How are these Great Beings explained?

[siti]

...a world embracing vision for humanity based on Baha'u'llah's Teaching as yet eludes democracy as we know. The two are coming together though, slowly but surely.

Are they? From my observations, I conclude that the world is becoming increasingly secular (which IMO is a generally positive trajectory*) but I don't see how you can claim that this constitutes "progress" towards a "world embracing" theocratic "vision for humanity" which is what you really mean.

*although I doubt that humanity is mature enough yet to abandon religion altogether - nor do I think that should be necessary - but I think any future global religion would have to be one that bases its principles on reason not revelation and on consensus rather than conformity - neither of these are characteristic of the Baha'i "world government" you are describing as far as I can tell - although your descriptions are still glibly platitudinous - if you don't mind me saying so. (I mean we are still no further on from phrases like "unity in diversity", "world-embracing vision"...etc. but there's no real flesh on the bones of this "vision"...no indication of how the "truly democratic" process of electing a world governing body from among 8 billion humans world really be workable.

Everyone who is aged 21 or years or older is eligible to vote or be voted for. This happens first at a grassroots community level where people know each other first hand, then onto national elections where locally elected delegates participate, and then our 184 national assemblies vote for our international governing body.

...after noting that the what the world has is not really democracy you then go on to extol the virtue of the Baha'i system that finds no place for women in its international governing body!

Religion has arguably demonstrated itself to be the most potent vehicle for social change, for better or worse throughout history. Christianity and Islam have had their day.

I really wish that were true...but - as I seem to recall pointing out several thousand posts back in this thread - what Baha'i seems to offer is just (more or less) more of the same. I think its time to try something different - something other than divinely revealed religion - thinking for ourselves perhaps...but I have no faith at all that this will catch on any time soon.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I agree - a portion of the Bahai community seem to be chronically afflicted by doom and gloomism. At one time there was a lot of energy wasted on speculations about a great catastrophe that was going to envelop the world. It's an unattractive feature of the folk religion level of Bahai beliefs, but I think it is probably limited to Islamic and Christian cultural areas. People come into the Bahai faith with an apocalyptic baggage of end-of-the-world ideas and select in the Bahai writings what seems to chime with what they already "know" is a religious way of thinking.

The evidence is that poverty is receding, wars are killing less people, more people are literate, and governments are more responsive than ever before. This is the kind of world that Baha'u'llah hoped for - but not everyone is happy with it !

You make it sounds as if Baha'is are going around preaching the end of the world is nie, like deranged old testament prophets!

Baha'u'llah taught let your vision be world embracing. Just because we happen to live in an affluent country, are educated, white, and middle aged don't asume because we have it good, everyone else does.

Baha'u'llah taught to be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Page 213

We may have more wealth overall but how are we going with the distribution of that wealth? Is that really the world Baha'u'llah envisaged where the world's richest eight people on earth would own just as much as the poorest 50% of the world's population?

Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world | Oxfam International

Although the number of wars has receded, the losses of life each year are still in the tens of thousands.

8 Deadliest Wars of the 21st Century

There are many positives about the world and the times we are living in, but is this really justification to be self-satisfied?

 

[oldbadger]

................ Just because we happen to live in an affluent country, are educated, white, and middle aged don't asume because we have it good......................

Shocking.
Absolutely Shocking!

 

[Dawnofhope]

Nah..... not what Yeshua said, but what he is reported to have said.
The apostles?
Paul never mentioned anything that Yeshua actually did apart from holding a last supper..... so nothing there.
Matthew was not there. He mostly copied his whole gospel from others, quite often word for word.
Luke, a Levite Doctor, was not there, He copied most of his gospel from others.
John could not have been there. the book was written circa 90-110AD.
All you've got is a few anecdotes from them that could well be true, and the memoirs of Cephas in G-Mark which need to be weeded of evangelical edits.

Yeahua was supporting the Baptist's campaign against prieshood and Temple corruption. He wanted all the laws but especially the poor-laws reinstated.

Do you want to offer a verse or two in debate, preferably from G-Mark.

