How are these Great Beings explained?

[The Kilted Heathen]

Without these Educators humankind would be savages not having any emotions or thoughts and could not even tame the animals.

We are not. And you do realize that many cultures domesticated animals, expressed emotion and thought (in fact, this is just absolutely stupid to claim) all without the messages from your "great" men? This statement is just grossly irresponsible and ignorant.

With them however, we have soars into realms of thought and spirituality. We have discovered wonderful sciences to improve our lives and so forth.

No, with them we saw the destruction of the greatest library and wealth of knowledge known to man, several cultures trampled into the dust, and a period of time that has infamously been labelled "The Dark Ages" because of the gross scientific repression the experienced.

They are great because without them & their guidance we would not progress.

Hard to say now, isn't it?

The Baha'i Faith only recognizes one God not pagan gods.

And yet... While not "pagan" per se, you've got Krishna up there. Oh, I know. You think he was a man. Yet he is a Hindu god, as you've been told numerous times here by both Pagans and Hindus. So much for recognizing only one god.

 

[loverofhumanity]

As for Krishna , we (BKs) believe that he was a deity soul , the first prince of satyug , completely pure , 16 celestial degrees full , the most perfect and the most blissful soul.
As for the others , who were establishers of religions , we believe that they were assisted by an another pure soul ( Ruhul Quds) in establishing their religion.

We see Krishna as a Manifestation of God and anything the Gita says we agree with that.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Probably something to do with magnets.

Yes likely spiritual ones!

 

[loverofhumanity]

Didn't one of you Balha'ians try that before, and weren't able to show anything for it?

Zoroastrianism: Little Religion, Big Influence

Though today the Zoroastrian religion is on the fringe of the fringe of world religions, many religious scholars are convinced that the faith heavily influenced at least three of the world’s current major religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Jesus a carpenter eventually won over Rome

No he didn't. In fact, Rome killed him. His fanatical believers, on the other hand, continued for hundreds of years until one of them became the Emperor. Hardly a homerun from Jesus himself.

Moses overcame Pharoah,

No he didn't. In the myth, his god did. In fact, the unnamed Pharaoh was going to let the Hebrews go after the first plague, and Moses was ready to high-tail it out with his people. But then your god decided that he had an example to set, changed Pharaoh's mind for him, and made his people suffer more just to prove some point.

Without any wealth or power how have these Beings established their ascendancy and their Cause over all the world?

Uh, simple; they had money and power. Are you really that naïve? Jesus didn't pull a Superman and fly around the globe bringing good cheer to mankind. People perpetuating the myth that had become the man, and teachings that hardly resemble anything that Jesus would have taught spread the "gospel truth" by coin, and blood, and fear. Jesus' message died 500 years after he did.

 

[fantome profane]

You make a good point in as much as the followers worked very hard to establish the truth. They are not to be forgotten.

Yes, that was part of my point. But I was also trying to say that we should have respect for the Buddhas we encounter in our everyday lives. Listen to those who speak truth, even if they don't have a massive following.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Right - so how is my position any different from what I have highlighted in the first part of your quote...?

Its important to acknowledge that religion has a history of being used by the wrong people for all sorts of agendas that have nothing to do with what the founders of religion intended. The Christian crusades were an example of that. Part of the propaganda around WWI was that this was to be war to end all wars and we should fight for God, King, and country.

What I am most critical of though, are modern reinterpretations of ancient tribal and imperial religions as if they were somehow "the cure" when, in fact, they were not only aggravations but probably in large measure the disease itself.

These religions have had enormous influence through many peoples in different lands over centuries. It is hard to assess Hinduism and Buddhism properly as the teachings of their founders were passed down through oral traditions and not written down for many centuries after their founder died. Still a perusal of their teachings readily reveal they encourage virtue and high morals.

The Abrahamic Faiths are more straight forward in regards to assessing texts that are likely to represent what they actually taught.

In regards to what the disease and cure meant in ancient times, it simply was not a world that was ready for peace. Empires existed and armies were a necessity. Part of the wisdom of that era was knowing how to manage conflict and war.

I think we both hope for the same thing - unity, harmony, love among the global human family

These are the standards that we require for today. Humanity was not ready for peace until relatively recently in history.

our main difference (I think) is that I see a glaring disconnect where I have separated the two parts of your quote above...if "all the holy prophets" (which I presume would include the important ones mentioned in the OP) were bringing the cure, how come their message invariably led to more division and bloodshed rather than less?

