Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Quite an effulgent exegesis, Mr Price. Tell me. How will you obey this command at Revelation 18:4: Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. ?

Do you think it not relevant?

If you can recommend anything better than this, I'm all ears..-
"Love God, love one another, feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the destitute, tend the sick, visit the prisoners, look after the poor"
- Jesus of Nazareth (Mark 12:30, John 13:34, Matt 25: 37-40)

Well why aren't you a Christian?..

To respond to neologist and Romeo Fabulini, let me draw your attention to the Baha'i Faith and prophecy. Each of the world's major religions contain Messianic prophecies. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Zoroastrian religion and even the Native American religions all foretell the coming of a Promised One. Each of the Founders of these great religions either promised to personally return himself, to send another like himself or in some instances.... the Founder promised to do both. For more on this theme go to this link: http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/

But the prophets often said things that were diametrically opposed to each other, so how on earth can we listen to them all? For example-
"Love one another"- Jesus
"Fight non-muslims""- Mohammed
"Do not take the Jews and Christians as friends"- Mohammed
"I am the way, the truth and the life"- Jesus
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"-Buddha
"All men are not created equal, beggars must stay in the gutter"- Hindu caste system

No offence, but I regard the Bahai faith as Satanic because it implies Jesus (the son of God himself) was nothing special and was just another prophet like the rest.
In fact ANY religion that doesn't have Jesus and his teachings at its heart is Satanic. For example-
Islam - doesn't
Judaism - doesn't
Sikhism - doesn't
Buddhism - doesn't
Hinduism - doesn't
Spiritism - doesn't
Bahai - doesn't
Jainism - doesn't
Shinto - doesn't
Taoism - doesn't
Zoroastanism - doesn't
Paganism - doesn't
Rastafarianism - doesn't
Scientology - doesn't
Chinese traditional - doesn't
African tribal - doesn't
Cao Dai - doesn't
Tenrikyo - doesn't
New Age - doesn't
Unitarian - doesn't
Native American - doesn't
Fairy-worshipping cults etc - don't

"A liar denies Jesus is the Christ" (1 John 2:22/23)

Any who believe in the life of Jesus as related in the Gospels, yet fail to follow him must have also failed to read these words.
(Matthew 7:21-23) . . .Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.
If the shoe fits . . . .

At the age of 70, I find myself in discussions which I began to have back in my teens: the endless circulation of points of view with relevant quotations. I'll post a general response to the last two incoming items, fY possible I.-Ron
---------------------------------------------
Since there are so many questions raised and issues discussed concerning people’s basic assumptions about life, about their philosophy, about their religious beliefs, indeed, about their very approach to reality and the way their society goes about organizing things, it seemed like a useful exercise, useful at least to me and hopefully to some others at this site, to say a few things about: My Position and Beliefs: My Religion. I do this at this site and dozens of other sites on the internet and I use this post as an opening note. I hope to solicit responses from others and engage in a useful dialogue. Some readers will find this post too long. For such readers I advise they simply not bother reading this post. The following paragraphs set some of the context for that dialogue which I hope follows from this opening post.

Religion, in the sense that I am using it here, is the set of values, beliefs and attitudes each of us has as we go about our daily life at a particular moment in time, in this case, at the time of my writing of this post on the internet and in the case of the person reading this post, at the time of the response of that reader to what he has just read in my writing. Religion is also the set of assumptions one brings to their life. One of the essential features of assumptions is that they cannot be proved. They are just givens at the centre of one’s meaning system. My apologetics, then, is strengthened by the common witness and testimony of my fellow human beings about the role of values, beliefs and attitudes in our lives and in relation to the world in which we live.

The religion I belong to---the set of values, beliefs and attitudes that represent my life as a member of the Bahá'í Faith---is an outgoing and dynamic organization. It is not distracted by internal controversy as many if not most other religions are in their spiritual life. It is a Faith highly focussed on the new Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, the Bahá'í Faith’s Prophet-Founder and this Faith is responsive to the world’s need for united action. I hope this opening note of over 2500 words provides a general, a useful, a helpful context for any continuing discussion you and I may have. If the note I strike is too long, as I say, I advise readers to just click me off or stop reading when you feel your mind is glazing over. This is a simple enough exercise of the hand and the mind. I do this all the time in our print-glut world. Readers do not know much about the Baha'i Faith can google the official international Baha'i site at: bahai.org. -Ron Price in Tasmania, Australia, last updated 1 October 2010.
_______________________
Apologetics is a branch of systematic theology, although some experience its thrust in religious studies or philosophy of religion courses. Some encounter it on the internet for the first time in a more populist and usually much less academic form. As I see it, apologetics is primarily concerned with the protection of a position, the refutation of the issues raised by that position's assailants and, in the larger sense, the exploration of that position in the context of prevailing philosophies and standards in a secular society, a religious society, indeed, any society past or present. All of us defend our positions whatever these positions are: atheistic, theistic, agnostic, humanistic, sceptic, cynic, realist, pragmatist and any one of a multitude of religions, denominations, sects, cults, isms and wasms.

