Why ‘us vs them’?

[shunyadragon]

I understand the need for order and to have governments, religious leaders and an identity. But only for practical purposes not that we should become enemies or strangers .

Why haven’t we people been more vigilant with regards to our leaders both religious and political, turning us against one another by creating an ‘us vs them’ mentality in our minds when in reality we are all fellow humans? For thousands of years we humans have been pitted against one another often manipulated by leaders demonising other human beings so we will kill them.

We have been educated to shun one another because others are ‘them’ not ‘us’ and the world has become divided, disunited and bigoted. Why do many choose to listen to political and religious leaders who want us to kill each other? Is it an ego trip where the follower feels on top of the world upon hearing in a sermon by the priest that he’s the ‘only’ one saved and all others are sinners condemned to hell or a true believer told by his imam that all non believers are ‘infidels’ and their lives inferior? Why do we not question this?

Humanity has listened to this rubbish and nonsense for centuries. Science tells us we are all one family. But our leaders tell us we are ‘us vs them’ Do you really believe them?

Are we all related?

Basic math tells us that all humans share ancestors, but it’s amazing how recently those shared ancestors lived. Thanks to genetic data in the 21st century, scientists are discovering that we really are all descended from one mother. It’s Okay To Be Smart explores our common human ancestry.

ed.ted.com

The poll is a little awkward, but I voted.

My very basic foundation view regardless of belief is a Universalist Philosophy (Not UU). Some the basics of my philosophy are:

(1) Science is a reliable consistent evolving knowledge of our physical existence, nothingmore.
(2) Limited fallible nature of humanity dominates our history, present and future.
(3) I am skeptical of all subjective religions and religious beliefs including my own.
(4) From the perspective of the contemporary world. I believe the only possible existence of God is a Universal Source some call Gods.
(5) Ancient religions identify with the ancient culture of their origin. and I have to consider them in that context.
(6) the dominance of our inherited tribal nature may be Achilles Heal and the means of our end unless we can change and embrace the greater universal.

 

[Niatero]

Us ... those who listen to Baha'u'llah, heeding his advice, or at least pretending to
Them ... all those others who don't

This division is made clear in almost every statement by some Baha'i here. But alas, there is another category that goes unmentioned, and that is all the people who do follow something very similar to Baha'u'llah's advice, often even better advice, just don't give him the credit for it. All the Hindus and Buddhists who practice ahimsa, the millions of atheists, Christians, Muslims, etc. who work towards harmony between religions without saying 'we're better, we're smarter, we're newer', hence setting up the 'us versus them'.

But I digress.

I don’t know, maybe he thinks that it isn’t enough to practice some of Baha’u’llah’s teachings, and the problems won’t be solved until more people practice all of the teachings. One problem for me is that he doesn’t seem to have any explanation for how that will solve the problems. He just believes it because “God says so,” but he isn’t giving me any reason for thinking that Baha’u’llah is the voice of God, or even any reason to try to find out if he is or not.

Another problem is that it leaves some people completely behind, people who don’t have any belief in a deity called “God.” If “God says so” is the only reason for thinking that practicing Baha’u’llah’s teachings will solve the world’s problems, that doesn’t give those people any reason at all to have any interest in what he’s saying, other than to try to pick it apart.

Apart from all that, from my study of Baha’i writings, I don’t even think that’s what Baha’u’llah is saying. I don’t think he’s saying that all we need to do to solve the world’s problems is to practice his teachings.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don’t know, maybe he thinks that it isn’t enough to practice some of Baha’u’llah’s teachings, and the problems won’t be solved until more people practice all of the teachings. One problem for me is that he doesn’t seem to have any explanation for how that will solve the problems. He just believes it because “God says so,” but he isn’t giving me any reason for thinking that Baha’u’llah is the voice of God, or even any reason to try to find out if he is or not.

Another problem is that it leaves some people completely behind, people who don’t have any belief in a deity called “God.” If “God says so” is the only reason for thinking that practicing Baha’u’llah’s teachings will solve the world’s problems, that doesn’t give those people any reason at all to have any interest in what he’s saying, other than to try to pick it apart.

Apart from all that, from my study of Baha’i writings, I don’t even think that’s what Baha’u’llah is saying. I don’t think he’s saying that all we need to do to solve the world’s problems is to practice his teachings.

The principles of the Baha'i Faith are very positive and relevant toward the possible solutions of the world's problems. But even though I am a Baha'i I do not believe religions in and of itself solves anything. Our future as a human race and planet are very tenuous facing entrenched antagonistic ancient tribalism.

The thread itself can be a starting point of issues beyond our individual beliefs.

 

[Niatero]

There's lots of "lifelines" out there... Why is yours the only true one? Ah, don't tell me. I know the answer. It's because all the others are wrong.

