How are these Great Beings explained?

[oldbadger]

Christ said He had not come to break the law, but to fulfil it.

Yes! Exactly!

There is a whole discussion around the meaning and implication of the those words...............

Exactly which phrase or word in that sentence might cause any difficulty to a bright mind?

Matthew
{5:17} Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. {5:18} For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Clear as a blue sky..............

 

[oldbadger]

Why do you say that. Baha'is believe that world peace is not only possible but inevitable. Sounds pretty upbeat to me. I'm happy, how about you?

I think Vinayaka might have meant frustration about the World now, today.

 

[oldbadger]

Who said my passion was unattended? It was very much intended and directed at unjust comments. Comments to which further posts have shown they were harsh, unwarrented and not based in justice, but no turn around still noted.

Oh my goodness! What an aggressive, confrontational post, yet again, like many others I have read from you.
The very fact that you auto-clicked in deciding that I was referring to you says it all. You prejudge so much!
Do you do this when faced with hard questions in the presence of the questionner?

...Passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.
Kahlil Gibran
Of course that includes anger.
People in anger don't think straight.
Anger is often violence extended into sound, in action, in writing.
It is useless.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You said we would have people in government who were "more connected to the hopes and aspirations" of the people they govern. You can say all you like about Donald Trump and Teresa May, but they were both elected democratically by presenting a better reflection of the aspirations of the voters in their respective countries - DT because the American public (apparently) favours a nation that is essentially a free-for-all capitalist venture with tightly controlled borders; and TM because the British public apparently thought it was perfectly sensible to throw away 40 years of commitment to the cause of European unity in favour of a dream that most of them have only ever heard of in tales told to them by grandparents of grandparents - a country called "Great" Britain. Of course it doesn't exist any more and has not existed for a hundred years. I suppose they are hoping for a phoenix-like resurrection - but it ain't gonna happen and the second woman PM in British history will ultimately end up as a very short footnote in a continuing tale of fractious and debilitating political shenanigans that nobody ever really understands.

You are making my point for me. What we call democracy isn't really democracy at all but an exercise in mass manipulation. Often we forget that Adolf Hitler came to power through appealing to the will of the people, astutely attending to the German peoples hopes and aspiration, as well as their resentments and outrage. Was Adolf Hitler the best man for Germany?

I can't see how that is going to change in a hurry - apart from merely stating (in flowery platitudes) that it must change - how? How will the Baha'i system make it change?

Baha'is are creating a model and framework within our intitutions inspired by the Prophet's at all times engaging with the wider community and world as a whole. All this is based on a spiritual foundation. Democracy is part of the Baha'i Faith, but a world embracing vision for humanity based on Baha'u'llah's Teaching as yet eludes democracy as we know. The two are coming together though, slowly but surely.

The process of the unification (while maintaining diversity) and spiritualisation of the human race as enunciated in Isaiah and as made clear through the Baha'i revelation requires both actions and words. As our numbers and capacity increases, so too will our engagement in social and economic development.

I don't know what that means. How can you have an election without electioneering? How would you know what this or that candidate stood for? Surely its not the fact that politicians state their case that is objectionable but that they fail to live up to their statements - but a fair proportion of our disappointment is often attributable to our own unreasonable expectations. Brexit is a perfect example of that - having voted to leave the European Union, the people will never vote for a candidate that tells them the truth about the hard economic times that will follow as a result and every government and prime minister for the next twenty years will carry the impossible weight of completely unrealistic public expectations. Nobody who tells the truth will be elected and nobody who is elected will be able to live up to expectations.

Elections without electioneering is the reality of a worldwide diverse Faith community. There are no nominations. Everyone who is aged 21 or years or older is eligible to vote or be voted for. This happens first at a grassroots community level where people know each other first hand, then onto national elections where locally elected delegates participate, and then our 184 national assemblies vote for our international governing body.

And unless you can change human nature, that is not going to change either. How will a Baha'i system really make that happen - make people truly satisfied with what can only ever be a compromise.

Religion has arguably demonstrated itself to be the most potent vehicle for social change, for better or worse throughout history. Christianity and Islam have had their day.

