What if we accepted each other's religion?

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Pagans have dogma.

We do? First I've heard of it.

@Nietzsche ? @Thorbjorn ? @Riverwolf ? Have you guys been letting your dogmas off the lead again?

 

[Windwalker]

Firstly, if anyone or group is trying to harm or kill anyone they must be stopped by force if necessary.

But isn't war waged in the name of religion doing just this? Isn't the justification that this other's value and beliefs harm others, leading them to moral depravity and the like? Isn't this what the laws of capital punishment in the past have been about where they say we must purge the evil from amongst us that corrupts others? The Old Testament books are full of this sort of injunction for killing others who hold their polluting religious views which threaten to corrupt and destroying their moral society. Where is this line being drawn today that we use to judge stopping others by force?

Oneness is acceptance of humanity as equals with equal rights and not acceptance of crime and aggression.

Who defines the crimes? Who defines what is considered aggression? That line changes depending on who is defining it.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But isn't war waged in the name of religion doing just this? Isn't the justification that this other's value and beliefs harm others, leading them to moral depravity and the like? Isn't this what the laws of capital punishment in the past have been about where they say we must purge the evil from amongst us that corrupts others? The Old Testament books are full of this sort of injunction for killing others who hold their polluting religious views which threaten to corrupt and destroying their moral society. Where is this line being drawn today that we use to judge stopping others by force?


Who defines the crimes? Who defines what is considered aggression? That line changes depending on who is defining it.

We're talking about self defense here. The right of the community to protect itself from a Hitler etc stopping a war is not aggression. Stopping slaughtering of people is pure justice. The moral question of defining right and wrong it's up to the collective which definition they want to use - man's or God's. They can try one if it doesn't work then try the other. Humanity is the way it is because it has chosen this path. It can choose a different path and see if it's better or not. It's up to humanity to choose.

 

[BSM1]

Accepting each other's religions? God forbid!!

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Accepting each other's religions? God forbid!!

It would be nice if the theology of certain religions actually allowed this but since they are exclusivist, monotheistic, dogmatic and intolerant, they do not. Indeed, the OP has already assigned the definition of 'religion' only to ones that are revealed - telling us he/she doesn't really intend to accept the beliefs of people who believe too differently from him/herself.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Accepting each other's religions? God forbid!!

It's easy when one is accepting of all humanity and really wants peace in his/her heart. If we really want peace it's ours for the taking. It just depends on how much we want the world's suffering to end and want a better future for all.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It would be nice if the theology of certain religions actually allowed this but since they are exclusivist, monotheistic, dogmatic and intolerant, they do not. Indeed, the OP has already assigned the definition of 'religion' only to ones that are revealed - telling us he/she doesn't really intend to accept the beliefs of people who believe too differently from him/herself.

There are two principles at work here. The oneness of humanity accepts all people regardless of belief. We can all achieve that if we really desire peace. Second is the unity of religion shorn of man made dogmas and interpretations. To unite all religions in one religion will be the ultimate but will take longer. We can have both.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It's easy when one is accepting of all humanity and really wants peace in his/her heart. If we really want peace it's ours for the taking. It just depends on how much we want the world's suffering to end and want a better future for all.

There's quite a few people who really don't want peace, it seems--they can't see profit for themselves in it, they can't see a way to gaining power over others...and religion may or may not be their preferred tool for achieving their goals. Leaned Needs theory suggests that about 5 to 10 percent of people are primarily motivated by a need for power...and this seems true across cultures. Another 10 to 20 percent are driven by a need for achievement--and those achievements are often related to having power or wealth for one's self at the expense of others, and society. Most of the rest appear to be motivated by a need for affiliation. I'm just not sure how you will ever get people who want power and wealth and achievements (fame, etc.) to go for Peace.

 

[LuisDantas]

As a Baha'i I find accepting others religions to be not only workable but creates unity and friendship and peace between us. We accept the Prophet, Messenger or Messiah and His Holy Book and all humanity as a family and it works.

We accept everything except the man made dogmas and interpretations - only the religion in its purest form. Those who want peace will find in this message a great hope for humanity.

This is a call to peace and love and unity!

It looks quite a bit self-contradictory to me.

