How are these Great Beings explained?

loverofhumanity said:

What if, what if the Jewish prophecies were pointing to Christ? Then would it have still been right for them to be angry with Him?

Click to expand...

I side with the Jews. He didn't fulfill the requirements of the messiah, and the NT isn't written by Moses but by the apostles. So, the Jews don't consider it part of the Torah or god's word. Hence, going by the Torah only, yes, they had a right to be angry.

loverofhumanity said:

At the time Christ appeared, the Jews were awaiting for the Messiah to come. What if they killed their own Messiah?

Click to expand...

I don't see how that would make sense, but if they did, yeah. That can be a problem. Though, I don't feel that's the case.

loverofhumanity said:

About religions being man made. Most of the major religions teach there is a God. Were they man made also?

Click to expand...

Yes, all religions are man-made. Religions are made up of people/followers. Our teachings are from our culture, language, and traditions. They can point to god or to mars, for all that matters, but we are not special.

It comes from us. It's some people's attempt to find god. Not all religions point to god; but, you're happy to disagree with me.

Carlita said:

@loverofhumanity

When I was confirmed, I was very happy. I attended Catholic retreats, groups, Mass everyday, studied at our Church library, and the whole nine yards. Among other things, I found out the political Church's history. It's not the body of Christ, as the Church teaches, but the killing part got me. It wasn't the major but one of the reasons I left the Church, I didn't want to be a part of that history.

The life of another person was more valuable than my own belief system. If a mother can risk her life to safe her child, why would her belief be any different than her life. I brought that up in a chat room and the monitor said it made people uncomfortable to talk about.

In a hypothetical question, knowing now that your belief in and of itself insults others, what would be the reason your belief is more important than the well-being and respect of other people and the rights to their own religions, culture, prophets, and gods?

How far would you go before you put a barrier between compromise and agreement?

Click to expand...

I think it comes down whether humanity is better off or worse adopting the Teachings of Bahaullah.

Each individual has to decide that for Him/herself.

Carlita said:

I side with the Jews. He didn't fulfill the requirements of the messiah, and the NT isn't written by Moses but by the apostles. So, the Jews don't consider it part of the Torah or god's word. Hence, going by the Torah only, yes, they had a right to be angry.



I don't see how that would make sense, but if they did, yeah. That can be a problem. Though, I don't feel that's the case.



Yes, all religions are man-made. Religions are made up of people/followers. Our teachings are from our culture, language, and traditions. They can point to god or to mars, for all that matters, but we are not special.

It comes from us. It's some people's attempt to find god. Not all religions point to god; but, you're happy to disagree with me.

Click to expand...

Just one question. There was already the Hindu religion when Buddha appeared. So why did Buddha teach another doctrine when there was already a religion at that time? Wasn't Buddha a Hindu?

loverofhumanity said:

Just one question. There was already the Hindu religion when Buddha appeared. So why did Buddha teach another doctrine when there was already a religion at that time? Wasn't Buddha a Hindu?

Click to expand...

No. He taught another doctrine because the Hindu practices, gods he believed existed, etc did not address the end of suffering and did not work. He felt they were illusions. So, he didn't "create" a new Dhamma but taught the Dhamma already innate in life and can be observed without The Buddha ever being born since it never decays (hence my signature).

I don't know if he was Hindu but he did practice some Hindu teachings and believed Hindu gods exist. That can't compare to actually believing in those gods as if they hold the key to enlightenment; they don't.

If The Buddha pointed to any god, it would be the Hindu god Brahma and gods. All of which to show Hinduism is false and followers are in delusions. Since he didn't agree with Hinduism, if he ever did hear of god of abraham and was told about the jews, would you think from a non-bahai point of view (as always) his face would twinkle in confusion? GOA would mean nothing to him.

Carlita said:

No. He taught another doctrine because the Hindu practices, gods he believed existed, etc did not address the end of suffering and did not work. He felt they were illusions. So, he didn't "create" a new Dhamma but taught the Dhamma already innate in life and can be observed without The Buddha ever being born since it never decays (hence my signature).

I don't know if he was Hindu but he did practice some Hindu teachings and believed Hindu gods exist. That can't compare to actually believing in those gods as if they hold the key to enlightenment; they don't.

If The Buddha pointed to any god, it would be the Hindu god Brahma and gods. All of which to show Hinduism is false and followers are in delusions. Since he didn't agree with Hinduism, if he ever did hear of god of abraham and was told about the jews, would you think from a non-bahai point of view (as always) his face would twinkle in confusion? GOA would mean nothing to him.

Click to expand...

My point is that isn't there a parallel between Christ and the Jews and Buddha and Hinduism? Both sought to reform their understanding. Just like Buddha was a Hindu, Jesus was born a Jew.

