• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

World Peace and Religion

Of course they are not vague to you. You say you don't know much about the Bible, yet you believe what you are told by Baha'is. So yes, you do give a "rip" about what other Baha'is tell you to believe.

Some of the weakest interpretations I've seen by Baha'is are by Abdul Baha in SAQ. Do you believe it? Have you read the Bible verses quoted to see if his interpretation makes sense?

Same with Bill Sears, I heard him speak several times in the 70's. It all sounded good. It probably sounds good to you. Did you check the Bible references for yourself? Without any biases? Probably not. You probably don't give a "rip".

Well that's fine. But that's why the Baha'i Faith can't bring peace even to religious people. Most don't give a "rip" about the opinions and interpretations of the others. And that don't bring peace and understanding between them.

When it comes to the Bible Christians have been sorely divided over it long before Baha’u’llah appeared on the scene, almost from the very beginning.

As a pragmatist, if there are no beneficial results to mankind in a concrete way such as bringing people together for the common good then I think the Bible alone has failed miserably, regardless of what you think the correct interpretation of it is.

Due to dogmatic interpretations of the Bible by Christian clerics nonsensical doctrines of the church arose such as original sin to name just one. Such superstitions have driven many thoughtful people to conclude there is nothing to any religion or any truth that God even exists. Even when Christians cling to their beliefs based on church doctrines they compartmentalize their lives into what has been called secularism into two compartments; one a religious life on Sunday and the other their ordinary workday life.

A rudimentary principle brought by Baha’u’llah is the oneness of God, the oneness of religion, and the oneness of mankind. His coming is the fulfillment of all Sacred Scriptures of all past religions so why be concerned about the Bible now that we have moved on to the next chapter?
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
What is Bindweed? o_O
What is harmonious strangling? o_O

Bindweed is a flower that strangles the roots of other flowers.
Plants are very aggressive. If a lawn is left untended it wil turn into a forest of trees.
So the harmony that exists in a garden is always one that has been carefully crafted by the intervention of external human influence.

ALL religions are man made mythologies designed to control and divide people. Each one proclaiming that THEY are "right" and everybody else has it "wrong".

But I don't think religions will "save" or "destroy" the world, stupid people will destroy the world all on their own.

Supposing it is true that a religion requires an 'us' vs 'them', then it would follow that once the 'them' is gone, there is no longer an 'us' vs 'them' and therefore no longer a religion.

But in practice it seems that religion has persisted regardless of the existence of a 'them' and only dies out when replaced with another religion.

I'm coming in late and haven't read all the posts, so maybe this point has been made previously.

Humanity is making moral progress and religion has nothing to do with it. Conscience (our moral intuition) is moving us toward equality. Moral wrongness can be felt.

Legal slavery was abolished. Women and homosexuals are gaining equality. These advances happen because inequality feels wrong. You won't find slavery or the inequality of women and homosexuals condemned in the old texts that people consider sacred.

Is World Peace morally right? or morally wrong?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Bindweed is a flower that strangles the roots of other flowers.
Plants are very aggressive. If a lawn is left untended it will turn into a forest of trees.
You ain't kidding.... You should see my.... errrr yard. :( I just paid a handyman to cut back the blackberry bushes that had traveled all the way across the back yard and they were approaching the house, like some kind of alien taking over... :eek:
The work is not completely finished, he has to come back again...
Then there are the trees, trees everywhere. You would have to actually SEE IT to believe it, kind of like atheists wanting to see God. :rolleyes:
I am really not exaggerating, I promise.... That is what happens when you let things grow in Western Washington...
So the harmony that exists in a garden is always one that has been carefully crafted by the intervention of external human influence.
Sadly for my property, I chose people over plants... and it shows. But we have a plenty of money so as soon as I have time, I can decide what to do and pay someone to tend to it.
You see, I care more about harmony between people than harmony in the yard... Yards can always be tended to later, but people might not be there later...
Supposing it is true that a religion requires an 'us' vs 'them', then it would follow that once the 'them' is gone, there is no longer an 'us' vs 'them' and therefore no longer a religion.
Unless the them decided to join us. :D
But in practice it seems that religion has persisted regardless of the existence of a 'them' and only dies out when replaced with another religion.
That hasn't really happened, religions have not replaced other religions because people refuse to relinquish their religions, so more religions are added and they keep accumulating...