 

[YmirGF]

Not surprisingly, I strongly agree with @Windwalker who, once again, has saved me a lot of typing. Personally, I am not interested, in the slightest, in "world peace". It is an agenda driven narrative that, as usual, has a less than clear end game. What @loverofhumanity seems to be doing, in my view, runs perilously close to proselytizing. I was particularly disturbed by the line about "forced if necessary". Sounds more like the new fascism to me. We already have one religion behaving badly, in countless hot spots all over the world. The last thing we need is another religion fueling the new fascism of the benevolent dictatorship.

 

[loverofhumanity]

We see early signs of world peace. Not an altruistic brotherly love peace. That will come later. What we are seeing now are things like the unification of Europe into one block with one currency a harbinger of the forming of other blocks. We have groups like ASEAN. Etc The things you speak of are true but these are just stages in humanity's immaturity. As we approach maturity, peace will become more desirous and attractive. Today we are experiencing the death pangs of the old world and the birth pangs of the new. A beautiful child called world peace will be born amidst pain like that of any childbirth and we can finally leave behind our collective adolescence.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Not surprisingly, I strongly agree with @Windwalker who, once again, has saved me a lot of typing. Personally, I am not interested, in the slightest, in "world peace". It is an agenda driven narrative that, as usual, has a less than clear end game. What @loverofhumanity seems to be doing, in my view, runs perilously close to proselytizing. I was particularly disturbed by the line about "forced if necessary". Sounds more like the new fascism to me.

I think you misunderstood what I stated. By force I meant against things like terrorism which I stated. We can't sit back and let terrorists blow up our cities can we?

Promoting the oneness and equality of the human race is about tolerance of each other and being free from prejudice.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Not surprisingly, I strongly agree with @Windwalker who, once again, has saved me a lot of typing. Personally, I am not interested, in the slightest, in "world peace". It is an agenda driven narrative that, as usual, has a less than clear end game. What @loverofhumanity seems to be doing, in my view, runs perilously close to proselytizing. I was particularly disturbed by the line about "forced if necessary". Sounds more like the new fascism to me. We already have one religion behaving badly, in countless hot spots all over the world. The last thing we need is another religion fueling the new fascism of the benevolent dictatorship.

The end game is a better & richer life for all on earth because $trillions invested in war will be available for education, health and employment. The choice is humanity's. If humanity prefers spending these trillions on war rather than investing it in people then they have to live with it. Humanity alone makes these choices no dictator.

 

[YmirGF]

I think you misunderstood what I stated. By force I meant against things like terrorism which I stated. We can't sit back and let terrorists blow up our cities can we?

Promoting the oneness and equality of the human race is about tolerance of each other and being free from prejudice.

So tolerance is the key, but we cannot tolerate some things. Got it.

The end game is a better & richer life for all on earth because $trillions invested in war will be available for education, health and employment. The choice is humanity's. If humanity prefers spending these trillions on war rather than investing it in people then they have to live with it. Humanity alone makes these choices no dictator.

Our diversity is our greatest strength. As pointed out, we are already slowly inching towards a more peaceful world. It is my view that that "inching along", at its glacial pace, is not fast enough for only the very naive.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So tolerance is the key, but we cannot tolerate some things. Got it.

It's common sense. We cannot tolerate things like terrorism or war crimes or crime. We can try and be free from prejudice though and try to get along with each other.

 

[YmirGF]

It's common sense. We cannot tolerate things like terrorism or war crimes or crime. We can try and be free from prejudice though and try to get along with each other.

For the most part, the vast majority of us already try to get along and curb our prejudice. Is that not good enough for you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As a Baha'i I find accepting others religions to be not only workable but creates unity and friendship and peace between us. We accept the Prophet, Messenger or Messiah and His Holy Book and all humanity as a family and it works.

We accept everything except the man made dogmas and interpretations - only the religion in its purest form. Those who want peace will find in this message a great hope for humanity.

This is a call to peace and love and unity!

Frankly, I don't think that co-opting the religions of others and claiming that your beliefs reflect their "religion in its purest form" is an expression of peace, love, or unity.

... or respect.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

There are two principles at work here. The oneness of humanity accepts all people regardless of belief. We can all achieve that if we really desire peace. Second is the unity of religion shorn of man made dogmas and interpretations. To unite all religions in one religion will be the ultimate but will take longer. We can have both.

How can you "accept each other's religions" if your ultimate intent is to supplant them?

 

[YmirGF]

I also wonder how that tolerance and eradication of prejudice against the gay community is going for Bahai's?

 

[loverofhumanity]

For the most part, the vast majority of us already try to get along and curb our prejudice. Is that not good enough for you?

If all people had your attitude we would have had peace a long time ago.