CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Then what good is it? And did the gospel writers quote Bible prophecies that they said were about Jesus. And why do Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the prophecies of every major religion?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Homosexuality and religious.
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
What is the context of the verses used by Baha'is as prophesy? Which to me is always a problem. Especially the cherry-picked out of Isaiah chapter 7. The writer of Matthew takes one verse and makes it a prophecy about Jesus being born of a virgin. But it doesn't fit the context, but most Christians don't care. The rest of the verses are still talking about the same boy and what will happen when that boy reaches a certain age, but they are ignored.
Bill Sears does the same kinds of things. Fine with Baha'is, but it is still ignoring the context. So, are they real prophecies or have they been manufactured?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Behavorial sciences can show what happens when a religion has such a law. How does it affect gays? Especially gay Baha'i's?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Some people might have a hard time accepting and being unified with any religion that has a law the forbids homosexuality. And Baha'is might have a hard time being unified with some religions that have strange, cult-like beliefs. Sometimes people just can't tolerate the beliefs of others and will not condone those beliefs.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I see no particular need for unity. And, of course, Bahais teaching us our own religions or declaring them obsolete is the ultimate insult to us. We may seek unity with others, but certainly not with Bahais.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
IMHO, prophecies are just plain farce, either by psychological disturbed people or by charlatans.
During WWI when soldiers from India were being sent to war front, a mendicant started sitting outside the railway station in my city promising safe return (Jodhpur, India. Jodhpur soldiers liberated Haifa/Acra from Ottoman, German and Austro-Hungarians and their bodies are interned in the Indian cemetery there). When people asked him his methodology, he said that those who die would not return to question him, and those who return will consider him a prophet. Simple.
https://www.oneindia.com/international/pm-modi-pays-homage-at-haifa-cemetery-2487402.html
Remembering heroes of Haifa
Major Thakur Dalpat Singh Shekhawat (25)
The Jodhpur Contingent, 'Jodhpur Lancers'.
Last edited:
I notice they were buried, not cremated.IMHO, prophecies are just plain farce, either by psychological disturbed people or by charlatans.
During WWI when soldiers from India were being sent to war front, a mendicant started sitting outside the railway station in my city promising safe return (Jodhpur, India. Jodhpur soldiers liberated Haifa/Acra from the Germans and their bodies are interned in the Indian cemetery there). When people asked him his methodology, he said that those who die would not return to question him, and those who return will consider him a prophet. Simple.
https://www.oneindia.com/international/pm-modi-pays-homage-at-haifa-cemetery-2487402.html
Major Thakur Dalpat Singh Shekhawat
The Jodhpur Contingent, 'Marwar Horse'.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yeah, they were buried. Who would care for native soldiers in the aftermath of WWI? Preserving and transporting the bodies was not possible.
They were not Islamic Sikhs, they were from Jodhpur State Army, Hindus and probably some Muslims too. All are wearing the 'Jodhpur turban'. My grandpa also used to wear that. It is a particular style with a long tail. Different states had different style and one can know the location, caste and religion of the person wearing a particular style of turban. Upper center is the Jodhpur turban.
Last edited:
Thanks.They were not Islamic Sikhs, they were from Jodhpur State Army, Hindu Rajputs and Muslims. All are wearing the 'Jodhpur turban'. My grandpa also used to wear that. It is a particular style with a long tail.
This is what concerns me about religion as a whole. The example of Bahais has shocked me a few times. I made my comments and criticisms about how these believers suspend their own moral authority and turn it over to a religious dogma. I don't see any cases of this being good for humans, nor a way to create a better, safer society. I would not trust these people in power given their lack of empathy. It reminds me of how ordinary Germans worked in concentration camps and then went home to familes at the end of their shifts, all as if that was normal.
To my mind there are many humans psychological flaws that can be exploited, and the person is willing to go along for whatever they get out of it, even if it costs others their dignity.
It is religious faith. But I still wonder what is going on in these minds that either doesn't understand what is going on, or does, but doesn't care because they are getting some benefit. I ask question to reveal this hidden side of their thinking and it tends to hit brick walls. I sense a lot of pain in these true believers, and their identity as Bahai fills in an emptiness they can't fill themselves.
I am not into the translation is not good enough conspiracy theories, in the end I would consider that it does not really make a lot of difference to the context of meaning.
