What makes religion beneficial or harmful to communities?

[Dawnofhope]

That is not the only reason that I consider 'unity in diversity' as a highly flawed Baha'i' concept: the fact that some religions are atheistic whilst others are theistic imposes different outlooks and practices upon the adherents that are wholly incompatible with each other.

There is no reason that an atheistic Buddhist could not find common ground with a Theistic Christian. Its an inherent part of multiculturalism that works well in my country. We don't all need to have the same faith or even worldview to be able to get along.

 

[Shantanu]

There is no reason that an atheistic Buddhist could not find common ground with a Theistic Christian. Its an inherent part of multiculturalism that works well in my country. We don't all need to have the same faith or even worldview to be able to get along.

I would not trust anyone who did not share my religion/philosophy or worldview.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no reason that an atheistic Buddhist could not find common ground with a Theistic Christian. Its an inherent part of multiculturalism that works well in my country. We don't all need to have the same faith or even worldview to be able to get along.

In most cases, I think there's an inherent limit to how much a religion that preaches to be "the one true faith" can get along with non-adherents without having to alter itself.

If someone believes that worshipping their particular god in their particular way is as vital to a person as breathing - which is something that many religions preach - then being confronted by people of other faiths or no faith who are good people living happy, productive lives, suffering no ill effects at all is just as worldview-shattering as it would be for us to see someone living comfortably underwater with no scuba gear or snorkel.

The mere existence of decent, happy people of other faiths or no faith is a threat to some religions.

 

[Vinayaka]

What works for one person may not work for another. It would be as much a mistake to force atheism on a theist, as to force theism on an atheist. The first principles for a Baha’i are freedom of religion along with unity in diversity.

What is the difference between 'force' versus slow gentle (often sneaky) persuasion over time? The end result is the same.

 

[Dawnofhope]

What is the difference between 'force' versus slow gentle (often sneaky) persuasion over time? The end result is the same.

I have no objection to being persuaded about the truth of otherwise of what I believe. Facts are presented and an informed choice is made. That is day to day life. It is very different from being manipulated or coreced where a dominant person has undue influence over another.

 

[Dawnofhope]

In most cases, I think there's an inherent limit to how much a religion that preaches to be "the one true faith" can get along with non-adherents without having to alter itself.

If someone believes that worshipping their particular god in their particular way is as vital to a person as breathing - which is something that many religions preach - then being confronted by people of other faiths or no faith who are good people living happy, productive lives, suffering no ill effects at all is just as worldview-shattering as it would be for us to see someone living comfortably underwater with no scuba gear or snorkel.

The mere existence of decent, happy people of other faiths or no faith is a threat to some religions.

I've spent the last few years working alongside someone who is a Christian fundamentalist from the USA. She is sincere in her beliefs including only Christians can go to heaven because of the necessity for Jesus to be saved. We have had many discussions about religion that have been interesting and entertaining. We've never had an argument and always been able to agree to disagree. It probably taken her longer to be comfortable with what I believe than for me to be OK with what she believes.

I agree that the existence of decent happy peoples of other faiths and worldviews (including atheism) can be a threat. It just takes time, patience and good will to overcome the barriers.

 

[Vinayaka]

I have no objection to being persuaded about the truth of otherwise of what I believe. Facts are presented and an informed choice is made. That is day to day life. It is very different from being manipulated or coreced where a dominant person has undue influence over another.

The problem I have is the basic premise, "I have something to share that you need. You're stupid. I'm smart. I'm going to heaven. You're going to hell. My religion is far better than yours." It's demeaning to the individual. It all starts with 'You should ..." Nobody has the right to offer unsolicited counsel to another human being.

Unfortunately, manipulation, via friendship evangelism, lying about influence, lying about benefits, and more is used. Of course the people who are manipulated often don't acknowledge or understand that they were manipulated. That's the whole point of subtle manipulation .. to get away with it without other people understanding what hit them.

 

[Vinayaka]

There is no reason that an atheistic Buddhist could not find common ground with a Theistic Christian. Its an inherent part of multiculturalism that works well in my country. We don't all need to have the same faith or even worldview to be able to get along.

Most likely they didn't talk about religion much.

 

[Vinayaka]

The mere existence of decent, happy people of other faiths or no faith is a threat to some religions.

I've lost 'friends' from this. Everything was hunky-dorey until the word 'Hindu' came out 6 years into the friendship. Their loss.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've spent the last few years working alongside someone who is a Christian fundamentalist from the USA. She is sincere in her beliefs including only Christians can go to heaven because of the necessity for Jesus to be saved. We have had many discussions about religion that have been interesting and entertaining. We've never had an argument and always been able to agree to disagree. It probably taken her longer to be comfortable with what I believe than for me to be OK with what she believes.

I agree that the existence of decent happy peoples of other faiths and worldviews (including atheism) can be a threat. It just takes time, patience and good will to overcome the barriers.

I don't disagree that people can change their attitudes, but I think that this change in attitude can undermine their religious beliefs.

For instance, with a fundamentalist Christian like you describe, if they come to believe that it's okay for people not to have accepted Jesus, then they lose their motivation for proselytizing - a huge part of the religion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What works for one person may not work for another. It would be as much a mistake to force atheism on a theist, as to force theism on an atheist. The first principles for a Baha’i are freedom of religion along with unity in diversity.

Why then Bahaullah was cursing people who would not accept his "One God" and worshiped many, and those who did not believe in his claim of being a manifestation. Mighty uncivilized even by the supposed Bahai ideals.

Most Muslims are not violent, whereas some Buddhists certainly are.

Oh, Rohingyas and Lanka Muslims are peaceful, only the attacked Buddhists are certainly violent! Hindus too are certainly violent. I admire your choice of words.
Terrorism in India - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

I would not trust anyone who did not share my religion/philosophy or worldview.

