Let's Open Our Minds To The Truth

[Willamena]

Let's Open Our Minds To The Truth

Don't you mean your truth?

 

[Jeremiah]

What I was wondering is how can u have an open mind and acknowledge only one truth?

 

[Popeyesays]

What I was wondering is how can u have an open mind and acknowledge only one truth?

An open mind realizes that all the Great Prophets speak the same Message. Closed minds invent reasons for us to doubt that.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Booko]

Living, and I mean truly LIVING, is what the one and only Spiritual Truth allows us to do. Otherwise we merely exist in illusion.

Seems like Jeremiah's post was in vain.

Speaking of illusions, when I see a pattern of responses aimed in my direction that are as negative as the ones I'm seeing here directed elsewhere, I start to wonder where I went wrong -- not where everyone else went wrong.

"An hour's reflection is worth is preferable to seventy years of pious worship."

(Well, or in some cases, preferable to seventy years of guided meditation.)

 

[Booko]

Did Jesus teach his Apostles / disciples to keep quiet and leave everyone alone? Not to criticize or rebuke if they saw error? Why did Jesus rebuke so many and even interfere, violently, with the moneychangers in the Temple?

This is what Jesus taught His disciples to do when spreading the Gospel:

Luke 10:10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,

Luke 10:11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

 

[Jeremiah]

Seems like Jeremiah's post was in vain.

I still added one to my post cout so not all is lost.

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

An open mind realizes that all the Great Prophets speak the same Message. Closed minds invent reasons for us to doubt that.

I wholeheartedly agree with you here. Indeed, ALL genuine Prophets have always spoken the same ONE Message, concerning the same ONE Truth.

Peace & Love

 

[Booko]

Don't you mean your truth?

Perhaps by The Truth he meant:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/member.php?u=3729

 

[Mike182]

why does one singular truth necessitate that conflicting religions are false (or at least partly false)?

the way i see, there is one ultimate God, who is singular. this God created many lesser Deities to interact with us, and we follow them in different ways, and we follow them because we can't identify or understand that ultimate God. so one religion might see homosexuality as a sin and sex is only to be inside of marriage, which is ordained by God. another religion might see sex as being an expression of love, which is freely ordained by God. do they conflict? yes. which one is right? in my opinion, both of them, because that religion is right for the person following it, which stems from and leads to that ultimate God.

obviously people disagree with me, and obviously i have no proof for this - it is simply my belief.

 

[Booko]

I still added one to my post cout so not all is lost.

I gave you some frubals just to make it really worthwhile.

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

Maybe if you saw people as people and not as sheep you would understand.

I do not understand how this would or could answer my simple question to you, of: WHAT EXACTLY IS "JAYISM" - the religion you adhere to. Why can't you give me a simple, straightforward reply?

 

[Popeyesays]

I wholeheartedly agree with you here. Indeed, ALL genuine Prophets have always spoken the same ONE Message, concerning the same ONE Truth.

Peace & Love

Actually I said all the GREAT Prophets, not "genuine Prophets". I think you are confusing the two. Isaiah was genuine prophet, but a minor one. He did not speak from his own authority, nor did he say he brought a revelation.

Arabic has two words for "Prophet" -- 'nabi--a lesser prophet like Isaiah, or Nehemiah, or Daniel, or Luke, or Ali. They speak with the authority of the Prophet Who transformed them.

THen there are the Rasuli"--a Rasul bears a Revelation direct from God, and speaks with His Own authority. Prophets like Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krshna, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha`u'llah. They come along but rarely at critical points in the development of mankind.

Your living masters may occasionally be Nabi, but they are not Rasuli.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Jeremiah]

I gave you some frubals just to make it really worthwhile.

Sweet! Thanks!

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

Actually I said all the GREAT Prophets, not "genuine Prophets". I think you are confusing the two. Isaiah was genuine prophet, but a minor one. He did not speak from his own authority, nor did he say he brought a revelation.

Well, as I was not there at the time, I cannot say with certainty, exactly what Isaiah did or did not do. Nor am I in any position to label him a 'minor' Prophet. In my estimation, one is either a genuine Prophet, or a false prophet. All genuine Prophets, to me, are equals in the sight of God.

Arabic has two words for "Prophet" -- 'nabi--a lesser prophet like Isaiah, or Nehemiah, or Daniel, or Luke, or Ali. They speak with the authority of the Prophet Who transformed them.

THen there are the Rasuli"--a Rasul bears a Revelation direct from God, and speaks with His Own authority. Prophets like Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krshna, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha`u'llah. They come along but rarely at critical points in the development of mankind.

Do you mean a 'nabi is equivalent to, say, one of Jesus' Apostles - speaking on Jesus' behalf, rather than having direct command from God? And a Rasul is someone who has been directly commanded by God to reaveal the Truth?

If this is the case, I don't understand how Abraham and Jesus could be considered to have been Rasuli, for they both bowed down to a human Master, i.e. Abraham to Melchizedek, and Jesus to John the Baptist. Didn't they receive their commission in this way, as all genuine Masters do?

Your living masters may occasionally be Nabi, but they are not Rasuli.

I don't know what you mean by my living Masters (in plural), for I have, and know, only one! And, as you know nothing of my Master, I wonder how you can label Him?