You can read why the KJV was commissioned and the intent was to accurately portray the original.
Regards Tony
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
In speaking of God, so many characterize Him as the kind of teacher who never showed up for class but wanted to get paid.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
How did Moses not sanctify God by striking the rock twice? That is very unclear. As there is no satisfactory expalnation why Moses was wrong I doubt this "conversation" was reported accurately after several hundred of oral transmaission.
It is still unclear how Moses betrayed God or not sanctify God. I use the same reasoning as above. Why wouldn't God be clear how Moses did not sanctify Him?
Moses took the fall, took the blame on behalf of the Hebrew people in my opinion. I don't expect you to agree with this. These discussions between people of different religions end up with disagreement 99% of the time.
Salutations!
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
That is not putting a divine power in front of God. (That sounds awkward, does He mean "ahead of God"?) Why cannot they help a person? I see no reason why God has to do all of that. A living person can also help a person, that is not confined to God, or you might say that the alive or dead person is helping you on behalf of God. I see no problem with one of the Ten Commandments here.
Salutations.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
All Moslems? You don't think much of Moslems, so you. Anyway, yes, unity in diversity, but if someone has a view that precludes unity that is not unity in diversity.
ah, no problem. It is clear what God wanted, and it is clear how Moses deviated from it. All that's needed is a good translation and sticking to the text.How did Moses not sanctify God by striking the rock twice? That is very unclear. As there is no satisfactory expalnation why Moses was wrong I doubt this "conversation" was reported accurately after several hundred of oral transmaission.
It is still unclear how Moses betrayed God or not sanctify God. I use the same reasoning as above. Why wouldn't God be clear how Moses did not sanctify Him?
Moses took the fall, took the blame on behalf of the Hebrew people in my opinion. I don't expect you to agree with this. These discussions between people of different religions end up with disagreement 99% of the time.
Salutations!
7 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:
8 "Take the staff and assemble the congregation, you and your brother Aaron, and speak to the rock in their presence so that it will give forth its water. You shall bring forth water for them from the rock and give the congregation and their livestock to drink."
9 Moses took the staff from before the Lord as He had commanded him.
10 Moses and Aaron assembled the congregation in front of the rock, and he said to them, "Now listen, you rebels, can we draw water for you from this rock?"
11 Moses raised his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice, when an abundance of water gushed forth, and the congregation and their livestock drank.
12 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Since you did not have faith in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly to the Land which I have given them.
OK, so, God tells Moses8 "Take the staff and assemble the congregation, you and your brother Aaron, and speak to the rock in their presence so that it will give forth its water. You shall bring forth water for them from the rock and give the congregation and their livestock to drink."
9 Moses took the staff from before the Lord as He had commanded him.
10 Moses and Aaron assembled the congregation in front of the rock, and he said to them, "Now listen, you rebels, can we draw water for you from this rock?"
11 Moses raised his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice, when an abundance of water gushed forth, and the congregation and their livestock drank.
12 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Since you did not have faith in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly to the Land which I have given them.
- take the staff
- speak to the rock
- bring forth water
- takes the staff
- speaks to the people
- claims to bring water using his own power
- hits the rock twice
There you go, pretty simple. Now, I'll note that there are at least 7 different interpretations that sages have come up with regarding this story. Each one posits different reasons for Moses' ban from the Holy Land. What I've relayed does not require interpretation, so it avoids the accusation "you're clinging to the interpretations of clergy".
OK, now on to the really interesting part of the discussion: How do we have confidence that this "conversation" was recorded accurately? Here are my reasons:
1) Over the past 3000 years, if there was deviation in the story, I would expect this to be reflected in multiple versions of the Torah. But there aren't different versions, the method employed for maintaining the accuracy, word-by-word, is amazing. And this has resulted in the ancient text being maintained in a single form throughout all these years.
2) Let's assume that the story has been corrupted, or changed, or there were multiple accounts of the story. It doesn't make sense to choose Deuteronomy 3 over Numbers 20 and Deuteronomy 32. It's a simple 2 to 1 comparisson. There's two matching explanations included in 2 different books, versus, 1 explanation in one book. Two of the explanations come from God, one from a prophet. Even if the author was unsure which parts of the story were correct and included them both, that means that neither explanation should be trusted ( not one chosen above the other ). Even if there were multiple authors, the two matching explanations corroborate each other.
