How are these Great Beings explained?

[oldbadger]

Sadly no...I only wrote the first verse of the first chapter and that was published for the very first time in the post you were responding to. No, my intention was to point out that really we should all be writing our own scripture - even if our own scripture consists entirely of a flat rejection of any concept of "God". Nietsche did that..."God is dead" - and if that's how you best relate to the greater reality that we're part of, 'nuf said as far as I am concerned.

I understand.....
Nietsche......... our RF member of that name can write short, sharp, deadly sentences that can halt the mind in its wanderings... well, my mind at any rate.

I have studied the Historical Jesus for several years now. About six years ago I wrote a book about my studies, my perception of who Yeshua was and what he did. A year later I had learned so much more that I started it again, and so on. I have just finished it for the sixth time. And what does Ingledsva do?...... chuck another key piece of info at me.... on this thread!
Oh well, I'll finish editing it by next year.

If I were to write a book about entitled Proverbs of Rational Spirituality for the benefit of future generations, the second verse would be a commandment: "thou shalt take nothing on the basis of imagined religious authority but shalt think for thyself at all times and believe only what makes sense to thyself" - but again, that is simply restating a deist principle methinks.

True enuf...... The thing is, Deists hang out in so many differing cultures. I've heard of Buddhist Deists, Atheist Deists, etc, and some of the PanDeists and PanenDeists are now proposing that their beliefs fall into Theistic categories.... how do they manage that, then?

'Errr.... Hi, I'm a PanenDeist actually, that's a kind of Theist don't you know' ................ that's pseudo sophisticated drivvle, methinks.

 

[Vinayaka]

It just does not fit together, no matter how smooth the word salads which attempt to promote it all.

Yes I agree, yet somehow it does for others. To each his/her own. The core tenet is 'progressive manifestation', only two words. I agree with neither word. To think God would put himself into one person, or that one person could be perfect, infallible, shining brighter than the sun, divine from top to bottom ... well, it's out of some fictional story. Like a 'match made in heaven' in a marriage. Yeah, sure.

And then there's this progressive bit ... There's nothing at all new, lots of religions made life worse than the previous one, not better, etc. For example, Hinduism has had vegetarianism in it for longer than written history, yet now, having 'progressed' to and through Buddhism, then Judaism, then Christianity, then Islam, and now Baha'i', and their official stance on vegetarianism is 'some day'. How exactly does that demonstrate progression? It makes no sense at all, I'm afraid, unless ... you shut your eyes and ears and listen to one particular string of thought, and only that one.

Shucks darm eh?

 

[oldbadger]

On a side note, am I the only person that finds it odd when asked, 'Have you considered _____________?'

We're all (well most of us anyway) rather well traveled in these kinds of discussions. Several of us have been in Piaget's stage of formal thought (adolescence and beyond) for 40 or more years. Yes, we've considered stuff. We've all considered a lot of stuff. We've delved into it, thought about it, talked it over with others, maybe even fixated on it, and we've come to our own conclusions. To ask 'Have you considered _________?' is, well, to put it out there, not to bright, because 99.9% of the time the answer all around would be, 'Yes I have."

That's one of many selling techniques used to handle objections and refusals.

Basically, 'No!' doesn't mean 'No', it simply means that the prospect needs more information, or to reconsider the proposal.

In this way a prospect can say 'No!' several times without phasing the salesperson or representative.

Example: On your doorstep (he he!)
Good Morning Sir, I'm just in your area this morning.........
You: No!
I understand what you mean by that Sir, but have you considered the fact that you are a lost sinner?
You: No I bl**dy haven't!
That's what we find Sir, and consider this Sir, I'm here to tell you the good news that The Studd Hill Full Moon Frolickers want to save you and bring you joys you never even thought of.
You: Door slamming.
Through the letter box......... but Sir, have you considered.....

 

[oldbadger]

Yes I agree, yet somehow it does for others. To each his/her own. The core tenet is 'progressive manifestation', only two words. I agree with neither word. To think God would put himself into one person, or that one person could be perfect, infallible, shining brighter than the sun, divine from top to bottom ... well, it's out of some fictional story. Like a 'match made in heaven' in a marriage. Yeah, sure.