Ask yourself, why do we need so many different religions?

Some people think we need them because people need a religion that fits their personality, but that is really just selfish. People should be thinking about what the world needs, not what they need.
Is World Peace morally right? or morally wrong?
Of course world peace is morally right. Why would it not be. Do you think killing and war is a better alternative?
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
Of course world peace is morally right. Why would it not be. Do you think killing and war is a better alternative?

Some people have presented the notion that World Peace at any cost is not good.
Would you prefer World Peace and no individuality OR not World Peace and individuality?
There could be many scenarios where World Peace (cessation of armed conflict) is achieved.
If people were drugged all the time to be passive, then they wouldn't engage in armed conflict.
If people were amputated at birth, then they wouldn't be able to punch each other in the face.
So simply achieving World Peace for the sake of Peace seems to not be sufficient. The question arises: Is World Peace moral? And you might say that killing and war is immoral, but the counter-argument is that killing and war can serve purposes that move us towards a greater good.
For example, the dilemma of: Is it moral to fight in World War II against Germany Or was is more moral not to fight against them?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Some people have presented the notion that World Peace at any cost is not good.
Would you prefer World Peace and no individuality OR not World Peace and individuality?
There could be many scenarios where World Peace (cessation of armed conflict) is achieved.
If people were drugged all the time to be passive, then they wouldn't engage in armed conflict.
If people were amputated at birth, then they wouldn't be able to punch each other in the face.
So simply achieving World Peace for the sake of Peace seems to not be sufficient. The question arises: Is World Peace moral? And you might say that killing and war is immoral, but the counter-argument is that killing and war can serve purposes that move us towards a greater good.
For example, the dilemma of: Is it moral to fight in World War II against Germany Or was is more moral not to fight against them?

Some people should give the world of the majority a break. The realisation that we are on One planet, that we are one people, please, will help bring about world peace.

That requires us in all morality, to give up some of what we may desire for the good of all.

What you have offered. :facepalm:

Regards Tony
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Some people have presented the notion that World Peace at any cost is not good.
Would you prefer World Peace and no individuality OR not World Peace and individuality?
I do not understand how the two are related. I do not understand why I would have to make a choice.
There could be many scenarios where World Peace (cessation of armed conflict) is achieved.
If people were drugged all the time to be passive, then they wouldn't engage in armed conflict.
If people were amputated at birth, then they wouldn't be able to punch each other in the face.
Or there might be a better way. People could change.
So simply achieving World Peace for the sake of Peace seems to not be sufficient. The question arises: Is World Peace moral? And you might say that killing and war is immoral, but the counter-argument is that killing and war can serve purposes that move us towards a greater good.
For example, the dilemma of: Is it moral to fight in World War II against Germany Or was is more moral not to fight against them?
Yes, I understand, and I think WWII was necessary. Oppressors cannot be tolerated.

But don’t you think there can ever be an eventual end to killing and war?

Of course I am idealistic because of my religion. Below is the “vision” of the Baha’i Faith and what I believe to be God’s Plan. Please keep in mind that this was written around the time of WWII:

“God’s purpose is none other than to usher in, in ways He alone can bring about, and the full significance of which He alone can fathom, the Great, the Golden Age of a long-divided, a long-afflicted humanity. Its present state, indeed even its immediate future, is dark, distressingly dark. Its distant future, however, is radiant, gloriously radiant—so radiant that no eye can visualize it.

“The winds of despair,” writes Bahá’u’lláh, as He surveys the immediate destinies of mankind, “are, alas, blowing from every direction, and the strife that divides and afflicts the human race is daily increasing. The signs of impending convulsions and chaos can now be discerned, inasmuch as the prevailing order appears to be lamentably defective.” “Such shall be its plight,” He, in another connection, has declared, “that to disclose it now would not be meet and seemly.” “These fruitless strifes,” He, on the other hand, contemplating the future of mankind, has emphatically prophesied, in the course of His memorable interview with the Persian orientalist, Edward G. Browne, “these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the ‘Most Great Peace’ shall come…. These strifes and this bloodshed and discord must cease, and all men be as one kindred and one family.” “Soon,” He predicts, “will the present-day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead.” “After a time,” He also has written, “all the governments on earth will change. Oppression will envelop the world. And following a universal convulsion, the sun of justice will rise from the horizon of the unseen realm.” “The whole earth,” He, moreover, has stated, “is now in a state of pregnancy. The day is approaching when it will have yielded its noblest fruits, when from it will have sprung forth the loftiest trees, the most enchanting blossoms, the most heavenly blessings.” “All nations and kindreds,” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá likewise has written, “…will become a single nation. Religious and sectarian antagonism, the hostility of races and peoples, and differences among nations, will be eliminated. All men will adhere to one religion, will have one common faith, will be blended into one race, and become a single people. All will dwell in one common fatherland, which is the planet itself.”

