• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How are these Great Beings explained?

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Its a controversial question and always best to ask that of the Maoris themselves rather than having an outsider and person of European ancestry such as myself to answer the question. On the negative side we could take about loss of autonomy, land, introduction of disease, cultural assimilation, and cultural destruction. On the positive there has been access to the resources that come along with being colonised by the biggest empire on earth ever. Beyond that lets say that fools rush in, where angels dare to tread.



Judeo-Christianity has a long history of associating with polytheistic cultures. I would imagine that many Maori recognised the Christian religion as better than their own, perhaps for the wrong reasons in some cases such as better technology and material resources (including weapons to assist with intertribal warfare).



To be fair, there is the Ratana movement and a few others in Maoridom that have integrated traditional Maori beliefs with Christianity.

Rātana - Wikipedia
My whole point is that I believe those tribal cultures made up their religion and their gods. When disaster struck, they had an explanation. The gods were not happy. If you want a good harvest, you gotta do the right things so the gods will send rain. I'm sure they had rules on who is to be chief. They probably had shamans and ritual dances and chants and rights of passage. They probably had little crime among their own group.

But then the Christian missionaries. The cohesiveness wasn't there anymore. Their whole lifestyle was shattered. For many of these people it just happened in the recent past... in the 1800's. So their religion, that worked for hundreds of years, is replaced by a sect of a religion that, according to Baha'i teachings, is preaching things that aren't true.

At least you Baha'is reinforce some of the old beliefs and their culture.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
If you agree to parties that are wrong, they will still be wrong. That is why you respect people's point of view. If you disagree with them because they are wrong, depending on the person, they may respect you for your correction rather than passive agreeing and leading a surface level peacefulness that true brotherhood does not have.



That is why when you say "you are wrong" you do so politely and back it up with an appropriate conversation rather than quotes like above which can go around in circles because there is no disagreeing point. Leaves people in the dark and make vague statements to that point.

Again, if you understand what I'm saying, I am agreeing with Bahaullah and two, I was referring to Adrian and still little fickle about conflicting points that you guys haven't directly addressed due to not being able to disagree properly.

You mentioned me so I felt the need to also offer a reply but if in future you don't then I will respect your wish.

Just ask the question directly. We can give you our views openly and frankly.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
The first gospel was not written for at least 20 years after Christ was crucified. In all likelihood none of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses. They wrote down what they heard, particularly from the preaching of Paul to the Gentiles. What's harder to believe, the myth or a literal resurrection?
Well the discussion is whether or not Jesus healed only spiritual blindness or if he actually healed blind people. The Baha'i perspective seems to be that the author, in this case John, was "testing" the reader to see if they could see that it wasn't a literal physical blindness being healed but a symbolic spiritual blindness.

Since all the gospel writers include healing of blind people, lepers, and a woman with a flow of blood, I don't see it. I think the gospel writer is reporting events that supposedly took place. They could be wrong. They could be lying. But I don't think they would say that Jesus walked by a blind man and healed him if it was only a spiritually blind man.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Somewhere in the NT, and it's probably Jesus that says it, something about a house divided will not stand. Yet, his house is divided. Why did the Israelites split up? They had judges and prophets and kings and God. How and why did they split into different sects? Why did Islam? And, I suppose Shia is more right than the others? Were any of them meant to divide into different factions?

There's only one God, one truth? How could people mess things up? Oh yeah, it's people... fallible, selfish, power-hungry people.Why did the Eastern Church separate itself from the Roman Church? Why did Luther decide to challenge the Roman Church and put into motion the Protestant Reformation? God didn't protect any of his other religions from getting broken into competing factions. Why do you think it won't happen to the Baha'i Faith?

Yes it is man that has caused the Division. The world was not and could not be ready for a Global Messenger until the time God gave the Message. Each Message is suited to the time it is Given.

God knows the Beginning and the End and has His Finger on the Pulse of Mankind, diagnoses the ailment and prescribes the required remedy.

Like in nature all things are born grow mature and die, so it is with Religion. Religion has its 4 seasons. Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter.

The Holy Books record this process.

Regards Tony
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Other religions I'm familiar with in addition to christianity do not have manifestations. Most believe in a creator or god of some sort. All of them are alike in that they are their own religion and have their own purpose to better humanity within their faith. Bahai is more confusing because it's like putting one foot on either side of the fence and still saying its its own religion. That, and universalist views try to make (not force) everyone into one unity when everyone and everything is based on diversity.

