Biggest benefits of leaving a religion

[Samael_Khan]

Yes and no, it depends upon which part of the Gospels you are reading.
However, I agree that the Gospels are the greatest testimony of Jesus.

I do not think it is likely that Jesus said the exact words that are attributed to Him in the NT, because that would be impossible. However, I believe that the essential message came through. Below are some official statements about the Bible from an authoritative source representing the Baha'i position:

I agree with this because wrote him differently. The difference in quotation would support the idea that they were actual eye witnesses because they didn't copy directly from each other, besides maybe the author of Luke who openly admits that he based his gospel on the reports of other.

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this.

I fully disagree with these two principles. The main principles to keep in mind is what we should do with any book which is:

Learn the culture
Learn the original language
Read the book in light of that culture and language

We interpret what is metaphorical and what is literal based on the the understanding we gain from the above three points

These are concrete basis for understanding books. Alternatively, what you guys are doing is assuming that everything is metaphorical and that the paradoxes aren't mistakes, inconsistencies between writers or can be reconciled using historical context. These differences are the reason why your interpretations do not make sense to use.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Sorry mate, only a small thought on this really, but...
I don't think this only applies to religion (or even 'non-religion'). I think it applies to any group membership with restrictive dogma, or particular expectations.

I was reading something about Incels, and some of the fallout after Elliot Rodger. It included comments from someone who'd left the Incel community after initially defending it to the mainstream media as non-violent and ironic, only to have members of the community disagree quite strongly with that.

They seemed to describe much the same things as you are here. Freedom from pre-conception and the ability to assess things without baggage, etc.
Interestingly, the talked about requiring momentum for this to continue, and not (basically) slip back into old habits.

In any case, yeah...not just a religion thing. More human nature and group/social psychology I think.

I full agree with you which is why I mentioned at the beginning of my OP "but can also apply to any other group if they don't promote freedom of thought, even an atheist group". \

I have looked into incels and they pretty much do fall into the category.

I do think that it is a result of human nature and group.social psychology. Cult leaders and followers have existed from the beginning of mans recorded history and seems to be natural social behaviour that people instinctively have an affinity for.

I know of many groups that I can include in the OP which are non religious.

Heaven's Gate
The Church of Scientology
The Military
NXIUM
Russian Communism (Bolshevikism?)

There are many. 1984 by George Orwell accurately described indoctrination in its ultimate form and that group wasn't religious.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Aw, that is bad. We just have one problem here - don't eat beef. Apart from that everything is OK.

Well, there is no need to eat beef anyway. Pork is just as good if not better. The cows must love you guys.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I full agree with you which is why I mentioned at the beginning of my OP "but can also apply to any other group if they don't promote freedom of thought, even an atheist group". \

I have looked into incels and they pretty much do fall into the category.

I do think that it is a result of human nature and group.social psychology. Cult leaders and followers have existed from the beginning of mans recorded history and seems to be natural social behaviour that people instinctively have an affinity for.

I know of many groups that I can include in the OP which are non religious.

Heaven's Gate
The Church of Scientology
The Military
NXIUM
Russian Communism (Bolshevikism?)

There are many. 1984 by George Orwell accurately described indoctrination in its ultimate form and that group wasn't religious.

Soccer hooligans...

In any case, yep. Humans are interesting and flawed creatures.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, there is no need to eat beef anyway. Pork is just as good if not better. The cows must love you guys.

The cows got to you, didn't they?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Soccer hooligans...

In any case, yep. Humans are interesting and flawed creatures.

Agreed.

Someone should really make a soccer hooligan video game.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The cows got to you, didn't they?

Maaaan, I don't even know if I would eat meat if I had to kill the animals myself.

 

[ManSinha]

Well, there is no need to eat beef anyway. Pork is just as good if not better

I personally love pepperoni pizza and lamb gyros FWIW

 

[Samael_Khan]

I personally love pepperoni pizza and lamb gyros FWIW

I love pizza myself. I haven't heard of lamb gyros before but I googled it and it instantly made my mouth water.

 

[Trailblazer]

I fully disagree with these two principles. The main principles to keep in mind is what we should do with any book which is:

Learn the culture
Learn the original language
Read the book in light of that culture and language

We interpret what is metaphorical and what is literal based on the the understanding we gain from the above three points.

