If humans can't unite on religion, is there a purpose to religion?

[Trailblazer]

Is what happened in the past moot if we are evaluating Prophets and their teachings that occurred in the past?

No, not in that case.

And again, this was a critique of how God chooses to disseminate information, and I still assert it is a flawed method.

The method cannot be flawed because God is infallible so God cannot make mistakes. By contrast, humans are fallible so they make many mistakes.

God’s Method of delivering messages, is it flawed?

 

[Marcion]

As you can see on this forum, the more religious folk have a hard time to find unity, the more tantric folk find much less difficulty with seeing the unity.

That is why Tantra (in all its varied forms) is the only hope for unity, religious preceptors and their followers will never agree and will continue fighting each other over their diverse religious theories. It has been the sad reality for thousands of years and is not going to change.

 

[Trailblazer]

As you can see on this forum, the more religious folk have a hard time to find unity, the more tantric folk find much less difficulty with seeing the unity.

That is why Tantra (in all its varied forms) is the only hope for unity,

But how would that unity be possible unless the religious folk became tantric folk?
55% of people in the world are Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Do you think they would ever de-convert and become Buddhists or Hindus?

 

[Marcion]

But how would that unity be possible unless the religious folk became tantric folk?
55% of people in the world are Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Do you think they would ever de-convert and become Buddhists or Hindus?

Tantra is not on one side of a division between Eastern and Western spirituality. Sufi's and more mystic Christians and Jews also have a more tantric way of thinking and practising.

Religious people are less introspective and more occupied with prayer, rituals or their religious theories.
It is because of their more dogmatic and superstitious nature that they cling to those theories (which have no real base but are accepted purely on authority) and oppose other such theories (and the more tantric folk but that is another subject).

 

[Trailblazer]

Tantra is not a simple division between Eastern and Western spirituality. Sufi's and more mystic Christians and Jews also have a more Tantric way of thinking and practising.

Religious people are less introspective and more occupied with prayer, rituals or their religious theories.
It is because of their more dogmatic and superstitious nature that they cling to those theories (which have no real base but are accepted purely on authority) and oppose other such theories (and the more tantric folk but that is another subject).

According to your description I am neither religious nor Tantric, but I would prefer the Tantric way of thinking and practising.

 

[MikeF]

No, not in that case.

The method cannot be flawed because God is infallible so God cannot make mistakes. By contrast, humans are fallible so they make many mistakes.

God’s Method of delivering messages, is it flawed?

Hmmm, non-uniformity of message, non-unity of delivery of competing messages, the resulting strife we see throughout history through today, if feel confident in labeling this method as flawed. What evidence do we have of the infallibility of God?

And I certainly agree than human beings are flawed. If we are made in God's image, perhaps God is flawed, must be flawed.

 

[Marcion]

According to your description I am neither religious nor Tantric, but I would prefer the Tantric way of thinking and practising.

I don't know enough about Bahai practices to comment on that.
Not everyone is ready for the tantric path, people start out with more vedic ways of relating to God. You cannot force matters of the spirit, the inner desire has to increase first.
That's why is it a bad thing to criticize anyone's religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hmmm, non-uniformity of message, non-unity of delivery of competing messages, the resulting strife we see throughout history through today, if feel confident in labeling this method as flawed. What evidence do we have of the infallibility of God?

Why would the messages delivered by different Messengers in different ages be uniform?
The strife that resulted was because believers could never accept the religions that were revealed after their religion.
There is no proof that God is infallible, that is a religious belief that certain scriptures reveal and certain religions teach.

And I certainly agree than human beings are flawed. If we are made in God's image, perhaps God is flawed, must be flawed.

Humans were created in God's image, it was after they were created that humans became imperfect. Since humans have two natures, the lower material nature and the higher spiritual nature, we have free will to choose between those two natures, and some people choose to follow their lower nature.

 

[MikeF]

Why would the messages delivered by different Messengers in different ages be uniform?

One God, I would assume one message. If not one message, why have different expectations for different groups of people?

There is no proof that God is infallible, that is a religious belief that certain scriptures reveal and certain religions teach.

So it is possible that God is fallible. You just seems sure that God was not.

Humans were created in God's image, it was after they were created that humans became imperfect. Since humans have two natures, the lower material nature and the higher spiritual nature, we have free will to choose between those two natures, and some people choose to follow their lower nature.

Of course that is one version that is bandied about. Not all religions make that claim. Again, we have disparity, conflicting messages. Also not a fan of the idea that two people make a mistake and everyone after that is adversely affected at birth.

 

[74x12]

Sao are you conceding that Christianity and the ideas about Jesus aren't relevant to those in India who are quite fervent in their religious tradition?

No I'm not conceding that.

It's a body in terrible shape, but I guess that's good enough.

Any building looks terrible while it's being built. The stones are rough and not smoothed until they're polished and built up.

 

[Trailblazer]

One God, I would assume one message. If not one message, why have different expectations for different groups of people?