Christ did not encourage His followers to go to war. Why? Because fighting the Romans was unwise. Moses instructed war because it was time to reclaim the land God had promised Abraham. It wasn't pretty but what else were the Hebrew people to do? Muhammad and His followers had their battles with those who would have wanted them dead. I know little about Hinduism so I prefer not to comment. The point is providing guidance to peoples about all aspects of life, did include conflict resolution - empire style.

I really don't think the cure is "more of the same" - we need to learn to rise above it.

So the advice isn't more of the same as the times have changed. That's why a central aspect of the message today through Baha'u'llah is about developing global peace and international cooperation.

I do take one profound lesson from Moses' life though - I feel like I have seen the "Promised Land" from afar - but I will not live long enough to cross over into it. Like Moses, I'll be OK with that as long as I can get a sense that my children's and grandchildren's generation will live in a world that truly is freer from divisive intolerance of all kinds - and especially the religious kind that stifles both reason and (in my view at least) the genuine spiritual connected-ness with the natural world to which we owe our entire existence and in which we are totally and unavoidably immersed.

This is important, because whatever path we choose, if its something worth sacrificing ourselves for (in regards to our time and energies) its going to take time.

Hope that makes sense

 

[siti]

O Bharata, whenever there is decline of righteousness and rise of evil, I manifest Myself.

Don't you think the middle of the 20th century would fit the bill? And please also note that I was only suggesting that Gandhi's application of ahimsa was, perhaps, a morally superior teaching to Krishna's appeal to Arjuna's sense of duty.

My main point though, is that there are (and have been) many wise men. Gandhi appears, in the eyes of many, to have been a kind of unreformed Arjuna or even a latter day Dhritarashtra (the King who counseled Yudhisthir not to fight, arguing, essentially, that it would be better to allow unrighteousness rulership to go unchecked than to join in the carnage of righteous warfare). But morally, Gandhi elevated his teachings above the plane of human conflict. His teachings may be influential in the minds of humans, but it has had little effect on humankind simply because it has not been adopted as the totem of any 'great civilization'.

Krishna, I am guessing (and I am fairly sure a good number of Hindus would agree), would have opposed Gandhi's position just as he did Arjuna's and Dhritarashtra's. But which is the higher dharma - our duty to the lives of other humans or our duty to the social order? And who decides which social order is right if it's not the one that values life as more sacred than territory or rulership?

That conflict is unresolved - as far as I can see - in the teachings of the "Great Educators". Krishna, Moses and Muhammad seem to stand on one side, boldly defending a righteous social order, whilst Jesus and Gandhi (if I can put a wise man rather than a "Great Being" in the list) stand on the other, "turning the other cheek" and letting themselves be "wronged" and "defrauded" in pursuit of moral excellence. (Matthew 5:39; 1 Corinthians 6:7) (I don't know enough about the teachings of Buddha, Zoroaster or Bahá'u'lláh to comment on their positions).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'u'lláh
The point is: the "Great Educators" equivocate on this - probably the most important question for the human family (which question could be rephrased: "how can we stop killing each other") - and even the ones who have plumped for non-violence have been largely ignored (on that most important aspect) as their teachings have been elevated to the status of "Great Religion". I am still failing to see how protraction or repetition of the same process will help.

 

[siti]

Part of the propaganda around WWI was that this was to be war to end all wars and we should fight for God, King, and country.

Well, that's actually remarkably similar to the reasoning in the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita in regard to warfare.

Christ did not encourage His followers to go to war. Why? Because fighting the Romans was unwise. Moses instructed war because it was time to reclaim the land God had promised Abraham. It wasn't pretty but what else were the Hebrew people to do. Muhammad and His followers had their battles with those who would have wanted them dead. I know little about Hinduism so I prefer not to comment. The point is to be provide guidance to peoples about all aspects of life, did include conflict resolution - empire style.

So Christ's non-violence was merely pragmatic, whilst Moses' warfare was principled? That seems to relegate the ahimsa paramo dharma (non-violence as the highest moral virtue) principle of the Hindu sages to second place behind (tribal/imperial) social order.

It also sounds very much like the same interpretive maneuver that has turned the sayings of wise men into murderous state religions - which, at the risk of appearing to argue a point by mere repetition, is precisely what I am suggesting we should avoid doing again.

 

[arthra]

Krishna, I am guessing (and I am fairly sure a good number of Hindus would agree), would have opposed Gandhi's position just as he did Arjuna's and Dhritarashtra's. But which is the higher dharma - our duty to the lives of other humans or our duty to the social order? And who decides which social order is right if it's not the one that values life as more sacred than territory or rulership?

