How are these Great Beings explained?

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes, but where are the studies? All you're saying is 'those studies'. That's not helpful. It's like saying 'that country.'

Here is One Page 16 from memory https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...1CJcQFggvMAc&usg=AOvVaw3po6RAWauq4m2EWXwsYipF

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I woke this morning to that news.

I like that President Obama tried to dissarm America. I am glad Australia made some effort to do this.

May all those that suffer Injustices be immersed in the sea of bounty.

We can say that if the advice of Baha'u'llah had been embraced, that these events would not be possible, nay, most likely never considered.

I wonder when America will see the need to dissarm?

Regards Tony

I don't think we will unless we keep out of everyone else's business. The Buddha says "there is suffering" and there is no end to it unless individuals see to their own mental health and how it affects them and others. So, if going by religion (since you mentioned Bahaullah) and my views too I'd say the shooter and whoever is involved would be going through many rebirths until they understand the laws of kamma and how it affects them.

With America, I feel that statement is a generalization. I am an American citizen (and I think you are too? I forgot); so, instead of looking at it from a global level, we can look at it at an individual level. Since we are different as individuals, it makes us look deeper in how to build world peace together.

Until then, many Americans will always be searching for their boss.

I heard about the news when my friend woke me up and that was the first thing I heard. I don't have t.v. and don't keep up with the news. If I didn't have the radio on at the time, I would have never known about 911 until later.

 

[Vinayaka]

No I fully understood you.

It is our choice the way we choose to see and do this.

God guides us to all that is good and is not exclusive of what is good.

Regards Tony

I don't understand what you mean by 'not exclusive of what is good'. That makes no sense to me.

As you might know, I don't believe in 'the word of God' at all. It is always filtered through men. That is why a key murti of Siva in Hinduism is Dakshinamurthi, or 'the silent teacher'. Mystical knowledge is not in words. As soon as it goes into words, it's the intellect. Intellectual knowledge, in my opinion, has tremendous limits. It's not bad, or wrong, just incomplete. Very different paradigms here.

 

[Vinayaka]

Here is One Page 16 from memory https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...1CJcQFggvMAc&usg=AOvVaw3po6RAWauq4m2EWXwsYipF

Regards Tony

This is from a Baha'i' study, Tony. The papers written are from Baha'i' authors. We are looking for something independent.

 

[RoaringSilence]

I would then ask who is "We" in your statement?

Regards Tony

we hindus

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't think we will unless we keep out of everyone else's business. The Buddha says "there is suffering" and there is no end to it unless individuals see to their own mental health and how it affects them and others. So, if going by religion (since you mentioned Bahaullah) and my views too I'd say the shooter and whoever is involved would be going through many rebirths until they understand the laws of kamma and how it affects them.

With America, I feel that statement is a generalization. I am an American citizen (and I think you are too? I forgot); so, instead of looking at it from a global level, we can look at it at an individual level. Since we are different as individuals, it makes us look deeper in how to build world peace together.

Until then, many Americans will always be searching for their boss.

I heard about the news when my friend woke me up and that was the first thing I heard. I don't have t.v. and don't keep up with the news. If I didn't have the radio on at the time, I would have never known about 911 until later.

This is now Global Humanity, we must ensure everyones business is the good of all.

Justice dictates this must be so.

I would suggest you need to know of current world affairs when considering differences.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't understand what you mean by 'not exclusive of what is good'. That makes no sense to me.

As you might know, I don't believe in 'the word of God' at all. It is always filtered through men. That is why a key murti of Siva in Hinduism is Dakshinamurthi, or 'the silent teacher'. Mystical knowledge is not in words. As soon as it goes into words, it's the intellect. Intellectual knowledge, in my opinion, has tremendous limits. It's not bad, or wrong, just incomplete. Very different paradigms here.

The only Men I know that can be and live the Virtues, without asking for, or seeking guidance, are the Great Beings.

The key is to find the Source of Gods Word, the more it is washed with mans Understandings, the more it is muddied.

That is all that is offered, seek the source.

If you are the embodiment of all virtues then yes nothing else is needed, but to offer it to those that are not that embodiment, requires Words, as there are many that can not see Virtues even when shown in Deeds.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is from a Baha'i' study, Tony. The papers written are from Baha'i' authors. We are looking for something independent.

Page 16 Bottom has the references to the other works.

The Vatican, Christain Scholars etc

This is what I said, you will find the references to what is offered.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

we united the world from the beginning brother. just read what hindu philosophy really is.
we don't see the world as hindu and ROW=kafir.. or the others.. never have never will..

what vinayak would've said is.. tht hindus 1) not interested in converting .. 2) not interested in ruling world. and those are facts

we hindus

I would see that the unity of the world would need to be attributed to God and not any one people of any one Faith.

Regards Tony

 

[RoaringSilence]

I would see that the unity of the world would need to be attributed to God and not any one people of any one Faith.

Regards Tony

who told you that by saying hindu you separate from god or get un united?

