scriptures that are 'authentic.'

The standard English definition of…….
accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable, genuine, valid, credible, convincing, accurate

 

[Trailblazer]

The standard English definition of…….
accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable, genuine, valid, credible, convincing, accurate

You said: Unfortunately, each claim their scriptures as “evidence” that their version is the only one that got it right, all while not being able to show that theirs is any more authentic than the others without using their own scriptures to confirm their scriptures.

I said: That depends upon what you mean by scriptures that are 'authentic.'

So the word authentic was In reference to scriptures.

authentic: of undisputed origin; genuine.
"the letter is now accepted as an authentic document"

authentic cmeans - Google Search

The only scriptures I know of that are wholly authentic are the writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, meaning that they are of undisputed origin, since we have the original tablets penned in their own hands.

However, even though I believe it to be so, I am not 'claiming' that these scriptures are "accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable, genuine, valid, credible, convincing, accurate" because I cannot prove that.

 

[crossfire]

Ooh good, paternalistic religious fascism. Shoot me now.

I would have to agree.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

So the word authentic was In reference to scriptures.

Of course, and I stipulated (thank you for asking for clarification) which definition I be was using.
(I presumed it would be evident from context)

However, even though I believe it to be so, I am not 'claiming' that these scriptures are "accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable, genuine, valid, credible, convincing, accurate" because I cannot prove that.

That’s the point.
Many (if not most) do claim that their scriptures are authentic in the sense of…
”accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable, genuine, valid, credible, convincing, accurate”….
and use them as their “evidence” that their version is the only one that got it right, all while not being able to show that theirs is any more authentic than the others without using their own scriptures to confirm their scriptures.
Which of course the others do as well, all while contradicting the scriptures of others.

Without deteriorating into the semantics of “claim” or “prove” or “evidence”….
I pointed out that none of them have been able to objectively demonstrate that any of them are accurate to anybody that wasn’t caught up in the same circular reasoning.

That circular reasoning being:
Their relying on the information found within their scriptures to inform and bolster their beliefs that their scriptures are accurate and use that as their reason to believe the accuracy of their scriptures.
Furthermore, they find the information that they gleaned from their scriptures to be sufficient to convince themselves to believe that their scriptures are “authentic” (as defined above) because it is attested to within their scripture,
yet discount the beliefs of others that use the exact same method of determining beliefs using other scriptures.

 

[CG Didymus]

You say that what any modern Christian would recognize as their own religion is false and you deny the validity of their religion.

What Baha'is mean by "Christianity" is not false. But what is it?

When I asked if Baha'is think there were any Christian group today that believes, teaches and practices the truth, LH said that the Catholic Church? I don't see how that is possible. I don't think there is one Christian group that Baha'is believe is teaching the truth.

If they believe Jesus is God... They are wrong. If they believe in an inherited or original sin from Adam's fall... They are wrong. If they believe Satan and hell are real... They are wrong. If they believe Jesus rose physically from the dead... They are wrong. We can go down the list of beliefs and doctrines, and Baha'is will probably not believe any of them.

But are these "man-made" doctrines? Yes, if we say that the gospels and the rest of the NT is man-made. But these doctrines and beliefs came right out of what is taught in the NT. To this Baha'is say, "but the Christians interpreted them wrong. They took things too literally."

There is always a way for Baha'is to say they believe in the Bible and NT, and a way for them to say they don't believe it. So, how can you argue or debate against that? They are always right.