How are these Great Beings explained?

[oldbadger]

Winston Churchill, the saviour of civilisation as we know it. Thats creative.

Indeed.

 

[oldbadger]

................................Sometimes a patient who is a Christian fundamentalist may ask me what faith I am..............

Fair enough....
Our Doctor is a Sikh and so such situations might be more easy for both himself and his wife who is also a doctor at the practice..

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't consider being one restaurant as a definition of unity and being the source of it.

Nor do I. The restaurant is the social space we share whether the earth, a country, a city, a workplace, a home or even cyberspace on RF.

One restaurant is just the place we are eating nothing more.

As above it presents an opportunity for meeting people similar or different from ourselves.

I was at a Korean luncheon yesterday, at sat alone because I knew no Korean and was around people three times my age so I couldn't relate. Same place. Still isolated.

Ironically, sometimes we can feel most alone when we are surrounded by others.

What we have in common is our intent and interest to try each other's food and be content and respectful to each other's meal and it's differing origin.

That is true.

What is different and highly valuable to most countries is that the food they share is their food. They don't mind sharing if the people they share with understand that the ingredients and instruction of dish is theirs.

In my town most of the Japanese restaurants are owned and run by Koreans. Do you think they need permission in some way from Japanese people to run a Japanese restaurant?

If I compared it to language, if I made up a sign in sign language to reflect my own interest because I can speak some sign too, that's disrespectful. Yes, we are signing around the same table and enjoying our conversation. The deeper issue is disrespecting the culture and nature to which American Sign Language comes from and who can make up signs and who cannot.

So the unity is not in our differing history; origins. We have various sources coming together talking in one conversation. It's the interest in talking in that one conversation and not mistaking a Deaf person's hospitality as a means he is accepting you in his culture and language.

I haven't had too much to do with the deaf community but understand from my limited experience they have developed their own culture within a culture. They have done what they needed to do to make the best of life with a disability.

Unity in results not by source.

That is true. Theres no point talking about unity, if we persistently miss the opportunities we have with each person we come in contact with.

 

[Dawnofhope]

An "agnostic Christian" is a person who has received Christian baptism and is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings, but also believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena. Basically, the belief is there with the understanding that it is based on faith not knowledge. This doesn't apply to me anymore though.

ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena

Chris·tian
ˈkrisCHən/
noun

1. a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

That makes sense. But it doesn't apply to you anymore. What has changed?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Well, I expect that it could help Bahai if Bahai couples would meet and marry, wouldn't it?
It doesn't have to be smutty, but a 'meet a Bahai' section in Bahai.org might not be such a bad idea?


J.W. was a Bahai who ran a 'pension' type plan in the late 70's. He used to hold firesides which I took my wife to. He didn't just offer his services to Bahais as far as I know. He was convicted and sent to prison because his plan was something like what they (in the US) call a ponsi-scheme. Lots of elderly folks lost their savings.


I'm not allowed to look for sex even if I wanted to. Mrs Badger would bash me.

Ha! Ha! Good on you Mrs Badger!! And we think men rule the world! The wrath of a woman can make a nuclear warhead seem feeble!!

 

[Dawnofhope]

The avatar concept is different than the manifestation concept, although I may be wrong, since neither apply to me personally. My understanding is that an avatar is a person and simultaneously God.

That is how I understand it too.

A manifestation of God, OTOH, isn't God. If it was, then you would call Baha'u'llah God, or Muhammad God. The two words, Baha'u'llah, and God would be synonymous, and hence interchangeable. I could be wrong, but I don' think that's how Baha'i' view it.

The manifestation of God, is both man and God.

'Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God”, He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world…'
Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 233-234

n Hinduism, any version (name) of the supreme God, whether it be Krishna, Siva, Shakti, etc. is interchangeable with the term God. So to me, saying 'Sive permeates the universe, is identical to 'God permeates the universe'.

Baha'u'llah translated means 'Glory of God.'

Perhaps the distinction is subtle, but its still there.

I agree, but there is overlap too. The words physical verses spiritual incarnation come to mind. in part the reality of the Manifestation for Baha'is is an incomprehensible reality beyond the understanding of men.

interestingly, the way Viashnavites view Krishna may be closer to the way Christians view Jesus, than the way Baha'is view Baha'u'llah.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If someone is consistently unable to follow the rules of the forum, they get banned. A couple of warnings won't do that. Clearly the definition of proselytizing varies.

The rules on RF seem fair and its important we all try to abide by them. It is no easy thing to set up a website like this where peoples of diffferent faiths can talk so openly. Its a priviledge to be here.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes Hindus will have differing views. Good to hear from a Vaishnavite, but I\m curious if he could compare 'manifestation' with avatar'. Maybe he does see Baha'u'llah and Christ as avatars.

I don't want to scare the poor guy away, but it would be interesting to have that conversation with him.

 

[Dawnofhope]

And perhaps indeed they are truly incredibly different.

