• 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!

Following a religion in 2021

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
That teaching is the oneness of all humanity.
In days old the law was to love your country, but today it is to love the whole world.
Yeah, I have heard this, under the banner of your 19th Century uneducated Iranian preacher! Country boundaries will become meaningless. No passport required anywhere. Communists, capitalists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, all brothers. What will you do with Pagans and atheists? They would not accept the Bahai Allah.

Add these countries to the list of troubled - Iran Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, Iraq. You mean Bahaollah will bring peace to all these countries?
 
Last edited:

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Yeah, I have heard this, under the banner of your 19th Century uneducated Iranian preacher! Country boundaries will become meaningless. No passport required anywhere. Communists, capitalists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, all brothers. What will you do with Pagans and atheists? They would not accept the Bahai Allah.

Add these countries to the list of troubled - Iran Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, Iraq. You mean Bahaollah will bring peace to all these countries?

All are human beings. It doesn’t matter if you accept Baha’u’llah. All that matters is that we accept all humanity as equals. That of course includes everyone belief or no belief. It’s not about belief but accepting each other the way we are.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Spiritual truth is eternal but religious social laws are relative and meant for the age and people in which they were revealed. Today spiritual truths need to be world embracing ratter than limited to one country, race or religion because technology has caused interaction and mingling with diverse people so a world ethic which is inclusive of all is today required.

That teaching is the oneness of all humanity. This belief will unite us all as one race, as one human family working together for the betterment of humanity.

In days old the law was to love your country, but today it is to love the whole world.
I agree with the overall theme of what you say.

I believe that there are many "social laws" which are founded in eternal truths. Such as the need for marriage.

Even though we should love everyone - borders are important. They are lines that signify when ideas - good or bad - start and end.

There are both bad and good ideas in this world. Good and bad governments. Good and bad cultures.

And we need those borders in order to help everyone know where they are and to be able to get to where they want to be.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
For many of us who follow a religion or has faith in spiritual teaching there are scriptures that are hundreds if not thousands of years old, and often we can hear "how can you follow a teaching that is so outdated"

In the past i got frustrated with this kind of questions :) But then i started to think ( YEY i am thinking :p )

So the Question for this thread is: When following an "older" religion and its scripture, can we follow it as described but "update" it within our self (not the text it self) to go more along with the thought of 2021 modern world?
Or do we have to live in the "stoneage" as some people like to call it :)

I think that in each sincere religion there are timeless truths, but when those truths become attached to literalistic beliefs, they then take on a less than spiritual character and suffer, thereby, the ravages of time.

New stories, new principles, new techniques should always be welcome in any spiritual tradition that is not foundering and petrifying under the weight of its own desire to cement itself in the sort of rock that time inevitably causes to crumble. It is only the crust or scars of literalism that cause living spiritual truth to appear to flake off and fall as dust to be trampled.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
For many of us who follow a religion or has faith in spiritual teaching there are scriptures that are hundreds if not thousands of years old, and often we can hear "how can you follow a teaching that is so outdated"

In the past i got frustrated with this kind of questions :) But then i started to think ( YEY i am thinking :p )

So the Question for this thread is: When following an "older" religion and its scripture, can we follow it as described but "update" it within our self (not the text it self) to go more along with the thought of 2021 modern world?
Or do we have to live in the "stoneage" as some people like to call it :)

I've always found excessive focus on scripture to be something I could never relate to. I have a mind, I hope, a conscience, the ability to be rational.

Excessive? Some days I think if a waiter asked what a customer wanted to order, that scripture based customer would say, "Let's see, I have to look in the ______ first."

On this forum, if I see excessive, (or any, really) quotes from scripture, I skip them. If some person is unable to express basic concepts in their own words without help, I don't think it says much about their personal ability to think. So it immediately gives me the signal that this person may not be worth having a discussion with, because it's not a discussion.
 

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
On this forum, if I see excessive, (or any, really) quotes from scripture, I skip them. If some person is unable to express basic concepts in their own words without help, I don't think it says much about their personal ability to think. So it immediately gives me the signal that this person may not be worth having a discussion with, because it's not a discussion.

Me too. Unless its from a person who seldom quotes scripture, and then I'll assume its really relevant, or will add to the discussion(rather than stiffle it).
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
All are human beings. It doesn’t matter if you accept Baha’u’llah. All that matters is that we accept all humanity as equals. That of course includes everyone belief or no belief. It’s not about belief but accepting each other the way we are.
Nobody denies that. The only irritant is acceptance of Bahai religion and that of the 19th Century manifestation of the Bahai Allah. Islamic countries will not allow you to enter. How would Bahai Allah's message and that of his millennial manifestation reach the 1.5 billion or so Muslims? You can play only with Christians, and that is what you are doing today.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I've always found excessive focus on scripture to be something I could never relate to. I have a mind, I hope, a conscience, the ability to be rational.

