• 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?

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
You asked the question. Why ask if you can't be bothered reading the answer?
I asked you to mention just one teaching and you want me to read all four Vedas. Why can't you give me just one, just one of his teachings, which is not found in other religions. You have read his books. What is stopping you to give me just one such teaching?
Baha'is claim Krishna is a Manifestation of God. That's different from a prophet. You are an atheist. You don't believe Krishna is God incarnate at all. The Baha'i belief about Krishna is more similar to the Vaishnavites than the atheists belief about Krishna.
That is insufficient for us as it would be insufficient for you to consider Krishna as The God. So our beliefs are different. I may be an atheist but I am still a Hindu. Therefore, I care about what people say about Hinduism. The Bahai representation is not like that of Vaishnavas, and not just Vaishnavas, but all Hindus consider Krishna to be The God. I too consider Krishna to be THE BRAHMAN. You are slighting our beliefs.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I think any religion that is worthwhile is much more practical than study. One of the places where religion stands or falls is whether their followers can live better lives. If religion can't do that, what's the point?
Eh. I feel it's both. I was reading about American culture converts (not all are westerners) read a lot when they go into practice while others from other cultures are more practice oriented. For example, if I don't know what I'm believing in and don't understand it, why believe it? Then on the other hand, why would someone practice if they don't know the foundation of their faith beyond their god(s), prophet, or teacher? That, and I love reading. I guess different strokes for different folks. I honestly don't see how practice is better than study. If one loves to study, their practice deepens. That, and the study will have more meaning when it's a reflection of the practice.

Revelation isn't teachings for practical living like other parts of the bible. Its about prophecy in relationship to world events as they pertain to religion. Its there to be unsealed by those who claim to be the followers of the Returned Christ.

I can't really comment. I know you used to be Christian but since you have a Bahai twist, I wouldn't know spiritually unless I speak with a practicing christian. There were a lot of symbolism, I guess, in revelations. That's the part I couldn't get through.

Its good you found a practice in Catholicism that worked for you, but there are other ways of approaching the practice of Christianity other than Catholicism. Understanding scripture and symbolism unlocks new perceptions and ways of practicing.

I love Catholicism. If I went back to Christianity, it would be Catholicism. I don't know any other faith that is closer to Christ than a living and sacramental relationship with him. I've been to many other churches and they don't give me that type of devotion. Study, yes. Charismatic, yes. Worship and devotion. No. That and as a convert, I'd be more likely than many to study my bible. Many older Catholics were told not to read their bibles. I am seeing that change.

That's good to understand it literally, providing you appreciate there are diverse approaches to the same scripture.

Yeah. Took awhile. When you live it, you see the bible come alive in The Church. If you're just studying it and finding what's wrong with it, then yes, The Church will be that of satan. What can I say?

Because there is a better way of understanding the resurrection that makes better sense to me, and others like me.
Different strokes?

It is a shame really. Christianity is part of our culture and who we are. I have continued to make the teachings of Christ part of who I am. It would be a huge loss not to have that.

That's what I don't like really. Christianity is part of my culture but it does not make up who I am as a person. Im glad, though, I wasnt raised in a faith. It makes it easier to find what connects to me not just part of my outer family.

I think its good for you to practice Buddhism. Maybe in the future you can look at the Teachings of Christ from a new perspective that isn't so negative.

How do you look at killing and sacrifice as positive? Analogy or not, its wrapped around sacrifice. Thats kinda like saying one day I'll support the death penalty because I will one day see justice in killing human beings.

The practice is beautiful. The foundation is not. I like some books in the OT palsm and further. I dont agree with heirarchy religions.

I wouldn't want any part of a religion like that for sure.

We have different definitions of religion. If you do something in your faith, have doctrine oral or written, and live it, to me, thats religion.

Then that sounds like the best religion for you at this stage in your life.

This stage? o_O We took refuges for the rest of our lives.

Some things are literal, and others symbolic. We need to learn the wisdom to distinguish the two.

I can see that. When you say symbolic to a christian, youre saying his faith isnt a fact but symbolic or a metaphor. It depreciates that persons faith.
 