3) There's another example of Moses' human failings in Exodus 4 immediately following the episode at the burning bush:
24 Now he was on the way, in an inn, that the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25 So Zipporah took a sharp stone and severed her son's foreskin and cast it to his feet, and she said, "For you are a bridegroom of blood to me." 26 So He released him. Then she said, "A bridegroom of blood concerning the circumcision."
Now, there's not a lot to go on here in the text. But it does say explicitly that the "Lord sought to put him to death". So clearly Moses must have done something wrong. Since Moses was not put to death, and the only action taken mentioned in the story is a circumcision, it seems like the story is telling us, Moses had not circumsised his son in spite of the law ( God's will ) to do so. And that's a mistake, so here like in the story at the waters of meribah, we have Moses showing fallibility.
If we include this story with the other, now Moses' human flawed nature is reflected in 3 of the 5 books of Moses. And none of this is coming from interpretation. It's strictly from the text.
The wording literally means "on my face".
You're asking why. Well... we're talking about prayer. IF there is 1 divine power, sending a prayer through an intermediary power isn't 'true'. Psalm 145:18: The Lord is near to all who call Him, to all who call Him in truth. So, including another when praying only serves to distance oneself from God. It's counter productive.
Regarding asking a person to help, that's OK. The person helping, I assume, is praying to God. A problem would come in if one person prayed to another person to intercede on their behalf. As long as the prayers are directed to God and no one else, it's OK.
Regarding trusting your own opinions on what violates this specific one of the 10 commandments. How much time have you spent contemplating what it means to "not have other gods [on my face/in front of me/in my presence]"? In Judaism we are encouraged to review this twice yearly: once during the cycle of weekly Torah portions, and once during the holiday of Shavuot. Unless you're doing the same, I'm not sure why you would trust your own instincts on this. Maybe it's less important an issue for you? That's fine. But I don't think your opinion is as well informed on this issue than mine.
If you don't mind, I'd like to remind you the context that began the discussion of the 10 commandments. The claim was made: "denying one manifestation denies them all". This can't be true if the spiritual messages of two manifestations conflict. Denying one could be resulting from accepting the other. That means denying one does not automatically deny them all. In this case we have a conflict between the spiritual message of Moses ( don't include other divine beings in worship ) and Baha'u'llah ( per the infallible Abdul'Baha, it is OK to include other divine beings in worship ).
Yeah, I think prophecies are generally a dead end. The contradiction for me is: on the one hand, per Baha'i, the text they're quoting from has been corrupted over time, but on the other hand here's a verse which literally corresponds to my manifestation. If it was corrupt then the verse in question can't be expected to be correct.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
"Conspiracy theories"?
WHY are there ERRORS in the King James Version Bible?
You have probably heard the joke about the bigoted Protestant fundamentalist who said, "If the King James Version was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!" People sometimes forget that the KJV was published in 1611 A.D.
For centuries prior to 1611, Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the official text of the powerful Roman Catholic Church.
Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV.
The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV errors, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much WORSE!
And this...You have probably heard the joke about the bigoted Protestant fundamentalist who said, "If the King James Version was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!" People sometimes forget that the KJV was published in 1611 A.D.
For centuries prior to 1611, Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the official text of the powerful Roman Catholic Church.
Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV.
The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV errors, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much WORSE!
The New Testament of the KJV is based on the Greek text of the New Testament produced by Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536). He used several Greek manuscripts, none of which contained the entire New Testament or were earlier than the twelfth century. Moreover, they were all from one text type, all from the same geographical area. Today, we know so much more about the original manuscripts of Scripture than was known in 1611.
The problem becomes evident when we see that the King James Version actually adds verses of Scripture, not in the original texts of the Bible.
As for the Old Testament, the KJV is based on the Masoretic Text (the traditional text of Rabbinic Judaism) which is certainly the best available. However, in 1896 many Hebrew texts were found in the Cairo Genizah (a burial or storage place for Scripture in an ancient Egyptian synagogue). Also, the 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, biblical texts and fragments found at a place called Qumran in the Judean wilderness, has provided a deeper understanding of the original Hebrew text.