And then there's this progressive bit ... There's nothing at all new, lots of religions made life worse than the previous one, not better, etc. For example, Hinduism has had vegetarianism in it for longer than written history, yet now, having 'progressed' to and through Buddhism, then Judaism, then Christianity, then Islam, and now Baha'i', and their official stance on vegetarianism is 'some day'. How exactly does that demonstrate progression? It makes no sense at all, I'm afraid, unless ... you shut your eyes and ears and listen to one particular string of thought, and only that one.

Shucks darm eh?

Sure! I actually enjoy the fact that there are many differing beliefs, cultures, religions and faiths all around here. This is a cosmopolitan society which actually aids this condition. It's interesting!
And I don't mind if somebody in the local cafe leans over and tells me that my spirit is linked to the great badger that lives in Thornden Woods, etc, whatever...... that would actually be worth putting my newspaper aside to listen to.

But when I'm told that the great badger of the woods is the only true one and that if I play my cards right I might just get to know the truth about life blah blah, then that is exactly the point where I would pick my paper up again.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That seems like a clear admission people actually do believe in different goals, a clear contradiction for your earlier post. (13761) There is no common goal. You just have to google 'goal of life according to _______ (any religion) " and you'll get the drift.

The suggestion was that that a Hindu and a Christian could consider to sit down together and see if they are indeed looking for the same goal and stop thinking they are not looking for the same goal.

I personally see we are all heading towards our One God.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

The suggestion was that that a Hindu and a Christian could consider to sit down together and see if they are indeed looking for the same goal and stop thinking they are not looking for the same goal.

What makes you think I haven't done exactly that, several times in fact, and always arrived at the same conclusion ... that we have different goals. You think next time we might arrive at a different outcome? As far as all the ones I've met so far, none of them believed in moksha, and I don't believe in heaven.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

On a side note, am I the only person that finds it odd when asked, 'Have you considered _____________?'

We're all (well most of us anyway) rather well traveled in these kinds of discussions. Several of us have been in Piaget's stage of formal thought (adolescence and beyond) for 40 or more years. Yes, we've considered stuff. We've all considered a lot of stuff. We've delved into it, thought about it, talked it over with others, maybe even fixated on it, and we've come to our own conclusions. To ask 'Have you considered _________?' is, well, to put it out there, not to bright, because 99.9% of the time the answer all around would be, 'Yes I have."

To tell you honestly, when I first practiced christian and in my early days of "coming out" I was bethawed of christian views. I came across the Bahai site at, I think, 17 and had a good idea of its purpose. Two things turned me off. Believe in god and universalism.

A lot of us looked into other paths. I didnt as much as many on RF but exploration is a life long journey.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It's definitely a problem. Any person given power can abuse it, and no religion has been immune. I certainly don't see any solutions, other than the general trend of people to see all groups with far more suspicion than earlier. Buy wisely, as with consumerism. Buyer beware.

In the more traditional Hindu monasteries, there are some rules in place, such as always traveling in pairs, or groups, and the entire monastery being one gender and quite set apart from society.

It sounds like a dangerous world in India.

So anyone can promote anything to anyone in Hinduism?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Your position says many parts are part of one foundation. There is no issue. No one reality. No one awareness.

That is were we differ in Foundations not by adjectives describing one thing, especially god.

How can it be both?

Not a problem. Just a question of anaylsis.

It can not be both. If it were, we would be living in parallel universes and our existence would not be known to each other.

 

[Vinayaka]

A lot of us looked into other paths. I didnt as much as many on RF but exploration is a life long journey.

I never took really detailed looks. When you're really happy with what you have, it's harder I think. Usually I'd be turned off rather quickly, but that doesn't mean my choice wasn't a valid one. If you go look at a used car, and it has no tires, and is rusted out, that's all you need. Always an independent thinker, and not liking to be told how to think, or that my view wasn't valid, the proselytizing faiths were cut from the pile pretty quickly.

Condescension is pretty much a deal breaker.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

1) Hinduism, then known as Sanatana Dharma, survived for 2000 years at least before Christ. It survived another 2000 after, and is still thriving. It does really well without prophets. Are you somehow suggesting, that if it weren't for Christ, it would have disappeared? Do you think Hinduism improved after the Islamic invasions destroyed 100 000 temples, killing many innocents on the way. If that was an improvement, I'd hate to know if something bad happened.