So just as you say Hinduism was in need of reform so Buddha appeared? Then wasn't Judaism at that time in need of reform when Jesus appeared?

So if it was not wrong for Buddha to reform Hinduism as you said then it also was not wrong for Christ to reform Judaism.

As we see today, Islam is in need of reform.

loverofhumanity said:

My point is that isn't there a parallel between Christ and the Jews and Buddha and Hinduism? Both sought to reform their understanding. Just like Buddha was a Hindu, Jesus was born a Jew.

Click to expand...

No.

I can't speak for Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism. Christ spoke to save the gentiles and jews by going through him to know the creator. There wasn't a reform. Jesus still taught the law of Moses.

The Dhamma will never disappears. It's inherited in life; life itself. The Buddha taught how to be aware of this to address suffering. He isn't a savior. He is only an educator. He isn't a chosen one nor a person of god. He's just a man who shared his own view of enlightenment and how to get there. He doesn't say depend on him nor any god but depend on the one's own practice.

Christ says depend on the father
The Buddha says depend on the Dhamma

They are completely different.

loverofhumanity said:

So just as you say Hinduism was in need of reform so Buddha appeared? Then wasn't Judaism at that time in need of reform when Jesus appeared?

Click to expand...

No. I didn't say that. I said The Buddha practiced native practices of his day and some of which were Hindu. There wasn't a reform. The Buddha didn't change the Dhamma. He says the Dhamma is eternal. He just was enlightened to it and said other people are still in delusions and need to see it too.

Buddhism is about awakening not reforming.

As for Jews and Jesus, that depends on who you talk to. In my opinion, Judaism doesn't need a reform. If we respect diversity, we respect where people are in their faith. There is no need to change.

If you read my first thousands of posts, I said address the people not the religion.

loverofhumanity said:

So if it was not wrong for Buddha to reform Hinduism as you said then it also was not wrong for Christ to reform Judaism.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that neither in my post nor in context. I think you need to take your time and read what I said.

The Buddha didn't reform Hinduism. He just rejected it for his own lessons he founded in the Dhamma. He rejected the gods and focused on relieving suffering.

Christ didn't reform Judaism. The law of Moses still stands. That could be an apostle thing but not Jesus.

loverofhumanity said:

As we see today, Islam is in need of reform.

Click to expand...

Depends. You see people as a group. I see people's spirituality individually or at most by community. If I were Muslim, I wouldn't need to reform my belief because you feel Islam as a whole should.

Address the people not the religion.

Carlita said:

No.

I can't speak for Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism. Christ spoke to save the gentiles and jews by going through him to know the creator. There wasn't a reform. Jesus still taught the law of Moses.

The Dhamma will never disappears. It's inherited in life; life itself. The Buddha taught how to be aware of this to address suffering. He isn't a savior. He is only an educator. He isn't a chosen one nor a person of god. He's just a man who shared his own view of enlightenment and how to get there. He doesn't say depend on him nor any god but depend on the one's own practice.

Christ says depend on the father
The Buddha says depend on the Dhamma

They are completely different.



No. I didn't say that. I said The Buddha practiced native practices of his day and some of which were Hindu. There wasn't a reform. The Buddha didn't change the Dhamma. He says the Dhamma is eternal. He just was enlightened to it and said other people are still in delusions and need to see it too.

Buddhism is about awakening not reforming.

As for Jews and Jesus, that depends on who you talk to. In my opinion, Judaism doesn't need a reform. If we respect diversity, we respect where people are in their faith. There is no need to change.

If you read my first thousands of posts, I said address the people not the religion.



I didn't say that neither in my post nor in context. I think you need to take your time and read what I said.

The Buddha didn't reform Hinduism. He just rejected it for his own lessons he founded in the Dhamma. He rejected the gods and focused on relieving suffering.

Christ didn't reform Judaism. The law of Moses still stands. That could be an apostle thing but not Jesus.



Depends. You see people as a group. I see people's spirituality individually or at most by community. If I were Muslim, I wouldn't need to reform my belief because you feel Islam as a whole should.

Address the people not the religion.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that all the Teachers came to either help relieve some suffering or lift us up to higher spiritual realities and that they were all complimentary.

Vinayaka said:

Not what other religions believe. We Hindus of my sect define religion as the harmonious working together of the 3 worlds. (This one, the astral plane,. and the Sivaloka) For Saivas, the purpose of religion is to provide individuals a path to moksha,

Very different paradigms.

Click to expand...

OK then.

What about community building, education, and personal morality that involves considering the welfare of others? I know its not all inward?

What are the origins of your beliefs? I know you have gurus and succession of leaders. I realise the community around the temple is very important and having a book of sacred scripture is not so important.

How can we know that what you believe is true? One Hindu here is an atheist and you believe in God. If the answer to that question doesn't matter, then what does?

