Re: Converting from "newer" religions to "older"

This is an archived post from the old bulletin board. For new posts, see the forum.

Posted by anon on July 01, 2101 at 21:12:12:

In Reply to: Converting from "newer" religions to "older" posted by Dawud on July 01, 2101 at 18:03:23:

Good points - and very substaniably supported. I realize now that i read this in a book some time ago. And the book was written about the Writings of Baha'u'llah so it was set in the historical context of the late 1800's. So maybe this notion was more appliable back then? But certainly times have changed and the notion of conversion is complicated nowadays because as you noted most people are born into a religion without choice (or it seems that is the prefered way to denote statistics). (By the way, I have been watching the older Richard Dawson Family Feuds recently - much more interesting than the two more recent hosts!).

Anyways, I also wish to restate the age as dependent to the date of Revelation.

The progressive view of religion is in my opinion stating the fact that there has been the Religion of God in the past and it will always be in the future (ie. there will be more Messengers of God for eternity).

Baha'u'llah Himself states: "This is the changeless Faith of God,
eternal in the past, eternal in the future."

I don't really get the part about "radical" but I see your overall point. Once again, I think this is somewhat a question of terminology.

But you could seem some logic in the argument that a Christian would have an easier time accepting Islam because it accepts the Holy Bible and holiness of Christ, rather than converting to Judaism which denies both. This may be logic, but who knows how many people out there are actually thinking logically!


this topic is closed - post at