Last edited:

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Hmmm... Nuclear bombs and all sorts of chemical pollutants... What was the Holy Spirit thinking giving that kind of knowledge to spiritual idiots?
I think God had raised certain scientists parallel to the Revelations of the Bab, and Bahaullah.
Science is not evil by itself, in the same way Religion is not evil, and this is the reason, we see a rapid progress in science since about 19th century.
When the new theories and scientific laws were discovered, this knowledge was also misused by certain other men for the sake of their evil passions. Similar to Religion, when it appears, certain men used it for their own personal leadership, and to rule among certain nations or tribes.
Maybe it can be said, a Revelation is in a way similar to Sunlight and Rain. They cause wheat to grow, but also, they cause weed to grow too. However, at the end, the weed is not acceptable to the owner of the land. He throws away and burns the weed, and only accepts the wheat. Now if we apply this spiritually, it just means, when a Revelation comes, it causes progress of mankind to gain spiritual qualities as well as scientific discoveries, but also evilness can be manifested from certain people in this world (by their misuse of Religion and Science) , but when they die, their soul is not accepted, because it is void of spiritual qualities, and it maybe likened to weed, which at the end is thrown away.
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Its true that the gospel of John has significant differences from the synoptic gospels. However it appears entirely consistent with every other book in the NT.

It is true that that the gospel of John has verses that Baha'is and conservative Christians would view differently. These include the Divinity and exclusivity of Christ. The relevant verses that can easily be interpreted in other ways as more liberally inclined theologians have.

I belief the authorship was more likely to reside with the Johannine collaboration than the apostle John.

I doubt if any of the gospel writers were first hand witnesses to most of the events recorded as we have previously discussed, so its all been passed on through oral traditions. That is how we have embellished myths woven into history. The resurrection story is an example.

The timeline of three years is quite untrue.
The sprinkled anecdotes out of sync.
The emphasis upon 'the Jews' rather than 'the priesthood' was so dishonest.
The miracles so dishonest.

Apart from a sprinkling of stories it's waffle.

But if yiou want to go with it, then good luck with that.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Perhaps if the Jews had believed then the tares would have been distinguished from the wheat much sooner.
Weren't all of the disciples Jews? But you're dodging the question. Baha'is believe many of the beliefs of Christianity are wrong. So why should the Jews accept Christianity?
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I asked you to mention just one teaching and you want me to read all four Vedas. Why can't you give me just one, just one of his teachings, which is not found in other religions. You have read his books. What is stopping you to give me just one such teaching?

Seriously? I provided a link that has six pages, or approximately three thousand words. Its not a lot. Its certainly a drop in the ocean compared to the four Vedas. You are an intelligent guy and can do it. If you have questions I will answer them.

I know you will not agree with my religion, simply because it is Abrahamic, universalist and mentions (albeit briefly) Krishna. However you can make an effort to better understand my religion as I can yours without actually agreeing with it.

That is insufficient for us as it would be insufficient for you to consider Krishna as The God. So our beliefs are different. I may be an atheist but I am still a Hindu. Therefore, I care about what people say about Hinduism. The Bahai representation is not like that of Vaishnavas, and not just Vaishnavas, but all Hindus consider Krishna to be The God. I too consider Krishna to be THE BRAHMAN. You are slighting our beliefs.

According to Baha'i theology the Manifestation of God, can be both God and a man. Baha'u'llah affirms this reality.

Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God!” He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world.
Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 41-46

Baha'is believe Krishna was a Manifestation of God and you or I can not change this Baha'is belief. From the little I know about Krishna, it makes perfect sense.

I am mostly concerned with the ultimate reality behind who Krishna really is, and to a lesser extent the disparate opinions Hindus hold about Him. So yes, I understand that many Hindus believe Krishna to be God incarnate and that does differ from Baha'i theology, but my concern is who is He really. So if you can prove to me Krishna is God incarnate I'd love to hear it. Of course you can't, because you don't believe it yourself.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
By that logic we accuse the writers of the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as being liars. But like any creation myth it was never intended to be taken as literally true.
So why do people take it literally? Maybe because it's supposed to be the "Word of God"? But wouldn't you say that anybody teaching the Bible as literal is teaching a falsehood? And what is a falsehood? Isn't it a lie?

So now how about the writers? Did they write the stories as literal, historical events? Was it a mixture of true events and embellishments? And the readers were supposed to know when truth stopped and the made up embellishment started?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Anyone who uses another person's disadvantage is a wolf, yes. although scavenger would suit too.