How about the words of Abdu'l-Baha?

in the time of Moses, His Law was conformed and adapted to the conditions of the time; but in the days of Christ these conditions had changed and altered to such an extent that the Mosaic Law was no longer suited and adapted to the needs of mankind; and it was, therefore, abrogated. Thus it was that Christ broke the Sabbath and forbade divorce. After Christ four disciples, among whom were Peter and Paul, permitted the use of animal food forbidden by the Bible, except the eating of those animals which had been strangled, or which were sacrificed to idols, and of blood. They also forbade fornication. They maintained these four commandments. Afterward, Paul permitted even the eating of strangled animals, those sacrificed to idols, and blood, and only maintained the prohibition of fornication. So in chapter 14, verse 14 of his Epistle to the Romans, Paul writes: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”

Also in the Epistle of Paul to Titus, chapter 1, verse 15: “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”

Now this change, these alterations and this abrogation are due to the impossibility of comparing the time of Christ with that of Moses. The conditions and requirements in the later period were entirely changed and altered. The former laws were, therefore, abrogated.

I'm sure I can find 10 - 20 NT quotes to support this view.

 

[Ingledsva]

You missed out Muhammad....... interesting.

Yeshua BarTosef was a common man, a second order, land displaced Galilean peasant. A Nagarra.... handworker in wood, bone, stone. He would have impressed you, because he was capable of the charismatic stun, imo.
BTW Dr A was capable of the charismatic stun, I watched him do it, but he did it all for less holy reasons.

You missed out the Baptist who Yeshua followed.

Vids? Any messenger from God that lands here now will be blogging, Facebooking, twittering, vidding........ I'm old, but you're showing your age, just there.

Just a side-note since you used the word Nagarra.

Did you know that the word is associated with "crafting" in the Sorcerer sense?

A related word is Nachash = Serpent, - Hiss an incantation, - a Sorcerer.

Kharash and tekton are also related to nagar.

Serpent is Naga in India, Nagash in Babylonian, and Nachash in the Bible. All of them are associated with Sorcery.

Both the Indian Naga Serpents and the Hebrew Nachash Serpents are associated with magic. In fact one word for magic in the Bible is nachash – To (snake) hiss/whisper an incantation.

And Jesus was called a Sorcerer.

Origen said Jesus was never described as a carpenter in the Gospels.

*

 

[Dawnofhope]

Absolutely, and that makes perfect sense if Jesus was the "Son of Man" but no sense at all if he were the living "Word of God". That's my point - if humans pick and choose which bits of God's supposed revelation to 'believe' in according to what they find acceptable or helpful, that's perfectly OK in my view - but when a divinely authorized "Manifestation of God" contradicts the revealed Word of God that's preposterous. As you say, Jesus reinterpreted the Hebrew scriptures, so did the writer of Paul's letters, and Muhammad and Baha'u'llah...and so does Siti...but Siti is perfectly honest about it - he just picks the bits he likes and chucks the rest out just as he would with a few lines from Wordsworth, the Tao Te Ching or the philosophy of Henri Bergson (for example). And the other difference is that Siti has no intention (or pretension) of starting a world religion - just finding a religious outlook that suits himself - unless you want to call encouraging others to think for themselves a religion - that idea I could evangelize about - it's OK to think for yourself. But I reckon if your religion is in the business of cherry picking at least you (one) should be allowed to 'pick your own' as it were.

I have no problem with you or anyone else cherry picking. As highlighted by another, the word cherry picking doesn't necessarily assist with our discussion. If we really want to understand the change that happens from one Divine Dispensation to another, we need to get away from the idea that God reveals an immutable Covenant for all time. As I had also emphasised thousands of posts ago, God's revelation is progressive. While there are Universal Teachings such as Love and Justice to feature in every revelation there are laws that are applicatable to the needs and exigencies of a particular time and era. When God revealed Himself through Moses, the needs of the Hebrew people were to conquer the land of Cannan and establish a community of tribes revolving round Mosaic Law and worship. This was successfully achieved. The needs 1500 years later when Christ came had utterly changed, and although Jesus taught almost exclusively to the Jews, the Gospel was for all nations, not just the Jews. Christ taught during an era where slavery was the norm, men dominated women due to his more forceful qualities physically and of mind, and Empires, not democracies ruled. Humanity simply wasn't ready for Baha'u'llah's more universal teachings designed for a global civilisation. We are now.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Seems like you're picking hairs. The first verse is a broad verse that refers to all that god approves. The second verse is specific to god (not Moses) criteria for diverse which meant...

