Talk:List of religions and spiritual traditions/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity is an Abrahmic Religion

So why isn't it listed as such? Citizen Premier

No apparent reason. It clearly fits the definition as stated. By contrast, "Revealed Religions" appears to be an artifical category. Christianity doesn't belong there. Gnosticism is a syncretic religion that borrows elements from a number of different cultures, both Indo-European and not, so it doesn't belong there either. (And I've never ever heard of grouping religions by their "Indo-European-ness" before anyway. It sounds racist to me.) Csernica 23:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put Baha'i back into the Abrahamic religions. The person who moved Christianity also moved the Baha'i Faith. (He didn't move the Babi Faith, which is the forerunner of the Baha'i Faith, and thus I am unsure if he knows much about the Baha'i Faith). Regardless, the Baha'i Faith believes in many of the same personnages that the Jews and Christians believe in, and believes in the authenticity of the Bible. -- Jeff3000 July 5, 2005 04:59 (UTC)

That's not the same as an "Abrahamic Religion". In an Abrahamic Religion the adherents believe themselves to be a descendent of Abraham in one sense or another. This is physically in the case of Jews (through Isaac) and Muslims (through Ishmael), and by adoption in faith in the case of Christians (Galatians 3:29 etc.) Baha'i doesn't appear to fit here unless I'm mistaken.
Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah was a descendent of Abraham through Abraham's third wife, Keturah. -- Jeff3000 July 6, 2005 01:04 (UTC)
Splitting up posts with inline replies can make a discussion nearly impossible to follow in the format of these talk pages. Please don't do that.
Even granted the genealogy, It's not so much the prophet as the people themselves. Csernica 6 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)
Baha'i furthermore certainly does not believe in these "personages" the same way that Jews and Christians believe in them. Simply acceptence of them as genuine historical features and wise teachers is not sufficient. Csernica 5 July 2005 06:03 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean here. Baha'is believe that Abraham, Moses and Christ were Prophets (or in Baha'i terminilogy Manifestations of God). Furthermore Baha'is believe that the other prophets of the Old Testament where minor prophets of God. -- Jeff3000 July 6, 2005 01:04 (UTC)
It's arguable that the idea of the prophets as "Manifestations of God", the extremely wide acceptance of various faiths as all being somehow true (although corrupted) make Baha'i fundamentally incompatable with the other Abrahamic religions. Judaism, Christianity and Islam differ in a great many ways, but none of them would say that Abraham himself was equivalent to Buddha, Zoroaster or Krishna. As I understand it, a Baha'i would feel perfectly comfortable with this idea though. Csernica 6 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)
The Baha'i belief is not that the faiths are corrupted but that they were applicable in another time and place. Baha'is believe that as man advances, religion is progressively revealed through God's Prophets. Baha'is also, as you state correctly, believe that the Buddha, Zoraster and Krishna were also Manifestations of God. But all religions have differences, and my personal understanding of this List of Religions page is not seperate the religions into very small categories, but to put a religion into some general grouping. I think the Baha'i Faith best fits into this group of all the groups that are in the page. The group that the Baha'i Faith was moved to I feel does not fit the Baha'i Faith at all. That group says "who follow an Indo-European culture of belief, philosophy and angelology." and the Baha'i Faith does not follow an Indo-European culture of belief and is not related at all to Gnosticism. -- Jeff3000 July 6, 2005 02:20 (UTC)
That's a nonsense category anyway: as defined it makes no sense whatsoever. (Whoever set it up seems to think monotheism is peculiarly Indo-European: actually it's nothing of the sort. It's the Semites who were the first monotheists.) Certainly the purpose of the article is simply to index the religions, but if we're going to categorize them at all that categorization needs to make sense.
I'm aware that Baha'i teaches a progressive revelation but this page also mentions that Baha'u'llah held that other religions had become corrupted since the time of their revelation. See the last paragraph before the quotation from Shoghi Effendi at the end.
I still disagree with you here. I see no evidence whatsoever from my own research, and you have presented nothing to support the idea either, that Baha'i references the promise God made to Abraham to define its relationship with God, or that entering the Baha'i religion gains the believer any relation to Abraham either by blood or adoption. If anything, with its emphasis on progressive revelation, Baha'i would seem to fit the "Revealed Religions" category perfectly -- if only it were defined differently in the article. Csernica 6 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)
I went looking through the article on Abrahamic religions (skimmed it) and many of the reasons why Islam is included as an Abrahamic religion would apply to the Baha'i Faith. But if you can change the Revealed Religions part to actually represent what you think it should represent, I have no objection to you moving the Baha'i Faith to that section, but as it is right now, the Baha'i Faith fits better into the Abrahamic Religions. If you do that you should move the Babi Faith as well.
In regards to your second comment, the quote you are referring to in my interpretation means that the Religion is not corrupted, but the practice of it is. Baha'i believe that both the Bible and the Quran are correct, but the interpretation of what is in the Bible or the Quran can be misinterpreted and thus corrupted (notice that Muslims even believe that the Bible has been corrupted, Baha'is don't believe that). -- Jeff3000 July 6, 2005 06:20 (UTC)
If I felt strongly enough about this issue to insist on my own way, I'd have changed it already. As it is I don't, and I suppose I have to concede that if Baha'is themselves consider their religion Abrahamic we should probably leave it that way. It sure doesn't look like one from the outside, though.
There's no pracitical difference between a religion and the practice of it. Lex orandi, lex credendi as they say, and it's true. Csernica 7 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