Ha ha. Perhaps it is. You believe in Moksha and reincarnation and I am a Baha'i. I look for how Baha'u'llah could be right and you look for how he could be wrong. Nothing wrong with that. We just come from different places.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Haha. That made my head turn crooked. I wonder if I asked @adrian009 the same thing would there be a deeper insight on it.

Now you are a Buddhist maybe he has given you a koan for your education and edification!

Kōan - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thanks. My point was that a religion that adopts bits and pieces of other traditions might be better regarded (i.e. more widely/acceptably interpreted) as a "fusion" or a "hybrid" religion rather than an authentic revelation from God. The problem facing Baha'is in this discussion hinges around the perfectly understandable difficulty non-Baha'is have in accepting the Baha'i claim of authenticity when they can see that it clearly borrows from (and frankly, bastardizes) the traditions of other faiths.

On the other hand - it is simply following in the tried and trusted Abrahamic tradition which entire edifice is founded on the notion of prophetic succession - the gradual or successive (depending on whether you are a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Baha'i or whatever) apocalypsis of God's plan for humankind. You can't be a Christian and not believe that Christ has the last word, or a Muslim and imagine that the Prophet's message can legitimately be revised. Likewise for Baha'i's (I think) - it would be impossible for a Baha'i to admit that Baha'u'llah's writings might be a less authentic interpretation of the teachings of Buddha or Krishna than those of a modern Buddhist or Hindu. It sounds arrogant on the face of it - but how else is a believing Baha'i to rationalize their faith?

It is - I guess - a paradoxical feature of religion that as the religious needs of humans change, the faces of their religions change with them and yet the same faces keep turning up as "religion" tries its best to live up to its name by re-connecting (Latin: re [again] ligare [to bind or connect]) us to the past but never quite succeeds in stuffing the new package into the old carton without breaking something.

So my question now is - since we can't stuff the new (religious ideas) into the old carton, is there something we could take out to make a better fit? Personally, I'd start with divine revelation and prophetic succession. I reckon there's still plenty of flavors that we could use to spice it up a bit without those.

The most common criticism I have heard from poeple who know next to nothing about the Baha'i Faith is that it is a hybrid religion. I doubt if any serious religious scholar would claim that.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Fair enough....
Our Doctor is a Sikh and so such situations might be more easy for both himself and his wife who is also a doctor at the practice..

I have this born again Christian patient who persisted and I have just refused to answer beyond a few evasive biblical quotes. Eventually he asked me if I was a Muslim. When I told him I wasn't he was happy and hasn't asked me about my religion again since and we get on fine.

 

[oldbadger]

I have this born again Christian patient who persisted and I have just refused to answer beyond a few evasive biblical quotes. Eventually he asked me if I was a Muslim. When I told him I wasn't he was happy and hasn't asked me about my religion again since and we get on fine.

As a full elder of the Studd Hill Full Moon Frolickers I refuse to let you save my life if you belong to any of those 'goody goody' religions.......

 

[Vinayaka]

1) Baha'u'llah translated means 'Glory of God.'

2) I agree, but there is overlap too. The words physical verses spiritual incarnation come to mind. in part the reality of the Manifestation for Baha'is is an incomprehensible reality beyond the understanding of men.

3) interestingly, the way Viashnavites view Krishna may be closer to the way Christians view Jesus, than the way Baha'is view Baha'u'llah.

1) Krishna translated would mean 'God' I think.
2) Hindus believe it's totally understandable, but men have to go beyond the intellect. We are all potentially realised sages. In fact it's our spiritual destiny. The only difference is we don't know it, and first have to go through the karmas and learning necessarily to get there. The belief in reincarnation is an absolute prerequisite.
3) In all 3 situations, I've observed variance, and it's all outside my understanding and interest, so who knows?

 

[Vinayaka]

The manifestation of God, is both man and God.

We're all emanated from God, so in that sense we all are.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Now you are a Buddhist maybe he has given you a koan for your education and edification!

Kōan - Wikipedia

I never used Zoans. I never practiced Soto Zen before so I wouldn't know how to properly use or reflect on them. It reminds me of does a tree make a sound when no one is in the forest. My brain doesn't learn from things like that. It does make a sound. We just like things to revolve around us for it to exist as if the laws of nature cannot run without us.

 

[Dawnofhope]

We're all emanated from God, so in that sense we all are.

In Baha'i theology everything is created by God:

'all-glorious Ruler of the universe, Who, out of utter nothingness, hath created the reality of all things, Who, from naught, hath brought into being the most refined and subtle elements of His creation, and Who, rescuing His creatures from the abasement of remoteness and the perils of ultimate extinction, hath received them into His kingdom of incorruptible glory. Nothing short of His all-encompassing grace, His all-pervading mercy, could have possibly achieved it. How could it, otherwise, have been possible for sheer nothingness to have acquired by itself the worthiness and capacity to emerge from its state of non-existence into the realm of being?'

We have been endowed with all the attributes and names of God so that we mirror God.

'Upon the inmost reality of each and every created thing He hath shed the light of one of His names, and made it a recipient of the glory of one of His attributes. Upon the reality of man, however, He hath focused the radiance of all of His names and attributes, and made it a mirror of His own Self. Alone of all created things man hath been singled out for so great a favor, so enduring a bounty.'

Subtle differences again, or perhaps more. How do you understand the word emanate? I wonder how it differs from create, endow, mirror, and manifest.

 

[Dawnofhope]

1) Krishna translated would mean 'God' I think.

I'm not sure what Krishna means but He is an avatar or manifestation of Vishnu the preserver. Perhaps Vishnu can mean God too.

2) Hindus believe it's totally understandable, but men have to go beyond the intellect. We are all potentially realised sages. In fact it's our spiritual destiny. The only difference is we don't know it, and first have to go through the karmas and learning necessarily to get there. The belief in reincarnation is an absolute prerequisite.

Moksha and reincarnation that are so central to your faith without similar concepts in Baha'ism appear to be the biggest differences.

3) In all 3 situations, I've observed variance, and it's all outside my understanding and interest, so who knows?

The variance within Hinduism appears just as great.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I never used Zoans. I never practiced Soto Zen before so I wouldn't know how to properly use or reflect on them. It reminds me of does a tree make a sound when no one is in the forest. My brain doesn't learn from things like that. It does make a sound. We just like things to revolve around us for it to exist as if the laws of nature cannot run without us.

Then that is good as I doubt if I would find it too helpful either.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Nor do I. The restaurant is the social space we share whether the earth, a country, a city, a workplace, a home or even cyberspace on RF.

The restaurant example you gave made me think unity is the restaurant (not the earth), diversity are the people in the restaurant, and we are all sharing each other's dishes. Unless you changed the goal post that's pretty much it.

In my town most of the Japanese restaurants are owned and run by Koreans. Do you think they need permission in some way from Japanese people to run a Japanese restaurant?

I can't remember who else here thought I meant "ask permission" I think it was lover. I don't think you understand cultural propriation or cultural ownership.

I'm trying to figure how to explain it briefly. Pretend the PRIDE Flag was around way before Baker was alive. Say it's a historical marker that meant not only equality of all LGBTQ people but PRIDE is actually education for LGBTQ youth as well. It's basically about educating people.

Anyway, say you come along and like the rainbow flag. Fine. It's all cool. Say you come to a PRIDE Parade and wear a Rainbow flag but you are not an ally because you identity homosexuality with an action. Wearing that flag is an insult. It's talking something that is culturally owned, using it in a manner you feel is respectful, and not knowing the disrespect you have by not being part of the group or an ally of that group.

It's really tricky. In Deaf culture, there is no "asking permission". American Sign Language in America, ASL is the Deaf community's language. It's not individual people so even being one person that, say you're deaf, and you come into the community without associating yourself as Deaf is a insult to even use the word you can use by technicality. Hearing people literally cannot ask permission to say make up an ASL word or some words that are only used (and aka owned) by the Deaf community.

Food is the same thing. It has the same intimate affair with the person who makes it more so than the person who is not part of that culture. I mean the Vietnamese were very nice to me and all. However, a family member cooked a dish for the monks, and I took the recipe, went home, and made it myself thinking "they like me. this is okay." To me, that's stealing. Stealing from the culture. Stealing from the Sangha. Stealing from the monks.

I wish I knew you more but if I find a video on it or something, I'll post it.

I haven't had too much to do with the deaf community but understand from my limited experience they have developed their own culture within a culture. They have done what they needed to do to make the best of life with a disability.

It's the best example I can think of. D-eaf meaning a person who is deaf or hard of hearing who are part of a community built on like growing up experiences, interests, language, cultural norms, and ways of getting around in the hearing world that a hearing person, no matter how close they are to the Deaf community, will not be a part of.

So, if I came in a decided to use ASL for my benefit because "I know Deaf people and we are friends" that's rude. I can't ask permission because permission is embedded in the culture not something you can get by asking.

A lot of Americans are sensitive with people coming out of the country and becoming American citizens here. People from other countries come here daily, but the cultural part is American's independence-American by culture, language, and nationality....not just nationality an learning about culture and language as a second language.

So some Americans see that as "stealing our independence that is solely for Americans". You can't ask permission because that thought is embedded in the northern and southern states here in the US. (Civil War states) The western states where native americans were taken as slaves and land sold.

It doesn't mean you can't be American. It doesn't mean you can no longer try Japanese dishes. Just note that there is a cultural separation between people and the things they hold dear to their country and ours. Like here I live among a lot of elderly Koreans. Yes, I say hello and how are you in Korean and they gave me "permission" to use it by teaching me more phrases I forgot. But to connect with them on that level just because I am friends with thiem (if I am?) is for me to say that is rude.

That's the difference.

I figure a good video so you don't have to suffer through all this. I can't figure a better way to explain it. We can share meals in the same restaurant. We can find them all delicious, savor the taste, talk about its commonalities, and so forth. There are different cooks in the back, they offer their foods to many different people. Just don't mistake their offerings to all people as a way to make everyone apart of their culture by food. It goes beyond that.

Foods just an analogy.