I will reply this later, when I

2) Who said anything about proving anything. It\s all just belief. None of us can prove anything. It's silly suggesting we can.[/QUOTE]

Yes I knew that. It's Baha'i' belief. Many direct descendants of Baha'u'llah were declared Covenant Breakers by Effendi. I read that Effendi eliminated all other male descendants using this method. But my sources are non-Baha'i', so I'm not sure. Clearly there isn't much room for persistent questioning, is there?

Off course there is. My post was very clear I think, was it not? You can question persistently whatever you want.

 

[Vinayaka]

It sounds like a dangerous world in India.

So anyone can promote anything to anyone in Hinduism?

In the west, sure. Some naive westerners think all kinds of things (like the drug culture) are part of Hinduism. In India, not so much. People there are far more used to traditional paths. Still there are the gullible. That's why Christian proselytizing works sometimes too.

It's not a dangerous world though. I feel far safer ion India than in the US, for example. As far as getting money, it's like drawing blood from a stone. The big mass marketing Gurus get their dough from gullible westerners, not Indians.

But I think the 'danger' you're referring to lurks everywhere, but most especially in the instinctive strata of the mind. The gullible can be had in New Zealand too.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Lots of interesting parallels...makes you wonder whether we are really talking about commonalities among human experiences, rather than manifestations of divinity, doesn't it?

There are interesting parallels. At the heart of it, it comes down to the words of Jesus when He spoke of a good tree bearing good fruit and a bad tree bearing bad fruit. David Koresh clearly fell on one side of the line, whereas for me Jesus fell on another.

I don't think you are going to get Baha'u'llah or Jesus over the line with a psychiatric diagnosis, not even Moon.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

We are comfortable with where we are now. We have separate goals that work for us. We can work with other people because our individual goals provide support and less need to prove validity of our own experiences and knowledge to others. It lets us look beyond needing "one goal" to develop a sense of humility, compassion, empathy, and unconditional love for people who do not believe as each of us do.

"By each dismissing each other it could be you both miss out on what is the Goal."

This is why there are wars Tony. We are not missing out on anything. If you believe in unity among diversity you'd understand this.

Carlita, there is that conclusion spin again, so lets break it down.

We are comfortable with where we are now.

Great you are supported by every Baha'i, stay where you are and be happy and be content. We will work with you for a better world.

We have separate goals that work for us.

Great do what you need to do to reach the goal you are after, we will work with you in this life for a better world.

We can work with other people because our individual goals provide support and less need to prove validity of our own experiences and knowledge to others.

Great this is a good goal. But consider that the statement dictates that to work with other people we must have individual goals that are complimentary, or in other words a larger common goal.

If not, how do you work together in the goal of your path, say with the goals of the ISIS path?

lets us look beyond needing "one goal"

Lets understand what it is and what it means to work towards a common goal.

to develop a sense of humility, compassion, empathy, and unconditional love for people who do not believe as each of us do.

Great we agree again.

(Tony Quote)"By each dismissing each other it could be you both miss out on what is the Goal."
This is why there are wars Tony. We are not missing out on anything. If you believe in unity among diversity you'd understand this.

The Spin, adding that there is not a belief in Unity in Diversity because of a statement made and that wars are caused by the statement. The statement offered was, that as individuals, we could consider that we do not know all the truth and it would not hurt us in any way to look further.

The statement does not cause wars. People cause wars.

With all this it appears you feel we are missing something, something you see more clearly!

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Off course there is. My post was very clear I think, was it not? You can question persistently whatever you want.

I mean from within Baha'i', by Baha'i's. You've heard about 'A Modest Proposal'?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It can not be both. If it, were we would be living in parallel universes and our existence would not be known to each other.

Exactly.

Nothing wrong with the word Or.

 

[Dawnofhope]

They got excommunicated, (declared Covenant breakers) and now lose their voting rights. Excommunication is no longer burning at the stake at least. Reminds me of medieval kings and queens with their power struggles.