I would expect a religion that claims to descend from Abraham to reflect Abraham's belief in one God. Beyond that I would not expect the "subsets" to have exact or even similar views of God. It would be very difficult for an argument to succeed that attempts to equate the traditional Christian concept of the trinity with the Jewish concept of God. Although I have only a limited understanding of the Baha'i faith, can it be described as anything but an Abrahamic religion? Storm Rider 6 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)

One of the Baha'i principles is the Oneness of God. Quoted from a bahai.org website [1]
" The Bahá'í belief in one God means that the universe and all creatures and forces within it have been created by a single supernatural Being. This Being, Whom we call God, has absolute control over His creation (omnipotence) as well as perfect and complete knowledge of it (omniscience). Although we may have different concepts of God's nature, although we may pray to Him in different languages and call Him by different names--Allah or Yahweh, God or Brahma--nevertheless, we are speaking about the same unique Being."
--Jeff3000 July 6, 2005 02:10 (UTC)

Wish to add another religion to list

I would like to add Tianism to the list, info can be found at www.tianism.org thank you

Are there any other references to it? I searched and all I could not find any independent reference to "Tianism". How many adherents are there? -Willmcw 01:49, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Change "Jedi census movement"

It's been decided to change that Wiki to, "Jedi census phenomenon." And actually, there should be a specific page for the Jedi religion. You might want to outright delete it, because the Jedi census page is about, well, the Jedi census and the media's coverage of it. Jedi, as an actual legitimate religion, should be discussed on a separate page. So, either delete Jedi census movement or change it to "Jedi census phenomenon"

Except it's under "parody and joke religions", as the phenomenon was most likely a practical joke. — Phil Welch 18:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

jewish religions cleanup

IZAK added alot of "religions" under the jewish heading, probably for completeness. Many are not religions even under the very liberal definition of religion used for this page. I am eventually going to remove many of the additions, I am just busy that the moment. I am saying this to anyone who might help and IZAK who might want to make a rebuttal. ---The Sunborn 19:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which religions are LHP?

Satanism, Setianism & Dragon Rouge are LHP.

The IOT definitly isn't "Is Chaos Magick Left Hand Path? No, of course not. Is it Right Hand Path? No, of course not. Chaos Magick is neutral. One can practice Chaos Magick and walk either the LHP or the RHP or both. As such, either path can be followed within Chaos Magick, but a path should be taken. Remaining neutral is meaningless, and essentially is just an excuse to do nothing." source: Japanese IOT http://www.chaosmagic.com/archives/lhprhp/index.shtml --> I will change this

In my opionion Thelema isn't LHP as well. Only the Typhonoian OTO, which distancend itself from Thelema a bit is LHP. Don't know how to make it clear to the reader, so I wait for suggestions...

The definition of LHP for the purposes of this page is Religions which value the spiritual advancement of the self over other goals. This is clearly presented under the title heading. You are misunderstanding LHP and Evil, they are not the same. Your evidence presented does the same thing. We are not considering LHP religions to be evil, just ones that are self-serving. Occult groups, especially ones that practice magic, would constitute religions in accordance with the liberal definition of religion used here. --The Sunborn 02:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Of course LHP isn't "evil"! The definition of the LHP is "religions, which aim to become a entity seperated from the universe, ie a god" --> egoism, RHP is "religions which try to become one with a goo or sth similar (nirvana)" --> altruism.

