Why learn about other faiths?

[CG Didymus]

I respect Marcion and Vinayaka. I respect their beliefs. Sometimes interfaith dialogue has difficulties and other times best to give each other space. Vinayaka and I are still talking. Marcion and I are getting used to each other. We may have a fruitful dialogue or not. Let’s see what unfolds.

What does Marcion believe? How does it not coincide with the Baha'i Faith?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No, I'm giving you the meaning of saying "we'll just have to agree to disagree." Each person is set in their beliefs and nothing is going to get them to change. For a Baha'i to say that isn't understanding or respecting the other persons beliefs. It is saying that the Baha'i Faith is the truth and if the other person is too stubborn and ignorant to see that.

Thank you CG, that is worth thinking about.

Did ever read the story of the Talk of Hudson Maxim and Abdul'baha?

If not, please have a read and I would be interested if this is what you would be talking about.

Sorry only facebook for quick link to story;

Aaron C-b

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

What does Marcion believe? How does it not coincide with the Baha'i Faith?

Best to ask @Marcion what he believes. I've a fair idea as we've talked on several different threads. I don't have any problems with his beliefs. Its good to look for common ground, for sure.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, I'm giving you the meaning of saying "we'll just have to agree to disagree." Each person is set in their beliefs and nothing is going to get them to change. For a Baha'i to say that isn't understanding or respecting the other persons beliefs. It is saying that the Baha'i Faith is the truth and if the other person is too stubborn and ignorant to see that.

Thanks for explaining that. Now I understand.
For what it is worth, here is now I relate to what you said.

For a Baha'i to say that they want to agree to disagree is not saying that the Baha'i Faith is the truth and the other person is too stubborn and ignorant to see that. It is rather saying I believe it is the truth and I do not want to argue about it. Think about it. If a Baha’i did not believe it was the truth, why would they be a Baha’i? But to say that I believe this is the truth is not to denigrate anyone else, or to call them stubborn or ignorant. People need to have boundaries between themselves and other people. That means they are allowed to be themselves and they allow others to be themselves without taking offense.

I believe that the Baha’i Faith is the truth and I won't budge because I have strong faith. I have that right because God gave me a brain to search for the truth and free will and to choose what to believe. Not everyone is going to make the same choices about what to believe because we all think differently and we all come from different backgrounds. There are also mysteries we do not understand; Baha'u'llah said that certain people are guided.

I cannot help it if my strong belief in Baha'u'llah offends someone else and I won't be responsible for their feelings. It is their responsibility to have boundaries between themselves and other people. All I can do is be respectful of peoples' beliefs and their feelings. I will not lie about what I believe just so they won't think what you said you think because that is dishonest. If people do not want to hear what other people believe they should not be on a religious forum.

Attacking or criticizing other peoples' beliefs just because they have "a religion you do not like" is rude and disrespectful. One can disagree about beliefs without being insulting either directly or indirectly, personally or impersonally, but if they lack self-awareness or just do not care about other peoples' feelings then they are bound to say anything that comes to their mind or anything they feel like saying. It is their choice if they want to behave this way. Apparently some people have such a strong dislike for a particular belief that they cannot help themselves. There are some Christian beliefs I feel this way about, but I have learned over the years just to keep that to myself. Once in a while I slip up but nobody is perfect. All I can do is strive to be self-aware, apologize if necessary, and try to do better next time.

 

[Vinayaka]

I am tired of these accusations of proselytizing. It is so arrogant for anyone to think they know the intent of any other person.

There are certain established on-line behaviours associated with the action of proselytizing. That's how it's determined. One is excessive quoting of scripture, with little or no personal comments. Tony, for one, has radically changed his behaviour in that regard since he first came on these forums. Another, of course, is just excessive mention of your own religion. In the end, on this forum, moderators fairly decide what is and what isn't.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are certain established on-line behaviours associated with the action of proselytizing. That's how it's determined. One is excessive quoting of scripture, with little or no personal comments. Tony, for one, has radically changed his behaviour in that regard since he first came on these forums. Another, of course, is just excessive mention of your own religion. In the end, on this forum, moderators fairly decide what is and what isn't.