Apologetics, to put it slightly differently, is concerned with answering both general and critical inquiries from others. In the main, though, apologetics deals with criticism of a position and dealing with that criticism in as rational a manner as possible. Apologetics can help explore the teachings of a religion or of a philosophy in the context of the prevailing religions and philosophies of the day as well as in the context of the common laws and standards of a secular society. Although the capacity to engage in critical self-reflection on the fundamentals of some position is a prerequisite of the task of engaging in apologetics, apologetics derives much of its impetus from a commitment to a position.

Given the role of apologetics in religious and philosophical history and in the development of the texts and ideas that are part and parcel of that history, it is surprising that contemporary communities generally undervalue its importance and often are not even aware of the existence of this sub-discipline of philosophy. Authors, writers, editors of journals and leaders known for defending points in arguments, for engaging in conflicts or for taking up certain positions that receive great popular scrutiny and/or are minority views engage in what today are essentially forms of secular apologetics.

Anyone concerned with the history of apologetics is also involved with the history of hermeneutics and they all confront the question of interpretation. Questions of interpretation concern biblical interpreters. They concern lawyers who debate the meaning of the Constitution. They concern psychiatrists as they reflect upon their interpretation of case histories, and anthropologists and historians who ponder the data of their disciplines.

Naturally in life, we all take positions on all sorts of topics, subjects, religions and philosophies. Often that position is inarticulate and poorly thought out if given any thought at all. With that said, though, the apologetics I engage in here is a never-ending exercise with time out for the necessary and inevitable quotidian tasks of life: eating, sleeping, drinking and a wide range of leisure activities. The apologetics that concerns me is not so much Christian or Islamic apologetics or one of a variety of those secular apologetics I referred to above, but Baha'i apologetics.

A positive and articulate apologetics keeps dialogue from becoming pallid, platitudinous, and degutted, as one writer put it.1 Further, it should be born in mind that apologetics cannot be reduced merely to justification and defence of the propositions of some position. Apologetics is implicit in all western worldviews and socio-political systems either secular or theistic. The pragmatics of theological thinking, indeed all Western thinking, remain determined by what may be called the apologetic method. But religious apologetics is also an attempt to make faith meaningful to a secular world.
Bahá'í apologetics, as I see it anyway, is a responsible apologetics. That is, it is: non-autocratic, rational, and a responsible and faithful transmission of the beliefs of the covenantal community by its scholars to succeeding generations. Bahá'í apologetics, moreover, while it may be committed apologetics, seeks to respect the spirit of the non-normative, non-confessional science of religion in the light of confessional faith.
As a Bahá'í whatever proof I offer about my beliefs as I try to help others to make sense of them, this proof I offer is relative. It depends on the total context of the statements which I make. It depends on the explicit and implicit conventions concerning their meaning as well as the experiential component of my statements and much else. My findings, rooted as they are in subjectivity, relativism and pragmatism, can be verified only by individuals capable of assuming and willing to assume my point of view. To put this another way, the verification of my ideas requires of those with whom I engage in dialogue that they know something about my position, my beliefs. This is true in all scientific endeavour: in the physical and biological sciences, in the social sciences and in the various studies in the humanities of which religion is but one of these many fields.

One can be convinced of the truth of something, have a sense of certitude and know little to nothing at all about the object. Sometimes faithful self-abandonment is more valuable than cerebral consent and sometimes it isn't. Society and the millions of individuals in it are caught in cross-fires between noncommitment, scepticism, cynicism and defensiveness on the one hand and the upholding of categorical imperatives, the justifying of arbitrary absolutes, the insistence on finality and agreement, irrational commitment and aggressiveness on the other.