I’m thinking that maybe Tony’s only answer is “because God says so.” I’m not actually trying to find out here if Baha’u’llah’s claims are true or not. I’m just trying find out what Tony is thinking about it. From the responses that I’ve seen, it’s that the only way the world’s problems will be solved is by more people practicing Baha’u’llah’s teachings, and the only reason for believing that is because God says so. I’m thinking that maybe there’s more to it than that for him, but he doesn’t seem to want to say any more about it than that.

 

[shunyadragon]

I’m thinking that maybe Tony’s only answer is “because God says so.” I’m not actually trying to find out here if Baha’u’llah’s claims are true or not. I’m just trying find out what Tony is thinking about it. From the responses that I’ve seen, it’s that the only way the world’s problems will be solved is by more people practicing Baha’u’llah’s, and the only reason for believing that is because God says so. I’m thinking that maybe there’s more to it than that for him, but he doesn’t seem to want to say any more about it than that.

From my perspective as a Baha'i the answer is not "because God says so."

 

[Niatero]

The principles of the Baha'i Faith are very positive and relevant toward the possible solutions of the world's problems. But even though I am a Baha'i I do not believe religions in and of itself solves anything. Our future as a human race and planet are very tenuous facing entrenched antagonistic ancient tribalism.

The thread itself can be a starting point of issues beyond our individual beliefs.

Can you tell me your ideas about how the problems will be solved? That can include whatever you think about the teachings of Baha’u’llah if that’s part of it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you tell me your ideas about how the problems will be solved? That can include whatever you think about the teachings of Baha’u’llah if that’s part of it.

If you simply look at the principles simply as they are without any view for or against the Baha'i Faith. The actual implementation of solutions are problematic. I believe the thread addresses the problem of tribalism as opposed to a universal perspective as in my post #61. Please note number 6.

 

[Niatero]

If you simply look at the principles simply as they are without any view for or against the Baha'i Faith. The actual implementation of solutions are problematic. I believe the thread addresses the problem of tribalism as opposed to a universal perspective as in my post #61. Please note number 6.

So your idea about how the world's problems will be solved is by people embracing the universal? Can you tell me anything about what that means in practical terms, and how you think that will solve the world's problems?

 

[The Hammer]

Goodbye Daniel.

Tony

Sorry got your panties in a twist? He's not wrong.

 

[Niatero]

Baha'i want us to just give them the job of world management without even so much as a CV outlining their credentials to do so lol.

I don't know about Baha'is in general, but that's part of my problem with what I see Tony saying. If I'm understanding correctly, he thinks that the only way the world's problems will be solved is by more people practicing Baha'u'llah's teachings, and the only reason for him believing that is because "God says so." If he has any ideas about how that will solve the world's problems, I don't see any sign of that in his responses to my questions. One way for me to be interested would be if there was something in the Baha'i community that would be a reason for thinking that Baha'u'llah's teachings could help solve the world's problems. If the Baha'is have been claiming for more than 160 years that they are practicing Baha'u'llah's teachings, then we should see some things working better in that community than they are outside of it. More specifically, in relation to the thread topic, we should see less tribalism. As some have pointed out, we see almost the opposite in the behavior of people waving Baha'i banners online, but in my experience the behavior of people promoting their beliefs under some label online doesn't tell me anything about what most people do under that label offline.

(later) I'm not saying that we should not see any tribalism in the Baha'i community, but we should at least see less in it than outside of it. That might be hard to measure. It would be for each person to judge for themselves.

 

[CG Didymus]

Is this true? The Baha'i dominance and inequality of the sexes?

Could this be why the Baha'i dialog is limited here? I can certainly understand the hesitancy in putting these points up to debate. I hadn't heard these in my dabbling into Baha'i in years past.

But I also wonder about the excommunication that was mentioned earlier concerning a magazine that was shut down. Is the possibility of excommunication a large factor in the limited and restrained dialog?

Men and women are equal in the Baha'i Faith, but for some reason, only men can serve on the Universal House of Justice of the Baha'is.

When I first learned about the Baha'i Faith, the idea of a God ordained one world government based on God's laws sounded good. This was in the early 70's. Then came the "Jesus" movement. They said that a one world government was a bad thing.

The way things are going both Christians and Baha'is are in the running for being right. But whichever one is right, makes the other wrong. And that's just taking these two religious views into consideration. Maybe they're both wrong.

If you want to, take a look at "A Modest Proposal" in the Dialogue magazine. It pointed out problem areas in the Baha'i Faith and made suggestions on how to fix them. Those in power didn't appreciate that one bit.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is this true? The Baha'i dominance and inequality of the sexes?

Despite teachings on the equality of men and women, Bahai refuses to allow women to serve in the House of Justice. Apparently, despite being "equal," women are seen as unfit to have authority. IOW, there is what they SAY, and then there is what they DO.