So how does your faith community deal with dissidents? Those who are aligned to your community yet openly disparage its core beliefs? How about those who exploit others sexually and financially? Do you let it slide because you are enlightened and above all this medieval behaviour of the Baha'is?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What makes you think I haven't done exactly that, several times in fact, and always arrived at the same conclusion ... that we have different goals. You think next time we might arrive at a different outcome? As far as all the ones I've met so far, none of them believed in moksha, and I don't believe in heaven.

Great, well done. Sounds Like my JW conversations.

In the end my JW Mate goes away with the conclusion you have and I go away with mine, that I see we work towards the One God. We have a Unity in out Diversity, as such we will not war against each other, Love prevails and we have a foundation of Lesser peace.

I think you will agree the trouble begins when the talk is not aimed at voluntary acceptance of Faith and when one or both parties try to show how another Faith is Bad.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

Splits happen. Change happens. The reasons vary. Buddha spoke about God in a slightly different way than earlier, that appealed to some folks. A shift, sure, but progressive, that's debatable.

I can give a simple example. A Christian congregation in a local town (my spouse's relatives were involved) were faced with the national body's decision to allow gay marriage in their liberal church. When it was officially announced, some of the congregation got up and left. They formed a new church the following week. So things die off, get renewed, shift about, and all that. New dynamic leaders come along, some last, some don't, and it all remains complex. Each new group feels theirs suits them personally better than the previous one, and the people who stay back often say 'Good Riddance!'

I don't get the 'progressing' ideas at all. Religions on this planet are far too complex to put it all into such a neat little package like that. It just misses out on so much. Hinduism had ahimsa and advanced techniques of yoga in it from the days of Tiruvalluvar and Patanjali. Are you actually saying the Christian Crusades and Muslim invasions were a progression? Frankly, that's preposterous.

Of course I wasn't celebrating the Christian crusades or the Muslim conquests. Presumably the Buddhists in India didn't take up arms and start hacking the Hindus to death to gain the upper hand. It was all rather peaceful was it not?

The homosexuality issue certainly has divided many of the Christian churches, but then they just go off and form another sect or branch. That is presumably what the Hindus have been doing for Millennia so I suppose you would see that as positive. And then when the next disagreement comes along, another sect, then another and another. It must be hard for someone who is genuinely in spiritual need to know where to turn and who to trust.

So no progression, its just endless alternative realities. It reminds of the story of the tower of Babel in the OT.

Genesis 11:1-9

One man's dream is another's nightmare I suppose.

 

[siti]

Combine the two and you have the Baha'i understanding, Baha'u'llah has a whole tablet on this subject. This is a link to a provisional translation -

He who knoweth his self hath known his Lord

Oh dear! Yet more misinterpretation and double-think!

Baha'u'llah was not "combining the two" in this Tablet (even if he might have done elsewhere)...for instance, he says:

"Consider the rational faculty with which God hath endowed the essence of man. Examine thine own self, and behold how thy motion and stillness, thy will and purpose, thy sight and hearing, thy sense of smell and power of speech, and whatever else is related to, or transcendeth, thy physical senses or spiritual perceptions, all proceed from, and owe their existence to, this same faculty..."

But then...

"Wert thou to ponder in thy heart, from now until the end that hath no end, and with all the concentrated intelligence and understanding which the greatest minds have attained in the past or will attain in the future, this divinely ordained and subtle Reality, this sign of the revelation of the All-Abiding, All-Glorious God, thou wilt fail to comprehend its mystery or to appraise its virtue. Having recognized thy powerlessness to attain to an adequate understanding of that Reality which abideth within thee, thou wilt readily admit the futility of such efforts as may be attempted by thee, or by any of the created things, to fathom the mystery of the Living God..."

and then...

"Therefore, the insight attained by all the mystics actually hath reference to their insight into the Manifestations of His Cause. They are the Self of God among His servants, His Manifestation in His Creation, His Sign among His creatures. Whoso knoweth them hath known god, whoso hath affirmed them hath affirmed God, whoso hath acknowledged Their truth hath acknowledged the signs of God, the Help in Peril, the Everlasting. Thus do We reveal for you the signs, that you might be guided by the Signs of God."

So he was not recommending introspective enlightenment based on mental discipline but illustrating (what he perceived to be) the extreme limitations of that approach and establishing a basis for blind acceptance of 'truth' as supernaturally revealed to the "Manifestations of His Cause".

There's none so blind...as they say!