What we witness at the present time, during “this gravest crisis in the history of civilization,” recalling such times in which “religions have perished and are born,” is the adolescent stage in the slow and painful evolution of humanity, preparatory to the attainment of the stage of manhood, the stage of maturity, the promise of which is embedded in the teachings, and enshrined in the prophecies, of Bahá’u’lláh. The tumult of this age of transition is characteristic of the impetuosity and irrational instincts of youth, its follies, its prodigality, its pride, its self-assurance, its rebelliousness, and contempt of discipline.”
The Promised Day Is Come, pp. 116-117
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
“All nations and kindreds,” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá likewise has written, “…will become a single nation. Religious and sectarian antagonism, the hostility of races and peoples, and differences among nations, will be eliminated. All men will adhere to one religion, will have one common faith, will be blended into one race, and become a single people. All will dwell in one common fatherland, which is the planet itself.”
Sounds like the Borg. What a depressing dystopia that sounds like. Sounds genocidal, actually. What you're talking about is erasing human differences - ethnic, cultural, religious, national, etc.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Sounds like the Borg. What a depressing dystopia that sounds like. Sounds genocidal, actually. What you're talking about is erasing human differences - ethnic, cultural, religious, national, etc.
No, not at all…

Religious and sectarian antagonism and the hostility between races and peoples will be eliminated and the differences (meaning the disagreements) between nations will be eliminated. But nations will still retain their own governments and unique characteristics.

Realistically, the only way for that to ever happen is if people adhere to one religion. Otherwise, people will continue to fight over which religion is the best one, and there will never be unity.

“Blended into one race” means that no particular race will be considered superior to than any other race, not that they will be the same. There will always be differences between people and there is beauty in diversity, as long as people can get along with one another and not fight over their differences.

BEAUTY AND HARMONY IN DIVERSITY
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Realistically, the only way for that to ever happen is if people adhere to one religion. Otherwise, people will continue to fight over which religion is the best one, and there will never be unity.
It's really only the Abrahamic religions that fight over being "The One True Religion©". The vast majority of other religions are pluralist and view truth as being multifaceted, with many different expressions. So they tend to not care really care what religion you are as long as you don't come around offending people and pushing your religion on them.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
But that's what >ALL< man made religions are all about, vagueness.
Yes, I totally agree. Baha'is, of course think their guy knows best, that he is not vague. They think that because William Sears was a Christian and says he studied it and then comes up with an interpretation that fits perfectly into the Baha'i Faith, that all is settled.

I'm not a scholar. I didn't dig very deep. And I found all sorts of problems. Mostly that the prophesies were either so vague that anybody's interpretation could sound good. The other problem is taking verses, out of context, and saying they were prophesies. The Baha'is just did it in this thread. Since the government is not on the shoulders of Jesus, those verses can't be a prophesy about him. Since the government is upon the shoulders of Baha'u'llah, then he must be the child, the son born unto us. Christian claim it and Baha'is claim it. But, neither of them have fulfilled it.

In my very shallow research I went to a Jewish book store and asked. Baha'is say they came from you. Christians and Muslims say they came from you. But most Jews stay Jewish and reject those other religions... Why? The answers he gave and in the booklets he me all centered around the vagueness of the verses used as prophecy by Christians. From his pov, I agreed. I can agree with Christians too. From what they think the verses are saying, they are right. But are they?

Same thing with Baha'is. They can show how Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not part of a Godhead. They can show how Jesus is dead and buried and never literally came back to life. Which makes all the gospel stories about the resurrection symbolic and not literal. They can show how the Spirit of Truth is Baha'u'llah and not the Holy Spirit that descended on Pentecost. Anything and everything that sounds like it is talking about Jesus physically being the one that is returning in Revelation, is wrong. That too is symbolic and not literally talking about Jesus, but the "Spirit" of Christ, which, to them, is the same "Spirit" that is in all the messengers. Sounds great. Sounds all true. It makes perfect sense... to those that want to believe it. And, naturally, it's not vague to them at all.

But to me, it's vague. Many of the Baha'i interpretations are vague. But, if they are from this supposedly One God, that sent messenger after messenger to us to help... and to lead us toward a peaceful, spiritual world. Then fine... Do it all ready. But they blame our spiritual and political leaders, and those of us that supposedly are "clinging" to our old religions, as the reason why there is no peace yet. No, I say it is the vagueness in religions that causes a problem for people to know... Who is telling them the truth?

They all do contradict each other. And they all do explain away the contradictions... but in a way that makes them, that particular religious belief or interpretation, the only one that is correct. So can a religion built upon vague fulfillments of vague prophecies and that believes it is the only one that has the real "Truth" bring about peace in the world? The Baha'is think they can and will.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"Truth" bring about peace in the world? The Baha'is think they can and will.

The Key there is that it is God that works His plan for humanity.

It is God that gifts all faith and all inspiration to us all, for us to choose to do good for all.

It is those choices of self that change the world, the first step is changing ones own self and only then will you also mirror Gods inspiration, even if you have not acknowledged the source of that good.

That is why Baha'u'llah offered the change and is said if Baha'i do not acheive it, He will gift it to others to fulfill.

I see the loftier thoughts we can have all come from that source, they are not from us.

Try and watch some TED talks on conscious reality, they will show science is finding that each person constucts their own reality in their brain, but science still do not know the source.

How do you explain consciousness?


Regards Tony
 
Last edited:

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
When it comes to the Bible Christians have been sorely divided over it long before Baha’u’llah appeared on the scene, almost from the very beginning.
When you talk about the Bible, I think it is important to separate the Jewish Scriptures from the Christian Scriptures, and allow the Jews to speak for themselves on the things in their Scriptures. Now for the Christians being divided about their writings. I agree. They had to decide which writings were from God and which writings weren't. Did they get it right? Is everything in every gospel and in every letter absolutely the "Word of God"? Or, is some of it the words of men on what they wanted to say about Jesus and God?

The gospel writers all say that people saw the risen Jesus. Did they? Baha'is say they meant the story about Jesus having physically come back to life were meant to be taken figuratively. So for 2000 years Christians that believe Jesus literally rose from the dead have been wrong? I don't blame them. I blame God... if the Baha'is are correct. God "inspired" those writers to write a story down about the resurrection of Jesus that was misleading? That caused his followers to think that the apostles saw Jesus, spoke with him, ate with him and touched him... and that Jesus said he was not a ghost but had flesh and bone? I don't blame Christians at all. That's the NT writers fault if that's not true. And God's fault for allowing it to be written and accepted as "The Gospel Truth".

As a pragmatist, if there are no beneficial results to mankind in a concrete way such as bringing people together for the common good then I think the Bible alone has failed miserably, regardless of what you think the correct interpretation of it is.
Jews and Christians have done a lot for their own good and the common good. And, the Bible is still able to make people do some good things. Now, are the Baha'i writings able to bring peace and harmony to the whole world?

A rudimentary principle brought by Baha’u’llah is the oneness of God, the oneness of religion, and the oneness of mankind. His coming is the fulfillment of all Sacred Scriptures of all past religions so why be concerned about the Bible now that we have moved on to the next chapter?
A problem for Baha'is in bringing peace is that they don't believe in the "oneness" of religion. They believe all the other religions are off track. And, Baha'is tell people here in the forum, how their religion is wrong. So, if all the religions are wrong, except the Baha'is, then there is only one correct and true religion.... the Baha'i Faith. That isn't and hasn't gone over very well here in the forum. Baha'is don't believe that all the religions are true and from the One True God, they believe that the Baha'i version and interpretation of what the other religions should believe are one... and a progression. But, as practiced and believed by the followers of the different religions, they are all different and all have contradictory beliefs.

Due to dogmatic interpretations of the Bible by Christian clerics nonsensical doctrines of the church arose such as original sin to name just one. Such superstitions have driven many thoughtful people to conclude there is nothing to any religion or any truth that God even exists. Even when Christians cling to their beliefs based on church doctrines they compartmentalize their lives into what has been called secularism into two compartments; one a religious life on Sunday and the other their ordinary workday life.
In the modern Western world, who doesn't put their religious beliefs aside. Do Baha'is show up at work and proclaim, "The Lord has come! A new day has dawned!"? Or, do they say, "Hi Mabel, here's that report you wanted."

Now for "nonsensical" doctrines? What would you have done 2000 years ago? All you had was the NT to go by. And you were taught to believe that it is the very Word of God. But you and your fellow religious leaders had some questions. If Jesus came to wash away the sin of everybody, and no one is sinless, then what? Is everyone born with some kind of original sin? By what's written in the NT, is that really such a stretch? Is it really "superstitious"? Is it wrong? I would hope so. Been then so is Satan, the resurrection, a literal belief in most or all of the healings and the other "miracles" that Jesus performed. But those "superstitions" are written in the Book. Is that superstitious too? Lots of people would answer that with a big "yes". But not Baha'is. Baha'i believe in the Bible and the NT... just not literally. Which means what? God and or the writers purposefully misled the people? If that was not their intent, it sure backfired. If their intent was that those stories were to be taken as figurative, that sure didn't make it clear. So sure, it's probably all superstitious beliefs... but they are Bible-based beliefs. So I don't blame the Christians. They were misled into believing the Bible and their addition to the Bible, the NT, was the inerrant, literal Word of God.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
I do not understand how the two are related. I do not understand why I would have to make a choice.

I think that the suggestion is that World Peace brought about by religion involves some sort of unification of people into an agreement of mind and/or body that precludes individual traits in favor of the religious ideal.
The other notion, that religion is about dividing people, doesn't really make any sense to me. But, if true, seems to suggest to me that individuality never really goes away. In that case, it may be the 'moral humanity in the absence of religion' that oppresses the people.

Of course I am idealistic because of my religion.

Perhaps, religion is moral and therefore World Peace brought about by religion must, as a consequence, be moral. Or it may be that World Peace is one of many moral ends as @Tony Bristow-Stagg appears to suggest and we must at some point concede to the 'majority' opinion that World Peace is moral. Although, morality by majority opinion doesn't really sit well with me as a way to decide something is objectively moral... one could argue that the mores of society are defined by majority opinion in the first place... and so World Peace must be moral by definition. In other words the morality of something necessitates a subjective judgement.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think that the suggestion is that World Peace brought about by religion involves some sort of unification of people into an agreement of mind and/or body that precludes individual traits in favor of the religious ideal.

From what I understand the the path to unity does not preclude individual traits. I see the pursuit of the Unity of the Mind of humanity upholds the individual pusuit to become the best they can be. This is what I see is unity in our diversity.

You will note all Baha'i that post here are all on their path in Faith, all have different ideas, but all are pursuing the same goal, the unity of the human race. We all have to overcome self, the self that wants to take that journey not contributing to the whole. A bit like a successful marriage and then family. When two souls unite on a journey, each must sacrifice aspects of self that help the whole. When the couple become a family, again more self is given to the whole. Thus consider, this is willingly done as to provide lovingly for the whole. The family will always struggle and the unity breaks down when selfish motive dominates.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's really only the Abrahamic religions that fight over being "The One True Religion©". The vast majority of other religions are pluralist and view truth as being multifaceted, with many different expressions. So they tend to not care really care what religion you are as long as you don't come around offending people and pushing your religion on them.

It may be the stance people take, is against the fact that all the Major worlds Faiths are from the same source.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Although, morality by majority opinion doesn't really sit well with me as a way to decide something is objectively moral... one could argue that the mores of society are defined by majority opinion in the first place... and so World Peace must be moral by definition. In other words the morality of something necessitates a subjective judgement.

Robert Stockman may have adressed this in detail at this link;

Faith and Belief
Bahá’í Definitions of Faith and Belief.


This is an extract I see may be applicable to your thoughts;

"...`Abdu’l-Bahá describes faith as having three progressively more sophisticated forms. The first and simplest He calls objective faith, which is "expressed by the outer [physical] man" and which consists of "obedience of the limbs and senses." The second is subjective faith and consists of "unconscious obedience to the will of God." All created things, whether intelligent or not, are capable of these two types of faith. Only humans, however, are capable of the third type of faith, discerning faith, which `Abdu’l-Bahá defines as "true knowledge of God and the comprehension of divine words" (Bahá’í World Faith, 364). Here `Abdu’l-Bahá appears to be defining faith as a form of conscious knowledge; his definition echoes the biblical description of faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (New Testament, Hebrews 11:1).

