How are these Great Beings explained?

[Tumah]

So Moses was not speaking directly to God? And Ishmael not Isaac? Where's Tumah when I need him?

For the first problem, I think its obvious that when you need something to prove your authenticity when none exists, the best way is to change the records.
For the second problem, I think we already knew that Baha'i is a product of Islam.

Christianity, mostly because of Paul, does away with following the Law, even though Christians still follow [some] commands and moral laws. But Islam and the Baha'i Faith have all sorts of laws. And with the Baha'i Faith, their laws are what is needed to bring the world together in peace and harmony.

The Baha'is are okay with making some of God's Laws from older religions obsolete, because those laws were "social" laws, and only meant for that time and place. So what I was wondering was... is there a revising or updating process in Judaism that allows laws to be adapted to modern times?

In Orthodox Judaism, no of course not. The Torah is replete with statements about G-d's Law being eternal. Instead we adopt modern times to the Law.
For non-Orthodox streams, then for one reason or another, yes they do seem to believe so.

It seems to me that whichever stream you follow, there doesn't seem to be a need for Baha'i.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That is not the revelation that we are talking about. The National Revelation that we experienced at Mt. Sinai was a revelation of G-d to us all. There was no question that the G-d of the Jews was G-d of the world and He was communing with us.

Did your god call thunder and lightning, fire and clouds? Did he open the heavens for all to see?

There is only One G-d, the G-d of all Names and of All Messengers.

Indeed Baha'u'llah has indeed cleft the heavens asunder;

"...They who reject the truth have said: ‘When were the heavens cleft asunder?’ Say: ‘While ye lay in the graves of waywardness and error.’ Among the faithless is he who rubbeth his eyes, and looketh to the right and to the left. Say: ‘Blinded art thou. No refuge hast thou to flee to.’ And among them is he who saith: ‘Have men been gathered together?’ Say: ‘Yea, by My Lord! whilst thou didst lie in the cradle of idle fancies.’ And among them is he who saith: ‘Hath the Book been sent down through the power of the true Faith?’ Say: ‘The true Faith itself is astounded. Fear ye, O ye men of understanding heart!’ And among them is he who saith: ‘Have I been assembled with others, blind?’ Say: ‘Yea, by Him that rideth upon the clouds!’ Paradise is decked with mystic roses, and hell hath been made to blaze with the fire of the impious. Say: ‘The light hath shone forth from the horizon of Revelation, and the whole earth hath been illumined at the coming of Him Who is the Lord of the Day of the Covenant!’...." Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh Revealed After the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 101-134

Yes. All over the place. G-d says He's going to bring a flood. He brings a flood.
Abraham is told that his children would be suffering servants in a strange land. Guess what happens!
He's told that he'll have a child. No need for spiritual children here - a year later a real boy is born!
He's going to destroy Sodom. Pew pew. No more Sodom.

Is there anywhere in Scriptures where something is prophesied and its recorded that the fulfillment ends up being not a literal interpretation of what was said?

You have confirmed what was said with your reply. It is Gods Will that is done and not mans expectation, I offered;

"Is there anywhere in scripture where what Man expected, actually happened as they thought it would?"

Man did not expect a flood they rejected the call of Noah. They did not expect to be suffering servants, they rejected the call of Abraham....etc

The Pattern has continued.

So you just lift a verse out of a four chapter long prophecy about the Temple, to be about your god? You guys learned something from the Christians that's for sure.

The Bab and Baha'u'llah together fulfilled them all, from every Holy Book, either Materially or spiritually or both. How? They are the event all wait for.

"....To Him (Baha'u'llah) Isaiah, the greatest of the Jewish prophets, had alluded as the "Glory of the Lord," the "Everlasting Father," the "Prince of Peace," the "Wonderful," the "Counsellor," the "Rod come forth out of the stem of Jesse" and the "Branch grown out of His roots," Who "shall be established upon the throne of David," Who "will come with strong hand," Who "shall judge among the nations," Who "shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips slay the wicked," and Who "shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Of Him David had sung in his Psalms, acclaiming Him as the "Lord of Hosts" and the "King of Glory." To Him Haggai had referred as the "Desire of all nations," and Zachariah as the "Branch" Who "shall grow up out of His place," and "shall build the Temple of the Lord." Ezekiel had extolled Him as the "Lord" Who "shall be king over all the earth," while to His day Joel and Zephaniah had both referred as the "day of Jehovah," the latter describing it as "a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, a day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers." His Day Ezekiel and Daniel had, moreover, both acclaimed as the "day of the Lord," and Malachi described as "the great and dreadful day of the Lord" when "the Sun of Righteousness" will "arise, with healing in His wings," whilst Daniel had pronounced His advent as signalizing the end of the "abomination that maketh desolate....." (Shoghi Effendi : God Passes By Part 1)

The prophecies have yet to be fulfilled.

