How are these Great Beings explained?

[loverofhumanity]

For Christians, Jesus never died. And between Him and the Holy Spirit, they are guiding true Christians. But most of what they believe about God and Jesus is from the New Testament. Which is then fallibly interpreted a hundred different ways.

There is only one correct interpretation. Will the real Christianity please stand up?

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, but I'm talking about those that join the Baha'i Faith or some other religion and then find something they don't agree with.

So I guess I should move out of California? Where on Earth do you think it's safe?

I personally wouldn’t live in a known regular cyclone path or on an earthquake belt. But each to his own.

 

[oldbadger]

"His simple education was no different from that given to other sons of the Persian nobility. Tutors came to His home to teach reading, writing, and Persian culture, just as they did for the other boys.

No..... not like other boys.
The 'other' boys were working to live, if they did not have wealthy parents.

Husayn-‘Ali learned to read the great Persian poets - 'Attar, Hafez, Rumi - as the other boys did, and to recite from the Koran, the holy book of Islam.

Of course he did! If he could become Hafiz then his parents would obtain entry to Heaven automatically. What Persian parent would not want a son to reach 'Hafiz'?

He did not study science, for science was viewed with suspicion in nineteenth-century Persia, nor did He study philosophy or religion. Those were left to the mullas and mujtahids -- Muslim scholars who spent long years studying the teachings, laws, and traditions of Islam."

Nope. The Koran WAS the religion, philosophy, law and tradition of Islam. Bahauallah learned it all..... by heart. Hafiz.

The above post just backs up what I already wrote to Siti...

 

[loverofhumanity]

I agree. There may have been harmonious pockets of mankind here and there, but yes, it's worthy. There still needs to be challenges though, as without challenges, there is no reason for hard work, or internal growth. Personal challenges are the motivating factor for growth. If everything was all perfect, we'd stagnate.

In some ways. we're not smart at all. When the ocean rises, a few cities are in serious trouble. Here where I live, prime agricultural land is lost to urban sprawl because it's easier to do the city infrastructure on that type of ground. So the decision is made on profit margin, not common sense.

Thanks for sticking with this, and providing some reason. I do admire that trait.

I think that there will always be challenges to urge us to greater heights but so far our greatest challenge i think is achieving a healthy balance between the spiritual and the material.

I’ve always believed the God within us, the spiritual force that tells us to love, to care and be compassionate should be the dominant force not desire for more and more things.

 

[Vinayaka]

Well ya know there oh Vinayaka your "guessing" could be off there just a tad! Before I read a Baha'i book in 1965 I had studied the Gita and met the translator Swami Prabhavananda (Jai Guru Maharajiki Jai!) and Christopher Isherwood and resided in an Ashram in Trabuco Canyon and later learned some Sanskrit but hey it's alright there. Wait that was when I studied some Jaina scriptures. Wait we used to practise Yoga during lunch hour in High School. Oh well! We don't generalize "the rest are wrong!" Lets be friends and bury the hatchet under a pillow. Maybe practice some "Ahimsa" or such.

I've never read the Gita. It represents one sect of Hinduism, perhaps 2. So you're more 'Hindu' that I am in that sense. It's nigh impossible to study a faith that really isn't a book based faith. via books. It is in the practice.
My experience has been that adherents all vary. Sounds like you did have a more than a cursory look, but one can never be sure. It would take long dialogue to determine that, and I don't think either of us is up for that. Aum Shantihi.

 

[Vinayaka]

Obviously you do have spiritual teachers and the giant amongst them is Krishna and His Incarnations. You don't want to admit that of course because it supports the Baha'i world view. So you down play the importance of Krishna and start asking about all the oher teachers. Why aren't they manifestation too?

Fascinating. Despite the original reason for me entering this thread, and disputing that view, and you temporarily agreeing to it, now you've totally forgotten, and regressed to it. I wonder why, as soon a sth e Baha'i' start thinking outside the box, they get drawn right back to the party dogma. That shows either disdain or disinterest, I'm not sure which. Your statement makes no more sense than me talking to a Christian assuming he worships Baha'u'llah. Really out there.

Although obviously now, my words go uncognised, I'll repeat them. I don't worship Krishna. I'm A Saivite. I worship Siva. Krishna is not a 'manifestation', but an avatar, and He is God for Vaishnavites)

Krishna is not the giant among teachers. He's God. There is no one giant among Gods. Vishnu, Siva, Shakti, Mother Kali, depends on who is Supreme for each adherent.

Giants among teachers ... sure Adi Shankara, Sri Caitanya, Swami Chinmayanada, Sri Ramakrishna, Tirumular, Patanjali, Vivekenanda, Ramana Maharishi, and countless other enlightened sages that have temporarily inhabited physical bodies for the betterment of mankind.

But then, what do I know?