I've probably asked these questions before and am trying to get my head around it. Thanks for your patience.

CG Didymus said:

In the early 70's my Baha'i friends were going on teaching trips that were designed to bring mass declarations. They talked about "entry by troops." That's close to 50 years ago. What happened?

Click to expand...

The 60s through to the early 80s certainly was a time a significant growth of the faith in the West. If we look at growth of religions worldwide as a proportion, the Baha'i Faith has been the fastest growing religion worldwide in the last 100 years.

Growth of religion - Wikipedia

It is undeniable that the growth in the West has slowed during a time of mass exodus with many leaving established religions to have no faith community. Its is simply changing times that presents different challenges.

CG Didymus said:

What you say is very interesting. Conquest by Christians and Muslims happened. The religions of the conquered were replaced by the religion of the conquerors. Was their religion the truth? Wouldn't you agree that the two religions had already added "traditions" of men and had erroneous interpretations, according to Baha'is, of their Scriptures?

Click to expand...

Yes.

CG Didymus said:

Like no matter if it was Catholicism or one of the Protestant sects, what was taught to the conquered people was wrong. Each had Jesus as God. Each had the devil and hell. So how did this wrong narrative and theology bring meaning, hope, and inspiration to their followers? I'd have to say that a religion have to be true... to be believed as true.

Click to expand...

Despite the false beliefs that were taught there were many true beliefs. The false beliefs were not really false beliefs but part of a mythical narrative that brought meaning and context to the whole. It didn't really matter so much then about the contradiction with science. It matters now. We need a new narrative.

CG Didymus said:

Of course some things in these religions bring positive results, but what about the negative things caused by religious belief? So, considering the teaching of these religions had some false notions, how did they and how do they endure?

Click to expand...

But do they endure? These false notions are contributing to many leaving the traditions of old as their narrative is no longer plausible.

CG Didymus said:

But the quote says that they didn't crucify him. And what would it prove to say they didn't kill his spirit? If people believe that the spirit is immortal, then of course they couldn't kill it?

Click to expand...

It is true that most Muslims take this literally, reject that Jesus was crucified, and believe the gospels that say He was crucified to be corrupted.

CG Didymus said:

So on the Hadith. It sounds like they fall into the category of "traditions" of men.

Click to expand...

How can we say they are any more or less authentic than the accounts of Jesus in the gospels?

CG Didymus said:

How is the "clash" going in your other threads? In the one about Isaiah you got some input from Christians and Jews. In the Creation one, you got some YEC Christians. How far to you go into trying to find points of unity with them? 'Cause they are so firm into their beliefs that trying to show them how they are wrong is probably not going to do much good. Kind of like here on this thread.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to convert people to my way of thinking, rather providing an opportunity to explore religious themes that IMHO have been misunderstood. We're all students and all teachers.

Carlita said:

God would speak through us regardless of who we are. That's another thing about Buddhism compared to GOA religions. There isn't a separation in status just who is enlightened, who teaches, and who are lay people, gods, etc waiting and practicing to become enlightened.

In other words, it's redundant.

Click to expand...

How can you be so certain God doesn't exist, and that He hasn't spoken through Christ?

Carlita said:

I never understood the worship part. What's the point of worship?

Click to expand...

To revere someone or something greater than ourselves. It is what inspires and enables many to do great things in their lives.

Carlita said:

Shared understanding is a start. Though no one I know would compromise their beliefs to find agreement so the best we can get is mutual respect. Of course, again, that respect involves respecting people's rights to their religion. Cough. Cough.

Click to expand...

I believe the Baha'is are comfortable with diversity.

Carlita said:

If you are building unity among diversity, there needs to be an agreement/a statement of unity that all people will be comfortable with. Since not everyone believes in god, it can't start there.

Click to expand...

That's true. It then comes down to an agreed set of principles to assist us to work together. However I believe that it is through the power of the Holy Spirit that we are truly empowered to overcome great obstacles within ourselves and be the best we can be.

loverofhumanity said:

Just one question. There was already the Hindu religion when Buddha appeared. So why did Buddha teach another doctrine when there was already a religion at that time? Wasn't Buddha a Hindu?

Click to expand...

There were certain parts of Hinduism he disagreed with. There have been countless Hindu reformers over the years, and still are.

Vinayaka said:

There were certain parts of Hinduism he disagreed with. There have been countless Hindu reformers over the years, and still are.

Click to expand...

Which parts and how can we know for certain?

Isn't it all just lost in the mists of time, where history is interwoven with mythology?

adrian009 said:

OK then.

What about community building, education, and personal morality that involves considering the welfare of others? I know its not all inward?

What are the origins of your beliefs? I know you have gurus and succession of leaders. I realise the community around the temple is very important and having a book of sacred scripture is not so important.