 

[siti]

Christ said He had not come to break the law, but to fulfil it. There is a whole discussion around the meaning and implication of the those words that continues between Christians and Jews to this day. I'm sure in your theist years you have had many a thoughtful discussion around the endless subtlties, nuances, and implications of those words.

In a similar manner Baha'u'llah did not come to break the Quran and NT and even the OT but to fulfil them.

With all due respect, if the NT has not been transmitted intact, we have no idea whether Christ really said any such thing. Christians (for the most part) accept the NT as reliably transmitted and have no trouble accepting this - Baha'is (as far as I can make out) suspect that the message of the NT is not a reliable encapsulation of the teachings of Christ where it fails to match Baha'i doctrine but (somehow, miraculously?) verbatim and accurate in detail where it does match. That is, by any definition, cherry picking.

 

[oldbadger]

With all due respect, if the NT has not been transmitted intact, we have no idea whether Christ really said any such thing. Christians (for the most part) accept the NT as reliably transmitted and have no trouble accepting this - Baha'is (as far as I can make out) suspect that the message of the NT is not a reliable encapsulation of the teachings of Christ where it fails to match Baha'i doctrine but (somehow, miraculously?) verbatim and accurate in detail where it does match. That is, by any definition, cherry picking.

Yes.....
Bahais do seem to cherry pick around the words spirit and spiritual, imo.

They are strong on chosen prophecy which is a kind of religious fortune-telling.
They are strong on chosen numerological foretelling which holds hands with palmistry, tea-leaf reading, spiritual mediumship, astrology....... etc.
But they hold some of the above in great import, whereas they trash the rest as mumbo-jumbo.

I begin to travel from the words like cherry-picking towards words such as religious-doublethink.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

I say that from words like this: "The problem with the world is the lights of justice and fairness have become dimmed and increasing humanity is traumatised by not only atrocities but a break down of moral standards everywhere."

I agree - a portion of the Bahai community seem to be chronically afflicted by doom and gloomism. At one time there was a lot of energy wasted on speculations about a great catastrophe that was going to envelop the world. It's an unattractive feature of the folk religion level of Bahai beliefs, but I think it is probably limited to Islamic and Christian cultural areas. People come into the Bahai faith with an apocalyptic baggage of end-of-the-world ideas and select in the Bahai writings what seems to chime with what they already "know" is a religious way of thinking.

The evidence is that poverty is receding, wars are killing less people, more people are literate, and governments are more responsive than ever before. This is the kind of world that Baha'u'llah hoped for - but not everyone is happy with it !

 

[Dawnofhope]

Clear as a blue sky..............

Then there is the problem of a a number of other things Jesus said and did, not to mention the apostles.

I think Vinayaka might have meant frustration about the World now, today.

I'm sure he did too. We had a very nice chat about it if you follow the thread of conversation.

 

[Dawnofhope]

With all due respect, if the NT has not been transmitted intact, we have no idea whether Christ really said any such thing. Christians (for the most part) accept the NT as reliably transmitted and have no trouble accepting this - Baha'is (as far as I can make out) suspect that the message of the NT is not a reliable encapsulation of the teachings of Christ where it fails to match Baha'i doctrine but (somehow, miraculously?) verbatim and accurate in detail where it does match. That is, by any definition, cherry picking.

It is true that we don't take the Bible as literally as the conservative Christians but don't necessarily go as far as some of the liberal theologicans either. We do have guidance from Baha'u'llah that we would rely on similarly to How Christians view the words of Jesus.

So with that in mind didn't Jesus 'cherry pick' when He referred to the Deuteronomy 6:5 when expressing the greatest commandment but then abrogated the Mosaic laws of marriage when He said a man who divorced his wife and remarried was guilty of divorce(Matthew 19:9)?

 

[Dawnofhope]

They are strong on chosen numerological foretelling which holds hands with palmistry, tea-leaf reading, spiritual mediumship, astrology....... etc.

Which religion was that again?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is true that we don't take the Bible as literally as the conservative Christians but don't necessarily go as far as some of the liberal theologicans either. We do have guidance from Baha'u'llah that we would rely on similarly to How Christians view the words of Jesus.

