How are these Great Beings explained?

[Unveiled Artist]

OK, so Baha'is are like other Abrahamic Faiths yet you have had an ongoing conversation with Baha'is here on this thread for the last 8 months. On the other hand the Jews, Muslims, and Christians don't talk too long. I wonder why?

In regards to the gospels, there is complete clarity in the gopsels that the God of the Jews is also the God of the Christians? Do you think Jesus got it wrong?

I looked up Bahai faith years ago when I first came out and had a study-focus faith in christianity. It was I think when I was 17. I didn't agree with the all revealed teachings focused on god but I never talked with a Bahai before about it.

I talk with christians all the time about christ. My views about their religion doesn't mean I need to fuss with them. The JW like challenging discussions because they said it strengthens their faith and also they learn about others. (So they can evangalize) It was an innocent gesture because one, we were in person, and two, they were interested in learning something outside their comfort zone.

If anything, I think I sleep with christ, wake up to christ, breathe christ in the air, and can't go a day or two without someone mentioning christ or god. So, I know a lot and very interested in talking about it.

I do not care for christianity and authority-like faiths and I am able to have good conversations with people who do not mind my challenging them to find the logics of why they believe what they do not from my personal experience.



I never said god of the jews and god of christians are different. If you're talking about trinitarians, yes, they are. Jews do not believe christ is god. If you're talking of how scripture sees it, of course they are the same.

I am speaking from what I know not what I believe. I don't believe in god; but, one does not need to believe in god to understand scripture and the nature of faith especially when one has experienced it.

 

[oldbadger]

That compels me to say Happy Birthday to your Wife.

Woops, also good on you and your health.

Woops..... thankyou.

I have had meetings where pastors barged in doing what they do.
Basically it is embarrassing for them, so yes I too would take them outside so they stopped embarrasing themselves.

Take....?
That sounds a bit like eject.?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I see no disagreement, I see what is said in that verse is that the true meaning of the Dhamma is lost to the minds of Man. What is taught after the 2500 years is not what Buddha Taught. The writings may remain, but the meaning was lost.

I will just focus on this. All physical teachings will decay. Our bodies will decay. Plants. Animals. Our planet. Everything is in the form of changing. This is what The Buddha taught. The Dhamma teachings birth, change, and dying and rebirth.

Man's view, just as everything else, changes; that is not bad nor wrong. It's a fact of life and it is a part of The Buddha's teachings. So The Dhamma is about decaying and rebirth.

How Bahai sees decaying is literally becoming obsolete because of people's interpretations of it are messed up (my words). That is not what The Buddha taught. Everything is happening how it is supposed to.

The problem is that the original teachings do not lead to god. Bahai is man just as everyone else. You guys are no different in misinterpreting The Buddha's teachings. This causes wars.

Instead, accept that what man says is true about their own teachings. If Buddhist say there is no god in their teachings, why defend your faith and tell them otherwise.

It is your faith. I do not see positively in interpreting The Buddha's teachings in the light of god; because, it causes friction with people who practice that faith.

You are part of man just as everyone else. Bahai does not see things "right" just we all have diverse ways of thinking, I'll say. I don't understand how you don't understand what diversity actually means. It is not surface level.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am happy to read what is from the Buddha and come to my own conclusion. If the reply given above in the first part of my answer is correct, you could see the difficulty in your suggestion to look at it from Buddhist perspective. It is at this point that I return to Baha'u'llah to understand what the Buddha might have actually have said. Sorry for being blunt, but I see it necessary at this point in time.

I find we get no where talking about Bahaullah's view since we talked about his view for thousands of posts now. It's time to switch it up and talk about Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, or Christian views instead.

Consider this is true for all Faiths, as what your offer suggests, would say that a christian should look at it from the Jews Perspective and there would be no Christians. A Baha'i should look at Baha'u'llah from a Muslim Perspective!

Yep. That's spiritual growth. In my belief, if one cannot do that, it's ego or pride. That's the Bodhisattva teaching.

You never answered my question of why you think I'm asking you to compromise your faith.

If I want to learn about Bahai, I ask a Bahai practitioner. If I want to learn about the practice, I'll go to a Bahai temple. If I want to understand Bahaullah through Bahai shoes, I talk about his view not my own. I'd have to come from my comfort zone to do this; but, we talked about Bahaullah so long, that I can probably say things by heart.

Also consider this; "Originating as a monastic movement within the dominant Brahman tradition of the day, Buddhism quickly developed in a distinctive direction. The Buddha not only rejected significant aspects of Hindu philosophy, but also challenged the authority of the priesthood, denied the validity of the Vedic scriptures, and rejected the sacrificial cult based on them. Moreover, he opened his movement to members of all castes, denying that a person's spiritual worth is a matter of birth."

Yes. I know. It's in the suttas itself. I can post it if you want to read it if you want to read it directly from the suttas?

What would have happened if all those back then, chose to see it from the point of view that the Buddha rejected?

Like above, they would have spiritual growth. Somewhat like people are trying to see the nature of the holocaust from a Nazi perspective. It takes time. I tried doing that and I literally have nightmares for days. I can't even finish reading this book without having a nightmare. It's almost as if in my past life, I had something to do with the Holocaust. Then, that wouldn't make sense because World War 2 is recent but I don't think time gap makes a difference, I don't think.

Remember, The Buddha is not a revealed manifestation. He is just a person. The Dhamma is about the people not The Buddha, Gautama. His bias about Hinduism does not change the benefit of his teachings.

Oh: One change to the teachings Bahaullah made was The Buddha pointing to god. This thread would have ended long time ago, if this Bahai teaching did not exist and Bahaullah let people believe what they will. That is not the case.

It is not wrong in and of itself. Just something I strongly disagree with. You don't need to defend your faith.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

OK, so you have presented reasons why those faiths have not posted so much on this thread.

And other religions, mindsets and opinions have shown enough interest to help support this thread for 12,000+ posts.

And many of us have been discovering new information, mostly about Bahai, Buddhism and Hinduism.

That's OK.

We did have one Muslim and one Christian slide through. I guess that's an improvement.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Just when are you going to start re-reading what you write to stop insulting the non-Baha'i',

I also could choose to think that everything Baha'u'llah offered was an insult, or consider all the advice offered by the Great Beings was an insult and not guidance to live a deed filled life of virtues.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Woops..... thankyou.


Take....?
That sounds a bit like eject.?

Now now, we will invite then, as one kindly invites them to stay and join in if they calm down or leave if they do not.

Just common curtousy really and surly we do not have to defend doing this?

I wonder why I am

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

I also could choose to think that everything Baha'u'llah offered was an insult, or consider all the advice offered by the Great Beings was an insult and not guidance to live a deed filled life of virtues.

I'm sure that Baha'u'llah often didn't use his power just to insult others. That would be silly. All I'm suggesting is that you take a second look at what you write. I always do. But if you want to remain spontaneous and compulsive and not proofread and give it a second thought at least occasionally, be my guest. It's your choice.

 

[oldbadger]

Now now, we will invite then, as one kindly invites them to stay and join in if they calm down or leave if they do not.

Just common curtousy really and surly we do not have to defend doing this?

I wonder why I am

Regards Tony

You do it anyway you think best.

But in a place filled with visiting folks it might be better to face the complaining pastor and handle the issues, because the visitors will make their decisions based upon your actions?

It always looked so weak to me when speakers invited people to go outside with their questions.

It looked as if there was plenty to hide away.

EDIT: It was you who wrote that you would 'take' them out.

 

[oldbadger]

....All I'm suggesting is that you take a second look at what you write. I always do..................

Exactly.....................

 

[Vinayaka]

But in a place filled with visiting folks it might be better to face the complaining pastor and handle the issues, because the visitors will make their decisions based upon your actions?

Let me get this straight. If a newcomer comes to a Baha'i' meeting and asks some questions about Baha'i' beliefs, it's not answered publicly but in private outside?