True, on any forum, the owner or moderators can decide "what they consider proselytizing" and enforce the forum rules. However, they can never know if a given individual is actually trying to convert people. Nobody can know that except that individual. Although sometimes they might not be fully aware of their own motives, given the subconscious mind, the person posting knows more about their own motives than another person reading their posts.

 

[iam1me]

The consensus with many Western countries including mine is that both capitalism and socialism in the extreme are harmful but both have principles and aspects that are essential to a modern economy, especially one the relies on trade with other countries as all do.

I would agree to the concept of the private sector - there is certainly good to be had by allowing individuals and groups to compete in the market place, generally speaking. Though for certain things - such as Health Care - there must be a strong public sector option available as the primary source for citizens. That said, the private market is not the invention of Capitalism - there's no need for Capitalist philosophy as such to have the cumulative benefits of the private and public sectors.

So while I agree that socialism has much to offer, communism has resulted in regimes that have committed atrocities that are unparalleled in human history.

A Red Herring - Socialism is not Communism. And what was wrong with Communism was not it's socialist aspects, but it's Totalitarian Government, it's Religious Persecution, etc. You can have socialism without these things - though most Capitalists continue to equivocate the two because they can't discuss the topic in an intellectually honest manner.

I’m a pragmatist, not a theorist so like anyone who works in a complex economy I need to consider nuances of providing a social service, ethics, finance, law and sound business practices. Dichotomous thinking about capitalism and socialism is of limited practical value.

Keep it practical then, ask yourself what Greed would have you do in the following scenarios: Would you enslave people if it is profitable? Would you pervert Law and Order if it is profitable? Would you turn traitor to your own country if it is in your personal best interest? Would you hurt and kill others if you stand to gain?

I could go on, I can could provide you any number of examples in American history where we have done as much and more. America became rich by enslaving, killing, and otherwise extorting people - its own and others - to make more and more profit. When you act greedily, such things become practical means to your ends.

You may like to consider how helpful Wikipedia is when it comes to discussing capitalism, if there’s anything of value there at all or if it’s all really fundamentally evil as you say.

Capitalism - Wikipedia

I'm not sure what about that wiki page is supposed to uproot my views on the matter - you'll need to present some arguments if you want to make your case. In the meantime, I'll provide you with some quotes concerning capitalism from some other American critics of capitalism. First, let us hear from the Reverend Martin Luther King:

“And one day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.’ When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society…” – [URL='http://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/social-justice/where-do-we-go-from-here']Speech​

to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967.

“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.” – Martin Luther King, Speech to the Negro American Labor Council, 1961.​

​

[/URL]

“We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power… this means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others… the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order.”- [URL='http://kairoscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/King-quotes-2-page.pdf']Report to SCLC Staff, May 1967.

“The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.” – Speech to SCLC Board, March 30, 1967.

“I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective – the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed matter: the guaranteed income… The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.” – Where do We Go from Here?, 1967.

“You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with capitalism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.

“[W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.

“If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to hell.” – Speech at Bishop Charles Mason Temple of the Church of God in Christ in support of the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike on March 18th, 1968, two weeks before he was assassinated.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism[/URL]​

[URL='https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism']

Now Let us hear what that brilliant physicist Einstein said on the matter:

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

Since the real purpose of Socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future. Socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end.
​

​

[/URL]

Albert Einstein

Monthly Review (May 1949)​

I can provide a wealth of such quotes, and a wealth of quotes from the capitalists themselves defending greed as good.

Though it is from a movie, this scene is not far from accurately depicting the mindset of capitalists (just look at the comments from all the pro-capitalists on the video):

Of course some Christians will take opposing aspects of the bible to justify their capitalism or socialism. So while I believe Jesus to be who He claimed to be and the Apostles guided by the Holy Spirit, it all took place nearly two thousand years ago. Slavery was the norm, the equality of men and women was rarely considered and democracy not established. Abolition of slavery, the full equality of men and women and the widespread establishment of democracy are essential social changes over the last 200 years that have been both supported and opposed by Christians, each with biblical verses to support their positions.

So it would be fair to argue that the bible does not provide clear guidance to many of the problems that challenge humanity in the twenty first century including economics nor should we expect it to.