How can we know that what you believe is true? One Hindu here is an atheist and you believe in God. If the answer to that question doesn't matter, then what does?

I've probably asked these questions before and am trying to get my head around it. Thanks for your patience.

Click to expand...

We work in the community, have personal morality, etc., because of conscience, and the belief in karma. Hindus fully know their own action is on themselves,

Origins ... sages received the Vedas, lots of it, over time more things came throuh to the superconscious mind of realised beings.

I don't know it's true. It's my belief. Since we accept diversity, one can be an atheist, although that is rare. There is also the term 'cultural Hindu',

Questions like this all matter on an individual level, but what others think is up to them.

adrian009 said:

Which parts and how can we know for certain?

Isn't it all just lost in the mists of time, where history is interwoven with mythology?

Click to expand...

I actually don't know. It's never interested me. I assume it's like what Carlita said. Some is lost in the mists of time. Some has survived. Some written scripture is destroyed. You have to remember that many invaders like to burn down libraries.

We're growing as well, in many ways. Mostly some people are just getting more religious, and lots of people are taking on Hindu beliefs without calling them Hindu. It helps to get past all the anti-Hindu propaganda put out there by the British, and western Christian academia.

I thought the Momen (sp) Baha'i' paper had a reasonably 6 paragraph summary of our core beliefs.

Vinayaka said:

We work in the community, have personal morality, etc., because of conscience, and the belief in karma. Hindus fully know their own action is on themselves,

Origins ... sages received the Vedas, lots of it, over time more things came throuh to the superconscious mind of realised beings.

I don't know it's true. It's my belief. Since we accept diversity, one can be an atheist, although that is rare. There is also the term 'cultural Hindu',

Questions like this all matter on an individual level, but what others think is up to them.

Click to expand...

Of course you work in the community and have personal morality. As an Abrahamic you know I like to focus on written sacred texts....so

Are the Vedas the most ancient religious texts in Hinduism?

When did they emerge in their present form?

Who were the Aryans who introduced them?

Do Hindus believe they were received direct from God at any point?

How long were they passed on to the next generations by word of mouth?

Vinayaka said:

I actually don't know. It's never interested me. I assume it's like what Carlita said. Some is lost in the mists of time. Some has survived. Some written scripture is destroyed. You have to remember that many invaders like to burn down libraries.

We're growing as well, in many ways. Mostly some people are just getting more religious, and lots of people are taking on Hindu beliefs without calling them Hindu. It helps to get past all the anti-Hindu propaganda put out there by the British, and western Christian academia.

I thought the Momen (sp) Baha'i' paper had a reasonably 6 paragraph summary of our core beliefs.

Click to expand...

I must have another look at that Moojan Momen Baha'i book. Ironically I tend to learn more about different religions by talking with followers of that religion, than reading books.

I do wonder why Buddha brought a new religion rather than stick with Hinduism. The major problem I have with the Dharmic Faiths is unravelling fact from fiction. Don't get me wrong. There's plenty of mythology in the Abrahamic Faiths, but it seems much easier to deconstruct!

adrian009 said:

Of course you work in the community and have personal morality. As an Abrahamic you know I like to focus on written sacred texts....so

Are the Vedas the most ancient religious texts in Hinduism?

When did they emerge in their present form?

Who were the Aryans who introduced them?

Do Hindus believe they were received direct from God at any point?

How long were they passed on to the next generations by word of mouth?

Click to expand...

We don't know how long they went back orally. Estimates vary from 7 to 10 thousand years.
Aryan Invasion theory is a touch subject in these parts. Aupmanyav might chime in here. Fact is nobody really knows.

As for exactly how it was passed to those ancient sages, nobody knows either. But it doesn't bother us that we don't know. The only time is now.

Reception form God also is vague, as we Hindus believe God is also within. So it's all everywhere, simultaneously. Fact is they got here somehow. Other than a few quotes and slokas, I personally don't know much about them.

adrian009 said:

I must have another look at that Moojan Momen Baha'i book. Ironically I tend to learn more about different religions by talking with followers of that religion, than reading books.

I do wonder why Buddha brought a new religion rather than stick with Hinduism. The major problem I have with the Dharmic Faiths is unravelling fact from fiction. Don't get me wrong. There's plenty of mythology in the Abrahamic Faiths, but it seems much easier to deconstruct!

Click to expand...

We (in my sampradaya) largely ignore the mythology aspect, which, very generalising, is the scripture called the Puranas. "Well, they're stories." In my sampradaya, because of the lineage of a living Guru always present, we stay very current. We're dealing with how to teach youth, keep doing sadhana, restructuring the mind, building and maintaining temples, going on pilgrimage, etc. The historical aspect is largely irrelevant.