Neither the IOT, nor the OST, nor Thelema is LHP. You completly igrnored that is posted an article by the IOT saying it's neither RHP nor LHP, because its Chaos Magic. Aleister Crowley didn't lable Thelema as LHP and the OST isn't neither IMO. I will give time to answer, and we should get to an agreement. Please describe, why do you label the above named religions as LHP! PS: the page's def. isn't very good

Just because a group labels themselves as one thing doesn't mean we should. Just because another group labels group A as not something doesn't mean we should too. It says on the LHP/RHP article that " This usage was popularized by Aleister Crowley, who maintained that his religion, Thelema, was, despite appearances, not of the Left-Hand Path". I argue according to the definition on the LHP/RHP article that LHP is any religion that is not completely altuistic. Thelma which litterally means (by power of) will, is not altruistic because the reliance on an individual's will. Here is a quote from which I come from:
"The term 'Left-Hand Path' has become an umbrella term of self-designation used by certain contemporary ritual magicians and is usually taken to incorporate practitioners of Thelemic magick (beginning with Aleister Crowley), Tantrik magick, and Chaos Magick [...] The notion of the Left-Hand Path is derived from the Tantric term vama-marga ('left-path'), i.e., the Left-Hand Path in Tantrism. [...] Its usage represents a deliberate attempt by Left-Hand Path magicians to transcend the outmoded and value-laden dichotomy of 'black' versus 'white' magic [...] because it is held to reflect the 'moronic oversimplicity of the Judeo-Xtian distinction between good and evil'"
"Pagan Pathways" essay on "Left-Hand Path Ritual Magick" by Richard Sutcliffe.
Please do two things, if you consider contributing more, get an account and sign all your comments on talk pages. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 01:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith

sunborn, while the Bahá'í Faith seems to come from the Babi faith, Bahá'ís believe that the Bahá'í Faith is an independent religion seperate from the Babi movement. The purpose of the Babi movement, as seen by Bahá'ís, was to come prepare the world for the next religion, the Bahá'í Faith.

All other items in the list are the main group and the divisions below it. The Bahá'í Faith is not a division of the Babi movement. See [2] which shows the Bahá'í Faith as an independent religion.

I would suggest dividing the Bahá'í Faith and Babism into two main level bullets, and have the Orthodox Bahá'í Faith as a subheading of the Bahá'í Faith. -- Navidazizi 05:46 2 Jan, 2005 (UTC)

Also, looking through the history, you wrote "Baha'i faith and orthodox baha'i are EQUAL, they are major sects of a post babist religion that absorbed all (or most) of babism"

This is not true. The purpose of the Babi movement, as written in many of the Bab's writings, was to prepare for the "The One Whom God Will Make Manifest." Baha'u'llah in 1863 claimed he was the one who the Bab had prophesized about. Somewhat, I admit distantly, like Moses telling of the Messiah's coming. Baha'u'llah annulled many of the laws that the Bab wrote in the Persian Bayan. They have different laws and different rituals. The Babi movement and the Bahá'í Faith are completely different religions. At the time that Baha'u'llah claimed his position, some Babis did not accept him, and followed Mirza Yahya; almost none of these 'Azali Babi's' remain.

Another example to seperate the Babi movement and the Bahá'í Faith is that the Bab himself came from a Shayki (Islam) background, and declaring that he was the return of the 12th Imam, but that doesn't make the Babi movement a sect of Islam.

The orthodox Baha'i faith broke apart in 1957 (long after Baha'u'llah declared in 1863) due to a difference of successorship after the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith passed away. If anything it is a sect of the Bahá'í Faith and definitely not of the Babi movement. There numbers are also quite low (under 2000) -- Navidazizi 05:55 2 Jan, 2005 (UTC)

Well maybe, however, the differences between the "orthodox Baha'i faith" and the "Baha'i faith" are the same as the differences between Roman Catholicism and say Anglicanism. The list should reflect this. It is possible that Babism is a separate grouping that could be under this same heading. Say the division between Mandeanism and Chrisianity. Mandeans follow John the babtist and call Christ a liar. --The Sunborn
Ok, how bout something like "Bahá'í" as the main bullet with "Bahá'í Faith" and "Orthodox Bahá'í Faith" as sub-bullets. And then "Babism" as a seperate main level bullet lower down on the list near Mandeanism -- Navidazizi 17:11 2 Jan, 2005 (UTC)
Very good, I think it would work out lovely. I couldn't think of any way to save it but this is great. --The Sunborn

Matrixism

I hate it that every week someone has to revert these vandalisms! It might be ok if you put the IMO stupid religion "Matrixism" in one category, but don't do that in each of these.

This must be stopped. It's stupid and confuses the reader!


Matrixism is in fact a religion wether you believe it to be stupid or not. I am re-including it on this page under new religious movements as that seems to be most appropriate.
IMO the religion is to small to be mentioned, but I have no problem with putting it into NRM. But I can't like it to see it in every single category! Levthanatos
How do you define "too small"? Over five hundred followers seems quite significant enough for an NRM.