 

[siti]

Hi @adrian009 and @Tony Bristow-Stagg

I quoted three independent scholars, you rebut with three Bahai library texts - and after I have been accused of ignorance and bias that's pretty rich.

Tony - your response was frankly arrogant and deflective (again). I will not respond directly to it but see below.

Anyway, for what any further discussion is worth, here's a dictionary definition of syncretism for your reference:

Syncretism is a union or attempted fusion of different religions, cultures, or philosophies.​

I actually agree that the Baha'i faith is more than a simple syncretism - as indicated in the highlighted part of the quote that you selected and which you failed to notice was precisely the bit I had "selctively" excerpted.

I also agree that it is an independent religion (Tony please note because you have entirely missed the point again on that) but there is absolutely no question that it is syncretistic in the sense of the definition I just gave (and in the sense of my earlier illustration that I think made the point even more clearly if I may say so) and that any serious and unbiased religious scholar - i.e. one who was not already under the spell of the divinely inspired prophetic utterances of a series of (possibly historical in some cases, almost certainly mythological in others) figures whose life stories have unquestionably been grossly mythologized, not to mention garbled in transmission - would certainly say so.

To suggest otherwise is simply to display either wilful ignorance of the roots of your faith or complete disdain for the scholarly study of religion.

And that last sentence just about sums up what you refer to as

The problem when one Faith adherent presents another religion and misrepresents it.

That problem does not describe my position as I am not an adherent of any faith anyway - but I can see right through yours and it suffers the same paradox that I was referring to earlier - how to package recycled religious ideas as new revelation. That's the problem - it is at once syncretistic and fundamentalist - but so were its forebears. How do you resolve that paradox?

 

[Vinayaka]

Page 16 Bottom has the references to the other works.

The Vatican, Christain Scholars etc

This is what I said, you will find the references to what is offered.

Regards Tony

I didn't see any reference whatsoever to the Vatican. Most of it was Baha'i', and many were not easily determined. When a Baha'i' author cites other Baha'i' works for reference, especially writings of Baha'u'llah, it most certainly can't be considered an unbiased independent paper.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Tony Bristow-Stagg I thought this would be of better interest.

How does diversity make us smarter?

The key to understanding the positive influence of diversity is the concept of informational diversity. When people are brought together to solve problems in groups, they bring different information, opinions and perspectives. This makes obvious sense when we talk about diversity of disciplinary backgrounds—think again of the interdisciplinary team building a car. The same logic applies to social diversity. People who are different from one another in race, gender and other dimensions bring unique information and experiences to bear on the task at hand. A male and a female engineer might have perspectives as different from one another as an engineer and a physicist—and that is a good thing.​

Diversity means differences.

Use it wisely, there'd be no crimes. We'd work together without being one unit.

Once you make people one unit, they have no sense of their own self. That is what unity does. You are passively offering people solution that if in itself taken asks people compromises their faith for one person's solution rather than humanity's.

I wish you can see that.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That problem does not describe my position as I am not an adherent of any faith anyway - but I can see right through yours and it suffers the same paradox that I was referring to earlier - how to package recycled religious ideas as new revelation. That's the problem - it is at once syncretistic and fundamentalist - but so were its forebears. How do you resolve that paradox?

Thank you for your frank reply.

The paradox is resolved by trying to understand what Baha'u'llah is saying.

The sun rises each day on a different part of the Horizon. Is it a new repackaged Sun, or is it the same Sun, Giving the same Light, that man calls by different names and sees because of different seasons?

Regards Tony

 

[RoaringSilence]

Thank you for your frank reply.

The paradox is resolved by trying to understand what Baha'u'llah is saying.

The sun rises each day on a different part of the Horizon. Is it a new repackaged Sun, or is it the same Sun, Giving the same Light, that man calls by different names and sees because of different seasons?

Regards Tony

Tony , i m gonna check how modern or scientific you really are . please watch this documentary and tell me what is your take on it... it doesn't matter if you say you don't believe a word.. but just express your feedback in detail.

 

[siti]

The paradox is resolved by trying to understand what Baha'u'llah is saying.

Well since you appreciate frankness, frankly no it is not resolved because that is just a reiteration - a recycling of the same prophetic message that claims (but ultimately - even according to your own faith fails) to resolve the paradox:

The paradox is resolved by understanding what Baha'u'llah is really saying which is (essentially) that...

...the paradox is resolved by understanding what the Bab is really saying which is (essentially) that...

...the paradox is resolved by understanding what Muhammad is really saying which is (essentially) that...

...the paradox is resolved by understanding what Moses/Jesus/the Prophets is really saying which is (essentially) that...

...etc. etc...

...and the paradox will ultimately, in time, be resolved by understanding what a future Manifestation is really saying which is that...[go back to Baha'u'llah again]

And round and round and back and forth we go. And, of course we could break the cycle at any point and start from Christ (for example) - as Christianity does (John 5:46) - or Mohammed (Surah Al-Imran 52-53).