People can cherry-pick and otherwise twist the scriptures to try to make it out like they support any manner of thing - but that doesn't mean they are interpretations that hold any weight. Not all interpretations are equal - and that means studying the scriptures for what they teach, not what we want them to say. And there is no intellectually honest interpretation of the scriptures that can defend greed or capitalism as good and inline with the teachings of Christ. There is no intellectually honest reading of the scriptures that supports racism or any other form of hate - though people attempt to use it for such all the time. There is no intellectually honest reading of the scriptures that allows one to come away with the idea that the scriptures teach the Trinity - but the indoctrinated masses will assert it does, and then hold their breath until they turn blue and pass out.

And as far as equality is concerned - the scriptures taught equality long ago:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[Marcion]

It happened with Vinayaka and now it's happening with Marcion. Can you learn and respect his beliefs? 'Cause rather than respect, it seems like settling to agree to disagree.

I think the problem arises from the different approaches that both our preceptors take.

The Bahai think very much in different faiths with neat boundaries.
It is maybe a bit like the international solidarity of socialism, the solidarity is between nations and not individuals.

My preceptor does not teach along religious lines, he is not speaking from the religious framework (his ideology is not Hindu dharma).
If asked for my "belief" I will say that I am a neohumanist or that I practise tantra-yoga or mysticism. If they want to know in which organisation then I will mention that also, but it is not a religion.

His ideology is a combination of 5 big religions and of 5 main branches of tantra, so it is very much a blending.

Some religions will create some kind of polarisation between their faith and faiths they are related to in order to justify their "improved" ideology.
This type of tantra-yoga mysticism comes closest to Sufism which is also very universal and devotional in outlook.

It is not uncommon for people of different religions to pay hommage to mystics from each others traditions, I think that says a lot.
In mysticism, especially in tantra-yoga, you don't like prayer, you don't like to ask God to change His mind on how He runs the universe, so I don't believe in prayer. In meditation, in sadhana you try to love and serve God directly but also through serving His creation.

In my belief tantra is any type of spiritual exercise or practice that is effective, that works, no matter in which religious setting it may or may not have originated. Religion can be associated with superstitious thinking, mythical thinking, xenophobic sectarian thinking (leading to proselytizing).
We don't reject religion but we oppose religious dogma and don't like irrational or anti-scientific ways of thinking.

The difference could be that Bahai sees itself as a religion and my tradition doesn't, perhaps a little bit comparable to how new age thought rejects religion as a fixed framework. But they are usually also against the devotion for one specific teacher and like to shop between courses and traditions in a perhaps capitalist way? This disloyalty to one tradition and one teacher is a big difference between new age and my tradition that I've noticed. So it is not new age either.

Of course this is only how I tentatively view it now, I hardly know anything about the Bahai faith.
Otherwise the wish for unity and the stuggle against disunity in society is a big thing they have in common.

 

[CG Didymus]

Best to ask @Marcion what he believes. I've a fair idea as we've talked on several different threads. I don't have any problems with his beliefs. Its good to look for common ground, for sure.

I'm just giving you a hard time. You said you respect their beliefs, but to respect them, you have to know what those beliefs are. I know you are pretty good at showing people respect, even though you disagree with their beliefs. But, how can a person really respect another persons beliefs when they think those beliefs are wrong?

 

[CG Didymus]

Thanks for explaining that. Now I understand.
For what it is worth, here is now I relate to what you said.

For a Baha'i to say that they want to agree to disagree is not saying that the Baha'i Faith is the truth and the other person is too stubborn and ignorant to see that. It is rather saying I believe it is the truth and I do not want to argue about it. Think about it. If a Baha’i did not believe it was the truth, why would they be a Baha’i? But to say that I believe this is the truth is not to denigrate anyone else, or to call them stubborn or ignorant. People need to have boundaries between themselves and other people. That means they are allowed to be themselves and they allow others to be themselves without taking offense.

I believe that the Baha’i Faith is the truth and I won't budge because I have strong faith. I have that right because God gave me a brain to search for the truth and free will and to choose what to believe. Not everyone is going to make the same choices about what to believe because we all think differently and we all come from different backgrounds. There are also mysteries we do not understand; Baha'u'llah said that certain people are guided.

I cannot help it if my strong belief in Baha'u'llah offends someone else and I won't be responsible for their feelings. It is their responsibility to have boundaries between themselves and other people. All I can do is be respectful of peoples' beliefs and their feelings. I will not lie about what I believe just so they won't think what you said you think because that is dishonest. If people do not want to hear what other people believe they should not be on a religious forum.

Attacking or criticizing other peoples' beliefs just because they have "a religion you do not like" is rude and disrespectful. One can disagree about beliefs without being insulting either directly or indirectly, personally or impersonally, but if they lack self-awareness or just do not care about other peoples' feelings then they are bound to say anything that comes to their mind or anything they feel like saying. It is their choice if they want to behave this way. Apparently some people have such a strong dislike for a particular belief that they cannot help themselves. There are some Christian beliefs I feel this way about, but I have learned over the years just to keep that to myself. Once in a while I slip up but nobody is perfect. All I can do is strive to be self-aware, apologize if necessary, and try to do better next time.

But what is the ultimate truth? Does anyone other than the Baha'is have the truth for today? No, the Baha'i Faith is the only way for humankind to attain peace and harmony.

That is what a lot of us are hearing from Baha'is. It may not be said plainly. It might be said with lots of love. But, that's what the nice words sound like. That is not respect. That is saying "I'm right and you and your religious beliefs are wrong."

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That is saying "I'm right and you and your religious beliefs are wrong."

To me it is saying we agree all the Mesengers of God are right and the rest of us are told to sort it out. That includes Baha'i.

You may have noticed that we are not different to any other person on this planet. We will make mistakes in our understanding and we will get some things right.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

But what is the ultimate truth? Does anyone other than the Baha'is have the truth for today? No, the Baha'i Faith is the only way for humankind to attain peace and harmony.

Those of the other major religions have truth but it is no longer the pure truth that was revealed by God, for reasons that Baha'u'llah explained:

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172​

Also, the older religions have outdated messages and outdated social teachings and laws. That is why God sends "new" Messengers in every "new" age with a new remedy that suits the needs of the times:

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213​

That is what a lot of us are hearing from Baha'is. It may not be said plainly. It might be said with lots of love. But, that's what the nice words sound like. That is not respect. That is saying "I'm right and you and your religious beliefs are wrong."

It is not about right and wrong. All the older religions were "right" during their religious dispensation. But we are no longer living in the past. So it is saying this is a "new" revelation from God that suits the needs of the times and the older revelations have been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. I am sorry if people do not like that. If they think we are wrong it should not bother them one iota. They can just ignore us but we are not going away just because we make the older religions uncomfortable.

 

[Marcion]

Also, the older religions have outdated messages and outdated social teachings and laws. That is why God sends "new" Messengers in every "new" age with a new remedy that suits the needs of the times:
It is not about right and wrong. All the older religions were "right" during their religious dispensation. But we are no longer living in the past. So it is saying this is a "new" revelation from God that suits the needs of the times and the older revelations have been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. I am sorry if people do not like that. If they think we are wrong it should not bother them one iota. They can just ignore us but we are not going away just because we make the older religions uncomfortable.

So according to followers of the Bahai faith their preceptor was qualified to judge and decide which parts of older traditions were still valid and which had become outdated and could be discarded?
Your trust in your preceptor must indeed be very high.

My own preceptor also "adjusts" or "modifies" different teachings from the past by shining a new light on them.
He does so in another way than the Bahai preceptor though ("less Abrahamic"?) and never claims that older traditions are no longer functioning as they should do or should be replaced or followed up by the newer ideology.

But what is the ultimate truth? Does anyone other than the Baha'is have the truth for today? No, the Baha'i Faith is the only way for humankind to attain peace and harmony.

That is what a lot of us are hearing from Baha'is. It may not be said plainly. It might be said with lots of love. But, that's what the nice words sound like. That is not respect. That is saying "I'm right and you and your religious beliefs are wrong."

This could be seen as religious fundamentalism. It is an ailment all of the Abrahamic beliefs seem to suffer from, an inevitable result of the way that they see their own faith and view others. It will be very hard to convince them of the need to cure this ailment.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm just giving you a hard time. You said you respect their beliefs, but to respect them, you have to know what those beliefs are. I know you are pretty good at showing people respect, even though you disagree with their beliefs. But, how can a person really respect another persons beliefs when they think those beliefs are wrong?

Sometimes we have a clear concept of another’s beliefs such as Christianity because it’s familiar to us being so intertwined with our culture. Other beliefs that originate outside our culture take longer to grasp and we have a vague outline initially as the form becomes readily discerned. Bahá’u’lláh teaches us to treat the stranger as a friend. We love and respect our friends, do we not?

 

[Dawnofhope]

So according to followers of the Bahai faith their preceptor was qualified to judge and decide which parts of older traditions were still valid and which had become outdated and could be discarded?
Your trust in your preceptor must indeed be very high.

My own preceptor also "adjusts" or "modifies" different teachings from the past by shining a new light on them.
He does so in another way than the Bahai preceptor though ("less Abrahamic"?) and never claims that older traditions are no longer functioning as they should do or should be replaced or followed up by the newer ideology.

Many of the adherents of Christianity recognise their faith having emerged two thousand years ago carries beliefs and practices that are no longer compatible with the modern world. The practice of slavery and male domination are two examples.

Bahá’u’lláh gives great importance to individual spiritual practices such as prayer, recitation from the sacred writings, fasting, study of the writings and practising what we learn, service to the community, charity, hospitality, chastity, and abstinence from alcohol to name a few.

The vision for Baha’is is transformation not only as individuals but for communities, nations and even the entire planet.

Bahá’u’lláh has said:

Do not busy yourselves in your own concerns; let your thoughts be fixed upon that which will rehabilitate the fortunes of mankind and sanctify the hearts and souls of men. This can best be achieved through pure and holy deeds, through a virtuous life and a goodly behavior. Valiant acts will ensure the triumph of this Cause, and a saintly character will reinforce its power. Cleave unto righteousness, O people of Bahá! This, verily, is the commandment which this wronged One hath given unto you, and the first choice of His unrestrained Will for every one of you.

“Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship.”

 

[Marcion]

But what is the ultimate truth? Does anyone other than the Baha'is have the truth for today? No, the Baha'i Faith is the only way for humankind to attain peace and harmony.

That is what a lot of us are hearing from Baha'is. It may not be said plainly. It might be said with lots of love. But, that's what the nice words sound like. That is not respect. That is saying "I'm right and you and your religious beliefs are wrong."

Cleave unto righteousness, O people of Bahá! This, verily, is the commandment which this wronged One hath given unto you, and the first choice of His unrestrained Will for every one of you.

He tries to reinforce his (wise) instructions with this type of Abrahamic rethoric. It is as if he is saying: 'be very impressed with what I say because I myself am speaking with the voice of God!'
I don't know the Quran, but I can imagine it also happens there.
Why do Abahamic faiths think that they need this?
It makes me think of Monty Python.
I hope this doesn't sound nasty, it isn't meant as such.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Those of the other major religions have truth but it is no longer the pure truth

Trail. You are saying they are wrong.

Religions are not outdated. Tradition is as valid before as it is valid now and in the future. They have always been pure. They have their own beliefs whether it be prophets or just god. You cannot bring peace or spread it by telling people their beliefs are outdated and they are impure. That is an insult.


What did one poster said: live up to your comment and accept your views that you are telling us we are wrong. Youre being honest.

 

[Dawnofhope]

He tries to reinforce his (wise) instructions with this type of Abrahamic rethoric. It is as if he is saying: 'be very impressed with what I say because I myself am speaking with the voice of God!'
I don't know the Quran, but I can imagine it also happens there.
Why do Abahamic faiths think that they need this?
It makes me think of Monty Python.
I hope this doesn't sound nasty, it isn't meant as such.

You can call it rhetoric or Monty Python. I’m not offended. I’m just explaining my religion but it’s applicable to all Abrahamic Faiths. The Baha’is see Bahá’u’lláh’s Message as a Revelation from God, just as the Muslims view Muhammad’s Quran as God’s Word, the Christians see the Gospels as God’s Word and the Jews the Torah. It’s the foundation of our beliefs.

 

[Marcion]

You can call it rhetoric or Monty Python. I’m not offended. I’m just explaining my religion but it’s applicable to all Abrahamic Faiths. The Baha’is see Bahá’u’lláh’s Message as a Revelation from God, just as the Muslims view Muhammad’s Quran as God’s Word, the Christians see the Gospels as God’s Word and the Jews the Torah. It’s the foundation of our beliefs.

Is it also Muhammed himself who uses this kind of language or is it the (unknown) author of the Quran who sneeked it in? The Jesus of Q-lite never uses it (not Abrahamic but living in the same area).
For me personally it weakens my interest in what is being said considerably.
Perhaps it takes a certain type of personality to be susceptable or to not be bothered.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I would agree to the concept of the private sector - there is certainly good to be had by allowing individuals and groups to compete in the market place, generally speaking. Though for certain things - such as Health Care - there must be a strong public sector option available as the primary source for citizens. That said, the private market is not the invention of Capitalism - there's no need for Capitalist philosophy as such to have the cumulative benefits of the private and public sectors.



A Red Herring - Socialism is not Communism. And what was wrong with Communism was not it's socialist aspects, but it's Totalitarian Government, it's Religious Persecution, etc. You can have socialism without these things - though most Capitalists continue to equivocate the two because they can't discuss the topic in an intellectually honest manner.



Keep it practical then, ask yourself what Greed would have you do in the following scenarios: Would you enslave people if it is profitable? Would you pervert Law and Order if it is profitable? Would you turn traitor to your own country if it is in your personal best interest? Would you hurt and kill others if you stand to gain?

I could go on, I can could provide you any number of examples in American history where we have done as much and more. America became rich by enslaving, killing, and otherwise extorting people - its own and others - to make more and more profit. When you act greedily, such things become practical means to your ends.




I'm not sure what about that wiki page is supposed to uproot my views on the matter - you'll need to present some arguments if you want to make your case. In the meantime, I'll provide you with some quotes concerning capitalism from some other American critics of capitalism. First, let us hear from the Reverend Martin Luther King:

“And one day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.’ When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society…” – Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967.

“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.” – Martin Luther King, Speech to the Negro American Labor Council, 1961.

“We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power… this means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others… the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order.”- Report to SCLC Staff, May 1967.

“The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.” – Speech to SCLC Board, March 30, 1967.

“I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective – the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed matter: the guaranteed income… The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.” – Where do We Go from Here?, 1967.

“You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with capitalism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.

“[W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.

“If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to hell.” – Speech at Bishop Charles Mason Temple of the Church of God in Christ in support of the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike on March 18th, 1968, two weeks before he was assassinated.​

Now Let us hear what that brilliant physicist Einstein said on the matter:

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

Since the real purpose of Socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future. Socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end.

Albert Einstein

Monthly Review (May 1949)​

I can provide a wealth of such quotes, and a wealth of quotes from the capitalists themselves defending greed as good.

Though it is from a movie, this scene is not far from accurately depicting the mindset of capitalists (just look at the comments from all the pro-capitalists on the video):

People can cherry-pick and otherwise twist the scriptures to try to make it out like they support any manner of thing - but that doesn't mean they are interpretations that hold any weight. Not all interpretations are equal - and that means studying the scriptures for what they teach, not what we want them to say. And there is no intellectually honest interpretation of the scriptures that can defend greed or capitalism as good and inline with the teachings of Christ. There is no intellectually honest reading of the scriptures that supports racism or any other form of hate - though people attempt to use it for such all the time. There is no intellectually honest reading of the scriptures that allows one to come away with the idea that the scriptures teach the Trinity - but the indoctrinated masses will assert it does, and then hold their breath until they turn blue and pass out.

And as far as equality is concerned - the scriptures taught equality long ago:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So Christianity has become so intertwined with opposing views of politics and economics as to become inseparable? The Christian capitalism and Christian socialism? The Christian Right and the Christian Left? One Christian group claims themselves right and the other wrong.

As much as I love the Teachings of Christ, they cannot bring unity to a divided world. Nor can they meaningfully provide the solutions a distracted world so desperately needs. Whenever One Christian proposes a solution in the name of God another Christian proposes the exact opposite solution in the name of the same God. We have Christian fighting against Christian, each attacking the other’s version of Christianity.

Maybe it’s time to try a new way?