Why would you assume one message for all of time? People and the world they live in change, so it only makes sense that the message from God would also change in order to accommodate the needs of the times.

The reason why there were different expectations for different groups of people is because different messages were delivered to different people in different ages, so they had different messages, but that was intentional on the part of God, because different messages were needed for different ages and peoples who lived in different parts of the world. However, that is no longer the case in this age because one message has been delivered by Baha'u'llah for everyone in the world.

So it is possible that God is fallible. You just seems sure that God was not.

It is not logically possible for God to be fallible. Try to imagine an omnipotent God being fallible and what could happen as a result.

Of course that is one version that is bandied about. Not all religions make that claim. Again, we have disparity, conflicting messages. Also not a fan of the idea that two people make a mistake and everyone after that is adversely affected at birth.

Yes, I know not all religions believe humans have two natures, higher and lower, but that does not mean we do not have them. It makes sense to me that the new Messenger of God would reveal new information. Some of the new information is that there was no Adam and Eve who ate an apple in a garden which was considered a sin that brought a curse upon all of humanity. Bahais believe that all humans are made in the image of God so we are all born good, not evil. Any sins we are responsible for are the sins that we commit after we are born, and we commit them because we have a lower nature.

 

[MikeF]

Why would you assume one message for all of time? People and the world they live in change, so it only makes sense that the message from God would also change in order to accommodate the needs of the times.

The reason why there were different expectations for different groups of people is because different messages were delivered to different people in different ages, so they had different messages, but that was intentional on the part of God, because different messages were needed for different ages and peoples who lived in different parts of the world. However, that is no longer the case in this age because one message has been delivered by Baha'u'llah for everyone in the world.

This is quite a progressive view. I think for some, if we are talking about universal truths, then how can they change. The expectation is they are universal for all time. If religious practices are not universal, then what value do they have? If some require baptism and others don't, what is the value of baptism? Why bother? If some have strict dietary restrictions and others don't, why the difference? To say that people have to jump through different hoops in different ages to get God's approval or attention still begs the question of why?
It is almost as if God itself is not fixed and is changing over time. If God changes, what does that mean?

It is not logically possible for God to be fallible. Try to imagine an omnipotent God being fallible and what could happen as a result.

Saying that it is not logically possible for God to be fallible does not mean that it is impossible. I can quite easily imagine a fallible God. In fact, many Gods throughout history have had their various foibles.
And as to an omnipotent God being fallible, that also begs the question "How do we know God is omnipotent?".
That you might prefer an infallible God, or feel that an infallible God would be ideal or the best possible God, in no way proves that God is infallible. In fact, based on the historical record, there is a much stronger argument that God is fallible. I know, I know, you are going to say it's not Gods fault, its ours. I disagree. I think things could be handled better.

 

[danieldemol]

No religion has all the truth, but they all have part of it.

Does that include the Baha'i Faith?

 

[danieldemol]

Of course. When I make a statement, I can substantiate it. Unlike you of course.

Do some research about Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Thung. Both Atheists. In the name of atheists they did more atrocities than you will ever find any world leader do anything close to that in the name of any religion. Ever in history.

They had access to modern means of destruction though. This hardly means that they were less moral than those who committed atrocities in pre-modern times with relatively limited means at their disposal.

Besides although being atheist they had one causal factor that they shared in common with their religious precursors who committed atrocities - they were authoritarian.

Stalin and Mao are better arguments against authoritarianism than they are against atheism since there are many atheists who do not commit atrocities who are not authoritarian.

In my opinion.

 

[Neuropteron]

Thank you. What is immoral?

And who is responsible for eradicating these evils and those who commit them (by extension)?

Hi,

God is the one that decrees what is moral and immoral. We all have the same information on morality, it's not hidden.

According to Ro 13:4 the Governments have been given temporarily the authority to stop criminal behavior.
"...God's minister to ... to bear the sword and express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad".
Obviously they are not doing so perfectly, and thus can be seen as a temporary measure to contain complete anarchy until their sovereignty is removed.

God promises that He, by means of his Kingdom will remove wickedness from the earth.

 

[Neuropteron]

And it's worth noting that we have a lot of men on this discussion, but no gods. So lots of grains of salt going around.

Hi,
Good point, the God I'm referring to is the God of the bible.

Psalm 83:18 " That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah...You alone are the Most High over all the earth."

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The path described by Jesus is not the only path from which to choose. There is still a gamble, that of all available paths, a path other than that described by Jesus is the true path. The path presented by Jesus came so late in human history, why should one assume that this is a valid path? What of the billions of people who came before Jesus had described and set out his path? Did billions of people live and die without any hope of reaching the goal?
As you rightly point out, I think a psychopath living his best life might not be good for everyone else. Perhaps it would be better to say that we should live our best lives, as we see fit, within the bounds of mutually determined parameters, agreed to by the members of society. Like the US Constitution for example.