So its not resolved. The paradox remains - just as it did at the advent of Christianity and the founding of Islam...and if we were to be honest about it...just as it did at the emergence of monotheistic reverence for Yahweh from Canaanite polytheism...and if we move away from the Middle East, the emergence of Buddhism from the more ancient Hinduism...the paradox remains

 

[Vinayaka]

So its not resolved. The paradox remains - just as it did at the advent of Christianity and the founding of Islam.

In Baha'i'think, there never is a paradox. Only outsiders see paradoxes. Within Baha'i'think, since Baha'u'llah is infallible, there simply can't be any paradoxes. All one has to do is 'understand. the words of Baha'u'llah. It's really just that simple.

So, like any other fundamentalist religion, the adherents are stuck in the proverbial rut. "Prophet knows all, and I'm good because of it."

I wish you the best of luck. After 500 pages and innumerable posts, I have failed miserably to get the hard core adherents to move one iota. But hey it works for them. Still, your voice here is refreshing.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Hi @adrian009 and @Tony Bristow-Stagg

I quoted three independent scholars, you rebut with three Bahai library texts - and after I have been accused of ignorance and bias that's pretty rich.

Tony - your response was frankly arrogant and deflective (again). I will not respond directly to it but see below.

Anyway, for what any further discussion is worth, here's a dictionary definition of syncretism for your reference:

Syncretism is a union or attempted fusion of different religions, cultures, or philosophies.​

I actually agree that the Baha'i faith is more than a simple syncretism - as indicated in the highlighted part of the quote that you selected and which you failed to notice was precisely the bit I had "selctively" excerpted.

I also agree that it is an independent religion (Tony please note because you have entirely missed the point again on that) but there is absolutely no question that it is syncretistic in the sense of the definition I just gave (and in the sense of my earlier illustration that I think made the point even more clearly if I may say so) and that any serious and unbiased religious scholar - i.e. one who was not already under the spell of the divinely inspired prophetic utterances of a series of (possibly historical in some cases, almost certainly mythological in others) figures whose life stories have unquestionably been grossly mythologized, not to mention garbled in transmission - would certainly say so.

To suggest otherwise is simply to display either wilful ignorance of the roots of your faith or complete disdain for the scholarly study of religion.

And that last sentence just about sums up what you refer to as That problem does not describe my position as I am not an adherent of any faith anyway - but I can see right through yours and it suffers the same paradox that I was referring to earlier - how to package recycled religious ideas as new revelation. That's the problem - it is at once syncretistic and fundamentalist - but so were its forebears. How do you resolve that paradox?

Call it what you will; hybrid, syncretistic. If you think that Bahaullah or Abdulbaha studied different religions and put them together, revised them to make the Bahai Faith, such a view has no historical evidence or proof. According to history, Bahaullah did not go to school, and did not have books to study religions.

 

[siti]

In Baha'i'think, there never is a paradox. Only outsiders see paradoxes. Within Baha'i'think, since Baha'u'llah is infallible, there simply can't be any paradoxes. All one has to do is 'understand. the words of Baha'u'llah. It's really just that simple.

So, like any other fundamentalist religion, the adherents are stuck in the proverbial rut. "Prophet knows all, and I'm good because of it."

I wish you the best of luck. After 500 pages and innumerable posts, I have failed miserably to get the hard core adherents to move one iota. But hey it works for them. Still, your voice here is refreshing.

I'm not trying to get them to move so much as trying to refine my own understanding of this thing called "religion". It really does seem like a ubiquitous and irresolvable paradox in (especially revealed) religions that they are at once syncretistic and fundamentalist. Its a paradox because the syncretism seeks to adopt the more ancient "prophets" of previous traditions whilst the fundamentalism necessarily declares those very prophets to be in error (or at least out of date). Baha'is, I know, will explain this away with this "Manifestation" thing - but even that is no more than a recycling of the ancient Hebrew proverbial maxim "the path of the righteous is as the dawning light, That shineth more and more unto the perfect day." (Proverbs 4:18). Neither is the paradox confined to the Abrahamic faiths - I know there is a lot of rubbish (especially in the West) written about how Buddha reformed Brahmanism etc. We don't need to go into all that but I know - just as I said about Baha'ism earlier - that there is no simple syncretism going on - but there is surely a recycling of religious ideas in a new paradigm that whilst boldly declaring its own novelty and authenticity bears the unmistakable family resemblance that speaks in a more understated manner but no less eloquently of the organic and evolutionary nature of religious faith(s). Its that I'm trying to understand and these discussions - forthright and protracted though they may sometimes seem - are helpful in exploring the boundaries of my own understanding of what I think religion really is - or what it is useful for.

 

[Vinayaka]

Call it what you will; hybrid, syncretistic. If you think that Bahaullah or Abdulbaha studied different religions and put them together, revised them to make the Bahai Faith, such a view has no historical evidence or proof. According to history, Bahaullah did not go to school, and did not have books to study religions.

Still, IT, even if that is true, he was raised in a Muslim country and was certainly influenced by Islam.

Can you critique this piece for accuracy?

http://www.marketfaith.org/the-gospel-according-to-seals-and-crofts-bahai/