Thanks for your honesty. We all exist of a spectrum of belief, attitudes and behaviours. At one end is exclusivity, the other inclusivity. I'm more at the inclusivity end, whereas you are more exclusive in your outlook. In regards the OP question when religions (and philosophies and worldviews) are either beneficial or harmful, there is a case to be made about benefits of inclusiveness and the harmfulness of exclusion.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The problem I have is the basic premise, "I have something to share that you need. You're stupid. I'm smart. I'm going to heaven. You're going to hell. My religion is far better than yours." It's demeaning to the individual.

I doubt if too many here would disagree.

It all starts with 'You should ..." Nobody has the right to offer unsolicited counsel to another human being.

It depends. If someone is looking down or struggling, its good that someone cares and takes an interest. If the underlying message is "If you had my religion, you would feel good" that's problematic. If someone says they don't want to discuss religion at all, then it's clear.

Unfortunately, manipulation, via friendship evangelism, lying about influence, lying about benefits, and more is used. Of course the people who are manipulated often don't acknowledge or understand that they were manipulated. That's the whole point of subtle manipulation .. to get away with it without other people understanding what hit them.

That is true. I don't see any place for manipulation in an interfaith dialogue.

Most likely they didn't talk about religion much.

That is one way of avoiding conflict. Another is agreeing to disagree and having mutual appreciation and acceptance of each others beliefs.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't disagree that people can change their attitudes, but I think that this change in attitude can undermine their religious beliefs.

For instance, with a fundamentalist Christian like you describe, if they come to believe that it's okay for people not to have accepted Jesus, then they lose their motivation for proselytizing - a huge part of the religion.

Argubaly at the heart of any religion is right action, right speech and right attitude, Christianity included. I could provide plenty of quotes from the Hebrew Bible and New testament to support that.

Jesus commanded His disciples to preach the Gospel to all nations which they carried out faithfully and with success. No one doubts there were massive human rights violations and widespread destruction of indigenous cultures along the road. I don't believe that was what Jesus intended. The manner in which the message of any religion is communicated is just as important as the message itself. Christians who join this forum to aggressively proselytize bring their faith as well as themselves into disrepute.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Why then Bahaullah was cursing people who would not accept his "One God" and worshiped many, and those who did not believe in his claim of being a manifestation. Mighty uncivilized even by the supposed Bahai ideals.

The Baha'i Faith explicitly teaches:

'Consort with all the peoples, kindreds and religions of the world with the utmost truthfulness, uprightness, faithfulness, kindliness, good-will and friendliness'

Consort with All the Peoples, Kindreds and Religions of the World

Oh, Rohingyas and Lanka Muslims are peaceful, only the attacked Buddhists are certainly violent! Hindus too are certainly violent. I admire your choice of words.
Terrorism in India - Wikipedia

Violence and tyranny is part of the human condition and not the exclusive domain of Muslims.

 

[loverofhumanity]

In the Bible, there is only one true religion from God and many religions that follow false gods. Israel followed the true God and was ordered by their God to war against those other religions, and to kill the prophets of those other religions.

2 Kings 10:18-23 Now therefore call unto me all the prophets of Baal, all his servants, and all his priests; let none be wanting: for I have a great sacrifice to do to Baal; whosoever shall be wanting, he shall not live. But Jehu did it in subtilty, to the intent that he might destroy the worshippers of Baal… as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, that Jehu said to the guard and to the captains, Go in, and slay them; let none come forth. And they smote them with the edge of the sword...​

The circumstances and situation prevailing at that time were different yet to me I might equate the threat that Baal posed to Israel as similar to that which Isis poses today to the word and no one has any qualms with the destruction of Isis.

We have to take into account that in those times the Israelites situation may have been a similar threat to their existence and that if Baal were not stopped then Israel as it was known then would have been entirely destroyed.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. and no one has any qualms with the destruction of Isis.

No. As a Hindu and a pagan, I have problems with any pagan religion destroyed by the "One God' people who had nothing but hate in their heart.

The Baha'i Faith explicitly teaches:
'Consort with all the peoples, kindreds and religions of the world with the utmost truthfulness, uprightness, faithfulness, kindliness, good-will and friendliness'

"Say, whoever has the enmity of this servant (meaning Baha’ullah) in his heart, certainly Satan has entered his mother’s bed."
(Reference: `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Ganj-i shāygān, p. 79)
Baha'ullah: Non-Baha'is Are ********
Is that the way civilized people talk?

 

[Shantanu]

Thanks for your honesty. We all exist of a spectrum of belief, attitudes and behaviours. At one end is exclusivity, the other inclusivity. I'm more at the inclusivity end, whereas you are more exclusive in your outlook. In regards the OP question when religions (and philosophies and worldviews) are either beneficial or harmful, there is a case to be made about benefits of inclusiveness and the harmfulness of exclusion.

For me the only way to include all people in a common humanity is through economic interrelationships where everyone has a vested interest in staying united in cooperation because livelihoods are involved. That is the secular way to proceed. We do not need religion to bind people together in a common cause. In fact religion only causes social problems in trying to achieve inclusivity in the place of economic development as a social engineering strategy.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"Say, whoever has the enmity of this servant (meaning Baha’ullah) in his heart, certainly Satan has entered his mother’s bed."
(Reference: `Abd al-Ḥamīd Ishrāq Khāwarī, Ganj-i shāygān, p. 79)
Baha'ullah: Non-Baha'is Are ********
Is that the way civilized people talk?

The passage referenced is not an authorised translation. Some Muslims as well as others hostile to the Baha'i Faith provide their own translations of the Baha'i writings with a clear agenda.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A translation is a translation. Is what does not edify Bahaullah necessarily not a good translation? You mean we should only take House of Justice translation?