How do you choose your religion?

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by _Z_

Bandit.



. yes any philosophy will have its pitfalls, and all if taken too literally end up with dogma. But the idea is that a universal approach doesn’t allow for dogmatism, because one always must respect another’s views – indeed should except philosophies from other sources. Being of a religion [Druidry] that believes ‘once it is written it is lost’ & ‘the truth is naked’, then how can I have a literal interpretation?



But I get your point, especially as I am sure that the ancient druids - as lawmakers, would have been reasonably strict & dogmatic about their laws!



However although I am a druid type person [and been through the twenty year apprentiship], I don’t believe in being of any given religion even druidry, I simply learn from all!

I like to have both a ‘god exists’ philosophy, and an understanding with no gods whatsoever!



Z

Hi Z!

i have a bit of druidry in me & i relate to what you are saying.
while some things in other religions seem to be the same, after i start looking at them closer, i see they are not the same.
what i have noticed in the organizations is, it says one thing on the outside, the written doctrines say something different, then on the inside something different is happening.

but any way, a one world religion is not the answer. IMO. it may work for about 3 seconds, then BOOM. as for the respect of others beliefs we are in agreement.

i have to agree with what you say, once something becomes written/dogmatic, the real meanings can get lost. but i still have not had that happen for me with the bible. so as long as we can keep the bible & Jesus in the one world religion, then i guess that would be fine.

someone else around here said it well awhile back. get rid of all the 'ism' & such.

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by taijasi

(I got a bit long-winded, but that's nothing new ... )

It seems to me that a (Unified) World Religion, just as one's own individual freedom of religious practice, would not be about dogma. As discussed in the facism thread, this is just wrong on principle. Forcing beliefs or some particular religious practice on others isn't simply un-American, it is spiritually offensive. From this angle, our freedom to choose is of vital importance, and must never be encroached or denied.

But I don't think the idea of One World Religion, even in concert with a United League of Nations (such as the U.N.), is in conflict with our inherent right to choose. We may either choose to acknowledge the `World Religion' (and aspirations of the UN), or we may practice our own style of worship, and maintain our own specific beliefs. The idea of uniting, imho and in my mind, is not about dogma, beliefs, or even about specific methods of practice, per se. Each of these might enter in, somewhat, but the overall emphasis should and would be ... the matter of princples, values and ideals.

In this we might turn to authors like Joseph Campbell, specifically his work called The Hero with a Thousand Faces, which addresses the Universal pull toward betterment found within us all ... in its comfortable & familiar guise - the ideal of the Hero. We might also look to the writings of Robert Muller, whose excellent work with the United Nations over the years should be recognized and celebrated by all. The beautiful example of hands-on service provided by Mother Teresa is something that (potentially) reaches into everyone's heart, regardless of race, religion, creed or social standing. And the Dalai Lama's invitation to practice loving-kindness (another way of stating the Golden Rule) as our religion... is surely the safest & fastest way to guarantee peace & prosperity for the entire planet.

It is sad to see that the capitalism and individualism (often manifesting as materialism, and outright selfishness & greed) of the West have not been able to meet with & yield to the Ideal of Spiritual Community that stands so clearly before us. This is the only religion that can deliver Humanity at this time in history, because of the trends toward globalization and toward group activity active in the world today. From the mass media (radio, TV, advertising, printed media, email, Internet, Web) to a globalized economy to travel and volunteerism, we are all inherently involved in the progress and the well-being of each other. The illusion of separateness cannot last much longer if we wish to reach a sustainable society ... and the `American Dream' as it has unfortunately been termed is anything but ideal or sustainable!