Peace & Love

 

[Popeyesays]

"If this is the case, I don't understand how Abraham and Jesus could be considered to have been Rasuli, for they both bowed down to a human Master, i.e. Abraham to Melchizedek, and Jesus to John the Baptist. Didn't they receive their commission in this way, as all genuine Masters do? "

Actually, according to the Gospels it is John who admits the sovereignty of Jesus. Melchizedek never claimed a Revelation--Abraham does.

John was a forerunner--a Prophet come to call attention to the Prophet greater than Himself. The Bab had the same station, but the Bab was given a Dispensation of Nineteen years, and a sacred Book. John did not have that quality.

When asked if John was Elias (Elijah) returned, he said "No." Yet when Jesus was asked the same question of John, Jesus said "Yes".

This is because John was Elias in essence, character and mission, but not the same person returned.

Maybe Wikipedia has a better drawn contrast between the two states of prophethood:
"
In Islam, a rasul ( رسول) (Arabic: "messenger," plural rusul) is one of five people sent by God ("Allah" in Arabic) with a message. According to the Qur'an, God sent many prophets (anbiyaa, sing. nabi) to mankind. Twenty-five are mentioned by name in the Qur'an (see Prophets of Islam). Of these, the Qur'an names five as rusul: Ismail (Ishmael), Daud (David), Musa (Moses), Isa (Jesus), and Muhammad.[1]

 

[lew0049]

What possible good comes from examining, exposing and eliminating "the many false beliefs and erroneous traditions which have accumulated in all the world’s religions"??

First off, who decides what is false and erroneous? Then, who has the authority to tell religious leaders that they are wrong? Keep in mind that most religious leaders aren't the most flexible of thinkers. Finally, what good comes if you do accomplish the goal?

I think we would be better off just accepting, embracing, and understanding that there are thousands of belief systems out there and no one belief system should rule anyone's life.

Look, I came to RF to explore how people of other faiths think. I've learned a lot from them. But lately, there is a band of people hell bent to ridicule other faiths, but rarely with a purpose, but instead, just mindless babble.

I cannot in good conscious support the idea of being so religiously arrogant that I'd ever be able to decide whose belief is false and erroneous. I'd suggest that you should not, either.

Okay, so I claim to be a follower of Jesus - as you do being Presbytarian - yet I am supposed to embrace other religions and let people go about their day living happily ever after? Of course, I respect people of other faiths as any true belief is difficult b/c faith entails accepting something thatthe eye does not see or cannot be 100% proven. Nevertheless, I don't believe that Jesus/God intended for mankind to live in a constant state of "happiness." If I can spread the word of God to others then I am whole heartly going too - it is that simple. And the foundation of many religions are far from perfect, yet the violence coming from non-religious people have accounted for the death of 100 million people across the world from 1900-2000. That is FAR more than any faith system.

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

"If this is the case, I don't understand how Abraham and Jesus could be considered to have been Rasuli, for they both bowed down to a human Master, i.e. Abraham to Melchizedek, and Jesus to John the Baptist. Didn't they receive their commission in this way, as all genuine Masters do? "

Actually, according to the Gospels it is John who admits the sovereignty of Jesus.

Yes, according to the orthodox versions of the NT. However, I have my doubts as to the authenticity of some passages in this book. According to John's disciples (the Mandaeans), Jesus was originally a disciple of John, but later became a heretical teacher.

Melchizedek never claimed a Revelation--Abraham does.

As I was not there at the time, I cannot say what Melchizedek claimed, or did not claim. And the Bible says nothing either way - not that that would make it true.

John was a forerunner--a Prophet come to call attention to the Prophet greater than Himself. The Bab had the same station, but the Bab was given a Dispensation of Nineteen years, and a sacred Book. John did not have that quality.

See my above comment.

When asked if John was Elias (Elijah) returned, he said "No." Yet when Jesus was asked the same question of John, Jesus said "Yes".

This is because John was Elias in essence, character and mission, but not the same person returned.

This is your opinion, which does not make it fact.

Peace & Love

 

[Popeyesays]

Ben,

I assume you are yourself a Mandaean, it certainly matches what you say--including the obsession with 'mysteries' only appropriate to a select few. Also the written scripture is full of gaps, prompting a distrust of sacred scripture in general.

John and Jesus were cousins of some degree or other, related through John's mother.
She and mary were cousins. John's birth by tradition is almost as miraculous as the birth of Jesus, both evens took place through the intercession of God.

Mandaeans are considered "People of the Book" in Islam.

Personally, while I revere John, I don't think Mandaeanism is free of scriptural and priestly mistakes wrought by tradition.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Mike182]

i don't know if you missed my post earlier Ben, so i'll post it again

why does one singular truth necessitate that conflicting religions are false (or at least partly false)?

the way i see, there is one ultimate God, who is singular. this God created many lesser Deities to interact with us, and we follow them in different ways, and we follow them because we can't identify or understand that ultimate God. so one religion might see homosexuality as a sin and sex is only to be inside of marriage, which is ordained by God. another religion might see sex as being an expression of love, which is freely ordained by God. do they conflict? yes. which one is right? in my opinion, both of them, because that religion is right for the person following it, which stems from and leads to that ultimate God.

obviously people disagree with me, and obviously i have no proof for this - it is simply my belief.

can there be many ways to one truth?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

A.Ben Shama, you asked for that religion at the beggining?

Hinduism
Jainism
Buddhism
Sikhism.