We don't know it has more than 500 followers. Strictly speaking, we aren't even sure it has one follower. — Phil Welch 23:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They claim to have signed up over five hundred followers. All things considered it seems reasonable to assume that there are many more than five hundred people world wide who subscribe to Matrixism.
Where is the proof that they have even one member? I can start a website and claim to have 5000 members. Let's see some objective proof that this group exists, like some newspaper articles about them. -Willmcw 08:32, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
There have been newspaper articles written on the subject but like the website they don't provide concrete evidence of the number of followers for this religion. This is true of many NRM's and religions generally. In the academic study of new religious movements it is common practice to use rough estimates for the number of believers. Again it seems that if anything there are many more than five hundred people world wide who consider themselves Matrixists. ~Anonymous
Please provide us with links to those newspaper articles or other verifiable information supporting the existence of Matrixism. The burden of proof is on you, as the editor who is adding this material. Your assertion that there are 500 members is an "estimate" based on no apparent evidence. Please share with your fellow editors your evidence, otherwise we can only believe that there is none. Thanks, -Willmcw 18:44, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
The internet references and the word of the contact person at Matrixism seem like quite enough proof to back up a claim of five hundred believers that signed up over the internet. This is especially true considering other precedents in the category of fiction-based new religious movements or religious movements in general. ~Anonymous
Sorry, that's no evidence at all. — Phil Welch 08:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, it is actually evidence. ~Anonymous

The word of one person, and information posted on one web page (most likely put up by that one person) is not evidence. — Phil Welch 19:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

There is all of the web traffic, an active website and the testimony of the organization's administrators. ~Anonymous
There's an actual website? That's funny, all I got was a blank geocities page whose source includes lots of keywords and no real text. Of course, I didn't look for frames or anything else, since it looked like cheap vandalism to me. I mean, who would run a 500-person community on a geocities site? I can't believe that. --Shadowlord 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

list of New Religious Movements

I took this list from New religious movement to be merged here:

Examples of new religious movements might include:

Indigenous NRM's

African Diaspora / Latin American NRM's

Hindu-oriented NRM's

NRM's with Islamic Roots

Christian-oriented NRM's

Buddhist-oriented NRM's

Chinese-oriented NRM's

Japanese-oriented NRM's

Korean-oriented NRM's

Vietnamese-oriented NRM's

Western Magical / Esoteric Groups

White Supremacist Religions

Joke Religions

— Phil Welch 08:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed Said Nursi from the list since it is the name of a person and not a movement. Also this person did not start a NRM.--Vonaurum 22:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Juche

Juche is kinda unfairly called a personality cult when its more a very realistic Socialist Political Philosophy Jaynus _Izanagi 10:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Is it not also a personality cult? - Willmcw 18:42, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Juche is the national ideology of North Korea. It involves an extreme form of Stalinism, isolationism, and a personality cult focused around former dictator Kim Il-Sung (the Great Leader) and current dictator Kim Jong-Il (the Dear Leader). It has definite religious aspects but I'm not sure whether to designate it as a religion or not. — Phil Welch 20:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Eudemism

I noticed it wasn't on the list, so I thought I should make a mention of eudemism as a little known, but growingly popular, syncretic religion (or belief system).

Er, thanks for pointing that out. I see that neither of Google's two resources on Eudism concern this supposed religious movement. I'm concerned that with no verifiable sources even our own Wikipedia article may not be based on solid material. In order to elicit discussion of Eudism's place in the encyclopedia, I'll nominate the article for VfD. Perhaps we can find some sources somewhere. -Willmcw 09:24, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki?

I note that the Gaelic article Creideamh seems to cover the same territory as this article. Would it be good to link the two? Schissel : bowl listen 05:02, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

ajivika

Ajivika religion is extinct, but you may want to add it alongside Buddhism and Jainism, it had similar origins.

Hasmoneans

Why is this listed as a Jewish sect? It wasn't a sect, it was a priestly family and royal dynasty. Csernica 23:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Joke Religions

Is this something that should legitimately be on the list of religions? If so, where is the line drawn in terms of what can be added to it? I understand some of these may be well known, but if the are not legitimate religions why include them?

Religion is nothing to joke about. It's not a matter of whether you are religious or not. The point is that to make fun of religion can be seen as offensive. Is anyone opposed to polling on this issue as to whether to remove it? 221.148.135.45 9/13/05 07:00 (UTC)

Is Iglesia ni Cristo NRM?