If I'm picking hairs then they are a massive clump attached to a head. My last two posts have been about the three Covenants brought by Moses,Christ, and then Baha'u'llah. What God expected of the Hebrew people was entirely changed when he brought those teachings to all humanity.

Matthew 19:6-8 "Cessation of the heart" meaning adultery (Romans 7:2-3) which is opposite of your first verse love "love god with all your heart" which also doesn't specifically talk about which verses Jesus decided to focus on. It's a generalized statement for those who follow his father's law in the OT.

I think marriage was taken too lightly and the Hebrew people used divorce as an easy out. Jesus changed that and the verses from Matthew you quote gives us context as to the importance of marriage. He still refers to the OT but He brings a new emphasis.

Similarly with the laws of love. They now become the overarching principles upon which all the other laws hang. As St Paul said, without love, I am nothing but a hollow gong.

Another quote and post that contradicts this one is when you posted Jesus saying he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it (or you agreed to that post, one or the other). He didn't cherry pick Moses' laws but fulfilled the laws by his father's will and his son's passion to save those who believed in him through his son. If you didn't believe in the son, you don't believe in the Law (from Moses); if you don't believe the Law that Moses gave to god's people, you don't believe in god. That's the general consensus of the New Testament, follow god's OT through jesus christ.

Deuteronomy 24:4 Speaks of a man cannot go back to his wife once divorced. If "love all people" in the verse you quoted applied to this, then the woman he divorced would be loved by god and not be considered defiled.

I agree that it is still following the OT through Jesus, but its emphasis has completely changed.

et, instead of cherry picking, christ said in relation to this in Mathew 19:8-9 that divorce can only happen when the woman commits sexual impurity.

So, unless you are saying Jesus approved of sin because he "changed the law" of Moses, he is basically saying what Moses says about the law but because people didn't listen, the sinning wasn't held against people who believed in jesus because through his death, if they believed, their sins are forgiven and they'd be with the father like jesus.

That's right. Once again, Jesus has changed the emphasis and context.

Bahai, on the other hand, which is fine (honestly don't know why you're defending your diverse beliefs), cherry-picks (don't like that word...maybe choose to identify more strongly with Bahaullah's interpretation, I'll say instead) what literal teaches said by Moses (about to go to work to look it up right now) and the literal laws jesus repeated and fulfilled say continuing his physical church.

I would argue that Baha'is are doing to the Christian Covenant, what Christ did to the Mosaic Covenant.

Also, don't forget that the first verse you quoted about god loving people, jesus sums up the laws of moses (the two greatest commandments is love god with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself). I think jesus was referring to brothers and sisters of christ in regards to neighbor. Like in the OT, he didn't take kind to sinners and was pretty mean when it came to those who did not come to his father and stuck in sin.

That does sum up Jesus well.

Pretty much the same reaction as the father in the OT, but if jesus cherry picked, instead of killing people for looking back at sin, he forgave people who accepted his forgiveness instead.

I mean, I wouldn't call Bahai cherry-picking scripture. I'd say more you guys downplay a lot of topics that both the OT and NT talks about by calling them spiritual and symbolic. Once you go passed that (or at least understand it), then you may see the connection between what jesus said about the old testament and what was not needed because it was wrapped up in the two commandments.

I think you have come to better appreciate where the Baha'is are coming from over this thread, even if you don't agree with it....and I'm not asking you to, or anyone else here either. I'm just explaining Baha'i belief in response to questions and the natural scepticism and cynicism that a few here feel. Where we run into trouble is that Baha'i belief has something to say about the process of Divine Revelation generally. There's the conflict, but as long as we accept that it is what it is, there's no problem.

Also, you can try it out. Read the full OT and every event that god did for his people, place under "love god" or "love others". I don't think I read any other commandment or law that didn't fall under these two things.

Okay... I'm out.. carry on.