 

[Vinayaka]

I think that there will always be challenges to urge us to greater heights but so far our greatest challenge i think is achieving a healthy balance between the spiritual and the material.

I’ve always believed the God within us, the spiritual force that tells us to love, to care and be compassionate should be the dominant force not desire for more and more things.

I think for individuals to be well rounded (my version of success) some sense of contemplation, down time, 'spiritual' or otherwise, is very beneficial. Total focus on a singular aspect of life isn't healthy, and that includes religion. It's what's happened to turn someone into a fundamentalist.

 

[Vinayaka]

We can only judge our own selves, we can not judge the heart of another and what part they are playing in the larger picture.

So saying other faiths are blind, deluded, diseased, superstitious, walking away from God, etc. isn't judgement, it's compliments?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Wow I didn't thought i'd ever see Aupmanyav quote the Gospels!

Why? I have studied Bible and Qur'an quite well, if not thoroughly. Atheist normally are well-versed in Abrahamic scriptures, some times better than believers.

Joseph Smith also received a tablet or a book. I am trying to find if R. Ron Hubbard too received a book.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As you have said to me, when the Buddha taught his disciples questioned him. They discussed amongst themselves and analysed. So I too am analysing and discussing. You have said to me, why are Baha'is uncomfortable with disagreement? I have replied we want to see what works well and what doesn't. No one should have anything to fear from my questioning I would hope. I'm simply getting my head around Hinduism. I wish to neither offend or take offence. If my line of enquiry offends @Vinayaka I want to know so I can back off. That is the truth. For me, when two people argue about religion they are both wrong. If our discussions yield more heat than light, then best to step back.

I was referring this what you posted here.

There are clearly much more contradictions and inconsistencies in Hinduism. Hindu belief appears to encompass anything imaginable (you call it diversity).

Hindus, unlike Abrahamics, seem unconcerned with contradictions... unless the Abrahamics start moving in and suggesting similarities with their own religion of course.

Another difference is you don't have a set of sacred scriptures you all agree on. That scenario is unimaginable for the Abrahamics.

Its a gross analysis of another's religion as if inconsistencies are not only different than abrahamics view but totally illogical. If to compare, what is the significance spiritually to have consistances in scripture that Hinduism, from your perspective, does not? How does consistancy validate abrahamic scripture as opposed to Hindu?

I was asking Tony questions like this. Why would he or amy bahai maybe believe that by reading bahaullah's words we would somehow be enlightened to the truth. Maybe you have insight but I think that one post was totally out of your character.

My words: Why would inconsistancies be an issue to abrahamics when Hindu believe in god (and point to your god) as well?

 

[Aupmanyav]

My words: Why would inconsistencies be an issue to abrahamics when Hindu believe in god (and point to your god) as well?

Or (in case of Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Jains) don't. How would you have peace in the world by leaving out atheists? Be as inclusive as Hindus, or otherwise the Bahai talk of peace is bogus.

In my belief, no distinction is allowed, as Krishna said in Gita:

"Vidyā-vinaya-sampanne, brāhmaṇe gavi hastini;
śuni caiva śva-pāke ca, paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ." BhagawadGita 5.18

(A learned and gentle brahmin, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater, the wise see all with equal vision.)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Or (in case of Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Jains) don't. How would you have peace in the world by leaving out atheists? Be as inclusive as Hindus, or otherwise your talk of peace is bogus.

Its a generalization. Bahai says Krishna points to the god of abraham as a manifestation. If there are inconsistances in Hindu scripture why would that be "wrong" compared to abrahamics who believe their scriptures are infalliable?

Its also a contradiction. If Krishna points to their god, and their scripture says Hindu gita supports it, why would one think Hinduism has inconsistances based on their scripture that says revealed scriptures are infalliable?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Funny, that reminds me of how Jesus cursed the cities. The world did not change in 1,850 years.

"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

“But those who disbelieved will have cut out for them garments of fire. Poured upon their heads will be scalding water. By which is melted that within their bellies and [their] skins. And for [striking] them are maces of iron. Every time they want to get out of Hell-fire from anguish, they will be returned to it, and [it will be said], "Taste the punishment of the Burning Fire!" .. "Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses - We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment."

Are these the types of God and their messengers that you want me to believe?