Thank you for your reply. Good point about an agreed Constitution, and according to Scripture, unless damaged, we come equipped with an 'in-born conscience' and because of conscience is why even the nations without law do the things of the law. For example: universally murder and stealing are wrong.
To me the path that Jesus presented started way back with the first prophecy found at Genesis 3:15.
In other words, that promised ' seed ' (Messiah) could appear any time in history.
The majority of mankind have lived and died without the opportunity to put faith or belief in Jesus as Messiah.
In other words, people who died before Jesus died can have a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection.
Or, as Acts of the Apostles 24:15 says there ' is going to be ' (a future) a resurrection.....
Even none of the faithful of Hebrews chapter 11 (they died before Jesus) are yet resurrected - Hebrews 11:13,39.
This physical resurrection will take place on Earth during Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental reign over Earth.
Then, all resurrected ones (John 3:13) back to Abel will have the opportunity to of 'reaching the goal ', so to speak.
In other words, the majority of people will have the same original opportunity to live on Earth forever as originally offered to Adam before his downfall.
(A heavenly resurrection is only for people like those of Luke 22:28-30; Daniel 7:18; Revelation 20:6; 2:10; 5:9-10)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

God is the one that decrees what is moral and immoral. We all have the same information on morality, it's not hidden.According to Ro 13:4 the Governments have been given temporarily the authority stop criminal behavior."...God's minister to ... to bear the sword and express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad".Obviously they are not doing so perfectly, and thus can be seen as a temporary measure to contain complete anarchy until their sovereignty is removed. God promises that He, by means of his Kingdom will remove wickedness from the earth.

Good point about the secular authorities ^ above ^, and I find as King Solomon observed that MAN has dominated MAN to MAN's hurt, MAN's injury - Ecclesiastes 8:9, or as Jeremiah 10:23 says man can't direct his step.
This is why God will have Jesus step in to rid the Earth of wickedness because Jesus is King of God's Kingdom (Daniel 2:44) and will govern over Earth for a thousand years - 1 Corinthians 15:24-26.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is quite a progressive view. I think for some, if we are talking about universal truths, then how can they change. The expectation is they are universal for all time. If religious practices are not universal, then what value do they have? If some require baptism and others don't, what is the value of baptism? Why bother? If some have strict dietary restrictions and others don't, why the difference? To say that people have to jump through different hoops in different ages to get God's approval or attention still begs the question of why?
It is almost as if God itself is not fixed and is changing over time. If God changes, what does that mean?

You ask good questions and it is obvious to me that you are a thinker. No, universal truths do not change over time. Spiritual truth is eternal and it will never change; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy.

However, the second part of religion which refers to the material world changes with every new religion that is revealed.

“The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.” Some Answered Questions, p. 48

The current Messenger of God defines the social teachings and Laws for the current times. According to Baha’i teachings, the assumption has to be made that if a new Messenger brings a new revelation and He was sent by God, whatever he revealed is identical with the Will of God. We might not agree with the Messenger, but if we argue with it that is as much as saying we think we know more than God about what is moral and what is in the best interest of humanity collectively.

People have had to jump through different hoops in different ages to be in line with God's will, which is for their own good, because God reveals teachings and laws that are in humanity's best interest.

Saying that it is not logically possible for God to be fallible does not mean that it is impossible. I can quite easily imagine a fallible God. In fact, many Gods throughout history have had their various foibles.

I do not care about the gods people have believed in throughout history, I only care about the one true God of Abraham.

And as to an omnipotent God being fallible, that also begs the question "How do we know God is omnipotent?".
That you might prefer an infallible God, or feel that an infallible God would be ideal or the best possible God, in no way proves that God is infallible.

If you want to use that argument, there is no proof that God even exists at all, but if God exists it makes no sense to me that God would be fallible.

In fact, based on the historical record, there is a much stronger argument that God is fallible. I know, I know, you are going to say it's not Gods fault, its ours. I disagree. I think things could be handled better.

God did not 'handle' anything in our history, all God did was to send the Messengers, so logically speaking people cannot blame God for things that went wrong on earth, after the Messengers were sent.

 

[loverofhumanity]

How is one to distinguish whether someone is a true prophet sent or instructed by God, or are instead just someone spouting ideas they have made up themselves? Why does God use intermediaries? Wouldn't it be quicker, less open to misinterpretation, if God simply and personally reached out to everyone individually ( or in groups as well, I suppose).
Why do it the hard way? Why cycles of death and decay and getting off track?

That's s very good question. I think it is important to observe their life and teachings. If you look at Teachers like Christ. He lived a life dedicated to God, to spreading love with no thought of any reward. He was willing to be crucified that men may change and live godly lives and love one another. Alone and notwithstanding powerful enemies leagued against Him, His Cause spread throughout the entire world captivating the hearts and minds of all including kings and queens. Now many billion people use his teachings upon which to model their daily lives.

Only a very few Great Ones have had such a lasting effect on humanity. Others are Buddha, Krishna, Moses, Muhammad and more recently, Baha’u’llah.