Cool. Thanks for that.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I need down time. In the days of a busy work schedule ane even busier family schedule, that time was the commute

We are all busy people and what i hear about retirement from my patients, it doesn't necessarily get any less busy. I did notice you were away for a few days so thanks for letting us know.

I think people are who they are, a combination of nature and nurture. So in that sense, I'm guessing you would have found Baha'i' eventually anyway. But perhaps not. I was raised atheist/agnostic, totally clueless about religion period. Siva found me.

Interesting our journeys into Faith. How did you know it was Siva? Siva is God right?

I would define my Faith as being found first by Jesus and then by Baha'u'llah. Thet are both God too, but understood very different from Siva no doubt.

So no matter what the faith, if it makes you a better person through contentment , and satisfaction, so much the better, as that molecule in a changing world.

I believe so for us both.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Any religions which blow hot on religious fortune telling or date-numerology

You mean prophecy?

but which blow cold on, say, mediums and other kinds of spirituality

Or Abrahamic!

are in deep doublethink.
If the cap fits......

You mean it seems contradictoy and inconsistent so I'll call it Orwellian double think. Sounds like your own peculiar form of religious prejudice to me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think you have come to better appreciate where the Baha'is are coming from over this thread, even if you don't agree with it....and I'm not asking you to, or anyone else here either. I'm just explaining Baha'i belief in response to questions and the natural scepticism and cynicism that a few here feel. Where we run into trouble is that Baha'i belief has something to say about the process of Divine Revelation generally. There's the conflict, but as long as we accept that it is what it is, there's no problem.

Think about it in the other person's shoes. If you were a very devoted Hindu, knew nothing but Hinduism, and proud to be Hindu and anyone, say me, come to any Hindu and say "guess what. You and I have similar beliefs because we both practice religions from India and what's more so, The Buddha's practices come from Hindu practices, that in my opinion only would be highly insulting.

I'm talking of any Hindu. I got chewed out once going to a Hindu temple when I mentioned it in their DIR; some of them thought I wanted to be Hindu just because I visited their temple.

Anyway, I try hard not to compare my teachings to Hindu teachings on this board, even though we use practically the same language and Tibetan Buddhism use similiar visualization techniques, but not similar in the manner they are part of Buddhism in its results just have similar characteristics, say the word Dhamma and other things like many people believe Buddhist don't worship The Buddha. They actually do.

So, if I were to compare, I'd have to learn more about Hinduism and really talk about it to see if my opinions are valid.

That's the difference between my views and Bahai on this thread. I can change my views based on what I hear because thinking for myself in regards to changing to understand other people's beliefs is part of The Buddhist practice. Since Bahai has a god-belief, that authority and heirarchy makes some feel they have to compromise their faith just to talk. Others stop quoting for that note but if you go somewhere else, the quoting will continue. Because "it comes from god."

If I told any Hindu that their faith (now I'm comparing it to Bahai) and their sacred text has been misinterpreted throughout the centuries and people today aren't practicing what they practice then is not a personal opinion of insult, its, by definition, an insult because Hindus know more than Bahai.

I know it's something you can't change. Your belief is your belief. I do find this thread now a waste of time if talking about who is right and who isn't. You may not see it, but just calling literal events symbolic and spiritual is changing the meaning and experience of christianity. That's your belief, though. I don't see why you need to defend it.

However, the biblical conversations are cool. I think you're really splitting hairs with the bible, though. You don't need to prove Bahaullah is somewhere in the bible because all of it is indirect. There is no direct connection to the bible other than the meaning of Bahaullah's name. That's like saying Muslims have christians beliefs all because they believe in christ. They find a relation in their Quran but in the bible there is no Muhammad.

But the, because christians aren't following their real text, you bypass them and say Bahaullah meant this is true not that.

That is why the thread is so long. Like JW, I don't know if you guys really understand it or think of other people's views and hurts because of your faith. Of course, you're not going to leave your faith because of other people but I do find it more beneficial if there is another way to express your views to many who have been raised in their religion and know nothing else. I bet many people didn't come to this discussion because of the opposing views.