What do you think troubles you most about the Baha'i Faith? Is it that you find it difficult to understand, or don't agree with it? Maybe its both?

You have been a Catholic, participated in Buddhism, and currently have no belief in God (? atheist). You are familiar with different ways of looking at the world. Do you think Baha'is give you mixed messages, on the one hand saying we believe in diversity, but then go on to say everyone should believe what the Baha'is believe?

Bahai is saying more we have one house with many different people. I'm saying yes, we have different people and we have different houses that are not connected to each other.

It sounds like confusion about the boundaries. Although the Baha'is say one house, you say many houses. The Baha'is say one people, you say many peoples. The Baha'is say unity, you say diversity. Could both views be correct or is it impossible for both to be true?

Bahai would continue to say but we are all on one land. I'd continue to say there are many countries around the world. Life is built on diversity not holds diversity. You have one temple but the Church has many denominations under that one Church. Yet, everyone comes to christ.

I wonder if its both? Have you ever heard of dichotomous thinking?

It's completely different, how did @Vinayaka put it, different paradigm of thought. I know you guys are trying to agree with everything but sometimes it's peaceful to disagree. Disagreeing doesn't cause wars if people are civil about it.

Do you think the Baha'is are saying we agree when we don't and are actually just being polite?

Yes. Every church I went to had a bible in it of some sort. When I went with my friend the first time, I asked her where the bibles where. She said the priest reads scripture instead. When I took the sacraments I understood why the bibles are secondary to experience in christ. Though, I still have a solo scriptural outlook that Bahai view on christianity (another difference) doesn't have.

Is it OK to view the bible through your eyes and not through the eyes of the church?

Edit What's also sad is when I went to the Spiritualist Church last week the first time, we were talking about how mediums heal and different prayers for that. They explained a bit about the church and that it can't be considered a church (by law) unless they had a bible in the church. That crushed me. Universalist Churches, probably Christian science and other religions like that probably have bibles only because it isn't considered a church organization without it. (Tax purposes as well). Yet Muslims, Hindu, and Buddhist don't need Bibles.

When I read this, it looks like the realm of religion is very confusing and upsetting. Do you think talking to the Baha'is has made you feel more confused and unhappy? I would like to think we have clarified religion for you and made you happier, but I'm not hearing that.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
At least you Baha'is reinforce some of the old beliefs and their culture.

To be fair some Christians do too. What seems clear is that indigenous peoples are not doing as well as their colonisers, Outcomes in education, health, and the criminal justice system are not as good. As one Maori lecturer put it "mad, bad, and sad." There is a question about intergeneration trauma from colonisation and the affects of cultural destruction and assimilation. The more important issue though is what can we do about it? How can we make it better? I don't think turning the clock back and sending all the European ancestors of the colonisers home is a practical and fair solution. How about in the USA we send all those of European ancestry back home? Can't see a presidential candidate getting elected promoting that policy.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Well the discussion is whether or not Jesus healed only spiritual blindness or if he actually healed blind people. The Baha'i perspective seems to be that the author, in this case John, was "testing" the reader to see if they could see that it wasn't a literal physical blindness being healed but a symbolic spiritual blindness.

Since all the gospel writers include healing of blind people, lepers, and a woman with a flow of blood, I don't see it. I think the gospel writer is reporting events that supposedly took place. They could be wrong. They could be lying. But I don't think they would say that Jesus walked by a blind man and healed him if it was only a spiritually blind man.

That's the problem with coming into the conversation without the background of what's been before. So if there is confusion, how much more so with a book that was written nearly two thousand years ago by an author we can't even be certain wrote it. We have stories of amazing, miraculous events. Maybe they happened. For the Baha'is the most important aspect is the deeper meaning behind the miracle. We know God is All-Powerful. Through Jesus He could heal the sick, make the blind see, and bring the dead back to life. Its reasonable to believe many of the gospel stories were literally true IMHO and that is certainly my belief.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That's the problem with coming into the conversation without the background of what's been before. So if there is confusion, how much more so with a book that was written nearly two thousand years ago by an author we can't even be certain wrote it. We have stories of amazing, miraculous events. Maybe they happened. For the Baha'is the most important aspect is the deeper meaning behind the miracle. We know God is All-Powerful. Through Jesus He could heal the sick, make the blind see, and bring the dead back to life. Its reasonable to believe many of the gospel stories were literally true IMHO and that is certainly my belief.