I fully agree that this would be the ideal way to go about assessing the content of any book, especially the Bible, but this is not always possible owing to time constraints..

These are concrete basis for understanding books. Alternatively, what you guys are doing is assuming that everything is metaphorical and that the paradoxes aren't mistakes, inconsistencies between writers or can be reconciled using historical context. These differences are the reason why your interpretations do not make sense to use.

The Baha'is do not assume anything.
We simply do not have time to make these determinations and there is really no need for us to do so because the Bible is not our scripture. Do Christians analyze Baha'i scriptures?

There are some Baha'i scholars who have analyzed the Bible, but the average Baha'i is too busy with Baha'i activities and reading Baha'i scriptures, so we have no time for in depth study and analysis of the Bible..

 

[Samael_Khan]

I fully agree that this would be the ideal way to go about assessing the content of any book, especially the Bible, but this is not always possible owing to time constraints..

The Baha'is do not assume anything.
We simply do not have time to make these determinations and there is really no need for us to do so because the Bible is not our scripture. Do Christians analyze Baha'i scriptures?

There are some Baha'i scholars who have analyzed the Bible, but the average Baha'i is too busy with Baha'i activities and reading Baha'i scriptures, so we have no time for in depth study and analysis of the Bible..

Ahh.... but then the problem is that in general Baha'i have not studied the book and therefore shouldn't make claims about it, such as it all being metaphor. It would be just as wrong for a christian to make claims about Baha'i scriptures without having read them.

 

[Muffled]

I believe I have experienced autocratic and free religion and both have their problems. The autocratic religion will not admit it is wrong even when it is and the free religion allows people to be wrong when they should uphold what is right.

For instance the Christian religion, Jewish religion and Islam believe there is one God and none other should be before Him. Any thinking outside of that is wrong. On the other hand there are many views of the Trinity, some of them correct and some not but an autocratic view is not necessary and the religion can allow the incorrect views because there is no wrongdoing in believing what is incorrect.

 

[Muffled]

You can be in a Faith and have most of those thoughts, without predudices.

In the end, one accepts the faith, as they beleive in what is being taught and would like to live their lives in such a way.

Regards Tony

I believe I have met a few people in the Baptist church that were not comfortable with the concept of being dunked. Fortunately Baptists will allow a simple statement of faith.

 

[Muffled]

This is the reason why I like Baha'i as a religion.

I believe I could never trade a right religion for a wrong religion simply to be free and would my consideration of its wrongness be tolerated?

 

[Trailblazer]

Ahh.... but then the problem is that in general Baha'i have not studied the book and therefore shouldn't make claims about it, such as it all being metaphor. It would be just as wrong for a christian to make claims about Baha'i scriptures without having read them.

To be fair, even if Baha'is studied the Bible, it would still be only a personal opinion as to what was a metaphor and what was literally true. Since the Bible is not necessarily historically accurate, unless its content is actually documented in history books, I think it would be a better use of our time to read history books or scholarly works about the Bible. That is just my personal opinion, and I am sure other Bahais have other opinions.

All that said, here are some excerpts from an article that addresses the Baha'i views of the Bible.

Introduction

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe I could never trade a right religion for a wrong religion simply to be free...

I fully agree. Only God's Truth matters.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I believe I could never trade a right religion for a wrong religion simply to be free and would my consideration of its wrongness be tolerated?

Well no, you shouldn't trade truth for a lie.

Your consideration of its wrongness will only be tolerated if you have surface doubts. In general the doubts would have to be suppressed. If you investigate too deeply, your positions in the congregation would be taken away, your good standing will be lost and you might face a judicial hearing.

 

[Samael_Khan]

To be fair, even if Baha'is studied the Bible, it would still be only a personal opinion as to what was a metaphor and what was literally true. Since the Bible is not necessarily historically accurate, unless its content is actually documented in history books, I think it would be a better use of our time to read history books or scholarly works about the Bible. That is just my personal opinion, and I am sure other Bahais have other opinions.

All that said, here are some excerpts from an article that addresses the Baha'i views of the Bible.

Introduction

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

I don't necessarily disagree with that conclusion. And it is cool that you guys are free to have varying views.

My disagreement would be with interpretation of scripture. So it isn't whether the Bible is historically accurate or not, but whether the symbols and written history is correct.