“The House of Justice, however, according to the explicit text of the Law of God, is confined to men; this for a wisdom of the Lord God’s, which will ere long be made manifest as clearly as the sun at high noon.”
Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Haifa: Baha’i World Centre, 1978, pp 79-80

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't know about Baha'is in general, but that's part of my problem with what I see Tony saying. If I'm understanding correctly, he thinks that the only way the world's problems will be solved is by more people practicing Baha'u'llah's teachings, and the only reason for him believing that is because "God says so." If he has any ideas about how that will solve the world's problems, I don't see any sign of that in his responses to my questions. One way for me to be interested would be if there was something in the Baha'i community that would be a reason for thinking that Baha'u'llah's teachings could help solve the world's problems. If the Baha'is have been claiming for more than 160 years that they are practicing Baha'u'llah's teachings, then we should see some things working better in that community than they are outside of it. More specifically, in relation to the thread topic, we should see less tribalism. As some have pointed out, we see almost the opposite in the behavior of people waving Baha'i banners online, but in my experience the behavior of people promoting their beliefs under some label online doesn't tell me anything about what most people do under that label offline.

If you get a chance, take a look at the Baha'i "Promise of World Peace". It's a statement by the Baha'i Universal House of Justice that came out in the 80's. That and along with some Baha'is believing that the "lesser" peace would be established by the year 2000, gave Baha'is a hope that things were going to get moving and people would start turning to the Baha'i Faith. A thing they called "entry by troops".

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Question everything" does not say that we are not humans.

That and along with some Baha'is believing that the "lesser" peace would be established by the year 2000, gave Baha'is a hope that things were going to get moving and people would start turning to the Baha'i Faith. A thing they called "entry by troops".

Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Iran. Potentially China/Taiwan/Korea/US and others. Bahai troops?

 

[Niatero]

If you get a chance, take a look at the Baha'i "Promise of World Peace". It's a statement by the Baha'i Universal House of Justice that came out in the 80's. That and along with some Baha'is believing that the "lesser" peace would be established by the year 2000, gave Baha'is a hope that things were going to get moving and people would start turning to the Baha'i Faith. A thing they called "entry by troops".

Yes, I've seen all that.

 

[Niatero]

"Question everything" does not say that we are not humans.

Is that a response to something that was said in this thread?

 

[CG Didymus]

Another problem is that it leaves some people completely behind, people who don’t have any belief in a deity called “God.” If “God says so” is the only reason for thinking that practicing Baha’u’llah’s teachings will solve the world’s problems, that doesn’t give those people any reason at all to have any interest in what he’s saying, other than to try to pick it apart.

And that's happened a few times in the last couple of years. A Baha'i starts a thread about God and his divine messengers and atheists were quick to point out... Why do you assume God is real? And asked Baha'is for proof and evidence that their God actually existed.

The best Baha'is could come up with is that God has "proven" himself to them... that the manifestations/messengers are the proof. And that proof was based on their character, they were seen as being trustworthy. When they said God sent them, we could be trust them. With the Baha'i prophet, his writings are used to as proof that a "normal" human couldn't write such profound things. He must be from God.

None of it meant much to the atheists here. Ah, but those were epic debates. Threads that went over a thousand posts. Nothing got settled. It was the same old thing... Us vs Them.

 

[Spice]

Men and women are equal in the Baha'i Faith, but for some reason, only men can serve on the Universal House of Justice of the Baha'is.

When I first learned about the Baha'i Faith, the idea of a God ordained one world government based on God's laws sounded good. This was in the early 70's. Then came the "Jesus" movement. They said that a one world government was a bad thing.

The way things are going both Christians and Baha'is are in the running for being right. But whichever one is right, makes the other wrong. And that's just taking these two religious views into consideration. Maybe they're both wrong.

If you want to, take a look at "A Modest Proposal" in the Dialogue magazine. It pointed out problem areas in the Baha'i Faith and made suggestions on how to fix them. Those in power didn't appreciate that one bit.

In my limited experience with Baha'i, I found the acceptance of all religions and peoples fascinating and tempting; I found the "encouragement" to let go of all cultural and national identity disturbing.

I don't believe in giving up or excessively downplaying individual freedoms or histories. I believe in time, the world can come together as one "community", but we should hold on to the foundations of our "families" within that community to provide strength and immunity for overall health.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That and along with some Baha'is believing that the "lesser" peace would be established by the year 2000, gave Baha'is a hope that things were going to get moving and people would start turning to the Baha'i Faith. A thing they called "entry by troops".

Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Iran. Potentially China/Taiwan/Korea/US and others. Bahai troops?

Is that a response to something that was said in this thread?

That is the response to the poll which asks one to choose whether we should question everything OR accept that we are humans.
Does 'question everything' stops us from being human OR does being human prevents us from 'questioning everything'?
It should have allowed multiple choices.

 

[Niatero]

That is the response to the poll which asks one to choose whether we should question everything OR accept that we are humans.
Does 'question everything' stops us from being human OR does being human prevents us from 'questioning everything'?
It should have allowed multiple choices.

I forgot all about the poll! Yes, it should have allowed multiple choices.