Baha'u'llah offered; "If we are not happy and joyous at this season, for what other season shall we wait and for what other time shall we look?"

Regards Tony

 

[InvestigateTruth]

But they were not infallible, perfect mirrors. So I don't see how they can be called manifestations, especially Adam. And all of them are surrounded by mythic events, like Adam being placed in the Garden of Eden and then getting kicked out, and Noah and his family being the only human survivors of a world-wide flood. If those things are mythical or symbolic, then what is real about them, the people?

In Bahai View They were real Men. Some stories about Them were written in a symbolic language.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

.
For the second problem, I think we already knew that Baha'i is a product of Islam.

And some Muslims think Bahai is a product of Israel, Russia or England.

To me, the Problem is, people do not investigate. They superficially judge.

 

[Vinayaka]

So yes you are probably following some false teachings, like reincarnation and not believing in the manifestations. But not to worry, you are not going to hell. Hell is a false teaching of the Christians. So you should be good.

lol, I'm not worried.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That seems logical, until you 'investigate' further. The problem with that idea is that I've talked to meditators, and heard many differing descriptions of experiences during meditation, often varying substantially from my own. Either everyone has very poor communication skills, or the experiences are actually different. With meditation, there is also the factor of 'years practice' at it. Just as a beginning pianist differes from the concert pianist, so too does the beginning meditator differ from the experience monk who has meditated 3 hours a day for 60 years.

I have the impression that through a meditative technique some Hindus believe they can escape the cycle of life and death (samsara). First there is a belief that the cycle of life and death exists through the transmigration of souls from one life to another. Then there is the belief that through the guidance of an experienced or enlightened guru there is a meditative technique that can bring the soul closer to freedom or the state of moksha. This is all central to what some Hindus are trying to achieve. Is this a fair summary?

Baha'is on the other hand who do not believe in reincarnation, do not try to achieve moksha or attempt to learn a meditative technique that attains this goal. Instead our meditation is focused on developing powers of spiritual perception in this world to enable us to become more effective agents of social change beginning with our own selves. We have mystical experiences through meditation but those experiences are likely to lead to being more effectively engaged in the world we live in and to be of service. Our souls upon death progress through the worlds of God dependant on the Mercy and Bounty of God to draw ever closer to Him.

Does this reflect some of the core differences between Baha'is and Hindus?

So too with the nature of God. It's all fine to say it's similar, but then when everyone describes their version, why in the world does it all sound so incredibly different?

As for one God, I believe in only one Supreme God ... my version is henotheism.

So lets consider how a Baha'i understanding of God may differ from Hinduism.

Henotheism appears to be a supreme God amidst a family of Gods, so a form of polytheism, in contrast to the Abrahamics. Having said that, Christianity is arguably polytheistic with its belief in the Trinity. The Baha'i Faith, Islam and Judaism are arguably more monotheistic. That God is a personal one concerned for the welfare of his creation and He reveals Himself through Great Teachers or Educators, but can influence and inspire any soul to some extent who is sincere and faithful.

 

[Vinayaka]

I have the impression that through a meditative technique some Hindus believe they can escape the cycle of life and death (samsara). First there is a belief that the cycle of life and death exists through the transmigration of souls from one life to another. Then there is the belief that through the guidance of an experienced or enlightened guru there is a meditative technique that can bring the soul closer to freedom or the state of moksha. This is all central to what some Hindus are trying to achieve. Is this a fair summary?

Baha'is on the other hand who do not believe in reincarnation, do not try to achieve moksha or attempt to learn a meditative technique that attains this goal. Instead our meditation is focused on developing powers of spiritual perception in this world to enable us to become more effective agents of social change beginning with our own selves. We have mystical experiences through meditation but those experiences are likely to lead to being more effectively engaged in the world we live in and to be of service. Our souls upon death progress through the worlds of God dependant on the Mercy and Bounty of God to draw ever closer to Him.