Excessive? Some days I think if a waiter asked what a customer wanted to order, that scripture based customer would say, "Let's see, I have to look in the ______ first."

On this forum, if I see excessive, (or any, really) quotes from scripture, I skip them. If some person is unable to express basic concepts in their own words without help, I don't think it says much about their personal ability to think. So it immediately gives me the signal that this person may not be worth having a discussion with, because it's not a discussion.
I understand your view @Vinayaka I find it to be good to know the scripture, but as you say not be to hung up in it but think for my self too, and actually i am one of those who seldom qoute from sufi teaching.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I understand your view @Vinayaka I find it to be good to know the scripture, but as you say not be to hung up in it but think for my self too, and actually i am one of those who seldom qoute from sufi teaching.
True. In fact I can't recall when you did. I will occasionally give a short quote myself, and of course we have entire sections devoted to scripture, but than it's more like a DIR, and easier to skip. What I'm referring to is more just in any general discussion.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm not a fan of gratuitous or excessive scripture posting, and am likely to scroll past it when I see it.

When I cite scripture, I usually paraphrase rather than quote, as I did recently when I offered up a summary of the Katha Upanishad when a member wanted a sample of the scripture of my religion.

I'd much rather read one's own understanding of their scripture in their own words than read excerpts from the scripture itself.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I'm not a fan of gratuitous or excessive scripture posting, and am likely to scroll past it when I see it.

When I cite scripture, I usually paraphrase rather than quote, as I did recently when I offered up a summary of the Katha Upanishad when a member wanted a sample of the scripture of my religion.

I'd much rather read one's own understanding of their scripture in their own words than read excerpts from the scripture itself.
When someone speak their own words about a spiritual teaching, instead of using always a quoute, it is more easy to understand if they have awaken to the teaching or not.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I'm not a fan of gratuitous or excessive scripture posting, and am likely to scroll past it when I see it.

When I cite scripture, I usually paraphrase rather than quote, as I did recently when I offered up a summary of the Katha Upanishad when a member wanted a sample of the scripture of my religion.

I'd much rather read one's own understanding of their scripture in their own words than read excerpts from the scripture itself.

Another problem with it is that it's often written in archaic or flowery language. Since I'm such an idiot anyway, that doubles the difficulty.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
No. They are not very rare in Hinduism's view. There are many hundreds if not thousands in a generation.
Personal God is an aspect of transpersonal Brahman which takes this form because the believers conceive of IT as a person.

The difference, in my view, is that the Hindu sages, for the most part, don't advertise much. The 'western' teachers who became famous have told everyone. An analogy would be the mango. In India, and the east, it's a beautiful fruit, sure, but because it's common also, nobody goes around telling everyone about this delicious fruit they discovered. But say, 40 years ago, when importation of mangoes to the west was rare, if somebody found one, they'd go around telling everyone about their newfound delicacy, and it could become popular.

Take Sri Aurobindo as a simple example. He wrote a ton of stuff. The complete works of Sri Aurobindo is voluminous. But who in the west has ever heard of him? My own Guru, being in the west, had western people start to promote Him as the next messiah. He quickly distanced himself from them, and wouldn't allow them in his organisation. Why? Because it's not reality. Other sages who got western disciples with a subconscious mind of messiahs, etc. just let it happen.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
When someone speak their own words about a spiritual teaching, instead of using always a quoute, it is more easy to understand if they have awaken to the teaching or not.

In other words, 'cut and paste' is a moron's pastime. We have laws called plagiarism against that if credit isn't given.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
In other words, 'cut and paste' is a moron's pastime. We have laws called plagiarism against that if credit isn't given.
I think i agree, but not sure whom you see as the moron and who is the plagiat :confused: Do you mean the one who "always" use qoutes are the plagiat if he or she do not say who first said it?
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I think i agree, but not sure whom you see as the moron and who is the plagiat :confused: Do you mean the one who "always" use qoutes are the plagiat if he or she do not say who first said it?
I mean if you 'cut and paste' you're not thinking. and that plagiarism is 'cut and paste' without attributing source. The only difference is the attribution of a source.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Nobody denies that. The only irritant is acceptance of Bahai religion and that of the 19th Century manifestation of the Bahai Allah. Islamic countries will not allow you to enter. How would Bahai Allah's message and that of his millennial manifestation reach the 1.5 billion or so Muslims? You can play only with Christians, and that is what you are doing today.

The oneness of all mankind can be accepted by all people atheist or religionist without joining any religion or group. it involves putting the interests of humanity above that of national interests as whatever is in the best interests of the whole is also in the best interests of the part.

It means seeing the different races, nations and religions as part of the same human family and for humanity to ensure that all their rights are protected, that all have access to food, shelter, clothing, education, medical care and employment.

When war is no more then resources will be freed up to better take care of these things. So peace is essential in order to help alleviate a lot of suffering. In order to do that we all need to embrace our oneness and subordinate lesser loyalties to the wider loyalty to humanity.
 
Top