Listing the INC as an NRM seems very US&Euro-centric. With 2,000,000+ members (while some estimates say 10 million, the INC probably has no more than 3 million members if we incllude unbaptized, offered children. Numbers might be skewed due to expelled members who still identify themselves as INC), if the INC were based in the US it would not be included in the NRM listing. Are we treating it differently because it began in the Philippines and not in the West? The INC should probably be grouped with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Guava wrench 17:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Suki

There needs to be verifiable sources that Suki is a religion, and not a host. See Talk:Suki. Unless those verifiable sources come up, I will be reverting. -- Jeff3000 17:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for what is a reliable, verifible source. -- Jeff3000 17:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The website www.sukireligion.org is not a verifiable source. There's nothing on that website. Anyone could make a website claiming to be a religion. There needs to be 3rd party references about the religion. -- Jeff3000 17:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

SUKI (tm) is a RELIGION

SUKI (tm), spelled "SUKI (tm)" is a religion. Internet sources are not always known to be the most reliable, hence a course of study at your local community college might be more helpful, or at least reference to a person who has knowledge of recent developments in the realm of world religions.

Talk:Suki unfortunately has been mostly pollutted by blasphemous individuals who have little interest in letting evidence of the existence of SUKI (tm) come to the forefront. If you want to have an academic discussion and more information on SUKI (tm), it is also important that you spell SUKI (tm) correctly -- "SUKI (tm)", not "Suki". Thank you.

64.110.251.182 02:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a reference, a book, a journal or some other verifiable and reliable source stating that SUKI (tm) is a religion. -- Jeff3000 03:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a reference, a book, a journal or some other verifiable and reliable source stating that SUKI (tm) is *not* a religion. 64.110.251.182 04:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia, and the worldwide academic community doesn't work like that. You need to provide references to prove the existence of something rather than it's non-existance. -- Jeff3000 04:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia, and the worldwide academic community aren't closed-minded, and are open to new things, including religions that have only been around for 20-30 years. A religion need not be a thousand years old to be recognized as a 'religion'. www.SUKIreligion.org (tm) is a reference to the religion. Google searches also show significant evidence of SUKI (tm) being a major international religion.

64.110.251.182 06:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Jediism? Jedi Realism?

Okay... the jedi census movement technically isn't even a joke religion, just a practical joke. However, there are two serious jedi religions, Jediism and Jedi Realism. There really should be articles one them. Personally I find them to be rather stupid, but that doesn't change their status as real religions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.225.141.250 (talk • contribs) .

Indo-European

I am working to move links to the disambiguation "Indo-European" to the correct targets.

The caption in the section on "Other revealed religions" suggest that they are monotheistic and share an "Indo-European" belief pattern. What does this belief pattern have within it? Proto-Indo-European religion is not monotheistic, as far as I see. Can someone find a useful direct link? Dpv 18:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Linguistic apartheid

Europeans have religions, but Africans, Indigenous Americans, and Pacific Islanders have mythologies? —71.215.220.199 06:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There are European mythologies as well listed under "European religions". The one I am most familiar with, the mythologies of my native country, are indeed better described as mythologies than religion. If you spot an entry that is classified incorrectly please help by fixing it! See also Religion and mythology, Christian mythology, ... Weregerbil 13:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Significance of Matrixism

Matrixism is included in the following books about religious movements:

"Religion and Popular Culture: A Hyper-Real Testament" Dr. Adam Possamai, Peter Lang Publishing Group 2005 ISBN 90-5201-272-5 / US-ISBN 0-8204-6634-4 pb.
"The Joy of Sects" Sam Jordison Publisher: Robson Books Publication Date: 7 November 2005 ISBN 1861059051