Does this reflect some of the core differences between Baha'is and Hindus?



So lets consider how a Baha'i understanding of God may differ from Hinduism.

Henotheism appears to be a supreme God amidst a family of Gods, so a form of polytheism, in contrast to the Abrahamics. Having said that, Christianity is arguably polytheistic with its belief in the Trinity. The Baha'i Faith, Islam and Judaism are arguably more monotheistic. That God is a personal one concerned for the welfare of his creation and He reveals Himself through Great Teachers or Educators, but can influence and inspire any soul to some extent who is sincere and faithful.

Yes, I think your understanding is pretty close. Hindus will also meditate on particular life problems, go into a sort of samadhi, or deep concentration first, and then call up the 'problem' asking for a solution. But often the solution won't come then, but some time later, unbidden, as if out of nowhere. When something comes (a flash of insight) unbidden, we have more faith in it, as opposed to the intellectual process of logic, and argument. Both may arrive at the same conclusion.

As for God, there are other differences in perception, such as the knowable versus unknowable question. Hindus believe God is knowable, (not at all in any intellectual sense) as the innermost Self is identical to God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I asked @loverofhumanity "I asked Lover (I think) about Vinakaya. Is he (Vinakaya) lying about his belief and has a faltered relationship with god. Lover said he didn't want to talk down about other people."

Usually the person who takes offense is the person I talk about. I ask this question from my point of view, Vinakaya's, Joe Smoe, generalization, and other ways. I'm litterally asking you guys two questions a. do you see how Bahaullah's words undermine other religions? b. Is Hinus lying about their relationship with god since they do not believe in the Promised One?



No one has engaged us with our values only Bahai and Bahai point of view of some of our values-mostly Hindu and Christian. There is no back and forth exchange in learning just offering views and hoping either we agree to disagree, agree, or ask you more things about the Bahai faith. It is a very one-sided conversation.

Most Bahai always agree, for some reason. However, I never seen the conversation style change to mirror their agreement.



We are told we have the same core values/virtues. As a result, regardless of what the rest of us calls core values, Bahai calls them "names" or clothing that covers the core values that point to god.

We have different core values; and, not all core values lead to god. Bahai says otherwise.

If you want to find a common foundation with people you disagree with, you literally have to engage with them with their belief too not just Bahai and Bahai's agreement. I mean, @Vinakaya has told you guys many many times that you are agreeing to a misinterpretation of his faith. What you believe has already been discussed.

I just find it sad it only goes as far as what you believe. Lover mentioned a story about Bahaullah and Maxim. They were talking about the importance of war. Maxim said war is necessary. Bahaullah said love (and other virtues) are necessary. They disagreed with each other.

World peace goes beyond disagreement. I asked Lover why didn't Bahaullah press the issue to build world peace between himself and Maxim or at least mutual understanding of why Maxim preferred war. Lover didn't answer specifically to that story.

I thought the story was a bridge of understanding Bahaullah's view of Maxim if he would have wanted world peace between the two of them. But then, that's from Bahaullah's point of view. He never went in detail about Maxim's. He just let it be.



Investigator and Tony has already said that without following the Promised One, they are not following their own teachings (they generalized religions as a whole). Yes, it is a abrahamic concept. Bahai has the same view. The quotes have already been listed.

I just wanted to know if Vinakaya was following the wrong interpretation of his belief. Krishna has been grossly misinterpreted to where the name is Hindu but everything else is not.

Do Bahai even care about that?



We're discussing mostly Bahai faith and your innermost values. I asked what Vinakaya believed once, he said it was more of an experience so nothing to put in words. Therefore, any Bahai that keeps looking for the god and virtues of Krishna in the Gita are missing the point.

But they continue to say they do not believe in man only Krishna. Which confuses me because the Hindu god defines Krishna not the god of abraham; so, they'd have to understand god to understand god's incarnation. Understanding is not from a book.





I asked one time about seeing core values through differing foundations. No Bahai could talk about it. They saw what we had in common. If we are talking about our values, I would think they'd try to see where the rest of us are coming from.

We can't change your beliefs. Just your beliefs are highly misinterpreting therefore disrespecting other people's faiths. But at least there will be talk from both people's values without needing to compare them when you do ask or reply to our posts than rephrasing your own.

You/your-Bahai in general

Sorry but which story about Baha'u'llah are you referring to? I don't recall posting anything like that unless you're meaning someone else?
.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That's what I'm talking about... "what has been interpreted and handed down...not necessarily what was originally taught." So what was originally taught?

In your next post you mention one: "it was Ishmael not Isaac that was offered up as a sacrifice." So Judaism and Christianity has that wrong? Does Islam also believe it was Ishmael?

We Baha'is believe that the latest Manifestation has it right. Those events occurred thousands of years ago so really, only God knows what really transpired. And He set the facts straight through His Representative.

I don't think the Quran mentions which son was offered up.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sorry but which story about Baha'u'llah are you referring to? I don't recall posting anything like that unless you're meaning someone else?
.

Wait. I think it was Tony who posted it. Sorry. I found it online. Maxim and Bahaullah

 

[Vinayaka]

Those events occurred thousands of years ago so really, only God knows what really transpired. And He set the facts straight through His Representative.

Nope, no contradiction there, lol. You seem to have a rather odd interpretation of the word 'facts' as compared to others.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you.

My question to the other two was how to solve this greater peace problem. Of course, you guys will not change your beliefs but to in my opinion, I'd never believe in any belief (not just Bahai) that undermines another person's faith. I haven't heard an Eastern faith do it. SGI does and Shoshu (modern Nichiren Buddhist sects) but those who have culture and practice intermingled don't have that evangelistic mindset.

It's like mixing oil and water with me.

The greater peace, like any peace, is the culmination of a process that begins with a conversation between two souls that are genuinely trying to better understand the world they live in and aspire to make it a better place.

I think they appreciate that. Investigator and Tony said that those who do not acknowledge the Promised One reject Bahaullah. So basically, whoever rejects Bahaullah by default rejects the chosen people of god. So, logically (outside of morality), if what Bahai says is true, @Vinayaka could not be following the correct faith because he does not see Krishna as a manifestation and as far as I remember, Krishna isn't part of his sect of Hindu belief.

You guys say it indirectly. I ask directly because I don't like guessing.

I'm aware that many Hindus do not follow Krishna let alone believe He is a Manifestation of God. I don't think it is helpful to claim Hinduism is something it isn't, nor would it be fruitful to criticise Hindus because they don't fit our expectation. We need a better starting point for having a conversation if it is to be meaningful for both parties.

Shrugs. I'm used to it offline. What's weird is, out of Bahai, Catholics, Baptist, Buddhist, who else, whomever, the only people that asked me specifically what I believed was Jehovah Witness and they always get a bad reputation from other denominations.

I can't figure out the irony. One day.

I simply see the Jehovah Witnesses as people who are part of another Christian denomination, who I am happy to converse with if they are happy to talk to me.

I think they'd have more conflicts with your peers. You have more of a christian point of view and also more reflective than some of your peers on this thread. That, and it depends on the Christians, of course. I have christians think I'm christian because I have a different and more reflective interpretation of scripture and Jesus' passion than what's written. Anyone can write anything. I honestly don't understand "sacred-book" religions.

In many way you reflect Christian beliefs and values, so I can understand why you would be considered Christian for some. You have excellent literacy and communications skills. That is not the problem with sacred scripture. It comes down to a matter of faith, believing that such scripture has been inspired by God.

From Vinakaya's point of view, it is totally different. Most likely Bahai, it's similar. From an outside perspective, going to the Hindu temple, reading part of the Hindu faith, and just talking to people here, I am so amazed that Krishna can be soooo misinterpreted to the point of not differing opinions but just being plain false. I mean, that's an objective point of view. You have other atheists and non-religious folks pointing out the same thing.

So, it isn't similar. The issue with The Buddha and Krishna bothers me the most. Christ, Muhammad, and Bahaullah, I'm not too concerned about. I know Christ wasn't a progression to Bahaullah by experience, but in regards to Hinduism, it's beyond difference of interpretation.

The inclusion of Krishna and Buddhism as Manifestations of God has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons. Baha'is genuinely believe they are. You and @Vinayaka genuinely believe it makes no sense.

That makes me wonder why would Krishna (and not Siva and other gods) be a part of the Bahai faith. The Gita doesn't define Hinduism because it is so vast with so many different definitions and perspectives of god that Vinakaya gave me the link to, that by logic, it just doesn't make sense to pick one god out of hundreds.

Krisha wasn't a man. @Vinayaka That's why there is a conflict. Krishna is god and not the god of abraham. To compare them two just by virtues is like saying we both share the same love even though my definition could war and yours be peace.

From my reading from non-Baha'i sites it seems to reasonable to see Krishna as being a man, not a deity. It seems reasonable to see Shiva as a deity and not a man.

Krishna - Hindupedia, the Hindu Encyclopedia

Krishna - Wikipedia

Shiva - Wikipedia

I agree there is also evidence to support Krishna as a deity as well as a man. I'm comfortable with the apparent contradiction.

Do you all do this more on an individual basis? I don't get that impression here from most Bahai.

I work in a profession that involves listening to people all day long. Most of it isn't directly about religion. I don't know how I would cope with too many conversations like the ones on RF in real life.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The greater peace, like any peace, is the culmination of a process that begins with a conversation between two souls that are genuinely trying to better understand the world they live in and aspire to make it a better place.

I'm aware that many Hindus do not follow Krishna let alone believe He is a Manifestation of God. I don't think it is helpful to claim Hinduism is something it isn't, nor would it be fruitful to criticise Hindus because they don't fit our expectation. We need a better starting point for having a conversation if it is to be meaningful for both parties.

True. In my personal opinion, it's not just conversation. For example, Christianity distorts a lot of Judaism (as so from Jews point of view). Since Judaism came before Christianity, regardless of whether we are nice in our communication I would never internally tell myself a Jew is wrong about his own belief system because my belief (say if I were christian) says it's another way. I don't see god over man. If I defined god, god is what defines mind not an outside person. Is life rather than gives life. That's how I see god.

So, when a Jew says X and a Christian says Y that conflicts with Jewish views, it isn't about me since there is no god above me to tell me who is right or wrong. God is the source/life of a person not a person with whom can give words of morality. Morality is embedded in ourselves because that is god. So, if a Christian believes something that is not right with the Jewish faith but them claims that Judaism is a foundation of Christianity, I have an issue with that. That morality between how that Christian sees a Jew is disconnecting one person from another thereby disconnecting god.

The best way we can live god without undermining other people is to let people have their views and we have ours internally and externally. It's just respect, really. I can't see the Bahai god telling you that Krishna is X and Hindu say Krishna is Y when god is morality and if our morality is sound (if our relationship with god is sound) we would follow what the Hindu say not our own beliefs unless we are Hindu ourselves.

I simply see the Jehovah Witnesses as people who are part of another Christian denomination, who I am happy to converse with if they are happy to talk to me.

Shrugs. That's just my experience with JW. Catholics will only go so far but if I question them about their beliefs or rationalize them they paralyze. Talking about my beliefs makes them uncomfortable. I don't have close friends anymore to talk with. So basically, it's just me.

In many way you reflect Christian beliefs and values, so I can understand why you would be considered Christian for some. You have excellent literacy and communications skills. That is not the problem with sacred scripture. It comes down to a matter of faith, believing that such scripture has been inspired by God.

Thank you. Working on my spelling I see many inspired people writing religious books. I don't see the book inspired by god because it makes that book an idol. Instead of looking at yourself and environment to connect with god, you look to one source and one book. It's very limiting to see life through one book and one prophet as an override of the progressive prophets. Many people just go to god directly. That's what I would do. No book needed if god can communicate anyway he wishes. Why would he create humans that do not have the ability to communicate with him. Kind of like parents having children but instead of the child communicating with their parents, their parents give him a go-between. That go-between is not the same as the parent. Children know this. Adults, we're sometimes fickled in awarenes.

The inclusion of Krishna and Buddhism as Manifestations of God has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons. Baha'is genuinely believe they are. You and @Vinayaka genuinely believe it makes no sense.

Logically, it doesn't. It's not specifically with Vinakaya. Atheists, non-religious, myself, a lot of people here have said the same thing. We don't need to look into Hinduism and practice it to know that Krishna is not a man nor manifestation as defined by the quotes and teachings on this thread by Bahai. I mean, anyone can believe anything they want. Once you call them facts, there's a problem. Especially religiously.

You can't have greater peace by believing wrong things about other religions and expect sometime in the future we will agree if we believe in the promised one.

From my reading from non-Baha'i sites it seems to reasonable to see Krishna as being a man, not a deity. It seems reasonable to see Shiva as a deity and not a man.

I've read Krishna is a deity. I think awhile back, @Vinayaka said something about him being a man turned into a deity because he achieved Moksha or something. It was just one post, though. The Gita I posted defines him as a deity. He is an incarnation. He is god himself. (Vishnu-->Brahma). So, god can't be a manifestation of god.

It's not opinion. It's just what their written and dogma teaches. It's also logical looking at it objectively. Because you guys believe in your god views, you don't see it. It is literally calling other believers liars. If they are not liars, they would agree with your god. Their teachings and practitioners do not. So, the Bahai views bamboozles me.

I agree there is also evidence to support Krishna as a deity as well as a man. I'm comfortable with the apparent contradiction.

I can't remember how Vinayaka phrased it. Though, being a man automatically means one isn't god and vis versa. Krishna is god, though not just a deity. So, you'd have to believe in both god of Hinduism and god of abraham. Unless the god of abraham is defined differently for you the nature of the two god's are a contradiction. Whether you are comfortable with it or not shouldn't matter, right, unless god's view is dependent on what you accept rather than the other way around?

I work in a profession that involves listening to people all day long. Most of it isn't directly about religion. I don't know how I would cope with too many conversations like the ones on RF in real life.

Haha. At college, I can't even work in groups. Three or more people having multiple idea swarms my noggin' I can't imagine the topic being religion (or politics even!) on top of that.

 

[Vinayaka]

Once you call them facts, there's a problem. Especially religiously.

Totally concur. Yet it happens way too much. The 'other side' is just beliefs, but my side is facts. It's true blue folly. How many times on this thread have we been told about the facts, according to the infallible one? With the possible exception of Adrian, it's frustrating, mostly because the difference between belief and fact is just so blatantly obvious, it borders on the absurd to think otherwise.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So, when a Jew says X and a Christian says Y that conflicts with Jewish views, it isn't about me since there is no god above me to tell me who is right or wrong.
.

I would agree with you here, only if there was no God, or living Truth.

To me, you are saying, since there is no God, and that all these Religions were invented by men, there is no right or wrong.
How exactly you concluded for yourself that there is no God? Are you absolutely certain that there is no God, or you consider, there could be, but you have not recognized God yet?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Totally concur. Yet it happens way too much. The 'other side' is just beliefs, but my side is facts. It's true blue folly. How many times on this thread have we been told about the facts, according to the infallible one? With the possible exception of Adrian, it's frustrating, mostly because the difference between belief and fact is just so blatantly obvious, it borders on the absurd to think otherwise.

But you do realize that, what may appear fact to a person, it may not be a fact to another person. Thus, a person 'believes' something is a fact, and another person 'believes', that is not a fact. A fact is a belief for person, and it is always like that.
Consider, for instance there was a time, people believed earth was flat. For them, this was an obvious fact. Then someone else came and said, the fact is earth is round. Those majority thought their own belief was fact. So, one thing may appear not be a fact to another person, because he has not reached to the point to believe it is a fact. But, just because he has not believed it is a fact, it does not mean it is not, is it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

To me, you are saying, since there is no God, and that all these Religions were invented by men, there is no right or wrong.

Actually, re-read the post. I'm saying since there is no abrahamic god (no outside spirit/entity defined by a sacred book). This is how I see god:

"I don't see god over man. If I defined god, god is what defines man (edit) not an outside person. God Is life rather than gives life. That's how I see god....God is the source/life of a person not a person with whom can give words of morality.

Morality is embedded in ourselves because that is god...

That morality between how that Christian sees a Jew is disconnecting one person from another thereby disconnecting god. "

So when you redefined another person's faith, you are separate yourself from that other person. It causes division or disunity, if one likes.

That and I am man. So, I do not separate god from man nor do I talk of man "inventing" things as if man is some soiled being that can't create spirituality apart from an authority. It's a slavery mindset. All throughout history. I distaste it.

Right and wrong are in us because that right and wrong is god. We did not receive it. We develop it from our interaction with others and knowing ourselves. It is up to us to form good connections so that greater peace and respect for others can be established. This is creating a healthy bond and life/god will florish because we are thinking for each other not for an outside party. We are looking inward because we know ourselves the best. Once our source is outside ourselves, it's a "mystery, essense, can't be explained." These attributes do not make something divine or god in your definition. It's just what it is, something we don't know.

However, if we want to build greater peace, start with something we do know.

How exactly you concluded for yourself that there is no God? Are you absolutely certain that there is no God, or you consider, there could be, but you have not recognized God yet?