All this being said, here's a different (but compatible) take. The type of ceremonial found in Freemasonry (speaking in terms of co-masonry, of course, and not the genderized holdouts) ... plus the scientific recognition of the moon's effects upon our subtle anatomy (emotions, mind, and ease of approach to Divinity), have been suggested as forming part of the practical aspects of a New World Religion. To know that we may set our personal interests (diverse as we may otherwise be) aside, and embrace a certain order & ritual on a large scale in our recognition of and approach to G-d (specifically during Full Moon Festivals)... would allow for a much more constructive result than the piecemeal efforts found today - by many differing religious groups, denominations, sects and flavors - even as these may variously claim to honor the same ultimate Deity (or Highest, Belevolent) Power.

What does it matter our differing terminologies if we can at least agree that a different & united approach is needed - this being one that has room in it for all practitioners the world over, no matter what the choice of practice! And would this approach not also need to make room for those who prefer no practice at all, without penalty of any sort or the kind of shunning that happens in the smallest of communities as well as the largest? Or would we rather argue with Teachers like the Christ who advised us that we must love not only those who are close to us (anyone can do this!), but even our very enemies - those whom we most despise. Have you hugged a terrorist today? Ok, maybe we don't get touchy-feely with the man with the AK (gun), but ummm, please tell me where I've distorted the Man's words, eh? I mean, ya know - WWJB (who would Jesus bomb)? And uhhh, like DUH - newsflash: An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind! That is like, so not in vogue any more, ya know?

Buddha said it, Krishna certainly said it, and I think Mohammad said it, but we don't even have to look to the past for great religious leaders who have emphasized the message to Love our Neighbor & our Enemy ... because HH the Dalai Lama has said it, Dr. MLK, Jr has said it, and Gandhi has said it. Some (me among them) even believe that just 75 years or so ago, the very same Christ Who appeared 2 millennia ago as Christ Jesus, made a similar, experimental effort to return (outwardly) to Humanity ... though this proved a learning experience for all involved, and was not fully successful. This was but an early effort, and many forerunners have now helped to prepare the way for the Coming One, such that the Aquarian `John the Baptizer' has already been on the scene.

Bahais believe that Christ has come, and certainly there is enough evidence to prove that the same Spirit which was in Christ Jesus, is also in the world today ... although there may be those who aren't satisfied that a physical manifestation (through a single individual) has again taken place. If not, we have every reason to look forward to that event, but esotericists believe (and with good reason - evidence to boot) that Christ has already spoken to the world - and shown that He is with us - through the work of many, many of His disciples. Ironically, it is most religious thinkers outside of Christianity who find this idea acceptable and even obvious, while those claiming Christ as their inspiration & authority are often the most reluctant to consider that His mission embraces all of Humanity, and not a select, chosen few. Old ideas die hard, and those who cling - suffer.

One World Religion does not insist that we must pray 5 times daily, or in English, or to a masculine deity, or even that we must pray at all. And as the Spirit of Ecumenism presses forward, only by recognizing the volunteers from all existing world religious traditions will a group of spiritual leaders be taken seriously as they draw up a charter for this effort. The point is not to sit down and start talking armchair philosophy, splitting hairs about angels dancing on pinheads and whitey up in the sky making rocks so heavy only he can lift them .... that sort of thing is good for the coffee-shop. In 1893, and again in 1993, the Parliament of World Religions (wiki'd here) set excellent precedents & laid foundation-stones for just the sort of thing we need.

Let's construct the Temple as G-d surely intends it (and I do mean intends - active, alive & well ... in the world today - having never left it, and not up there in the sky somewhere). Each of us has, or rather is, an unhewn ashlar. Like the artist said, all I have to do is carve away the bits of stone that don't look like the image in my mind (or words to that effect). What remains, is this thing you're gawking at. Just so we don't get stuck gawking at the one from Galilee, or the one from Nepal, or the one from Persia ... I think we'll be alright. Very simple: The more skilled artists have come to teach the less-skilled, and if we couldn't learn, they wouldn't bother. Rocket science? Hmmm. Rudimentary to the Great Ones ... their chariots have visited the Far-Off worlds untold aeons ago. One day they'll show us that, too. But first, let's get past the "my gun is bigger, I will kill you first & deader" stage. Eh?