This is the general climate in which apologetics takes place with an interdependence of diverse points of view, with passionate expressions and proofs all lying along linking lines and lines that cannot be linked. The world has become very complex for the votaries its multitudinous faith positions.

There are many points of comparison and contrast between any form of apologetics which I won't go into here. Readers here might like to check out Wikipedia for a birds-eye-view of the subject. Christians and Muslims will have the opportunity to defend their respective religions by the use of apologetics; secular humanists can also argue their cases if they so desire here. I in turn will defend the Baha'i Faith by the use of apologetics. In the process each of us will, hopefully, learn something about our respective Faiths, our religions, our various and our multitudinous positions, some of which we hold to our hearts dearly and some of which are of little interest.


At the outset, then, in this my first posting, my intention is simply to make this start, to state what you might call "my apologetics position." This brief statement indicates, in broad outline, where I am coming from in the weeks and months ahead. -Ron Price with thanks to Udo Schaefer, "Baha'i Apologetics?" Baha'i Studies Review, Vol. 10, 2001/02.
----------------------------------
I want in this second part of my first posting to finish outlining, as best I can, my basic orientation to Baha’i apologetics. To save me reinventing the wheel so to speak, may I suggest--as I did earlier--that readers here google the official Bahá'í site at bahai.org so that they have some idea what the Bahá'í faith is, what are its teachings and its history. Then these same readers can post a reply to this post with specific questions and critiques. Critical scholarly contributions or criticism raised in public or private discussions, an obvious part of apologetics, should not necessarily be equated with hostility. Questions are perfectly legitimate, indeed, necessary aspects of a person's search for an answer to an intellectual conundrum. Paul Tillich, that great Protestant theologian of the 20th century, once expressed the view that apologetics was an "answering theology."-Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, U. of Chicago, 1967, Vol.1, p6.
-------------------------
I have always been attracted to the founder of the Baha'i Faith's exhortations in discussion to "speak with words as mild as milk," with "the utmost lenience and forbearance." This form of dialogue, its obvious etiquette of expression and the acute exercise of judgement involved, is difficult for most people when their position is under attack from people who are more articulate, better read and better at arguing both their own position and the position of those engaged in the written criticism than they are. I am also aware that, in cases of rude or hostile attack, rebuttal with a harsher tone, the punitive rebuttal, may well be justified, although I prefer humour, irony and even gentle sarcasm rather than hostile written attack in any form. Still, it does not help an apologist to belong to those "watchmen" whom the prophet Isaiah calls "dumb dogs that cannot bark."(Isaiah, 56:10)

-----------------
In its essence apologetics is a kind of confrontation, an act of revealing one's true colours, of hoisting the flag, of demonstrating the essential characteristics of one's faith, of one's thought, of one's emotional and intellectual stance in life. “Dialogue does not mean self-denial,” wrote Hans Kung, arguably the greatest of Catholic apologists. The standard of public discussion of controversial topics should be sensitive to what is said and how; it should be sensitive to manner, mode, style, tone and volume. Tact is also essential. Not everything that we know should always be disclosed; not everything that can be disclosed it timely or suited to the ears of the hearer. To put this another way, we don't want all our dirty laundry out on our front lawn for all to see or our secrets blasted over the radio and TV. Perhaps a moderate confessionalism is best here, if confession is required at all—and in today’s print and electronic media it seems unavoidable.

I want to thank Udo Schaefer, "Baha'i Apologetics," Baha'i Studies Review, Vol.10--2001/2, for some of what I write here. Schaefer, a prominent Baha’i writer, scholar, lawyer and man of many intellectual seasons, emphasizes that one's views, one's faith, should not be opportunistically streamlined, adapting to current trends, thus concealing the real features of these views, features that could provoke rejection in order to be acceptable for dialogue. To do this, to be opportunistic and saying what others want to hear often puts one in the danger of losing one's identity, if not one’s honesty and integrity.

It is almost impossible, though, to carry the torch of truth, partial truth, of one’s convictions, indeed, of any set of words in any colour, through a crowd without getting someone's beard singed. If one has no beard one’s emotions can be equally fried and hung out to dry in the process of verbal or written exchange. In the weeks and months that follow, my postings quite possibly may wind up singing the beards of some readers and, perhaps, my own. Emotions, if not fried when exposed, are often behind barricades of self-defence and that is natural because what is being considered is at the centre of a person’s life. Such are the perils of dialogue, of apologetics.

Much of Baha'i apologetics derives from the experience Baha'is have of a fundamental discrepancy between much secular thought and the Baha'i teachings on the other. In some ways, the gulf is unbridgeable but so, too, is this the case between the secular and much thought in the Christian or Islamic religion or, for that matter, between variants of Christianity or even within what are often the muddy and pluralistic waters of secular thought itself.

Anyway, that's all for now. It's back to the summer winds of Tasmania, about 3 kms from the Bass Straight on the Tamar River. The geography of place is so much simpler than that of the philosophical and religious geography that the readers at this site are concerned with, although even physical geography has its complexities as those who take a serious interest in the topic of climate change are fast finding out. Whom the gods would destroy they first make simple and simpler and simpler. I look forward to a dialogue with someone, anyone who is inclined to respond to what I’m sure for some is this overly long post. Here in far-off Tasmania--the last stop before Antarctica, if one wants to get there by some other route than off the end of South America--your response will be gratefully received.-Ron Price, Tasmania, Australia.

You are a man of many words. I, a man of few.
I shall excise one or two of your points for consideration as soon as I reach a real computer.

But I wonder if your life's assumptions are more than simply 'unproved'.

Later.

Here are two poems, neologist, about "proof."-Ron
----------------------
THE EXCEPTIONS WHICH PROVE THE RULE

Samuel Johnson also felt that there remained an essential goodness in Savage’s character, a generosity of spirit, which despite the weaknesses he displayed, and the humiliations he had suffered, allowed him to accept people for what they were. -Richard Holmes, Dr. Johnson and Mr. Savage, Stodder and Houghton, London, 1993, p.193.

In the main, I have been able
to accept people the way they are.
But pioneering, living, teaching,
has taught me my limits, the point
beyond which I lose my patience,
my calm endurance, my ease of life.

Pushed to the edge, I fall over,
find myself in anger, in rage,
in frustration, wanting to bring
the relationship and all that goes
with it to an end. But these situations
are few and far between; they are the
exceptions, in the midst of humiliations
and weaknesses, which prove the rule.

Ron Price
6 April 1999
------------------------------------
SMOOTH PLACES

Norman Mailer, one of the great 20th century American novelists, said a writer must become a doctor to himself. He must anticipate troubles and become alert to the relationship between his body and himself, other people and himself. If he feels tensions and ailments creeping into his factory he must respond; he must deal with them. Over the years he must learn how to protect his ego, his nerve-endings, his spirit, his psyche, because he has to have a dependable ego-system, psycho-social system, to write. Writing day after day for 6 to 10 hours can and does damage a person, it introduces poisons into his body and various essences of fatigue. To carry on he must believe that his work may prove to be important.

When I have socialized, engaged in too much conversation, one wing of my plant and equipment loses its edge. I can not fly with the same zest. My system does not breakdown, but it wears down, feels vulnerable, fatigued. In the last 22 days I have talked and listened for 22 hours. That does not sound like much, but my fatigue is a measure of my present incapacity for social engagement. I have a flat feeling; I feel as if I have had an excess of the verbal. I am tired of human company. -Ron Price with thanks to Norman Mailer, “Running the Right Risks,” Australian, March 29-30, 2003.

I must be a world to myself
and grow quietly, seriously
after all that fury and haste
and turn to the places within,
the submerged sensations of
all those years, the dusky
dwelling of my solitude far
past the noise of excess speech.

And here I find fond, natural
possessions, fragments, a voice
of my life, sprung from necessity,
from an “I must,” a mysterious
origin, from deeps in my life
where arises burden and joy,
where the everyday, dreams,
memory and the inexpressible
come in quiet, unhurried,
undisturbed development
like from some mountain
stream gushing out over
the rocks and smooth places
of my life, trickling down to
silent, dark, cool pools below.

Ron Price
January 15th 2006

I'm a bit of a Mailer fan Ron and we make allowances for effusions such as you quoted.

I'm enough of a fan to have read Ancient Evenings.

A simpler discourse on truth or proof would be a better place to start.
An interesting conversation reportedly took place between Jesus and Governor Pilate shortly before Jesus' execution:
(John 18:37, 38) . . .Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate said to him: “What is truth?”. . .

Pilate must have assumed that proof could not exist, wouldn't you say?

1- You call them "great religions" mate, but it's satanic to think any religion can be "great" if it hasn't got the Son of God himself in it!

2- You say the Founders promised to return. Yes, that's certainly true of Jesus, but none of the others made such a promise, they're all dead and gone!