What would be suitable in the twentieth century may not have been suitable over a thousand years ago... in other words the great Teachers and Manifestations teach what people are capable of absorbing.. hence Jesus reportedly said as I'm sure you know ... Read the Gospel of John 16:12.

 

[siti]

What would be suitable in the twentieth century may not have been suitable over a thousand years ago... in other words the great Teachers and Manifestations teach what people are capable of absorbing.. hence Jesus reportedly said as I'm sure you know ... Read the Gospel of John 16:12.

But there were, by all accounts, no great Teachers in the 20th century...the very time (if you judge by death toll) that we needed it the most...and conversely, presumably, what was suitable over a thousand years ago was (manifestly, it seems to me) no longer suitable in the 20th century - even less so in the 21st. So what are we to do? Wait?

 

[Dawnofhope]

So Christ's non-violence was merely pragmatic, whilst Moses' warfare was principled?

Both were pragmatic as religion needs to be.

It also sounds very much like the same interpretive maneuver that has turned the sayings of wise men into murderous state religions

That is certainly what has happened in the past.

at the risk of appearing to argue a point by mere repetition, is precisely what I am suggesting we should avoid doing again.

The problem is not with the founders of religion but with those who claimed outwardly to represent the values of religion but inwardly did not. The well known phrase is a 'wolf in sheep's clothing', or in a word 'hypocrite'.

Difficult decisions need to be made that require wisdom. The problem is when the wrong people gain power. None of the religions of the past have been free from corruption. So in a sense it is clear that none of the religions of old can provide the solutions required. The Baha'i faith is a new religion with a message for today. Not surprisingly it offers teachings and principles that include properly devised institutions that would ensure lasting peace.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It also sounds very much like the same interpretive maneuver that has turned the sayings of wise men into murderous state religions - which, at the risk of appearing to argue a point by mere repetition, is precisely what I am suggesting we should avoid doing again.

I like repetition too.....

The rational soul does not merely occupy a private sphere, but is an active participant in a social order. Although the received truths of the great faiths remain valid, the daily experience of an individual in the twenty-first century is unimaginably removed from the one that he or she would have known in any of those ages when this guidance was revealed. Democratic decision-making has fundamentally altered the relationship of the individual to authority. With growing confidence and growing success, women justly insist on their right to full equality with men. Revolutions in science and technology change not only the functioning but the conception of society, indeed of existence itself. Universal education and an explosion of new fields of creativity open the way to insights that stimulate social mobility and integration, and create opportunities of which the rule of law encourages the citizen to take full advantage. Stem cell research, nuclear energy, sexual identity, ecological stress and the use of wealth raise, at the very least, social questions that have no precedent. These, and the countless other changes affecting every aspect of human life, have brought into being a new world of daily choices for both society and its members. What has not changed is the inescapable requirement of making such choices, whether for better or worse. It is here that the spiritual nature of the contemporary crisis comes into sharpest focus because most of the decisions called for are not merely practical but moral. In large part, therefore, loss of faith in traditional religion has been an inevitable consequence of failure to discover in it the guidance required to live with modernity, successfully and with assurance.

One Common Faith

 

[Dawnofhope]

But there were, by all accounts, no great Teachers in the 20th century...the very time (if you judge by death toll) that we needed it the most...and conversely, presumably, what was suitable over a thousand years ago was (manifestly, it seems to me) no longer suitable in the 20th century - even less so in the 21st. So what are we to do? Wait?

and this too...

"Few today among those who have some degree of objective familiarity with the subject are likely, therefore, to entertain an illusion that any one of the established religious systems of the past can assume the role of ultimate guide for humankind in the issues of contemporary life, even in the improbable event that its disparate sects should come together for that purpose. Each one of what the world regards as independent religions is set in the mould created by its authoritative scripture and its history. As it cannot refashion its system of belief in a manner to derive legitimacy from the authoritative words of its Founder, it likewise cannot adequately answer the multitude of questions posed by social and intellectual evolution. Distressing as this may appear to many, it is no more than an inherent feature of the evolutionary process. Attempts to force a reversal of some kind can lead only to still greater disenchantment with religion itself and exacerbate sectarian conflict."

One Common Faith

Sorry to be a quotaholic!

Maybe we're not too different after all.

 

[siti]

The problem is not with the founders of religion but with those who claimed outwardly to represent the values of religion but inwardly did not. The well known phrase is a 'wolf in sheep's clothing', or in a word 'hypocrite'.

