Universal Acceptance

[danny ski]

My G-d is a G-d of justice and mercy above all. I don't think the first question He'll ask is what religion/doctrine(whatever) did you follow?

 

[smaneck]

My G-d is a G-d of justice and mercy above all. I don't think the first question he'll ask is what religion/doctrine(whatever) did you follow?

 

[MehGuy]

I personally believe that many people are simply attracted to hostile and exclusive religions. Many people get a high feeling like they belong in the right group and everyone else is mislead/the enemy. You feel superior to others in a sense. Some people view religion as a fierce competition, and they like it that way. I know I was one of them. Some people get their spiritual fulfillment from dark and negative things.

While this isn't true for everyone in said religion, if the base is large enough it can certainly help prop up a religion above all others.

 

[light upon light]

My G-d is a G-d of justice and mercy above all. I don't think the first question he'll ask is what religion/doctrine(whatever) did you follow?

 

[HeathenWarrior]

My G-d is a G-d of justice and mercy above all. I don't think the first question He'll ask is what religion/doctrine(whatever) did you follow?

 

[LoAmmi]

My G-d is a G-d of justice and mercy above all. I don't think the first question He'll ask is what religion/doctrine(whatever) did you follow?

According to Talmud, the first question is going to be if you conducted yourself fairly.

 

[BruceDLimber]

If Baha'i is universally accepting of other religious beliefs, why doesn't the Baha'i minority in Iran simply join the majority and escape religious persecution?

What? Demonstrate one's acceptance and tolerance by joining something that is less accepting and tolerant?!

What is wrong with this picture?

And have you never heard of denial of one's faith?

Those Baha'i must think Baha'i is significantly "better" than other religions.

On the contrary, the Baha'i scriptures specifically state otherwise!


Bruce

 

[light upon light]

Those Baha'i must think Baha'i is significantly "better" than other religions. Maybe they feel converting to Islam would betray their ancestors? I'm curious if anybody has ideas on this question.

I think they are willing to die for their faith in the Oneness of Humanity and the Oneness of Religion.

 

[smaneck]

Take the example of a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic. Usually the Catholic in the marriage wants a Catholic ceremony. Then the Catholic priest requires an oath from the non-Catholic spouse that he/she will raise any future children to be Catholics.

That was once true. Nowadays it sort of depends on the priest performing the ceremony.

Another example: If I believe my religion is the only path to salvation/enlightenment then I'm more energized to donate money to missionaries, share the good news with friends, etc.

Baha'is spend a lot of energy in similar activities. It is not because we think ours is the only path to salvation and enlightenment of the individual, but we do believe is the remedy needed for what ails the world today.

 

[smaneck]

This made me think of another question: If Baha'i is universally accepting of other religious beliefs, why doesn't the Baha'i minority in Iran simply join the majority and escape religious persecution?

What we "accept" about other religions is their divine origin. Most Baha'is also accept that most religions retain enough of universal spiritual truths that are able to transform individual lives for the better. But social teachings of these religions are not necessarily suited for today. For instance, which of the older religions embraces the equality of women and men?

Those Baha'i must think Baha'i is significantly "better" than other religions.

In terms of meeting the needs for today, I would say yes. But unlike Muslims we do not imagine that our religion is the last. We believe in Progressive Revelation, which means there will never be a 'last.'

Maybe they feel converting to Islam would betray their ancestors? I'm curious if anybody has ideas on this question.

It would betray everything the Bab and Baha'u'llah set out to do. If Islam were sufficient in today's world, They would not have come.

 

[gord44]

Baha'is spend a lot of energy in similar activities. It is not because we think ours is the only path to salvation and enlightenment of the individual, but we do believe is the remedy needed for what ails the world today.

Which in essence, is very similar. One religion says "we are the only way". Another says "there is multiple ways, but we are the best". I know you didn't say best, but I do believe you think that about the Baha'is. Which is all good.

 

[smaneck]

I think they are willing to die for their faith in the Oneness of Humanity and the Oneness of Religion.

Except those are principles supposedly promoted in Islam as well. Where we are different is in our acknowledgement of the progressiveness of revelation, in our promotion of the equality of women and men, and in our rejection jihad as means of establishing the kind of new social order we would create.

 

[smaneck]

Which in essence, is very similar. One religion says "we are the only way". Another says "there is multiple ways, but we are the best". I know you didn't say best, but I do believe you think that about the Baha'is. Which is all good.

The best for today, but not the best for forever. The Baha'i Faith is the only religion which believes it will eventually be superseded.

 

[gord44]

The best for today, but not the best for forever. The Baha'i Faith is the only religion which believes it will eventually be superseded.

Interesting! I suppose that would make sense.

 

[Zoness]

I personally believe that many people are simply attracted to hostile and exclusive religions. Many people get a high feeling like they belong in the right group and everyone else is mislead/the enemy. You feel superior to others in a sense. Some people view religion as a fierce competition, and they like it that way. I know I was one of them. Some people get their spiritual fulfillment from dark and negative things.

While this isn't true for everyone in said religion, if the base is large enough it can certainly help prop up a religion above all others.

I think in a world where religions compete the intolerant religions are more likely to survive and grow.