3- You say some Founders promised to send somebody else. Jesus never said that. He said on the cross "It is finished" (John 19:30) because his work was completed.
When he returns it won't be to preach, he said it'll simply be to collect all true Christians and whisk them away to paradise (Mark 13:26/27)..

I am nearly 70, Romeo. I have had conversations like this now for more than 50 years. You and I need to agree to disagree; otherwise all we will do is send each other quotations to support our position. There are now literally 1000s of versions of Christianity, each with their own 'take' on what Jesus said or is supposed to have said. I leave you to your interpretations and wish you well in applying them in your daily life.-Ron

There's only one version of Christianity and it's the one the Popes give out. Divide and rule has a corollary. Be divided and be ruled.

Of course, spendius, that's what makes a Catholic a Catholic. You run with that version, and all the more power to you as you try to live the life. The Catholics and the Protestants have disagreed for 500 years. And that is another story.-Ron

I have great respect for Baha'i members and their neutrality. The idea of a world government for humanity under one God is admirable. However, the means by which this will come about has escaped the understanding of the rank and file. The execution of Mīrzā ʽAlī Moḥammad of Shīrā in no way equals the execution of Jesus at the Passover of 33 C.E. Jesus, by his life course, was the only one to fulfill the Mosaic Law, making his death a propitiatory sacrifice to remove the effects of Adamic sin and qualifying him to be both king and priest in the Manner of Melchizedek. (Hebrews, ch 7).

This in no way demeans the Bāb, his works, his courage, or his intent. But it disqualifies him as a template for salvation. Jesus is both the king and high priest of the world government. (Psalm 37, Daniel 2:44, Matthew 6:10)

As I said to spendius, neologist, I have had conversations along this line for over 50 years. The Baha'i Faith makes the claim that Christ has returned, and the Christian generally says "no way." The Jews said the same thing the first time He came. History repeats itself and in my 50 years I have found most Christians do not take the Baha'is and their prophecies seriously.

Throughout the Bahá'í writings, future events have been prophesied. The most specific prophecies are related to the rise and fall of leaders and organizations. Most of these prophesies can be found in Bahá'u'lláh’s tablets to the kings and rulers of the world and in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.

Particularly potent to early Bahá'ís was Bahá'u'lláh's prediction in 1868–69 of the fall of Sultan Abdülaziz, who was deposed in 1876. Other prophecies, including statements from `Abdu'l-Bahá, are general in nature, relating to the nature of future society, and the rise of the Bahá'í Faith to prominence. For more on prophecies and the Return of Christ go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1'%C3%AD_prophecies

I'm 65 mate and have never belonged to any organised religion because I prefer to think for myself, and after looking at all religions, Christianity is the only one that counts because it's the only one that has the Son of God himself in it.
Was Bab or Mohammed or Buddha or Joseph Smith etc sons of God? Nah, they were just humans!
(And yes I know there are plenty of so-called "christian" oddball sects and cults around, but they can't get under Jesus's radar-"Not all who call me "Lord,Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven. Then I'll tell them plainly, I never knew you, get away from me" (Matt 7:21-23))

Incidentally Jesus said "I've come to save the world", yet as far as I know, none of the others said that.
But if people don't want Jesus to save them, that's their business..
"Saving" means to lock on to Jesus, and to connect and mindmeld with him, so that at the point of death our souls automatically fly to him like guided missiles.
Jesus said- "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me......You have one teacher, me" (John 14:5/6,Matt 23:10)

I wish you well in your flying, Romeo. May everything work out as you wish it to do. You might enjoy these answers given by a Baha'i to a person who grew up in the Southern Baptist Church down the street from their house and asked some questions of the Baha'i.

If you are of another Faith than Christian, perhaps these Frequently Asked Questions and the answers will be meaningless to you. Go to this link: http://bahai-invitation.com/faq.html

Thanks mate but I find the link is nothing to write home about and is full of holes.
For example it says Bahaism believes "the Bible is the inspired Word of God", so in that case why don't you belive Jesus when he said "I am the way,...you have one teacher, me"?

Also the link says- "the Bible reinforces concepts of slavery.......teaches the superiority of men over women.......asserts special people status to a few".
Yet i see no evidence of that in these verses-
"He that steals a man and sells him, or if he be found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death " (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7)
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28 )
"Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you" (1 Peter 5:2-3)