"

I wouldn't want you to believe or disbelieve in Them, because I believe it is upto you what yo believe or disbelieve.
However on the basis of what you are referring, I do not have any problem believing in Them.
What you are referring here, are the verses of Bible or the Quran which threatens with Hell and Fire.
The thing is that, if I look at such verses, then I must not also deny some other verses which explains the idea behind them, because in that case I would be only reading a part of Their Books, while denying or ignoring another part. What I mean here, is I am also aware of certain verses in Quran or Bible that says, some of the Verses of These Holy Books are Symbolic or Figurative, and their interpretation would be unknown generally to mankind until the Day of Resurrection, when the Promised Manifestation comes, unseal the Book and reveals its interpretation. There are many Evidences for this in Quran, Islamic Traditions, as well as the Bible. For instance Quran 3:7 and 7:53. As well as many traditions about the Qaim who provides unknown interpretations. And from the Bible, many verses indicate the same, such as Daniel vision, saying the vision of the End is to remain sealed, and the Book of Revelation saying the Book seals will be open when Christ returns. Therefore, since in my view Bahaullah is the Return of Christ, and He had Unsealed the Book, I see that the Fire or Hell that Prophets of the past talked about, are meant to be symbolic, having a spiritual significant. God is fair, He does not burn the unbelievers.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Its a generalization. Bahai says Krishna points to the god of abraham as a manifestation.

It is true in a sense that Bahais believe that Bahaullah is the Spiritual return of Krishna. However, Bahaullah is an Abrahamic as well as Non-Abrahamic Manifestation.
He is Abrahamic, because His ancestors goes back to Abraham. He is also Non-Abrahamic, because from another lineage, He is related to Kings of Persia which makes Him related to the Zoroaster, a Non-Abrahamic Prophet.

If there are inconsistances in Hindu scripture why would that be "wrong" compared to abrahamics who believe their scriptures are infalliable?

I do not see as a contradiction, because when you say Hindu Scriptures have inconsistencies, first, we need to be specific; what inconsistencies? An example from those scriptures you are referring would make it more clear. But generally, such inconsistencies in my view are either due to people misinterpretations of the Sayings of the Hindu Manifestations, or, it is due to falsely attributing such inconsistent sayings to the Manifestations.

Its also a contradiction. If Krishna points to their god, and their scripture says Hindu gita supports it, why would one think Hinduism has inconsistances based on their scripture that says revealed scriptures are infalliable?

Again, you need to provide an example of such inconsistencies by QUOTING from such scriptures you are referring to, so that we may look into them, and investigate the truth for ourself, and farther discuss the result of our investigation in a Spirit of Consultation, and not for the sake of arguing and arguing.

 

[Aupmanyav]

God is fair, He does not burn the unbelievers.

But one has to accept Bahaullah - otherwise 'Woe betide".

 

[oldbadger]

But one has to accept Bahaullah - otherwise 'Woe betide".

I think that you are right about the above.
In fact, I cannot think of an Abrahamic (based) Faith or religion that will receive unbelievers into its Heaven.

The Bab wrote that unbelievers should be excluded from certain cities and even have their homes repossessed, but so far I cannot determine whether such writings can be acted upon in the future.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Why wouldn't I? But its when someone misquotes them you should be concerned.

Let me give you from my understanding, some description of the Bahai view generally, so it may hopefully become clear for you, why such example you are referring is not a misquote in our view.

I do this, not because I want to specifically continue debating with regards to the example you pointed out, but because I think, that would give a better understanding of what Bahais consider a correct interpretation, and what they consider a misinterpretation.

Generally, the verses of Scriptures may be understood or interpreted in various ways; however, the correct interpretation is only the one that is established based on the evidences in the Scriptures, Without adding anything from imagination.
For instance, the Bible says one of the disciples of Jesus told Him:
"Let me bury my father",
Now I hope you don't think i am misquoting, just because my quote may be slightly different than Bible.

This statement obviously seems that his father is already dead.
You have suggested that another possibility is that his father has not died yet.
I agree. This is something that we can look into it based on evidences in the Bible.
For instance, if this man had said my father is ill, and old, he may die soon. Let me stay until I bury my father, then this would be an evidence from the Bible, that can be used to support the alternative possibility that the man's father had not died yet.
But, let's ask ourself. Is there any evidence like this, or any other evidence in the Bible that can possibly suggest the man's father had not died yet? Since there is none, this can Only be interpreted in one way! Therefore in this case, in my view there is no contradiction between what Bahaullah says and what is in the Bible.
As regards to misquoting, as I have shown, Bahaullah is not a literal Person, and when He says such a story is written in Bible, He does not not mean as a quote.
For instance, if I was to quote a verse from the Bible from my mind, and I happen to make a little mistake, it would be perhaps forgetting an exact word within a quote. But if we look at the way Bahaullah referred to that story, it is obvious He is retelling the story in His own words. Because He inserts in some part of the story: Jesus "that essence of detachment".

In another passage of the Gospel it is written: “And it came to pass that on a certain day the father of one of the disciples of Jesus had died.” That disciple reporting the death of his father unto Jesus, asked for leave to go and bury him. Whereupon, Jesus, that Essence of Detachment, answered and said: “Let the dead bury their dead.”