Now I can certainly understand if the question is of a personal nature, but just general beliefs?

I get the sense that a lot is hidden from newcomers to the faith, if they just wander in, and haven't done their research beforehand. But then I'm guessing if they had done their research, they wouldn't go in the first place. There is way too much on line dirt (true or false, it's there) for anyone's comfort.

 

[oldbadger]

Let me get this straight. If a newcomer comes to a Baha'i' meeting and asks some questions about Baha'i' beliefs, it's not answered publicly but in private outside?

Sometimes difficult questionners were invited to go outside to discuss......... and it appears that this can also happen today, because one member does something like this now.

Now I can certainly understand if the question is of a personal nature, but just general beliefs?

Back in the day, anything in the way of a difficult question seemed to be treated as an aggressive question.

I get the sense that a lot is hidden from newcomers to the faith, if they just wander in, and haven't done their research beforehand.

This was shown here on RF several months ago when a Bahai of many years chalenged my point that LSAa and NSAs would become Houses of Justice in a Bahai World. There is too much that is in the mist about Bahai, in my opinion.

But then I'm guessing if they had done their research, they wouldn't go in the first place. There is way too much on line dirt (true or false, it's there) for anyone's comfort.

No, many years ago young Muslim students would attend Bahai public meetings to challenge the Faith, and in those days the Bahai speakers just didn't seem to be able to handle the questions. So they were invited to discuss answers away from other guests.

I think that was a serious mistake. I thought (back then) that a strong Faith would be able to hold its own in question-answer situations. Those young Muslims knew their own Faiths, and seemed to know more about Bahai than the Bahais. One Muslim approached me (back then) and said ,'You just don't know what it's about. You can have no idea!'........ and I didn't, either.

I'm rather more careful now.......

 

[siti]

I though you might be interested in this essay exploring the problems with Western Liberal Democracy.

Western Liberal Democracy as New World Order? by Dr. Michael Karlberg

We could contrast the democracy/administration of the Western world with Baha'i democracy/administration.

The Bahá’í Administrative Order | What Bahá’ís Believe

I am well aware of the profound problems that beset western liberal democracy - I have written elsewhere about what I perceive as the fatal flaws of the so-called "free" market economy and its puppet government system the bipolar pseudo-democratic "partocracy". But free market capitalism certainly works - if we judge it according to its own goals and standards - it puts the control of capital in the hands of the shrewdest investors and reduces both human ingenuity and industriousness and human satisfaction to two numbers expressed in dollars: "growth" and GDP. Any improvement in human health, education or (dare I say) happiness is incidental - either because it is a prerequisite for growth (relatively healthy and educated populations are generally more productive) or because it is a natural (but unintended) side-product (we have to think of more things that people will actually be prepared to buy to promote the consumerism that growth depends on).

I have an idea how to solve that - we simply reverse the roles of the free-market and the democratic political system. Make the brightest and best responsible for devising policies that genuinely make humans happier by rewarding the best policies with more policy making power (rather than more money) and democratize the economy by providing each person only as much money as they need to be happy (which would not be the same amount of money for everyone but the amount that genuinely maximised their "happiness"). Of course we would need some kind of metric - some kind of "happiness index" - to measure our success under such a system but surely there could be no more noble scientific "cause" in which to invest than the investigation of what it is that makes humans truly happy. And it would then be against this "index" that the "wealth of nations" could be measured. Does Baha'i have anything like that?

Since the objective is to establish a pattern for the governance of the world*, not just a religious organization, what does a Baha'i economy look like? Is it socialist, capitalist - or a hybrid like the one I just outlined? Or something entirely different?

*“It is the structure of His New World Order, now stirring in the womb of the administrative institutions He Himself has created, that will serve both as a pattern and a nucleus of that world commonwealth which is the sure, the inevitable destiny of the peoples and nations of the earth.” - Shogi Effendi

 

[Dawnofhope]

Let me get this straight. If a newcomer comes to a Baha'i' meeting and asks some questions about Baha'i' beliefs, it's not answered publicly but in private outside?