Also, (since I ramble so much) ... full moon festivals have nothing to do with the moon, except that it's on the opposite side of the Earth from the Sun at that time. Hmmmm.

Cheers,

andrew

taijasi, again I never suggest that this new global religion should be intolerrant to other religions, in fact most religions aren't. This in anything should be the most open-minded of all religions, and without force people would convert because they would want to.

This new global religion (that is not forced on anyone) will conbine all aspects of the major world religions, from hindu meditation to Christ's moral teachings of loving thy enemy and what not. Imagine a religion where you get to experiance Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhaism, Judaism, Sikhism, and Zorasterism! That would expand the spiritual knowledge of all religious people as well as bring the people closer together.

[Popeyesays]

How do you choose?

It sings to your soul or it does not.

I read the words of Christ, or Muhammed, or the Bab or Baha`u'llah, or Krshna, or Zoroaster, or Buddha and I hear the word of God.

If one constructs a "world faith" out of all the things that sound good in all the other religions, it will wind up like Esperanto because it has no roots and no soul.

Regards,
Scott

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

How do you choose?

It sings to your soul or it does not.

I read the words of Christ, or Muhammed, or the Bab or Baha`u'llah, or Krshna, or Zoroaster, or Buddha and I hear the word of God.

If one constructs a "world faith" out of all the things that sound good in all the other religions, it will wind up like Esperanto because it has no roots and no soul.

Regards,
Scott

yah scott.
pluuuus, once a world religion goes into action, (which will inevitably rule), no new thoughts or beliefs on things will ever be allowed, unless the leader(s) of the world religion decide to change it. history! history! not a good idea.IMO
when i think it all the way through, i like freedom of religion/beliefs better.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Bandit

yah scott.
pluuuus, once a world religion goes into action, (which will inevitably rule), no new thoughts or beliefs on things will ever be allowed, unless the leader(s) of the world religion decide to change it. history! history! not a good idea.IMO
when i think it all the way through, i like freedom of religion/beliefs better.

Baha`i, for instance, does not believe that ALL will become Baha`i. Nor does it require anyone to give up their previous belief.

True unity comes from diversity. Uniformity is loathesome.

Regards,
Scott

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Baha`i, for instance, does not believe that ALL will become Baha`i. Nor does it require anyone to give up their previous belief.

True unity comes from diversity. Uniformity is loathesome.

Regards,
Scott

Hi Scott,

Yes, but how do you think it will work in the future Baha'i State, where non-Baha'is, people in gay relationships and people who marry without parental consent are all not allowed to vote?

It was this question that I found ultimately disturbing and eventually lead me to question the Baha'i Faith.

lunamoth

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Scott,

Yes, but how do you think it will work in the future Baha'i State, where non-Baha'is, people in gay relationships and people who marry without parental consent are all not allowed to vote?

It was this question that I found ultimately disturbing and eventually lead me to question the Baha'i Faith.

lunamoth

The Baha`i Faith is a religion, Lunamoth. It is not a state. The Faith would act as a kind of "Court of Last Appeals" in an international sense. Nations would take disputes before it for settlement.

The state is not superseded by the faith. Cultures, nations, ethnicity will all keep their diversity.

Gays are allowed to vote in Baha`i elections as long as they are celibate.
Rem oval of Baha`i administrative rights apply only to the faith not to the state.

Regards,
Scott

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

The Baha`i Faith is a religion, Lunamoth. It is not a state. The Faith would act as a kind of "Court of Last Appeals" in an international sense. Nations would take disputes before it for settlement.

The state is not superseded by the faith. Cultures, nations, ethnicity will all keep their diversity.

Gays are allowed to vote in Baha`i elections as long as they are celibate.
Rem oval of Baha`i administrative rights apply only to the faith not to the state.

Regards,
Scott

Hi Scott, Thank you for your reply. But, what about these quotes by the Guardian Shoghi Effendi and also from Abdu'l Baha?

Not only will the present-day Spiritual Assemblies be styled differently
in future, but they will be enabled also to add to their present
functions those powers, duties, and prerogatives necessitated by
the recognition of the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh, not merely as one of
the recognized religious systems of the world, but as the State
Religion of an independent and Sovereign Power. And as the
Bahá'í Faith permeates the masses of the peoples of East and West,
and its truth is embraced by the majority of the peoples of a
number of the Sovereign States of the world, will the Universal
House of Justice attain the plenitude of its power, and exercise,
as the supreme organ of the Bahá'í Commonwealth, all the rights,
the duties, and responsibilities incumbent upon the world's future
super-state.[331]
[331 Shoghi Effendi, World Order, pp. 6-7.]

This does not look like it means that the UHJ will answer to the state, but rather that the state will answer to the UHJ.

He has ordained and established the House of Justice, which is endowed with a political as well as a religious function, the consummate union and blending of church and state. This institution is under the protecting power of Bahá'u'lláh Himself. A universal, or international, House of Justice shall also be organized. Its rulings shall be in accordance with the commands and teachings of Bahá'u'lláh, and that which the Universal House of Justice ordains shall be obeyed by all mankind. This international House of Justice shall be appointed and organized from the Houses of Justice of the whole world, and all the world shall come under its administration. (Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 456)

Do not Baha'is believe that the Baha'i Administrative Order is the nucleus and model of the government of the Kingdom of God? I might have this wrong, but it was what I learned as a Baha'i.

peace,
lunamoth

[_Z_]

Hi bandit.



Yes it’s all in the 'labels' – the ism’ists! As soon as one say’s this is what the bible means, then you have lost its true meaning, as only god or Jesus can say what the word of god is, for the rest of us we should be philosophical imho, after all Jesus was!

Would a dogmatist ride into Jerusalem on a donkey? I think not! Judge not or thou shalt be judged thyself – does that sound like dogmatism.



So you are a bit of a druid too eh - makes sense to me! I am glad you can see the deeper meaning of the bible – for me I only like the new testament, but I must admit I have not read it that many times, as this would lead me to a literal interpretation. I prefer to read religious books once or twice & let the spirit consume them. The bible affects us on a very deep level, where the soul can work behind the scenes, so to say [including but not just, the subconscious].



You’re right about Jesus, when I think about world events I just say to myself ‘what would Jesus do’! Would he go to war – no, under any circumstances – no, when people disagree then I say, it is the wisdom of the lord that people should live in peace! - weather or not Jesus believes it! Damn my impertinence eh!



Popeysays. Hello!

I agree – all that is needed is respect for others beliefs, there is no need for a world religion.

I would say that your path chooses you, not vice versa.





Z

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Scott, Thank you for your reply. But, what about these quotes by the Guardian Shoghi Effendi and also from Abdu'l Baha?



This does not look like it means that the UHJ will answer to the state, but rather that the state will answer to the UHJ.



Do not Baha'is believe that the Baha'i Administrative Order is the nucleus and model of the government of the Kingdom of God? I might have this wrong, but it was what I learned as a Baha'i.

peace,
lunamoth

Yes and no, Luna.

But states - nations - territories - principalities - federations - confederations, are political entities and there is no need to replace them.
How these political entities interact with one another is what the Lesser and Greater Peace is concerned with.

Government of states by law which recognizes the rights and responsibilities of individuals is not in opposition to the Kingdom of God.

Even Isaiah says the nations will beat their swords into plowshares, their spears into pruning hooks and look to the guidance of God's Kingdom. It does not say they will come to an end, does it?

"During this Formative Age of the Faith, and in the course of present and succeeding epochs, the last and crowning stage in the erection of the framework of the Administrative Order of the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh -- the election of the Universal House of Justice -- will have been completed, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, the Mother-Book of His Revelation, will have been codified and its laws promulgated, the Lesser Peace will have been established, the unity of mankind will have been achieved and its maturity attained, the Plan conceived by 'Abdu'l-Bahá will have been executed, the emancipation of the Faith from the fetters of religious orthodoxy will have been effected, and its independent religious status will have been universally recognized, whilst in the course of the Golden Age, destined to consummate the Dispensation itself, the banner of the Most Great Peace, promised by its Author, will have been unfurled, the World Bahá'í Commonwealth will have emerged in the plenitude of its power and splendor, and the birth and efflorescence of a world civilization, the child of that Peace, will have conferred its inestimable blessings upon all mankind."
(Shoghi Effendi, Citadel of Faith, p. 6)
--------------------
Main Entry: com·mon·wealth
Pronunciation: -"welth also -"weltth
Function: noun
1 archaic : COMMONWEAL 2
2 : a nation, state, or other political unit: as a : one founded on law and united by compact or tacit agreement of the people for the common good b : one in which supreme authority is vested in the people c : REPUBLIC
3 capitalized a : the English state from the death of Charles I in 1649 to the Restoration in 1660 b : PROTECTORATE 1b
4 : a state of the U.S. -- used officially of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia
5 capitalized : a federal union of constituent states -- used officially of Australia
6 often capitalized : an association of self-governing autonomous states more or less loosely associated in a common allegiance (as to the British crown)

-----------------------------
"It must, however long and tortuous the way, lead, through a series of victories and reverses, to the political unification of the Eastern and Western Hemispheres, to the emergence of a world government and the establishment of the Lesser Peace, as foretold by Bahá'u'lláh and foreshadowed by the Prophet Isaiah."
(Shoghi Effendi, Citadel of Faith, p. 33)
------------
The Lesser Peace will be established by the nations independently from the Faith. It will come about through exhaustion.
-------------------
"The woes and tribulations which threaten it are partly avoidable, but mostly inevitable and God-sent, for by reason of them a government and people clinging tenaciously to the obsolescent doctrine of absolute sovereignty and upholding a political system, manifestly at variance with the needs of a world already contracted into a neighborhood and crying out for unity, will find itself purged of its anachronistic conceptions, and prepared to play a preponderating role, as foretold by 'Abdu'l-Bahá, in the hoisting of the standard of the Lesser Peace, in the unification of mankind, and in the establishment of a world federal government on this planet."
(Shoghi Effendi, Citadel of Faith, p. 126)
-----------------
""Be united, O concourse of the sovereigns of the world, for thereby will the tempest of discord be stilled amongst you, and your peoples find rest. Should any one among you take up arms against another, rise ye all against him, for this is naught but manifest justice." "The time must come," He, foreshadowing the tentative efforts that are now being made, has written, "when the imperative necessity for the holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will lay the foundations of the world's Great Peace among men... Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him." [Words of Baha`u'llah quoted by]
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 192)
-----------------
The over-riding requirement for these things to come to pass is that all men give up their prejudices and realize that whatever nation or state, ethnicity or culture, faith or religion, they find themselves part of - they are still united in their humanity before God.

One does not have to become Baha`i by volition to accept that - one can STAY Muslim, Christian, Jew, Parsee, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or anything and still see the truth of Unity in spirit.

The Greater Peace is to establish amity amongst thenations. How can it do this if it eradicates those nations?

Regards,
Scott

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Yes and no, Luna.

But states - nations - territories - principalities - federations - confederations, are political entities and there is no need to replace them.
How these political entities interact with one another is what the Lesser and Greater Peace is concerned with.

Government of states by law which recognizes the rights and responsibilities of individuals is not in opposition to the Kingdom of God.

Even Isaiah says the nations will beat their swords into plowshares, their spears into pruning hooks and look to the guidance of God's Kingdom. It does not say they will come to an end, does it?

....

