I didn't mean this forum, Tony. This forum is just a tiny little bit of what goes on. But yes, the meaning of proselytizing has a unique Baha'i' interpretation, and it's fine. Everyone is free to add new meanings to their personal dictionaries.
-
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!
How are these Great Beings explained?
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
I didn't mean this forum, Tony. This forum is just a tiny little bit of what goes on. But yes, the meaning of proselytizing has a unique Baha'i' interpretation, and it's fine. Everyone is free to add new meanings to their personal dictionaries.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
The problem here is that we know there are problems in the NT, with their misunderstanding and mistranslation of Tanakh texts.
So not "unerring" or "authoritative."
Jesus is the "Son of God?" Only if used in the sense of - male religious "messengers" being sons of God. And you folks only believe certain religious messengers are such, - no Pagans.
As to the rest - there is no evidence for such.
Plus - why are you fudging/white-washing things here? Baha'i comes out of Islam, and as such don't believe in a trinity God, or that Jesus is actually God, or that Jesus is THE Son of God, etc. (You believe in multiple messengers - before yours.)
How - in your view, - does a human teacher's death enable our salvation?
That "concept" with "resurrection" shows you don't believe in their idea of a literal resurrection with dead people walking around town.
SO?
*
If it's not your message, then just exactly what is it?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Many Christians, true. Catholics don't have a strict view of woman's rights that I know of. Laws regarding marriage, yes. Once married, it's a sacraments for life and still applies to today. Homosexuality the same way. It's (and Bahai etc) see homosexuality as an action and unnatural in regards to two people forming a commited relationship with which expressing their love (not lust) is included. Unless Christians and others are just picking and choosing what laws back then they want to apply today, from my experience, it seems like Christians are picking which laws they want to apply for today and disregards those that do not. Somewhat saying, we can still use Walkman's today and tomorrow but the younger generation may think turntables are sooo old (as my sister says it).
But this is just between ten and twenty years or so. Homosexuality, for example, marriage is just marriage. It's always been marriage then, now, and the next day. If things 'change with the times" with bahai and other religions, then I would hope there is understanding of the morality of it.
But a lot of Abrahamic religions are religions-of-the-past. I don't see one religion over another in all religions who believe in god of Abraham creator. Woman's rights are note equal in any of the religions no matter if they are called different "roles" or titles or authorities.
I don't know about divorce in other religions than Catholic. One lady had to get a prenup, I think it's called, before she could remarry in the church.
These things are not backward or wrong in and of themselves. Every religion that dislikes homosexual relationships is their right (I just wish they'd stop saying "love the sinner hate the sin."), Amish, I think, have strict rules on woman's roles, and that's their thing. Divorce is yet another.
A lot of you guys live in the past and that is okay. As long as it doesn't impose on other people's rights today, then it's fine. Unfortunately, that isn't the case not only with Christians and Muslims, but reading this thread seems as Bahai as well even Hindu had something in there.
If I said "My mother kicked the bucket" and I had passed away, you wouldn't know if my mother actually kicked a bucket or died. It would not be accurate to assume she has died just because you are familiar with an idom my mother and I (and our community, lets say) have never heard of . It would be projecting your bias, culture, and how you use the English language to interpret that phrase as symbolic or a metaphor when if you actually talked to me or my mother, we would tell you "she did kicked a bucket."
Now that's just me and my mother. If god can make a man be resurrected to him, why in the world would you downplay what god did as symbolisim unless you don't believe in the bible as written without Bahaullah's interpretation.
Another way to put it. I read the bible as written. If I read it from The Buddha's point of view, he'd probably say the same thing he says about Hindu faiths summarizing belief in god (of Abraham) as an illusion/a raft that people need but they don't disregard once they get to the shore.
There can only be a black and white view because we did not live in Christ times to know anything. That is why the "god" is behind all the contradiction of "facts" because he gives an excuse to make sense out of contradictions and believers believe because he is god. The bible itself has contradictions but I was never one to look for them. The suttas have them but they are analogies-not interpreted as analogies. The Buddha says they are analogies. In scripture, the only analogies that Christ literally said was when he was talking parables so the Pharisee wuldn't understand the truth he spoke of. Outside of that,
how can you interpret god's words based on culture etc unless you're saying god is based on people's culture?
"I am the way, true, and the light" taken literally? ignoring the context????
I have not met one Christian that misinterpret that phrase. It just means Christ is saying he is the only that any person must go to to get to god. Unless English isn't that person's native language, metaphors aren't taken lightly.
I am the way the truth the light. No one can get to the father except through me.
It's a metaphor and it is literal.
The metaphor/form/content and the context/meaning/message are interconnected.
I like Catholicism because it isn't a scripture only denomination. The nature of the bible is in the life and worship in the Church rather than the words that change from one translator to the next.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Think of it this way. If you can discuss homosexuality and marriage between two committed LGBTQ people with each other without an exclusion of it is wrong, immoral, or tolerance and see the positive nature (no strings) in a commited relationship-the physical expression included-and see how love comes from two gay men consummating their love just as a committed husband and wife (even putting yourself in their shoes/empathy to understand it-a bonus),
then we can talk about learning of other people's religions.
But there is always a boundary line. If inequality is involved, I tend to steer away from it because I don't like seeing inequality and religion, spirituality, nor god should be an excuse to see people one way and another some way else
no matter how well intentioned both parties may express it.
Gods Explanation of the Great Beings
as given in the Message of Baha'u'llah.Yes a Baha'i View of the Topic
Regards Tony
What is the M?Gods Explanation of the Great Beings
It posted before I finished, must have hit the wrong key?
Okay then. If it is only God's message, and not yours, then what exactly is your message? In basic study of communication, there are three factors ... sender, message, and receiver.
So is your message just conveying his message?
Nice to see you back and thank you for not firing sacred scripture at me with various coloured highlighting, sizes, block letters and underlining. It feels more like a conversation and discussion when you do that, but of course it up to you how you want to post.
Fair enough. That's a reasonable position to take.
The Baha'is would view the sacred scripture of Judaism and Christianity from the lens of Baha'u'llah's Revelation. Of course there are problems with the texts. Some are nearly two thousand years old with the NT and obviously much older for the OT.
In regards the NT we have a range of views from the conservative to very liberal Christians. Baha'is would see the truth as lying somewhere in between, and would consider it a matter for study and investigation, rather than providing authoritative pronouncements from on High.
There are however differing Baha'i writings to be considered that provide a framework. For example in response to the Muslims saying the Christians don't have the true gospels in their possession and that it has been fundamentally corrupted, Baha'u'llah refutes this:
We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!
Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93
Then we have this statement about great mistakes in understanding the texts that have affected translation.
Abdu'l-Baha:
As to thy question concerning the additions to the Old and New Testament: Know thou, verily, as people could not understand the words, nor could they apprehend the realities therein, therefore they have translated them according to their own understanding and interpreted the verses after their own ideas and thus the text fell into confusion. This is undoubtedly true. As to an intentional addition: This is something uncertain. But they have made great mistakes as to the understanding of the texts and the comprehending of the references and have therefore fallen into doubts, especially in regard to the symbolical verses.
Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, Pages 609-610
The designation of 'Son of God' from a Baha'i POV does in part allude to Jesus's special and unique status that would be applicable to all the Manifestations of God. However there have been many great spiritual teachers, male and female, and the Baha'i Faith does not deny that.
In regards to other religions:
And just as the rays of the natural sun have an influence which penetrates into the darkest and shadiest corners of the world, giving warmth and life even to creatures that have never seen the sun itself, so also, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit through the Manifestation of God influences the lives of all, and inspires receptive minds even in places and among peoples where the name of the Prophet is quite unknown.
(Dr. J.E. Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, p. 4)
Because the Baha'i faith is not a black and white religion, nor are the issues you mention here.
Jesus provided an example of sacrifice and selflessness that can inspire anyone on the right path, not just Christians. All the great religious teachers and Manifestation have exemplified sacrifice and selflessness too.
That's correct that we don't see it literally. We can all be spiritually alive or dead. We can all walk in the light or darkness. Most of us here are children of the half light to some degree.
It feels more like a conversation and discussion when you do that, but of course it up to you how you want to post.Fair enough. That's a reasonable position to take.
The Baha'is would view the sacred scripture of Judaism and Christianity from the lens of Baha'u'llah's Revelation. Of course there are problems with the texts. Some are nearly two thousand years old with the NT and obviously much older for the OT.
In regards the NT we have a range of views from the conservative to very liberal Christians. Baha'is would see the truth as lying somewhere in between, and would consider it a matter for study and investigation, rather than providing authoritative pronouncements from on High.
There are however differing Baha'i writings to be considered that provide a framework. For example in response to the Muslims saying the Christians don't have the true gospels in their possession and that it has been fundamentally corrupted, Baha'u'llah refutes this:
We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!
Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93
Then we have this statement about great mistakes in understanding the texts that have affected translation.
Abdu'l-Baha:
As to thy question concerning the additions to the Old and New Testament: Know thou, verily, as people could not understand the words, nor could they apprehend the realities therein, therefore they have translated them according to their own understanding and interpreted the verses after their own ideas and thus the text fell into confusion. This is undoubtedly true. As to an intentional addition: This is something uncertain. But they have made great mistakes as to the understanding of the texts and the comprehending of the references and have therefore fallen into doubts, especially in regard to the symbolical verses.
Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, Pages 609-610
The designation of 'Son of God' from a Baha'i POV does in part allude to Jesus's special and unique status that would be applicable to all the Manifestations of God. However there have been many great spiritual teachers, male and female, and the Baha'i Faith does not deny that.
In regards to other religions:
And just as the rays of the natural sun have an influence which penetrates into the darkest and shadiest corners of the world, giving warmth and life even to creatures that have never seen the sun itself, so also, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit through the Manifestation of God influences the lives of all, and inspires receptive minds even in places and among peoples where the name of the Prophet is quite unknown.
(Dr. J.E. Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, p. 4)
Because the Baha'i faith is not a black and white religion, nor are the issues you mention here.
Jesus provided an example of sacrifice and selflessness that can inspire anyone on the right path, not just Christians. All the great religious teachers and Manifestation have exemplified sacrifice and selflessness too.
That "concept" with "resurrection" shows you don't believe in their idea of a literal resurrection with dead people walking around town.
SO?
That's correct that we don't see it literally. We can all be spiritually alive or dead. We can all walk in the light or darkness. Most of us here are children of the half light to some degree.
Religion is a living, dynamic, changing entity. The Bab was executed and an estimated 20,000 of the early Babis put to death. Baha'u'llah was tortured, imprisoned, and exiled by the Persian and Ottoman Empires who knew full well the claims of Baha'u'llah. Abdu'l-Baha likewise endured decades of imprisonment and exile, and lived through WWI. Shoghi Effendi lived through WWII. The Universal House of Justice put out a message for world peace during the cold war, and sent letters to religious leaders warning of the dangers of escalating religions tensions after 9/11. We are simply mindful of the world we live in with all the positive and negatives, but certainly do believe its within our grasp to have a much better world than we do now.
Although Baha'is consider Baha'u'llah has provided humanity with God's message for today, we do hold other religions in high regard, though clearly not as relevant for today. Although Baha'is believe in Baha'u'llah it doesn't make us superior at all nor prevent us from being idiots. You could apply ten teachings of your faith to your life well, and I could live ten teachings of my faith poorly.
Last edited:
You don't see it, do you? Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and all other adherents of non-Baha;i' faiths feel, as you do, that their religions are totally relevant for them, just as Baha'i' feel theirs is.
You simply can't have it both ways. There is a real and meaningful contradiction in saying ... we respect other religions .... but .... they're irrelevant for today. The second part clearly indicates that you don't respect them. And therein is the crux of the matter. But I don't expect you to understand it.
In my view, all religions are totally relevant today for their adherents, including Baha'i'sm for those who beleive it.
So now we can add irrelevant religions to the list. We're blind, turn our backs on God, diseased. When will the insults cease?
Last edited:
I respect that. No problem.
I agree.
I've tried to avoid using the word infallibility, not because I don't believe in it, but because its a relative term, has various subtleties and nuances that are complex, and most importantly create barriers to an open discussion.
Sure, the Universal House of Justice has no women, but then Hindu priests are all men.
The Baha'is do not agree with homosexual behaviour, but then again Hinduism hasn't exactly embraced it over the many thousands of years of its existence.
Homosexuality in India - Wikipedia
That's not true. Religious truth is progressive and unfolding is better.
Throughout history, the primary agents of spiritual development have been the great religions. For the majority of the earth’s people, the scriptures of each of these systems of belief have served, in Bahá’u’lláh’s words, as “the City of God”, a source of a knowledge that totally A vast literature, to which all religious cultures have contributed, records the experience of transcendence reported by generations of seekers. Down the millennia, the lives of those who responded to intimations of the Divine have inspired breathtaking achievements in music, architecture, and the other arts, endlessly replicating the soul’s experience for millions of their fellow believers. No other force in existence has been able to elicit from people comparable qualities of heroism, self-sacrifice and self-discipline. At the social level, the resulting moral principles have repeatedly translated themselves into universal codes of law, regulating and elevating human relationships. Viewed in perspective, the major religions emerge as the primary driving forces of the civilizing process. To argue otherwise is surely to ignore the evidence of history.
Why, then, does this immensely rich heritage not serve as the central stage for today’s reawakening of spiritual quest? On the periphery, earnest attempts are being made to reformulate the teachings that gave rise to the respective faiths, in the hope of imbuing them with new appeal, but the greater part of the search for meaning is diffused, individualistic and incoherent in character. The scriptures have not changed; the moral principles they contain have lost none of their validity. No one who sincerely poses questions to Heaven, if he persists, will fail to detect an answering voice in the Psalms or in the Upanishads. Anyone with some intimation of the Reality that transcends this material one will be touched to the heart by the words in which Jesus or Buddha speaks so intimately of it. The Qur’án’s apocalyptic visions continue to provide compelling assurance to its readers that the realization of justice is central to the Divine purpose. Nor, in their essential features, do the lives of heroes and saints seem any less meaningful than they did when those lives were lived centuries ago. For many religious people, therefore, the most painful aspect of the current crisis of civilization is that the search for truth has not turned with confidence into religion’s familiar avenues.
Bahá'í Reference Library - One Common Faith, Pages 13-17
Yes, India, and Hinduism has it's sects that have problems accepting gay people. Many schools also have no problem. There are a few women priests these days, and times are changing. I view it similar to the trades, ... traditional male occupations. As far as I know there are no scriptural injunctions against it, but I could be wrong. I believe it will take a lot of time to change. Social change happens even slowere in ancient religions, as there is over 2000 years of tradition here. Many would just say, 'if it's not broke, why fix it?" But I would disagree, as there is a place for female priests.
Ancient scriptures did recognise a third scripture, and there have been modern gay Hindu weddings.
I see your point, but I disagree with it.
I agree that that most religious adherents see their religions as totally relevant for them. I would argue that, within each faith, their are universal teachings applicable to any age.
However within each religion their are teachings that are no longer relevant or applicable. I can best illustrate that through Christianity that was revealed two thousand years ago, in a very different culture from today. The teaching of Jesus that He is the way, the truth, the light, and nobody goes to the Father, except through Him has been utterly misunderstood by the majority of Christians to mean we are right and everyone else is wrong. This belief, Christians will see has highly relevant for today. I would argue that it is not what Christ taught and this belief is a barrier to better understanding and tolerance.
I think you are creating a classical straw man type argument, by saying the Baha'is believe in X when we hold no such belief.
Straw man - Wikipedia
Didn't you say the Baha'i Faith was regressive, not progressive?
I agree that that most religious adherents see their religions as totally relevant for them. I would argue that, within each faith, their are universal teachings applicable to any age.
However within each religion their are teachings that are no longer relevant or applicable. I can best illustrate that through Christianity that was revealed two thousand years ago, in a very different culture from today. The teaching of Jesus that He is the way, the truth, the light, and nobody goes to the Father, except through Him has been utterly misunderstood by the majority of Christians to mean we are right and everyone else is wrong. This belief, Christians will see has highly relevant for today. I would argue that it is not what Christ taught and this belief is a barrier to better understanding and tolerance.
I think you are creating a classical straw man type argument, by saying the Baha'is believe in X when we hold no such belief.
Straw man - Wikipedia
Didn't you say the Baha'i Faith was regressive, not progressive?
How old is Hinduism? 10,000 years old?
Why so long to make the change?
I know you are not a sacred scripture based faith like the Abrahamics, but do you have anything that is clearly pro woman priests and gay marriage?
How about if I looked for sacred Hindu texts that definitively was against homosexuality or female priests? Would I find any?
Yes we can only Convey the Message, the best way to do this has been noted on this thread many times, it is by living a Life in tune with the Message.
Regards Tony
No. The post was specifically to refute a comment made by another that completely misrepresented my Faith. You can relate to that, can't you?
Last edited:
Fair enough.
We have the matter of Baha'is believe that Krishna is a Manifestation of God, whereas the Vaishnavites believe He was a physical incarnation of God Himself. The Baha'is are hardly going to make the top 10 list for religious extremism and hatred on those grounds.
Then we have the matter of religious diversity in Hinduism, that the Baha'is accept, though understandably struggle to comprehend as Hinduism is by most people's admission very complex.
I suspected you wouldn't understand it. The double standard is always difficult to understand. I believe that there are teachings within Baha'i' that are irrelevant as well, but to disallow an entire religion for it's adherents because it's irrelevant is how I interpreted the original statement.