I'd love to talk biblical scripture but you have to be more specific in your examples. Yes, the bible says love one another both in the OT and the NT. God didn't love people who sinned. If he did, he wouldn't have killed them. Jesus said that his father now loves people who sinned because his father gave ransom for their sins in order to believe in him. Without that ransom, he'd still be angry.

If jesus cherry picked, he would be displacing god's "wrath" say in the Abraham case for that of love.

I don't know of any scripture in the NT where Jesus cherry picked by changing the laws of moses rather than confirming the laws through his life, sacrifice, and resurrection.

What scripture of the OT (his god's laws) did Jesus cherry picked that wouldn't apply to love god and love thy neighbor?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

... That's my point - if humans pick and choose which bits of God's supposed revelation to 'believe' in according to what they find acceptable or helpful, that's perfectly OK in my view - but when a divinely authorized "Manifestation of God" contradicts the revealed Word of God that's preposterous.

Let me give you a different point of view on this.
Bahaullah in the Book of Certitude confirms the following verse:

“What He pleaseth will God abrogate or confirm: for with Him is the Source of Revelation."

So, what you call Cherry Picking in Baha'i view, is the belief that whenever God manifests in a new Manifestation, He chooses what parts of the previous Revelation to abrogate, and which part of it to repeat or confirm. This is because, the previous Books belonged to Him, thus when He comes again to teach us farther, He chooses the Part of His previous Books that is still suitable, and deletes or abrogate the part that are no longer applicable to the conditions of a new Age. That is because as conditions change, so must also the commandments. It is likened to medicine that needs to be given to treat certain conditions, thus as condition changes, so must also the medication.
In this view, we also believe that in every Revelation, God can reinterpret His own words. Again, this is because all Books belonged to Him, so, every time He manifests, He can assign a new meaning to His own previous words. For instance, in previous Religions, it appears there are physical places called Hell and Heaven. In this new Revelation He reinterpreted His own words, saying Hell and Heaven are not physical places, but there are spiritual states of being close to God or being far. Also, in Bahai view God gets to use even the false beliefs of people, reinterpret it, and assign a new meaning to it. He can do all these things to guide us closer to the truth, as the absolute truth is beyond the capacity of our mind, thus, God everytime reveals some more for us.

As Bahaullah wrote:

"Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom."

In another words, the verses of God are given new interpretations every time, but His own manifestations have the authority.

So, in brief in Bahai view only God can cherry pick, because His cherry picking results in improvements in human spiritual and understanding. But you and I who are ordinary men, are not to cherry pick; we cannot add or remove anything from the Book of God.
In fact I believe only a false prophet has to be bounded by what people want. But God can do whatever He wills. For instance if a person claims to be Mahdi of Islam, it is more desirable for Muslims that this Mahdi confirms all the Laws of Quran, and confirm its finality, rather than a Mahdi who tells them, Islamic Laws are to be abrogated, and it was not a final revelation. Now think about it, that why should the Bab who claimed to be Mahdi of Islam, and was imprisoned alone in the middle of a mountain, should in such a remote prison, still make the effort, continuing writing Books with several hundreds of pages, to bring new Religious Laws, to abrogate Islamic Laws.

 

[oldbadger]

Just a side-note since you used the word Nagarra.

Hi...... ..... and 'yes', an HJ scholar who was familiar with Eastern Aramaic used the word, claiming that it was more appropriate than the Greek Tekton. All this went by yonks ago, but I was prepared to accept the word on the basis of his previous conversations.

Did you know that the word is associated with "crafting" in the Sorcerer sense?

I like that, because I reckton that he was an extremely clever and canny character. Of course, 'sorcerer' was linked to latter-day science, no? Wood, Bone, Stone and metal workers were probably considered to be very scientific?

A related word is Nachash = Serpent, - Hiss an incantation, - a Sorcerer.

Well I never did know all of this.....

Kharash and tekton are also related to nagar.

There you go....... Tekton -> Nagar.
Question: Is my Nagarra mispelt? Should it be Nagar?

Serpent is Naga in India, Nagash in Babylonian, and Nachash in the Bible. All of them are associated with Sorcery.