Yes Adrian and as you are aware, the point being made is the stories of healing can be both.

The Physical healed of a Blind person has also been healed by Faith. The important thing being that it was Faith that was the greatest healing, as with Faith a person is given true life, whereas one healed only of material blindness will die and see no more.

Abdul'baha has so wonderfully explained this matter in detail.

Be well be happy Adrian - Regards Tony
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes Adrian and as you are aware, the point being made is the stories of healing can be both.

The Physical healed of a Blind person has also been healed by Faith. The important thing being that it was Faith that was the greatest healing, as with Faith a person is given true life, whereas one healed only of material blindness will die and see no more.

Abdul'baha has so wonderfully explained this matter in detail.

Be well be happy Adrian - Regards Tony

Hi Tony,

Good to have you here.

As you will know Abdu'l-Baha gives an explanation in some answered questions:

The meaning is not that the Manifestations are unable to perform miracles, for They have all power. But for Them inner sight, spiritual healing and eternal life are the valuable and important things.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 100-102

We weren't present so we don't know what happened. The Baha'i writings do not tell us what historically happened in regards to the miracles of Christ. The exception is the resurrection.

Best Wishes
Adrian

 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Thanks, but it's you and Carlita doing all the work. I just come in and try and throw in a spiritual monkey wrench into the works. I think they're on to me, though. One of them is trying to pin me down to what I believe.

I'm just waiting for them to make that phone call, and bring in another to add to their side, lol. I'm betting it will be a male, an older male, well indoctrinated.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I imagine it must be hard coordinating such a diverse and perhaps disparate group. Are there any central administrative structures?

No there are no central administrative structures. That would be like asking if there was a central administrative structure for Christianity. Small ones in certain areas, sure. There is a Hindu Mandir Executives Conference in North America, for example, that shares challenges, and ideas to conquer them. In Mauritius there is the Tamil Temples Federation with 165 temples in it or so. Stuff like that sure, but overall, no chance... way too massive.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm just waiting for them to make that phone call, and bring in another to add to their side, lol. I'm betting it will be a male, an older male, well indoctrinated.

I think you might be overestimating the level of collaboration that is going on...like none.:)

It is remarkable how new Baha'is just keep popping up though and I must admit they have all been male.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
No there are no central administrative structures. That would be like asking if there was a central administrative structure for Christianity.

Ever heard of the Catholic church?:)

Small ones in certain areas, sure. There is a Hindu Mandir Executives Conference in North America, for example, that shares challenges, and ideas to conquer them. In Mauritius there is the Tamil Temples Federation with 165 temples in it or so. Stuff like that sure, but overall, no chance... way too massive.

That's what I thought. Definitely nothing like the larger Christian churches. Its another major difference between the Abrahamic Faiths.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Thank you for the honest questions.
What do you think troubles you most about the Baha'i Faith? Is it that you find it difficult to understand, or don't agree with it? Maybe its both?

Both. I think I got the gist of it. I just had to put everyone's point of view together and see what you all have in common.

You have been a Catholic, participated in Buddhism, and currently have no belief in God (? atheist). You are familiar with different ways of looking at the world. Do you think Baha'is give you mixed messages, on the one hand saying we believe in diversity, but then go on to say everyone should believe what the Baha'is believe?

Never believed in god; so yes, I'm an atheist. It gives mixed messages, but every other religion has it's crink.

It's (if I remember): Bahai believe in revealed messages of selective religions in a progressive chain until today (and in the future after Bahaullah). Every manifestation is an educator (as you once put it) of god and basically the same as god (as Lover said it in other words). The manifestations teach one central message although their expressions (hence diversity) is different. The central message is unity. Unfortunately, as said by a couple Bahai here, unity hasn't been achieved by other religions because their methods are outdated. Bahaullah came to reconcile (as specifically said by Lover) the methods that failed and brought wars etc. Bahai welcome diversity under one roof, one unity. Bahai so far said they were (basically the only ones) who haven't gone into war like other religions.

Since Bahai promotes peace, challenging discussions, debates, negativity, and so forth are forbidden as quoted from Bahaullah almost recently. It is believed that having a peaceful talk (and I assume that's why you all say "we" believe and "Bahai" believe) doesn't cause wars.