So with that in mind didn't Jesus 'cherry pick' when He referred to the Deuteronomy 6:5 when expressing the greatest commandment but then abrogated the Mosaic laws of marriage when He said a man who divorced his wife and remarried was guilty of divorce(Matthew 19:9)?

Seems like you're picking hairs. The first verse is a broad verse that refers to all that god approves. The second verse is specific to god (not Moses) criteria for diverse which meant...

Matthew 19:6-8 "Cessation of the heart" meaning adultery (Romans 7:2-3) which is opposite of your first verse love "love god with all your heart" which also doesn't specifically talk about which verses Jesus decided to focus on. It's a generalized statement for those who follow his father's law in the OT.

Another quote and post that contradicts this one is when you posted Jesus saying he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it (or you agreed to that post, one or the other). He didn't cherry pick Moses' laws but fulfilled the laws by his father's will and his son's passion to save those who believed in him through his son. If you didn't believe in the son, you don't believe in the Law (from Moses); if you don't believe the Law that Moses gave to god's people, you don't believe in god. That's the general consensus of the New Testament, follow god's OT through jesus christ.

Deuteronomy 24:4 Speaks of a man cannot go back to his wife once divorced. If "love all people" in the verse you quoted applied to this, then the woman he divorced would be loved by god and not be considered defiled.

Yet, instead of cherry picking, christ said in relation to this in Mathew 19:8-9 that divorce can only happen when the woman commits sexual impurity.

So, unless you are saying Jesus approved of sin because he "changed the law" of Moses, he is basically saying what Moses says about the law but because people didn't listen, the sinning wasn't held against people who believed in jesus because through his death, if they believed, their sins are forgiven and they'd be with the father like jesus.

Bahai, on the other hand, which is fine (honestly don't know why you're defending your diverse beliefs), cherry-picks (don't like that word...maybe choose to identify more strongly with Bahaullah's interpretation, I'll say instead) what literal teaches said by Moses (about to go to work to look it up right now) and the literal laws jesus repeated and fulfilled say continuing his physical church.

Also, don't forget that the first verse you quoted about god loving people, jesus sums up the laws of moses (the two greatest commandments is love god with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself). I think jesus was referring to brothers and sisters of christ in regards to neighbor. Like in the OT, he didn't take kind to sinners and was pretty mean when it came to those who did not come to his father and stuck in sin.

Pretty much the same reaction as the father in the OT, but if jesus cherry picked, instead of killing people for looking back at sin, he forgave people who accepted his forgiveness instead.

I mean, I wouldn't call Bahai cherry-picking scripture. I'd say more you guys downplay a lot of topics that both the OT and NT talks about by calling them spiritual and symbolic. Once you go passed that (or at least understand it), then you may see the connection between what jesus said about the old testament and what was not needed because it was wrapped up in the two commandments.

Also, you can try it out. Read the full OT and every event that god did for his people, place under "love god" or "love others". I don't think I read any other commandment or law that didn't fall under these two things.

Okay... I'm out.. carry on.

 

[Vinayaka]

I know you may think that's just a typical thing for a proselytizing Abrahamic Faith to do, but through this initiative, it provided the opportunity for me to learn about the Baha'i Faith. I would have ended up with Christianity instead, which has many more problems than the Baha'i faith, perceived or otherwise.

I need down time. In the days of a busy work schedule ane even busier family schedule, that time was the commute

I think people are who they are, a combination of nature and nurture. So in that sense, I'm guessing you would have found Baha'i' eventually anyway. But perhaps not. I was raised atheist/agnostic, totally clueless about religion period. Siva found me.

So no matter what the faith, if it makes you a better person through contentment , and satisfaction, so much the better, as that molecule in a changing world.

 

[Vinayaka]

Anger is quite different from being assertive.

Indeed. Being stern or firm, on yourself, or with others, is often necessary. But anger, no way. People with poor observational skills, or lack of experience (my students, for example) could confuse the two. I would be stern with a student, and then wink at the rest of them, just so they could see I wasn't actually angry.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think Vinayaka might have meant frustration about the World now, today.

Yes, and generally it's insiduously directed only at the non-Baha'i'. "We're fine, but those atheist, materialists, communists, Hindus, Islam, etc. are all a mess."