Take the example of a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic. Usually the Catholic in the marriage wants a Catholic ceremony. Then the Catholic priest requires an oath from the non-Catholic spouse that he/she will raise any future children to be Catholics. (Catholic members can correct me if my facts are wrong.) ... So the next generation is more likely to be Catholic than non-Catholic.

Another example: If I believe my religion is the only path to salvation/enlightenment then I'm more energized to donate money to missionaries, share the good news with friends, etc.

One more thought: Public group religious activities (even yacking on forums) help to strengthen faith in that religion. A member can look at the apparent faith of everybody else and feel reassured (even if those members are only pretending too). So a religion with exclusive beliefs will naturally seek to wipe-out all other religions to achieve the majority status required for its survival.

I think a combination of these posts are true; the pushier religions are obviously going to get through to more people by sheer force of will.

Plus religion is like sports. Why do people watch sports? Because they want to feel included in an identity and watch a select few duke it out or get involved in that process themselves. A clear 'team' that is always right in a world where everyone is out to get you makes a lot of sense in exclusive religions. It's a very strong identity former and it gains followers rapidly.

Everyone wants their religion to 'win'.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

I see Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha, Deganawida, Quetzalcoatl and many others as being lights of guidance to humanity.

I agree about the first 4, but not the rest (and even with the first 4, I only believe that the Prophet Muhammad was sent to all of mankind until the Day of Judgement). Anyway, my point was that there is no way to reconcile our religions (or to reconcile the Qur'aan with your beliefs).

As for their followers in the hundreds and thousands of years since their message was called out to humanity - many of the followers have fallen into evident error.

But Allaah has protected the revelations given to the Prophet Muhammad (i.e. the Qur'aan and the sunnah) and perfected the religion so there is no need to have other prophets/messengers or new revelations.

For instance, which of the older religions embraces the equality of women and men?

Didn't someone once bring up the point that women cannot be the leaders of the Universal House of Justice? And I just read something about how a woman cannot inherit property if one dies without writing a will. In Islaam, women can inherit property whether or not it is written in a will.

It would betray everything the Bab and Baha'u'llah set out to do. If Islam were sufficient in today's world, They would not have come.

Islaam is, indeed, sufficient in today's world.

Except those are principles supposedly promoted in Islam as well. Where we are different is in our acknowledgement of the progressiveness of revelation, in our promotion of the equality of women and men, and in our rejection jihad as means of establishing the kind of new social order we would create.

Our most serious differences are about the Names & Attributes of Allaah (you believe that there can be human manifestations of the Attributes of God and we say that there is nothing like unto Allaah and to Him Alone belong all of His Names and Attributes), the Prophet being the last of the Prophets, and Islaam being perfected. Other issues include taking a metaphorical meaning about Hell even though the verses are so descriptive, specific, and clear that it's impossible that they can be metaphorical. Somehow jinn are also metaphorical and not real, separate creatures as the Muslims believe.

 

[smaneck]

Didn't someone once bring up the point that women cannot be the leaders of the Universal House of Justice? And I just read something about how a woman cannot inherit property if one dies without writing a will.

Membership on the Universal House of Justice is the single office not open to women. We don't really know why that is. Abdu'l-Baha indicated that the wisdom would be known in the future. Women do inherit if someone dies without a will but their inheritance would then be less, much as in Islam. For this reason Shoghi Effendi insisted that if it is ones wish for ones children to inherit equally same they should write a will "and it is only fair that they should do so."

 

[Mediate]

I think in a world where religions compete the intolerant religions are more likely to survive and grow.

Take the example of a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic. Usually the Catholic in the marriage wants a Catholic ceremony. Then the Catholic priest requires an oath from the non-Catholic spouse that he/she will raise any future children to be Catholics. (Catholic members can correct me if my facts are wrong.) ... So the next generation is more likely to be Catholic than non-Catholic.

Another example: If I believe my religion is the only path to salvation/enlightenment then I'm more energized to donate money to missionaries, share the good news with friends, etc.

One more thought: Public group religious activities (even yacking on forums) help to strengthen faith in that religion. A member can look at the apparent faith of everybody else and feel reassured (even if those members are only pretending too). So a religion with exclusive beliefs will naturally seek to wipe-out all other religions to achieve the majority status required for its survival.

I can understand that religions do compete but I think the question is, why is competition the default mode, and 'winning' the preferred end?



'struggle (fight) with others, there are no winners, struggle with yourself, you may discover the truth'.

 

[cloudyday2]

I can understand that religions do compete but I think the question is, why is competition the default mode, and 'winning' the preferred end?

'struggle (fight) with others, there are no winners, struggle with yourself, you may discover the truth'.

I guess religions are similar to species of life? The only way two religions can avoid competition is if they are not filling the same niche. For example, an individual could be both a secular Buddhism and a Christian, so there is less competition between those religions. But Christianity and Islam have mutually exclusive ideas about salvation and theology that must be in competition IMO.

Supposedly UN members agreed to freedom of religion. That would help.

 

[dlamberth]

I can understand that religions do compete but I think the question is, why is competition the default mode, and 'winning' the preferred end?

Because those types of religions are more ego driven than anything else.

.