It is obvious that, Bahaullah does not think that in the Bible it is written 'that Essence Detachment'. So, is that a misquote?! Or He is telling a story in His own words?
Next, if Bahaullah is telling a story from Bible, but He says it is written so and so, is that a wrong thing to do? No, of course not, because He does not mean literally written. There is no such a rule, that we always have to mean everything we say literally or otherwise we are wrong. And certainly with God, there cannot be such limitations, that He has to mean everything literal, or He is not God!
Again, my purpose of mentioning this example is not because I feel I need to defend, but just to say, firstly, only when an interpretation has a basis from Bible, it can be considered as correct. If it is based on imagination with no support from Bible, it is only a product of imagination. Secondly, suppose it maybe incorrect to say something is written in Bible, but to not mean literally, so, what about the point that Bahaullah is making with regards to Resurrection is not physical, but the Prophets meant spiritual? That is what really matters i think, not to get stuck at such obstacles which perhaps are there for us to pass.

 

[Vinayaka]

Be as inclusive as Hindus, or otherwise the Bahai talk of peace is bogus.

Aup, I've been reminding our Baha'i' acquaintances throughout this thread that atheists are human too, lol. But there are only 9 accepted manifestations, as indicated by Baha'u'llah himself. The rest of us are just plain out of luck. You've turned your back on God, I'm afraid.

My father was the main atheist in my life I stand up for, the true honest and moral citizen that he was. You're probably number 2 on my list though, as I don't associate with many atheists in real life.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is true in a sense that Bahais believe that Bahaullah is the Spiritual return of Krishna. However, Bahaullah is an Abrahamic as well as Non-Abrahamic Manifestation.

Yes?

He is Abrahamic, because His ancestors goes back to Abraham. He is also Non-Abrahamic, because from another lineage, He is related to Kings of Persia which makes Him related to the Zoroaster, a Non-Abrahamic Prophet.

Krishna's ancestors point back to abraham??????

Am I reading that right?

I do not see as a contradiction, because when you say Hindu Scriptures have inconsistencies, first, we need to be specific; what inconsistencies? An example from those scriptures you are referring would make it more clear. But generally, such inconsistencies in my view are either due to people misinterpretations of the Sayings of the Hindu Manifestations, or, it is due to falsely attributing such inconsistent sayings to the Manifestations.

I can't find it, but @Aupmanyav said it best. He said something about Hinduism isn't about accuracy in scriptures. If there are inconsistency as defined by abrahamics (my words) they are not define the validity of the experience of god in their faith. It IS about the people not about sacred scripture. There is no misinterpretations when the religion is defined by the people's experiences not by what is written. God is not isolated from Hindus so if you want quotes, ask about their experiences not about their scriptures.

Again, you need to provide an example of such inconsistencies by QUOTING from such scriptures you are referring to, so that we may look into them, and investigate the truth for ourselves, and farther discuss the result of our investigation in a Spirit of Consultation, and not for the sake of arguing and arguing.

Fortunately, I follow a faith where quoting isn't necessary to understand and experience the validity of our faith and The Buddha's teachings. If you want to know about what The Buddha taught, you learn it not just from the Dharma but from the Sangha (the monastics) as well. If you want to know it beyond intellect, you talk about the experiences. If you want to experience it, you practice. Once you practice, you do not need to quote anything. If the other person isn't on the same understanding as you, how would you expect them to see the Dharma from their perspective when your criteria of validity is not the same as a Hindu and Buddhist?

Arguing is making a point to prove another person wrong. Debating is proving oneself right with evidence. Discussing is exchanging different opinions which I hope would allow each other to see in each other's shoes not just Bahai. If you cannot do that, of course it sounds like arguing.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm not proving anything is right for you or for anyone else but me. It is my opinion when I speak to people who have various beliefs. When I speak to other Buddhist, regard it as facts.

Plus, this reply was not addressed to you. What can you add to this discussion that would be constructive and consider my point of view and not just your own?

Edit: I'm looking back. You have inconsistency with revealed religions and the Bahai faith. We pointed how both Hinduism and Bahai are not the same. Christian likewise. Buddhism likewise.

The inconsistency is between Bahaullah and other religions. It is a huge one and if not addressed, no peace can happen.

 

[Vinayaka]

It is true in a sense that Bahais believe that Bahaullah is the Spiritual return of Krishna. However, Bahaullah is an Abrahamic as well as Non-Abrahamic Manifestation.
He is Abrahamic, because His ancestors goes back to Abraham. He is also Non-Abrahamic, because from another lineage, He is related to Kings of Persia which makes Him related to the Zoroaster, a Non-Abrahamic Prophet.

You really need to do more comparative religion reading. I think. Zoroastrian philosophy is incredibly similar to Abrahamic thinking, and not at all close to the dharmic view. The dharmic religions are four: Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism.