I agree that we need to see it from other's POV and have a sense of their reality. We also need to find ways of talking to each other where we both avoid giving offense and taking offense, especially when none is intended. We need to enjoy the conversation and be happy to be here.
This is just me personally. Abrahamic and some Buddhist religions I don't care for because they have a "I vs. them" mentality constructed in their belief system. The very fact we are "limited beings" , we are "blind" , people were blind and then they could see or on the Nichiren Shoshu in, no one knows the
True Buddhism but Shoshu. You can't reach enlightenment except through the priesthood. So on and so forth.
If I only talked with you and Arthra about Bahai and haven't met the other personalities on this thread, I wouldn't have gotten the impression of that mentality, though there is one, because you guys don't express your faith in a black and white view. When I read Bahaullah's letters, he does. Distinctively.
It's very unattractive so well-intended or not, it's a hard conversation for me since I don't care for religions like that. It, how would I say, makes me feel uncomfortable inside.
Even take religion out of it. In LGBTQ, we think of equality for all people. There is no such thing as "gay marriage" there is just marriage. There is no such thing as a traditional marriage. Everyone's marriage is unique to the two people involved. The inequality and bias of religions and politics really really really frustrates me.
I can talk about it if everything is calm. Things like Death Penalty and stuff, regardless, I can't get a word out. The Buddha talks about valuing life. One of those big things about "killing" is that you can kill someone's body, kill with words, kill someone's sense of self, kill someone's esteem.
Let's digress into Buddhism. Buddha grew up with Hinduism, as Christ grew up with Judaism. Did Buddha incorporate Hinduism into His Teachings and Practice, or did He bring something entirely new?
In Tibetan, Chinese, and, um, countries around India still have Hindu rituals. He didn't create anything new. He had a
revelation not a creation of a new teaching. There is no origin to Buddhism. The Dhamma has no beginning and it doesn't "change". I mean, there are Shinto practices in Buddhism. Vietnamese Zen has Confucianism and Taoism in it.
The Buddha denied any of the Hindu teaches that lead to enlightenment. Other countries that spread Buddhism out such as above incorporate a lot of Hindu and other folk Indian teachings into his. Like Christ, he didn't "speak for himself." His disciples wrote the suttas.
He didn't create anything new. The Dhamma always existed. He was the first to realize it.
God loved His people and so killing off those who openly strayed from His law sent a clear message to everyone else about what was expected.
If He hadn't have done this, then the Hebrew people would have failed to establish His laws in the Holy Land. Its was harsh, but back then, there was practically no other way. There was no prison or programmes for reform and rehabilitation of criminals. That is a hard reality for even many Christians to come to terms with, but it is life and the truth. When you are part of a community, everyone is expected to toe the line.
I don't understand how anyone can be part of a religion that has death as the cornerstone of its teachings of salvation. Yes, in Buddhism, in analytical meditations we meditate on death to understand suffering but we are thinking more treat the symptoms. Christianity is more learn from the symptoms. "We will always be sinners (have symptoms) so we need to learn from then and the only one we can learn from is jesus who had the worse symptoms but still died for it [instead of, like The Buddha taught, addressing a cure instead of sacrifice)
Circumstances had changed by the time Jesus came along. It was the Hebrew people themselves that were the victim of circumstances for repeatedly failing to keep the commandments. Despite clear instruction, The Jews worshipped gods and idols other than Yahweh. Their general levels of morality were far from what Moses taught that He sent prophets to call them back to the original teachings. When this failed, He chastised His people, by allowing them to be captured and subject to first the Assyrians, then Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks and finally the Romans.
During the time of Christ, the Jews were expecting the Messiah and believed He would be like King David who would deliver them from the Romans. Instead they got Jesus, who taught turn the other cheek. He broke the law of the Sabbath as well as changed the laws of divorce and He had the authority from God to do this. He was God's Son after all.
He went to the temple, became angry and caused a major disturbance. He did as much as He possible could to indicate the change that was needed. If He had done anymore, His mission would not have last 3 days let alone 3 years.
He did not change his father's laws. He
became his fathers laws incarnate. That's the difference between the OT and NT. Whatever jesus did in his lifetime isn't more the point than why he did, the meaning of his life, death, and resurrection. If we're just looking at his life, The Buddha had a lot better and more tolerant view of people he disagreed with.
' In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.'
The old covenant was for the Jews. The new is for the gentiles and jews. There were many covenants throughout the OT. The NT is no difference in that.
Unless you're saying jesus changed god's laws, which to a christian would make their mouth drop to the floor, I think either you're reading this In a Bahai point of view or not getting what jesus meant by "fulfilling the law" that, as you quoted, will one day decay-go obsetete.
I had to look it up. I can't read Kings James Version so this and Bahaullah's words are very hard to understand. Here is what I read.
"By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."
and this
…5They serve at a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary. That is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle, “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6Now, however, Jesus has received a far superior ministry, just as the covenant He mediates is superior and is founded on better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been without fault, no place would have been sought for a second
and
Hebrews 7:22
Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
Jesus became the covenant of god's law.
Remember, "jesus didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it."
Also, every covenant before the last "decayed", if you like. The message or meaning behind it has not. (For example, we still have Rainbows). The physical covenant has.
Same with The Buddha. The physical suttas decay. It's natural laws of nature. Paper decays after a while. The Dhamma does not.
Now the covenant of many no longer needs to be "upgraded" (better word than decay)
"Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep."
I don't see it through Bahai eyes, of course. I'm a straight-up Catholic. But the closest I can get to protestant view on a personal level is that the bible's validity can only be confirmed by god. No one else. Not even a messenger, prophet, or manifestation.