Both the Indian Naga Serpents and the Hebrew Nachash Serpents are associated with magic. In fact one word for magic in the Bible is nachash – To (snake) hiss/whisper an incantatio.

And Jesus was called a Sorcerer.

Can you tell us more about this?
I do expect that a person who was absolutely trusted by the people to cast demons (tonic-clonics?), cure blindness (pseudo-sicknesses and cheats?) etc etc would be classed as exactly that.

I'm still trying to research the raised incidence of clinical-hysteria in Latin and Mediterranean males, because I do reckon that the many conditions now separated out from clinical hysteria could have accounted for many types of apparent illness.

Did you ever watch BandofBrothers? A true account of the history of Easy Company during WWII. A soldier with an Italian name became hysterically blind as a result of intense stress and battle fatigue, later to regain his sight. That is a true account, and if all Mediterranean males are as susceptible to pseudo-sicknesses as Italians then, maybe that could be a lead?

Origen said Jesus was never described as a carpenter in the Gospels.

*

Was he quoting Celcius about that? I have great interest in CelciusbyOrigen.

 

[oldbadger]

How about the words of Abdu'l-Baha?

in the time of Moses, His Law was conformed and adapted to the conditions of the time; but in the days of Christ these conditions had changed and altered to such an extent that the Mosaic Law was no longer suited and adapted to the needs of mankind; and it was, therefore, abrogated.

No......the priesthood had already discarded much of ity, but just concentrated on looking good.

Thus it was that Christ broke the Sabbath and forbade divorce. After Christ four disciples, among whom were Peter and Paul, permitted the use of animal food forbidden by the Bible, except the eating of those animals which had been strangled, or which were sacrificed to idols, and of blood.

Joppa...... how convenient, and nothing to do with Jesus.

They also forbade fornication. They maintained these four commandments. Afterward, Paul permitted even the eating of strangled animals, those sacrificed to idols, and blood, and only maintained the prohibition of fornication. So in chapter 14, verse 14 of his Epistle to the Romans, Paul writes: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”

This is nothing to do with anything about Jesus.
This is about Christianity, a very Pauline Faith.

Also in the Epistle of Paul to Titus, chapter 1, verse 15: “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”

Now this change, these alterations and this abrogation are due to the impossibility of comparing the time of Christ with that of Moses. The conditions and requirements in the later period were entirely changed and altered. The former laws were, therefore, abrogated.

I'm sure I can find 10 - 20 NT quotes to support this view.

They won't be quotes from Jesus.
Jesus, like the Baptist, wanted the return of the Mosiac Laws including the poor laws. He wanted an end to Temple corruption and said so a few times.
See what the Baptist thought about the priesthood. See what Jesus wanted.... 'I will have mercy, and not sacrifice!' he said, the call of Hosea.

The priesthood had allowed the image of Baal to be struck onto the Temple money for yonks, including Caesar's initials and graven image on the reverse. The Temple money!

Paul's goggledegook ideas were nothing to do with Jesus.

 

[oldbadger]

You mean prophecy?

Yeah.... religious fortune-telling.

Or Abrahamic!

Leaving aside the 96 odd sacrificial laws for a bit, there is not one spiritual law out of the 507 because each and every law was brilliant for the security, welfare, cohesian, success, health of the Israelites.
Some Jews may feel spiritual but many tell me they don't even understand the word.

You mean it seems contradictoy and inconsistent so I'll call it Orwellian double think. Sounds like your own peculiar form of religious prejudice to me.

Not at all, to lean upon religious numerology and/or prophecy in order to prove your religion, yet to dismiss other spiritual subjects such as astrology, mediums, healing etc is farcical.

Who knows...... if enough levity is directed at such double-think maybe such claims will dissipate like the emphasis on Bahai miracles dissipated?

 

[Vinayaka]

We are all busy people and what i hear about retirement from my patients, it doesn't necessarily get any less busy. I did notice you were away for a few days so thanks for letting us know.

Interesting our journeys into Faith. How did you know it was Siva? Siva is God right?

I believe so for us both.

