Where does "All religions are one" come from?

[Jim]

[Hide]Bahaullah is the latest manifesttion of God with the latest message and no other to come before 2856 CE.[/Hide]

 

[shunyadragon]

I said that I didn't find that in Baha'i scriptures, or in any messages from the House of Justice. I know that it's popular thinking among Baha'is. I'm just wondering where they originally got the idea to say that.

I will look into this further, but the concept is not new expressed in many way in the history of humanity. In the Baha'i Faith among believers it is an expression of the universal evolving spiritual progressive Revelation described in Baha'i scripture. This progressive Revelation extends to all of Creation in many worlds and the physical cyclic evolution of life and humanity, solar systems, and universes. What we see as religions and belief systems represent to a degree temporal expressions from the of the relationship between humanity and God. This concept is relatively unique to the Baha'i Faith, though in some Eastern belief systems there are similar concepts. The differences in religions over the history of humanity reflect human cultural influence, and the progressive spiritual maturity of humanity, The progressive evolution of the knowledge of science is an example of progressive evolution of humanity.

Simply in the Baha'i Faith it is the universal progressive relationship between God Creation and humanity expressed through the belief systems of the world.

 

[Jim]

My Web search for “all religions are one” turned up some interesting results.

Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: A Point of View

Recently comparison of religions has gained publicity resulting in the conclusion that all religions are the same. This theory was propounded and repeated by our politicians and even religious dignitaries.

Raising Children As Good Hindus

Some Hindus teach their children that all religions are one, thinking this is a way to describe Sanatana Dharma’s broad vision.

 

[Jim]

Saying “All religions are one” goes back at least as far as 1788.

William Blake: All Religions Are One

ALL RELIGIONS ARE ONE (1788) is a relief etching by one of the world’s most mystical poets ever to have lived. Written as a series of philosophical aphorisms, William Blake’s exquisite pamphlet is a statement of his views on the very nature of existence, which would inform his vast corpus of work for the rest of his artistic career.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"The Reality of the divine Religions .."
"The foundation underlying all the .."
"My purpose and intention .."
"The Sun of Divinity and .."

Four quotes in one post and nothing else. Don't you think Bahais are over-doing it? Do you think anybody reads blah-blah and is impressed by that? And the Forum Rules say no proselyting.

Thus all good is from God and all else is from our own selves.

Including Maleria, typhoid, cancer and so many other nice things.

.. God Creation and humanity ..

For those who do not believe in concept of God, it is a non-starter; and those who believe in God have a vastly different POV from those of Bahais. One God and the mission of Bahaullah.

 

[Vinayaka]

My Web search for “all religions are one” turned up some interesting results.

Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: A Point of View


Raising Children As Good Hindus

The Hindu article pointed out that indeed some Hindus teach that all religions are one, but was totally explaining how that was a mistake. Did you read the whole thing? In Hinduism, because it is so vast, you could practically say anything about 'some Hindus'.

 

[Jim]

@siti I see now that I might have been barking up the wrong tree, in seing choice of words as the problem. Now I’m seeing the problem as people only looking on the surface for answers. Ironically, that’s exactly the mistake I was making, in seeing choice of words as the problem!

 

[Jim]

The Hindu article pointed out that indeed some Hindus teach that all religions are one, but was totally explaining how that was a mistake. Did you read the whole thing?

Yes.

In Hinduism, because it is so vast, you could practically say anything about 'some Hindus'.

Yes, I know.

 

[Jim]

@siti People seeing only the surface of things, including only the surface of what they themselves are doing. Another piece of my puzzle.

 

[Aupmanyav]

siti, now I’m seeing the problem as people only looking on the surface for answers.

Really! All people are looking on the surface and only you are going deeper? The problem is that you have your view and you want others to agree to it.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes.

Yes, I know.

I think that almost all larger religions have some sort of universalist sect within them. Hinduism is very open to it, albeit a false concept, because we're taught tolerance. Trouble is, many folks don't understand tolerance very well. It's not agreeing, but it is tolerating.

 

[Vinayaka]

@siti People seeing only the surface of things, including only the surface of what they themselves are doing. Another piece of my puzzle.

Which people?

 

[Jim]

Which people?

I was talking to @siti

The only person I'm going to point my finger at is me, which I already did.

 

[Jim]

For whatever it might be worth to anyone, even if I don't respond to every post addressed to me, I'm reading all of them, and considering them care-fully.

 

[Jim]

Here's how it looks to me now. The idea of saying "all religions are one" goes back at least as far as 1788, and wherever and however it may have started, it spread into all of society, including into all religious communities, some more than others. If it has been more popular in Baha'i communities than in other religious communities, it's easy to see why that would be.

 

[Jim]

@LuisDantas It isn't clear to me if you would be interested or not, in my thoughts about what you said. If so, I would rather find or start another thread for that.

 

[Vinayaka]

I was talking to @siti

The only person I'm going to point my finger at is me, which I already did.

So the 'people' you are referring to is just yourself? So then why didn't you just use 'I'? I'm confused.

 

[Jim]

So the 'people' you are referring to is just yourself?

No, but I'm the only one that I'm going to name.

Seriously?.

 

[Vinayaka]

No, but I'm the only one that I'm going to name.

Seriously?.

Thanks. I understand now. I often have difficulty understanding what some folks say. As for the use of the terms 'people' and 'we' , I find both really vague, especially without a quantifier. Therefore, for me, they become pointless terms.

One person on here uses. 'we' a lot, and it could be just he and his wife, he and his Baha'i friends, all men, or all of humanity. I never know.

 

[Jim]

As for the use of the terms 'people' and 'we' , I find both really vague, especially without a quantifier. Therefore, for me, they become pointless terms.

When I say "people," it means that I think that I've seen it in some people sometimes. It might be something that all people do sometimes, including me. Or not. I don't know. It might work to think "some or all people possibly including me, sometimes, that's how it looks to me," when you see me saying "people."