Since the teachings of Bahaullah and the prophets come from god, any practitioners who follows these prophets have second say on the authority and facts of their belief than the prophets (as said by Lover). Which insults the practitioners who know more about their own faith than someone who only believes it but doesn't practice.

It sounds like confusion about the boundaries. Although the Baha'is say one house, you say many houses. The Baha'is say one people, you say many peoples. The Baha'is say unity, you say diversity. Could both views be correct or is it impossible for both to be true?

No. Either you have one house with many people of different religions or many people of different religions have their own houses. The former welcomes people who agree with being in one house while the latter wants unity but rather stay in their own houses to create it.

That's like saying having one foundation and more than one at the same time. It is what it is. Bahai view of diversity is expressions. The religions in your religion view their expressions as the core of their beliefs. There is no Bahai-christian and Bahai-muslim from a christian and muslim perspective only Bahai.

I wonder if its both? Have you ever heard of dichotomous thinking?

You can have diversity working together. You can't have one foundation in a diverse planet.

Do you think the Baha'is are saying we agree when we don't and are actually just being polite?

Yes. It's weird form of disagreement. This is mainly from @InvestigateTruth and @loverofhumanity though. I say something and if it is disagreed upon, it is backed up by opposing explanations and quotes. It helps better if one says "I disagree and this is why..." so I have the point first and then whatever quotes and explanations given, I know what they are based on.

Is it OK to view the bible through your eyes and not through the eyes of the church?

It's better to view it through the eyes of the Church (or whatever christian denomination a christian is a part of). Just my opinion is reflected on my experiences are partial study rather than sacred text.

When I read this, it looks like the realm of religion is very confusing and upsetting. Do you think talking to the Baha'is has made you feel more confused and unhappy? I would like to think we have clarified religion for you and made you happier, but I'm not hearing that.

It's the cultural appropriation issue. I saw it in Lover's conversation with @Vinayaka. I have sensitivity with minority cultures and religious as well as part of two minority cultures. It's one thing when we're just talking about our beliefs. I've actually seen people's religion been torn from their point of view because of what outsiders do. Well intentioned or not, it rubs me the wrong way.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
However, unlike all previous religious dispensations, the line of succession is very, very clear,

Then you know very little about how Hindu teaching lineages work. They are called sampradayas, and paramparas. The common method is for each new Guru to be appointed by the previous one, much as your first three were, with a major exception. The successor is selected from the monastic order based on his spiritual attainment, directly by the previous one, and not on family bloodlines, as was Baha'i'. Of course there is no family bloodline in Hinduism because of celibacy. Some of these lineages go back over 2000 years. A great example is the Smarta Sampradaya, and Adi Shankara, the rejuvenator of it. He established 4 Maths in 4 corners of India, and appointed an overseer, and each of those has continued uninterrupted to this day, and are looked at for spiritual guidance by millions. Each successor appoints a new one. So the line of succession is very very clear. Appointments are always made prior to death, so everyone knows, and there is no argument after death. Often they stay 2 ahead of the game.

Adi Shankara - Wikipedia
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
The fact is, the Bible has many passages that points to the year of Manifestation of the Bab and Bahaullah.

Then why haven't the billion or so people who have read it found them? That's rather odd, don't you think? A guy walks through a forest, and says, 'There's a cabin in the forest', but then another 1000 people walk through the forest and see no cabin. Fishy, no?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
@adrian009

Similar that you not saying you are Muslim, Hindu, etc I wouldn't say I am a Catholic because to be Catholic, you have to continuously take part in the sacraments, attend Mass, and be in communion with christ and his father.

What we don't have in common is if my religion had prophets, it wouldn't be from other religions (Jesus included) because those prophets, regardless of what they teach, are not part of my religion and I am not a part of theirs. For example, I believe in all The Buddha's teachings. I would never have him as a prophet in my religion because I agree with his teachings. Instead, if I am a Buddhist, I would follow as a Buddhist. If I were a practicing Catholic, I'd practice as a Catholic and so forth.

I have no right to have a belief centered around other people's prophets. Regardless if I think they agree with each other, I know they don't, not from my point of view (in this analogy) but from theirs. Their opinion counts. If I respect diversity and unity, I respect their opinion regardless of what I believe.
 
Last edited:
Top