Difficult decisions need to be made that require wisdom. The problem is when the wrong people gain power. None of the religions of the past have been free from corruption. So in a sense it is clear that none of the religions of old can provide the solutions required.

Yes, that's what I said.

The Baha'i faith is a new religion with a message for today.

OK - I freely admit I am not well-informed on this, but from the conversation in this thread so far, it still sounds to me like a rehash of the same pragmatic abandonment of the highest moral principles that Krishna supposedly recommended to Arjuna (i.e. elevation of our duty to the social order over our duty to the individual life of our fellow creatures). If you could demonstrate how it is different, rather than appealing to the Great Teachers of the past whose message (if there even was such a teacher with such a message) has been deliberately garbled in the reinterpretations of the 'wolves in sheep's clothing' in their pursuit of religiously imposed domination of their fellow man, I might be convinced.

PS - I see you have already posted a couple of quotes that kind of anticipated my question. I'll take some time to read through the linked document.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes, that was part of my point. But I was also trying to say that we should have respect for the Buddhas we encounter in our everyday lives. Listen to those who speak truth, even if they don't have a massive following.

Truth is everywhere. I learn so much from people here and the more I read posts here the more I am aware of my own ignorance.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No he didn't. In fact, Rome killed him. His fanatical believers, on the other hand, continued for hundreds of years until one of them became the Emperor. Hardly a homerun from Jesus himself.


No he didn't. In the myth, his god did. In fact, the unnamed Pharaoh was going to let the Hebrews go after the first plague, and Moses was ready to high-tail it out with his people. But then your god decided that he had an example to set, changed Pharaoh's mind for him, and made his people suffer more just to prove some point.


Uh, simple; they had money and power. Are you really that naïve? Jesus didn't pull a Superman and fly around the globe bringing good cheer to mankind. People perpetuating the myth that had become the man, and teachings that hardly resemble anything that Jesus would have taught spread the "gospel truth" by coin, and blood, and fear. Jesus' message died 500 years after he did.

I see it quite differently in that if these Messengers didn't have something unique, all the power and wealth would have died with them.

I put it all down to God of course. With God behind them they were able to do what they did.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Maybe is it love, the strength of community, dissatisfaction with mediocrity, concern for the poor, concern for those not yet born.

I think it was the love of God that was their power that affected everyone up till today.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Except for Jesus all you mentioned are sinners. None you mention are a Messiah. If the Bible is truly God;s word they are all false teachers and false prophets, except Jesus and Moses.

It is explained by the parable of the wheat and the tares. One way Satan corrupts all religions is by counterfeiting what God does. Satan has put false Messiahs, false teachers and false prophets among the religions of the world, including Christianity.

Does some of the teachings of those you mention have a moral base? Of course. All cults include some basic moral truth to deceive its followers. Most of all their moral teachings can be found in the Bible. None of them were smart enough to get it exactly the same. For example Some of their teachings say This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you--Hinduism. This is put in a negative context.

Jesus taught to do unto others. This is a positive contest. None of them teach its followers to love the enemies and do go to those who despitefully use you.

What could another teacher teach us that is better than what Jesus taught us?

There is a way that seems right to a man but its end it is the way death---Prov 16:25

Moses was true, Buddha was true and He came before Jesus and nothing is mentioned in the Bible against Buddha or Krishna so adding to the Bible things that are not there invite the curse of God. Neither was Zoroaster. Muhammad was prophesied in both the Old and New Testaments as were the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Have you read the beautiful Words of Krishna or the Dhammapada of the Buddha, the Zend Avesta of Zoroaster or the Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah or the praise with which the Quran lavishes in Jesus? The Bible commands us to value truth and goodness and all these Manifestations taught goodness and truth and are equal to Jesus in every way.

Philippians 4:8

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things.

If some one commits an error and wrong toward you, you must instantly forgive him. Do not complain of others. Baha'i

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I see it quite differently in that if these Messengers didn't have something unique, all the power and wealth would have died with them.

Do you really believe that Jesus' message is exemplified in Christianity today? Do you really believe he intended for it to spread as violently as it did? The only thing "unique" about Christianity that made is spread was that men in power saw a message that appealed to the poor and the weak, and they exploited it. Suffering isn't so bad when it leads to repentance. Poverty a virtue that guarantees heaven. Yet all the while you give your money to those who "speak for god."

And if you don't? Hell awaits.

There is nothing unique there, nothing "of god"; only fear and control.