I've explained it hundreds of times (probably on RF alone) and many times on this thread how I see the abrahamic god. Unless it interests or agrees with you, or other bahai, it's bypassed entirely.

1. Just because there is a claim god exist and thousands of people believe does not make something true. Thousands of people can claim that we can fly literally. Children jump up and down on their beds trying to fly. We make airplanes and space shuttles. We go to amusement parks and experience the "illusion" of flying. Yet, gravity tells us, we cannot fly.

Psychology, culture, archeology, theology, and what else, psychology tells us god does not exist outside ourselves.

2. The inspiration you experience and I experience we may both have a sense of calmness and all of that because we are both humans. We interpret religion different ways but that does not exclude the fact our feelings and "spirituality" is not alien to another person's experience. We are all human.

3. What we don't know is just that. What we don't know. It needs no personification. You have people write poetry, essays, and so forth on guessing or some people feel they are told by an angel or so have you about life because of that fear of not knowing.

Try putting a child in the dark and see if he won't be scared without his mother. There is a need of solace whether in oneself or outside oneself.

This isn't supernatural. It's all human experience.

4. Spiritual experiences are explained by syncronictiy, considence for some, connecting the dots, bias, upbringing, culture, ...

but no one has explained these experiences apart from their books, their self or practice, their mind, or their emotional conclusions. Everything is dependent on what we observe and conclude.

Try to explain god without referring to anything any prophet wrote about it. Near over 2,000 years ago in christian history does not make god exist more in that time period than we have in this.

The time factor alone proves that god is part of human nature (however termed). We describe these experiences in different ways but we are all human.

It comes from man.

5. I've seen spirits throughout my lifetime. Souls of the deceased. Is it special? No. Is it something that brings me to god (an entity)? No. It is what it is. Recently I experienced a huge evidence my family in spirit exists. Yet, I know it is not a god experience but a human one. A literal human who is deceased pushed me back. My mind connects that she was my loved one. That experience is real to me.

That is spirituality and religion. It works for the person not for other people. They are beliefs not facts because

it is a mystery. To claim "god exists" is very bold indeed.

To say god does not exist is just saying "there is no personified mystery". If spirits aren't souls of the deceased, what exactly is a spirit, demon, or angel?

What about these things tie it to this world and why in the world would a prophet know more about this than the rest of us when, in Buddhism, we are all the same.

It comes from the mind. Our experiences external and internal, just as pain is registered by our nerves, the source is external but it means nothing to us until we stub our toe.

I can go on but god is life. Energy. We personify it. Make incarnations. Have prophets. Do cartwheels over this. That's not the issue.

When you are talking to other people about god, talk from your own experiences and beliefs not as facts. This makes conversation more personal and we understand god of our understanding without undermining another person's faith.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

As for God, there are other differences in perception, such as the knowable versus unknowable question. Hindus believe God is knowable, (not at all in any intellectual sense) as the innermost Self is identical to God.

"He hath known God who hath known himself." (Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 178)

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

it is a mystery. To claim "god exists" is very bold indeed.

Your thoughts have foundation in this passage;

"....To a supreme degree is this true of man, who, among all created things, hath been invested with the robe of such gifts, and hath been singled out for the glory of such distinction. For in him are potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God to a degree that no other created being hath excelled or surpassed. All these names and attributes are applicable to him. Even as He hath said: “Man is My mystery, and I am his mystery.” Manifold are the verses that have been repeatedly revealed in all the Heavenly Books and the Holy Scriptures, expressive of this most subtle and lofty theme. Even as He hath revealed: “We will surely show them Our signs in the world and within themselves.” Again He saith: “And also in your own selves: will ye not, then, behold the signs of God?” And yet again He revealeth: “And be ye not like those who forget God, and whom He hath therefore caused to forget their own selves.” In this connection, He Who is the eternal King—may the souls of all that dwell within the mystic Tabernacle be a sacrifice unto Him—hath spoken: “He hath known God who hath known himself.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 177-179

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

But you do realize that, what may appear fact to a person, it may not be a fact to another person.

A strong solid BELIEF is different from a fact, no matter how you want to interpret it. You can claim your beliefs are facts, just like Christians and Islamists do, but non-Baha'i' etc. are not Buying it. I've never claimed reincarnation to be a fact, just a Hindu belief. That's a far more reasonable stance, in my view. But at this point, this thread isn't really about being reasonable, is it?