But the Bahá’í sacred writings also recognize faith as engagement and response. Bahá’u'lláh defines the "essence of faith" as "fewness of words and abundance of deeds" and warns that "he whose words exceed his deeds, know verily his death is better than his life" ("The Words of Wisdom," in Tablets of Bahá’u'lláh Revealed after the Kitáb-i-Aqdas,156). `Abdu’l-Bahá, wishing to correct the impression of a correspondent that deeds are acceptable in and of themselves, defined faith as "first, conscious knowledge, and second, the practice of good deeds" (Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, vol. III, 549); thus `Abdu’l-Bahá combined both knowledge and action into a definition of faith, but emphasized the priority of conscious knowledge....."

Does that tie into what you were thinking?

Regards Tony
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
It may be the stance people take, is against the fact that all the Major worlds Faiths are from the same source.

Regards Tony
It's great that a major focus of the Baha'i Faith is to bring people together in peace and unity. It's great that the Baha'is have a plan to accomplish that (Baha'is do have a plan don't they?). But, the "fact" is... the Baha'is have to re-interpret the doctrines and beliefs of all the major religions to make it appear that they all have come from the same source. Without doing that, and by just going by what the different religions teach as the truth, they are all different and do contradict each other. So for all the religions to get along, it seems as if the Baha'is are asking them to stop believing as they do and to accept that their religion has changed from what that "one source" originally intended, and for them to believe what the Baha'i Faith tells them is the truth about their own religion.

That, I'm sure works just fine with some people, but, seen here on the Forum, it is the cause of a lot of arguing between Baha'is and people from other religions. So how will that lead to peace and unity and understanding between the different religions?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's great that a major focus of the Baha'i Faith is to bring people together in peace and unity. It's great that the Baha'is have a plan to accomplish that (Baha'is do have a plan don't they?). But, the "fact" is... the Baha'is have to re-interpret the doctrines and beliefs of all the major religions to make it appear that they all have come from the same source. Without doing that, and by just going by what the different religions teach as the truth, they are all different and do contradict each other. So for all the religions to get along, it seems as if the Baha'is are asking them to stop believing as they do and to accept that their religion has changed from what that "one source" originally intended, and for them to believe what the Baha'i Faith tells them is the truth about their own religion.

That, I'm sure works just fine with some people, but, seen here on the Forum, it is the cause of a lot of arguing between Baha'is and people from other religions. So how will that lead to peace and unity and understanding between the different religions?

Hello CG, hope you are well and happy. Did you ever pursue the kitab-i-iqan?

My wife and I are reading it together at the moment. It answers all your questions.

All the best to you.

Regards Tony
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I think that the suggestion is that World Peace brought about by religion involves some sort of unification of people into an agreement of mind and/or body that precludes individual traits in favor of the religious ideal.
I do not think that World Peace will be brought about by religion, it will be brought about by governments around the world who will come to some kind of agreement amongst themselves. This was the “vision” of Baha’u’llah. The following words were spoken by Baha’u’llah in an interview which took place in the vicinity of Haifa, Israel in April, 1890. The interviewer was Edward Granville Browne, a distinguished orientalist and the only Westerner to have ever interviewed Baha’u’llah.

“That all nations should become one in faith and all men as brothers; that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons of men should be strengthened; that diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race be annulled – what harm is there in this? . . . Yet so it shall be; these fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the ‘Most Great Peace’ shall come. . . . Do not you in Europe need this also? Is not this that which Christ foretold? … “

(Baha’u’llah by H. M. Balyuzi, page 61)

Individual traits will always exist and individuality can exist even if people have different thoughts and beliefs. People can be unified in spite of their differences if they all want the same goal:

“Do not allow difference of opinion, or diversity of thought to separate you from your fellow-men, or to be the cause of dispute, hatred and strife in your hearts.

Rather, search diligently for the truth and make all men your friends.

Every edifice is made of many different stones, yet each depends on the other to such an extent that if one were displaced the whole building would suffer; if one is faulty the structure is imperfect.” Paris Talks, pp. 53-54

BEAUTY AND HARMONY IN DIVERSITY
The other notion, that religion is about dividing people, doesn't really make any sense to me. But, if true, seems to suggest to me that individuality never really goes away. In that case, it may be the 'moral humanity in the absence of religion' that oppresses the people.
Religion should never be about dividing people. The main teaching of the Baha’i Faith is the oneness of mankind and world unity. I do not think people realize the power of unity to heal the ills of mankind because people have been divided for so long so that this all they know.

“The utterance of God is a lamp, whose light is these words: Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Day Star of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth. The one true God, He Whoknoweth all things, Himself testifieth to the truth of these words.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 288
Perhaps, religion is moral and therefore World Peace brought about by religion must, as a consequence, be moral. Or it may be that World Peace is one of many moral ends as @Tony Bristow-Stagg appears to suggest and we must at some point concede to the 'majority' opinion that World Peace is moral. Although, morality by majority opinion doesn't really sit well with me as a way to decide something is objectively moral... one could argue that the mores of society are defined by majority opinion in the first place... and so World Peace must be moral by definition. In other words the morality of something necessitates a subjective judgement.
I do not think that World Peace will be brought about by my religion, as I said above. It will be brought about by governments and people living under those governments. But the teachings of Bahaullah will need to be inculcated in order for this to be achieved, regardless of whether they choose to become Baha’is or not.

“My object is none other than the betterment of the world and the tranquillity of its peoples. The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 286

I already see this happening on a small scale, since the world situation worsens and some individuals and even groups are starting to realize that coming together in unity to work towards a common goal is the only way to fix the problems we have in the world today.

I do not think morality should be based upon majority opinion, but rather upon what God has revealed, but of course I am a believer. However, it is notable that what God has revealed is beneficial for the whole of humanity. That is why God sent Baha’u’llah with a message.

I do not think in terms of Word Peace as being moral or immoral, but rather I think it is beneficial for all of humanity. Can you even imagine how much money could be saved if there was an end to war, and this money could be spent on making this world a better place to live for everyone, including eliminating poverty and starvation.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
But, the "fact" is... the Baha'is have to re-interpret the doctrines and beliefs of all the major religions to make it appear that they all have come from the same source. Without doing that, and by just going by what the different religions teach as the truth, they are all different and do contradict each other.
When you say we re-interpret the doctrines and beliefs of all the major religions that implies that there was a correct interpretation and we changed it. Sorry but no. I do not know about all the older religions and Baha’is do not address those, but when it comes to the Bible much of it was never interpreted correctly by Christians so Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha simply interpreted certain chapters and verses correctly.

The religions are different but they do not contradict each other. The only reason the older religions appear to contradict each other is because either (a) we never had any reliable scriptures from those religions, and/or (b) the followers corrupted those religions over time.
So for all the religions to get along, it seems as if the Baha'is are asking them to stop believing as they do and to accept that their religion has changed from what that "one source" originally intended, and for them to believe what the Baha'i Faith tells them is the truth about their own religion.
They think they know what God intended but there is NO REASON to think that they know because it is just fallible humans who interpreted the Bible, and the fact that the Christians cannot even agree what it means is very telling. The meaning of the Bible was disputed from the very beginning and then they had to hold councils such as Nicaea in order to come to some kind of agreement, but the Christians STILL do not agree to this very day.

Yes, if they become Baha’is they have to accept that Baha’u’llah is the Final Authority and that He knew what ALL the scriptures meant infallibly. That is what those people who used to belong to the older religions came to accept when they became a Baha’i.

“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176
So how will that lead to peace and unity and understanding between the different religions?
The most we can hope to achieve is peace, but we will not achieve unity and understanding between the different religions. However, it does not matter because in the future there will be only one religion. God has ordained that and what God has ordained cannot be altered.

“That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith. This can in no wise be achieved except through the power of a skilled, an all-powerful and inspired Physician. This, verily, is the truth, and all else naught but error. Each time that Most Mighty Instrument hath come, and that Light shone forth from the Ancient Dayspring, He was withheld by ignorant physicians who, even as clouds, interposed themselves between Him and the world. It failed, therefore, to recover, and its sickness hath persisted until this day. They indeed were powerless to protect it, or to effect a cure, whilst He Who hath been the Manifestation of Power amongst men was withheld from achieving His purpose, by reason of what the hands of the ignorant physicians have wrought.”
The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, pp. 91-92
 
Top