I believe the world is in a perfect state ... of evolution. The other point here is that the constant complaining doesn't actually help anything. In reality, there is very little one person can do. Instead of complaining about all the horrible things in the world, go donate some blood, or volunteer somewhere. Lots of charities need help.

 

[Vinayaka]

Oh my goodness! What an aggressive, confrontational post, yet again, like many others I have read from you.
The very fact that you auto-clicked in deciding that I was referring to you says it all. You prejudge so much!
Do you do this when faced with hard questions in the presence of the questionner?

...Passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.
Kahlil Gibran
Of course that includes anger.
People in anger don't think straight.
Anger is often violence extended into sound, in action, in writing.
It is useless.

I saw it as a general comment as well. Certainly not a personal attack. Oh well.

 

[oldbadger]

Then there is the problem of a a number of other things Jesus said and did, not to mention the apostles.

Nah..... not what Yeshua said, but what he is reported to have said.
The apostles?
Paul never mentioned anything that Yeshua actually did apart from holding a last supper..... so nothing there.
Matthew was not there. He mostly copied his whole gospel from others, quite often word for word.
Luke, a Levite Doctor, was not there, He copied most of his gospel from others.
John could not have been there. the book was written circa 90-110AD.
All you've got is a few anecdotes from them that could well be true, and the memoirs of Cephas in G-Mark which need to be weeded of evangelical edits.

Yeahua was supporting the Baptist's campaign against prieshood and Temple corruption. He wanted all the laws but especially the poor-laws reinstated.

Do you want to offer a verse or two in debate, preferably from G-Mark.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, and generally it's insiduously directed only at the non-Baha'i'. "We're fine, but those atheist, materialists, communists, Hindus, Islam, etc. are all a mess."

Yep........
Religious superiority....

I believe the world is in a perfect state ... of evolution. The other point here is that the constant complaining doesn't actually help anything. In reality, there is very little one person can do. Instead of complaining about all the horrible things in the world, go donate some blood, or volunteer somewhere. Lots of charities need help.

Yes!
No matter what, everything is exactly natural...
I will return to this.... must fetch my wife.....
EDIT: If everything would be obliterated in, say, an asteroid strike, then we would be dust, but we are already of stardust.
My Goddess is of everything, but She is also Nature and Chaos without which we would never have existed.
A truly Great Being, and her secrets stretch far far beyond my understanding, but that's ok.

 

[oldbadger]

Which religion was that again?

Any religions which blow hot on religious fortune telling or date-numerology but which blow cold on, say, mediums and other kinds of spirituality are in deep doublethink.
If the cap fits......

 

[oldbadger]

I saw it as a general comment as well. Certainly not a personal attack. Oh well.

Small amounts of emphasis have changed in Bahai from bygone decades, but prejudice and prejudgement was an absolute no-no in the 70's.

 

[siti]

didn't Jesus 'cherry pick' when He referred to the Deuteronomy 6:5 when expressing the greatest commandment but then abrogated the Mosaic laws of marriage when He said a man who divorced his wife and remarried was guilty of divorce(Matthew 19:9)?

Absolutely, and that makes perfect sense if Jesus was the "Son of Man" but no sense at all if he were the living "Word of God". That's my point - if humans pick and choose which bits of God's supposed revelation to 'believe' in according to what they find acceptable or helpful, that's perfectly OK in my view - but when a divinely authorized "Manifestation of God" contradicts the revealed Word of God that's preposterous. As you say, Jesus reinterpreted the Hebrew scriptures, so did the writer of Paul's letters, and Muhammad and Baha'u'llah...and so does Siti...but Siti is perfectly honest about it - he just picks the bits he likes and chucks the rest out just as he would with a few lines from Wordsworth, the Tao Te Ching or the philosophy of Henri Bergson (for example). And the other difference is that Siti has no intention (or pretension) of starting a world religion - just finding a religious outlook that suits himself - unless you want to call encouraging others to think for themselves a religion - that idea I could evangelize about - it's OK to think for yourself. But I reckon if your religion is in the business of cherry picking at least you (one) should be allowed to 'pick your own' as it were.