Now I can certainly understand if the question is of a personal nature, but just general beliefs?

I get the sense that a lot is hidden from newcomers to the faith, if they just wander in, and haven't done their research beforehand. But then I'm guessing if they had done their research, they wouldn't go in the first place. There is way too much on line dirt (true or false, it's there) for anyone's comfort.

I have never heard of, or witnessed anything like this. If Baha'is arrange a public meeting or talk we answer questions as they arise.

If we don't know the answer, we simply say 'I don't know'.

There's no going out the back to work out how we'll respond to questions.

 

[Vinayaka]

I have never heard of, or witnessed anything like this. If Baha'is arrange a public meeting or talk we answer questions as they arise.

If we don't know the answer, we simply say 'I don't know'.

There's no going out the back to work out how we'll respond to questions.

Yes, that makes sense too. So I'll never know, and now I'm just at , "Maybe. Maybe not." It's a comfortable place.

On this thread, I have rarely, if ever, had anyone say 'I don't know,' A far more common tactic is to change the topic, avoid it, or pretend it didn't happen. I have several yet unanswered questions. It varies substantially by person though.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, that makes sense too. So I'll never know, and now I'm just at , "Maybe. Maybe not." It's a comfortable place.

On this thread, I have rarely, if ever, had anyone say 'I don't know,' A far more common tactic is to change the topic, avoid it, or pretend it didn't happen. I have several yet unanswered questions. It varies substantially by person though.

So what questions would you like answered?

 

[CG Didymus]

Or what can also be consided is that explanations are offered from Gods Own source, the Meaning of His Own Word.

Regards Tony

Hey Tony, You know the problem I'm having is that each religion considers their Scriptures as the ones that are true, and the benchmark to compare the veracity of the others. So each thinks it is the one that has "God's own source." You read your writings and see clearly how everything about all the other religions fits together. But, when someone from one of those other religions, especially Christianity, looks at their writings and then looks at the Baha'i Faith, they don't see it as being from God.

 

[CG Didymus]

That sounds like something the Muslims commonly say and believe about the Gospels.

Check out Baha'u'llah's in response to this Muslim belief:

'We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!'

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93

Strong language really. It seems clear to me. How about to you?

Strong but empty, since everything Christians believe to be true about their NT is wrong according to the Baha'i Faith. The NT writers say they saw Jesus perform miracles, raise from the dead, warn them about The Adversary, the Devil. But Baha'is say none of that is true. The main thing for Christians is that Jesus died for their sins. What do Baha'is tell Christians about this belief?

 

[CG Didymus]

He was supposed to nominate a successor in his lifetime, and present his choice to a body of nine "Hands", elected by the Hands around the world, and these nine Hands were to vote in secret ballot to accept or reject the nominee.

Because of the specified procedure, the selection of the next Guardian could not be announced in the Will of the Guardian - it had to be made in his lifetime. Shoghi Effendi did not do this. He died unexpectedly in an influenza epidemic, while travelling. At the time he had just appointed many more Hands, and an election of the nine might have been feasible, but it was not even planned as far as I know. He probably expected to live for some years yet, and he had a problem: no good candidates for the job.

For normal people getting caught off guard and not taking care of the necessary business would be understandable, but this is the Divine religion sent from God. I don't know the language used, but if he was told to do this and didn't doesn't sound right.

 

[CG Didymus]

He was supposed to nominate a successor in his lifetime, and present his choice to a body of nine "Hands", elected by the Hands around the world, and these nine Hands were to vote in secret ballot to accept or reject the nominee.

Because of the specified procedure, the selection of the next Guardian could not be announced in the Will of the Guardian - it had to be made in his lifetime. Shoghi Effendi did not do this. He died unexpectedly in an influenza epidemic, while travelling. At the time he had just appointed many more Hands, and an election of the nine might have been feasible, but it was not even planned as far as I know. He probably expected to live for some years yet, and he had a problem: no good candidates for the job.

Sen, in eight years you've only posted 141 times? People have posted more than that on this one thread. You know too much to keep this quiet.