I meant that when I was working, the daily commute between home and school was my main break. Society as it functions today, has less free time than is healthy for most humans. At one time, in some egalitarian societies, the maximising of free time was a core value. Today, that is largely replaced by profit. I had the opportunity, as retirement approached, to cut back on the hours. We need more of that, in my view. 'Hard work' (at all costs) is a protestant work ethic we can do without. It ruins people.

I did not know what the statue was, and had to ask, the first time Siva introduced himself.

For wiser people, religion can indeed make them better people, a benefit to mankind. For others, it is a downer, a detriment, a crutch, a blemish on humanity, an incite to anger. Personally, I think it has more to do with the person than with the religion, although some religions may be more conducive to positive change within an individual. Others teach a dull flock mentality with little freedom for independent thought at all.

 

[Vinayaka]

Let me give you a different point of view on this.
.

Don't you just mean, "Let me give you the Baha'i' view on this?"

 

[oldbadger]

I meant that when I was working, the daily commute between home and school was my main break.

My last five years working I travelled the country on the trains, with a folding bike to fill in those journeys. The 'free time' was just amazing with so much to read, research, debate etc.

Society as it functions today, has less free time than is healthy for most humans. At one time, in some egalitarian societies, the maximising of free time was a core value. Today, that is largely replaced by profit. I had the opportunity, as retirement approached, to cut back on the hours. We need more of that, in my view. 'Hard work' (at all costs) is a protestant work ethic we can do without. It ruins people.

Yes. One approach towards 'more freedom' is to reset the mind to need less. Less status, less mammon, less ego, less of everything, and the more successful that one is in this field of approach, then the more freedom that one can gain from it.

For wiser people, religion can indeed make them better people, a benefit to mankind. For others, it is a downer, a detriment, a crutch, a blemish on humanity, am incite to anger. Personally, I think it has more to do with the person than with the religion, although some religions may be more conducive to positive change within an individual. Others teach a dull flock mentality with little freedom for independent thought at all.

I don't think that we introduce enough religious education in our school lesson plans..... it can expand horizons, reduce hatred and bigotry, and initiate individual search and investigation.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes. One approach towards 'more freedom' is to reset the mind to need less. Less status, less mammon, less ego, less of everything, and the more successful that one is in this field of approach, then the more freedom that one can gain from it.

I don't think that we introduce enough religious education in our school lesson plans..... it can expand horizons, reduce hatred and bigotry, and initiate individual search and investigation.

Tiruvalluvar (Tirukural) said, "A man is rich just so long as he doesn't spend more than he earns."

Boss stayed home with the kids while I worked, and I'd get asked how we could afford a holiday (pilgrimage for us). I'd just laugh, because I knew the answer but also knew the other person wasn't ready to hear it.
"We don't smoke or drink. We own a cheaper car. I change the oil. We can wear used clothing. We never eat out. We never buy compulsively. We rent movies." etc...

So yes, needing less certainly works. In retirement, I'm still working on how to spend money. We have way more than we need.

The school system here is based on a secular humanist model, and very little else. So morality has to be subtle, by example. Yes I read 'Teaching as a Subversive Activity' lol.

 

[siti]

...we need to get away from the idea that God reveals an immutable Covenant for all time.

But that is the entire point of both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. God's covenant with Abraham was neither conditional nor time-constrained. Did God change his mind or did men reinterpret it? That is the question. In Judaism (as far as I understand it) even Jeremiah's "new covenant" (Jeremiah 31:31) is not really new at all but a recommitment to the existing covenant...anyway, the point is that neither the Abrahamic covenant, nor the Mosaic Law covenant nor the "Christian" "new covenant" were meant to pass away according to the scriptural tradition. So once again we find ourselves back to the question: is the scriptural tradition a reliable transmission of the divine revelation? If yes, then the idea of an "immutable covenant for all time" is part of God's revelation, if not, how do we even know there is a covenant at all at any time?

 

[siti]

Now think about it, that why should the Bab who claimed to be Mahdi of Islam, and was imprisoned alone in the middle of a mountain, should in such a remote prison, still make the effort, continuing writing Books with several hundreds of pages, to bring new Religious Laws, to abrogate Islamic Laws.

I don't know - but I'll look it up in DSM-5 - maybe some kind of mild "detachment from reality" psychosis or something like that.