The Baha'is are concerned with offering to all humanity the revelation of Baha'u'llah that we believe will address the needs for humanity today. If it is accepted well and good, if not then so be it.

If you wish to call us wolves, go ahead.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Its true that the gospel of John has significant differences from the synoptic gospels. However it appears entirely consistent with every other book in the NT.

It is true that that the gospel of John has verses that Baha'is and conservative Christians would view differently. These include the Divinity and exclusivity of Christ. The relevant verses that can easily be interpreted in other ways as more liberally inclined theologians have.

I belief the authorship was more likely to reside with the Johannine collaboration than the apostle John.

I doubt if any of the gospel writers were first hand witnesses to most of the events recorded as we have previously discussed, so its all been passed on through oral traditions. That is how we have embellished myths woven into history. The resurrection story is an example.
And what was the purpose of the writers, all of them, making up a resurrection story? Since the early believers took it as the truth, then the result was that the made up story, the lie, was taken as having really happened.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I think God had raised certain scientists parallel to the Revelations of the Bab, and Bahaullah.
Science is not evil by itself, in the same way Religion is not evil, and this is the reason, we see a rapid progress in science since about 19th century.
When the new theories and scientific laws were discovered, this knowledge was also misused by certain other men for the sake of their evil passions. Similar to Religion, when it appears, certain men used it for their own personal leadership, and to rule among certain nations or tribes.
Maybe it can be said, a Revelation is in a way similar to Sunlight and Rain. They cause wheat to grow, but also, they cause weed to grow too. However, at the end, the weed is not acceptable to the owner of the land. He throws away and burns the weed, and only accepts the wheat. Now if we apply this spiritually, it just means, when a Revelation comes, it causes progress of mankind to gain spiritual qualities as well as scientific discoveries, but also evilness can be manifested from certain people in this world (by their misuse of Religion and Science) , but when they die, their soul is not accepted, because it is void of spiritual qualities, and it maybe likened to weed, which at the end is thrown away.
Wait, their soul is not accepted? And like a weed is it burned up?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
What do you mean when you say you'll "go with gospel writers"? Don't you really mean what the Baha'i Faith says that the gospels mean?

The Baha'is do not remove a single verse from the bible. Of course we have a different understanding but then again so do the Christians amongst themselves.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Weren't all of the disciples Jews? But you're dodging the question. Baha'is believe many of the beliefs of Christianity are wrong. So why should the Jews accept Christianity?

Because He was the Jewish Messiah prophesised in the Tanakh. Of course He was going to change things. If there was no need for change, then there was no need for Christ.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
The Baha'is do not remove a single verse from the bible. Of course we have a different understanding but then again so do the Christians amongst themselves.
What about where, according to Baha'is, the Bible says Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed and it wasn't. Baha'is say it was Ishmael. So Baha'is don't remove them but just say it's wrong?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
So why do people take it literally? Maybe because it's supposed to be the "Word of God"? But wouldn't you say that anybody teaching the Bible as literal is teaching a falsehood? And what is a falsehood? Isn't it a lie?

It would be more correct to say that the Bible contains some of the Words of God, don't you think?

So now how about the writers? Did they write the stories as literal, historical events? Was it a mixture of true events and embellishments? And the readers were supposed to know when truth stopped and the made up embellishment started?

The concerns of the early Christians were spreading the Gospel as they understood it and establishing churches. Most people were illiterate, there were far fewer people in cities, and much more involved in farming and subsistence living. The priorities back then were very different from what they are now.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
And what was the purpose of the writers, all of them, making up a resurrection story? Since the early believers took it as the truth, then the result was that the made up story, the lie, was taken as having really happened.

Its simply the way the narrative evolved through oral traditions and then later the writing of the early gospels. I do not believe there was any elaborate contrived deception at all.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
What about where, according to Baha'is, the Bible says Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed and it wasn't. Baha'is say it was Ishmael. So Baha'is don't remove them but just say it's wrong?

The writing of the OT books is a very different story and were most likely written sometime around or after the Babylonian exile. This was over two and a half thousand years ago and then it was about events at least a couple of thousand years before that. Is it inconceivable that an error was made?
 
Top