The over-riding requirement for these things to come to pass is that all men give up their prejudices and realize that whatever nation or state, ethnicity or culture, faith or religion, they find themselves part of - they are still united in their humanity before God.

One does not have to become Baha`i by volition to accept that - one can STAY Muslim, Christian, Jew, Parsee, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or anything and still see the truth of Unity in spirit.

The Greater Peace is to establish amity amongst thenations. How can it do this if it eradicates those nations?

Regards,
Scott

Hi Scott,

That's a good reply. Thank you. However, I still have a hard time following the logic all the way through since Baha'is are not allowed to become involved in politics. If at some point in the future the Faith has gained sufficient strength for the UHJ to supercede all the nations, who will be left to lead and organize those diverse nations? But, I'm with Queen Victoria on this one: if it is God's will the Baha'i Faith will endure. I think that some things will have to eventually be put back on the table for true community consultation if this is to happen, but that of course is just my conclusion.

I love the Baha'i message of peace.

peace,
lunamoth

[_Z_]

I can’t see baha’I gaining that much ground in order to affect the world processes. Sorry but it is just difficult to see anything taking over from the main religions.

To be honest, before I came here I had never heard of it.



I don’t mean to be offensive – I am just speaking the voice that says the words.



Respect - Z

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Scott,

That's a good reply. Thank you. However, I still have a hard time following the logic all the way through since Baha'is are not allowed to become involved in politics. If at some point in the future the Faith has gained sufficient strength for the UHJ to supercede all the nations, who will be left to lead and organize those diverse nations? But, I'm with Queen Victoria on this one: if it is God's will the Baha'i Faith will endure. I think that some things will have to eventually be put back on the table for true community consultation if this is to happen, but that of course is just my conclusion.

I love the Baha'i message of peace.

peace,
lunamoth

Dear Luna,
We are not allowed to pursue partisan politics because political parties cause division not unity. I have not missed a local, state or federal election, referendum or bond issue in the thirty years I've been a Baha`i. Baha`is are URGED to participate in the government of their homes, but to refrain from appearing to support political parties.

As to your comment about putting things back on the table, well the Universal House of Justice is allowed to over-rule itself with cause. There are issues that will be revisited from time to time. This is a process after all, and no one knows the end of the process.

The Message of Peace is the hope of the world in the end.

Regards and Allah-u-abha!
Scott

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Dear Luna,
We are not allowed to pursue partisan politics because political parties cause division not unity. I have not missed a local, state or federal election, referendum or bond issue in the thirty years I've been a Baha`i. Baha`is are URGED to participate in the government of their homes, but to refrain from appearing to support political parties.

As to your comment about putting things back on the table, well the Universal House of Justice is allowed to over-rule itself with cause. There are issues that will be revisited from time to time. This is a process after all, and no one knows the end of the process.

The Message of Peace is the hope of the world in the end.

Regards and Allah-u-abha!
Scott

Allah-u-Abha Scott,

Yes, Baha'is can vote but they can't run for office where political parties are involved, such as in the USA. For myself I register independent even without the Baha'i Faith telling me to, but this also means that Baha'is can't vote in the primaries. They also can't get involved in political causes deemed divisive (are there any that aren't?? ). I guess you are assuming this will change once the majority of people are Baha'is, but then, this creeps ever closer to theocracy, no?

And as for "those issues" that need to be put back on the table for consultation, the UHJ has so far said that that is impossible. Do you think that will change?

peace,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by _Z_

I can’t see baha’I gaining that much ground in order to affect the world processes. Sorry but it is just difficult to see anything taking over from the main religions.

To be honest, before I came here I had never heard of it.



I don’t mean to be offensive – I am just speaking the voice that says the words.



Respect - Z

Hi Z, not meaning to leave you out of the conversation. Your point is not offensive at all. Yes, it is difficult to believe how a religion so small could overtake the world, but every religion starts off as small and obscure.

peace,
lunamoth