This is much more than can be said for many of the religions on this list. See for examples the content and references for McMahonism and Church of the Universe. 71.34.108.155 02:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Matrixism has been deleted twice, as recently as of May 20th 2006. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism. Since it is not significant enough to be a Wikipedia article, it is not significant enough to be on this page. The first step is to get the article to not be deleted based on verifiable information, and then it can be included here. -- Jeff3000 02:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we ought to add a new category to this list: "Religions whose very existence is disputed". Real-life Jedis, those who believe that Watership Down is scripture, and serious adherents of joke religions (e.g., the Church of the Subgenius, Discordianism) would fall into this category, as would Matrixism. I have trouble believing anyone takes the notion of Matrixism seriously, but then again, it wouldn't be the first fictional idea that someone mistook for reality, so it's not impossible. Hiergargo 02:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't doubt that any passing fad could evolve into a religion in the mind of some individual on the planet. This should not be a list of possible relgions of the world, or religions for those who are truly not in touch with reality (Yes, I know the humanist POV of religion as well as many others). However, there should be some standard that we use to determine being listed (or delisted for that matter). Some questions I would want to have answered:
  1. is there a center, headquarters or group that consistently teaches, supports, guides, interacts, or assists its followers?
  2. Is there a body of work, scripture, writings, or thoughts that guide the adherents?
  3. How long has the group been "active" as an organization, however loosely assembled?
  4. If they do not have any "holy" writings, do they have any formerly printed material that explains their position, theology, teachings etc?
These come immediately to mind, but I am sure there are others. We do not do a very good job of defining religion in this article. Maybe after gaining some concensus for the definition we could begin by inserting it and then measuring all proposed relgion entrants against it. Thoughts? Storm Rider (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
My understanding of Matrixism is they are a subset of the mainstream Baha'i Faith and their web site appears to broadly corroborate this. On the basis that Opus Dei has not been listed a subset of Roman Catholicism, I would suggest deletion. I have added "Babi", which although relatively small in following, are none the less a well established world religion. In my understanding the Baha'i Faith is a syncretic religion in the same manner as Unitarian Universalism, which also is derived from the Abrahamic tradition. Consequently, I would suggest reclassification of the Baha'i Faith entries. 80.189.181.103 16:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Matrixism is not a subset of the Baha'i Faith anymore than the Baha'i Faith is a subset of Islam. It has its own set of laws and quite a different world view than the Baha'i Faith.71.34.108.155 15:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Your understanding of the Baha'i Faith is wrong. The Baha'i Faith is not a syncretic religion, it has it's own laws and practices that differ from previous religions. While, Baha'is believe that previous religions were from God they belive that those religious practices have been abrogated by Baha'i law. In this way there is no combination of religious practice. Also, Babism should be here (I don't know who deleted it in the first place), but it is in no way well established. There are no published number for the number of adherents, and the best estimates are that there are less than 500. Matrixism also has nothing to do with the Baha'i Faith other than taking one statement from Abdu'l-Baha and interpreting it in a specific manner. They don't follow Baha'u'llah, they don't follow the Baha'i teachings. -- Jeff3000 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jeff. Thank you for your reply. I am pleased that we agree Babism deserves an entry, despite being relatively small. I guess I must have meant well established only in the sense of being a religion that has survived for just over 150 years. My understanding is that Unitarian Universalism and the Baha'i Faith are syncretic religions derived from the Abrahamic tradition. Hence, there are members of these religions who are also Hindus or Buddhists for example. This significantly differs from the other Abrahamic traditions in relation to acceptance of the validity of Hindu and Buddhist religions. Regarding Matrixism, my understanding is based on word of mouth information, which appears to be broadly corroborated by their web site. However, I agree with your comment "Since it is not significant enough to be a Wikipedia article, it is not significant enough to be on this page". 80.189.181.103 18:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi 80.189.181.103, if someone is a Baha'i, they cannot be a Hindu or Buddhist. They could have previously been so, but once you become a Baha'i, you follow the Baha'i teachings and practices, which are significantly different than Hindu and Buddist practices. Other Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not accept Hinduism and Buddhism to be inspired by the one God that they believe in. The difference between the Baha'i Faith, which is also an Abrahamic Faith, and the other Abrahamic Faiths, is that the Baha'i teachings state that Krishna, and Buddha were Manifestations of God, equal to that of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah, but this does not make it syncretic, because there are no laws that are being combined, and no religiuos practices from previous religions that are being continued. The Baha'i Faith has a completely different set of laws and practices. Furthermore, the Baha'i writings interprete much of Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, and Islamic scripture differently than one of their respective adherents interprets. For example, Baha'is believe the Second Coming of Christ has happened, and interprete the events mentioned in Revelation to be not literative. In the same manner, the nature of the Buddha and so forth are intepreted differently than those that Buddhists interpret. In essence there is no combination of belief in the Baha'i Faith, but only an acceptance that previous revelations where from God, and through time have been misinterpreted, and that Baha'i law supercedes those laws now.
As to Matrixism, as I mentioned, they have just taken one verse from Abdu'l-Baha's statement's and intepreted in a specific manner. The four tenants they have their website and nowhere in the Baha'i writings, and they don't go by the main principles of the Baha'i Faith, and they do not follow a system of Baha'i administration which is part and parcel of the Baha'i Faith. I would recomment you read the Baha'i article on Wikipedia. -- Jeff3000 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I would clarify that members of the Baha'i Faith of Christian persuasion would believe the second coming of Christ has occurred. While members of Hindu persuasion would believe that Krishna has returned. Similarly, members of Buddhist persuasion would believe the prophecy of Maitreya was fulfilled. Baha'i faith doctrine includes "The Baha'i Faith community - made up of people from every race, religion and nationality - is turning Baha'u'llah's words into reality". This implies that after conversion persons who are now Baha'is retain their original faith. Regarding Matrixism, I would suggest their fourth tenet "adherence to the principles of one or more of the world's religions until such time as the One returns" has similarity. 80.189.181.103 19:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that implication is not true. Here's an analogy. Jesus is seen as the Mesiah of Jews by Christians. Are Christians considered Jews? Do Christians follow the Sabbath? Of course not. Is Christianity a syncrentic religion because it claims to be the fullfillment of Judaic prophecy? Nope. The Baha'i Faith is the same. Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah is the Messenger of God who fullfills the prophecies of many religions. But people who accept that become Baha'is. They do not follow the old practices, but follow Baha'i practice:

"As regards the celebration of the Christian Holidays by the believers: It is surely preferable and even highly advisable that the friends should in their relation to each other discontinue observing such holidays as Christmas and New Years, and to have their festal gatherings of this nature instead during the intercalary days and Naw-Ruz."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, March 19, 1938)

They perform their Baha'i obligatory prayer, their nineteen day fast, etc. Now regarding similarity of one prinicple of Matrixism to the Baha'i Faith. There are many religions have one similarity. That does not equate them. -- Jeff3000 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Syncretism is defined in the article by: "faiths created from blending earlier religions or that consider all or some religions to be essentially the same". I am suggesting the Baha'i Faith is syncretic because it considers the teachings of Zoroastrianism, Abrahamic religions, Hinduism and Buddhism to be equally valid. This is clearly very different to Christianity, which considers that all other religions are invalid. Regarding Matrixism, would you object to me deleting their entry? 80.189.181.103 20:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The Baha'i Faith does not believe that all those religions are equally valid in today's age. Baha'is believe that they were appropriate for the time and place where they were revealed, and that in today's age (and at least the next 1000 years) that best path towards God is through the Baha'i teachings. The other teachings have been abrogated, and Baha'is believe that those who don't accept Baha'u'llah in today's age have broken God's covenant. This is opposed to the Universal Unitarian vision, where different paths are accepted right now. This is a big difference. Also the definition of syncretic by dictionary.com and m-w.com is:
  • "Reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion, especially when success is partial or the result is heterogeneous."
  • "the combination of different forms of belief or practice
The Baha'i Faith does not fuse differing systems of belief; it is a seperate faith with it's own set of practices, and belief. More importantly the result is not heterogeneous; there is a single belief, and single practice. Also go ahead and delete Matrixisim, it shouldn't be here. -- Jeff3000 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your two definitions, I prefer the second as I was not intending to imply partial success. Baha'i Faith doctrine includes "the principle of the unity of religion means that all of the great religious Founders--the Manifestations--have come from God, and that all of the religious systems established by Them are part of a single divine plan directed by God." I would suggest this constitutes a combination of different forms of belief or practice. 80.189.68.1 21:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The belief of the "Unity of all religions" does not mean that there is a combination of belief or practice. The Baha'i Faith teaches that for each time and place, God sends a Messenger to give teachings and laws that are appropriate for that time and place. Let's first look at social practices, these change from religion to religion. For example, in Judaism and Islam there are dietary restrictions on pork. In the Baha'i Faith there is no such dietary restriction. Baha'is believe that the reason for this difference is that when Moses and Muhammad were establishing Judaism and Islam respectively, it was unclean to eat pork, and thus for the health of society such a restriction was placed. Now, Baha'u'llah places no restriction on pork, and Baha'is believe that this is because there is no danger in eating pork with today's technology. Now, what about religious practices. Muslims have to say an obligatory prayer 5 times a day. Baha'is do not have to do so, there is a different Obligatory prayer law, and in addition one has to say Allah-a-Ahba (God is Glorious) 95 days a year. Thus laws have been abrogated, and other laws have been put into place, and thus there is no combination of practice. Baha'is do not follow any of the daily practices of the previous religions. So there is no combination of practice.
Now if we go to belief. The principle of "Unity of religion" states that religious truth is expounded in different levels to the needs and understanding of the age. Thus what Jesus, Muhammad, Krishna, Buddha thought were true, but incomplete truths. In each dispensation, religious truth is expanded. For example, the teaches of life after death. Christianity sees it as Heaven and Hell. The Baha'i teachings instead teach that it isn't that simple, and our work in this world will allow us to be closer to God. Instead of a binary system, there is a continuum of closeness to God. So again, there is no combination of belief, instead it's an expansion. The "Unity of Religion" in essence means that God has a plan of revealing Himself to humanity and does so in a progressive way. -- Jeff3000 22:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, we are left with a situation where the article indicates a syncretic religion would "consider all or some religions to be essentially the same". Baha'i Faith doctrine includes "that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the nonessential aspects of their doctrines". 80.189.198.149 23:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess we are not going anywhere. Baha'is don't consider any of the religions the same. They consider them stepping stones, a progressive revelation. Let's uze the quote that you use, which is exactly true and break it down:

  • Baha'is believe that the great religions are divine in origin. This doesn't mean that they are the same. For example Grade 1 and Grade 2 come from the same School Board, are they the same? No.
  • Baha'is believe their basic teachings (when not corrupted) are the in complete harmony. This does not make them the same, as their social teachings and religious practices are different, not to mention the way they explain things (like the life after death example I gave).
  • Baha'is believe their aims and purposes are one. This does not mean that they are the same. Both Grade 1 and Grade 2 aim to educate children, they are however not the same.
  • Baha'is believe that their teachings are but facets of one truth. This does not mean that they are the same. Look at the sun through two mirrors. Are the mirrors the same because they are reflecting the same object. No.
  • Baha'is believe that they differ only in the nonessential aspects of their doctrines. Well this is clear that Baha'is believe that they are different.

Regardless, you are using only one half of the definition. If you go by the first part of the definition, which corroborates from both dictionary definitions "Faiths created from blending earlier religions", the Baha'i Faith is cleary not syncretic as it has it's own distinct practices and teachings. If you go by the second definition, then as I've shown above while Baha'is believe their essential purpose is the same, Baha'is don't beleive they are the same. They are stepping stones in a progressive revelation. (Grade 1 vs Grade 2) Moreover if you take this second part of the statement to believe that the Baha'i Faith to be syncretic, then you must also believe that Islam is syncretic because Islam looks upon Christianity and Judaism in the same way that Baha'is look upon not only Islam, Christianity and Islam, but Buddhism and Hinduism. From an essay:

"Where does the idea that the Baha'i Faith is a syncretism come from? One source is a misunderstanding of the Baha'i concept of progressive revelation, the teaching that states that all previous religions were divinely inspired and ordained. When Christianity was founded, it developed out of Judaism and recognized Judaism as a divinely founded religion. When Muhammad began his teaching he recognized Judaism and Christianity--the religions already common in Arabia--as divinely inspired and founded. The Baha'i Faith is no different in that it recognizes the religions that came before it as divinely inspired: but in the modern world, this entails not just Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism as well. By recognizing the divine origin of these and other religions, the Baha'i Faith takes a position that is not very different from liberal Protestantism or the Catholicism of the Second Vatican conference, which recognize the existence of truth in the other religious traditions of the world.
"In addition to giving praise where praise is due, the Baha'i scriptures offer a critique of various aspects of the religions that preceded it. For example, the Baha'i scriptures reject such beliefs as the Christian trinity, the Hindu belief in transmigration of the soul, and the Muslim belief that the term "seal of the prophets" meant that Muhammad was not to be succeeded by another messenger. In this respect the Baha'i Faith resembles New Testament Christianity, which criticized the Judaism of its day, and the Qur'an, which criticized Christians and Jews. But because of a lack of detailed understanding of the Baha'i perspective on other religions, individual Baha'is do not always convey the balance of compliments and criticisms found in the Baha'i scriptures. Desiring to be positive about other religions, and not wishing to offend other people, sometimes Baha'is will simply state that all the previous religions are "true." They will often downplay the numerous Baha'i criticisms of central beliefs in other religions. As a result, a Baha'i's understanding of progressive revelation can sound like an uncritical belief that the Baha'i religion accepts everything that the previous religions teach. From this misperception, and a misunderstanding of the principle of progressive revelation, comes the belief that the Baha'i Faith is a syncretism."

That's it for me. You can definitely have your POV on the topic. -- Jeff3000 01:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't change the order of previous discussions. The order provides the context that is needed. -- Jeff3000 15:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Removed the link again. Wikipedia is not the place to promote a religion. Just zis Guy you know? 15:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jeff - thanks for your response, I agree we aren't going anywhere.
Hi 71.34.108.155, could you provide further reasoning for your statement that Matrixism is a religion and comment on criteria for this article relating to only including religions that already have a Wikipedia entry. 80.189.68.138 12:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghulat

We need a vote on whether the Druze or the Ismailis are in fact Ghulat. User:Talib 72 1/13/07

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions/Archive_3&oldid=789531996"