How are these Great Beings explained?

[siti]

Yes, but it is not equal, as it retricts them to consider fellowship with other Faiths and that is the entire history of religion.

Right - so wouldn't we better off without it altogether? (Third principle).

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Right - so wouldn't we better off without it altogether? (Third principle).

We definitely would be better off practicing the principal of no argument.

Then we would have to ask. What would replace Faith, which when practiced as it should, inspires a person to live all virtues, in preference to all humanity over ones self?

Maybe this will be a time soon comming when Humanity has to ask such a question. Then search all Faiths to see what was really offered by them all and then make an informed choice.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

What would replace Faith, which when practiced as it should, inspires a person to live all virtues, in preference to all humanity over ones self?

Another deflection of course, but this is also a false dichotomy - you are suggesting that without 'faith' (by which you really mean religious credulity) humans are doomed to selfish hedonism. What evidence do you have to show that an irreligious person cannot also be both virtuous and selfless? What evidence do you have that religious people cannot also be hedonistic and self-serving?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Another deflection of course, but this is also a false dichotomy - you are suggesting that without 'faith' (by which you really mean religious credulity) humans are doomed to selfish hedonism. What evidence do you have to show that an irreligious person cannot also be both virtuous and selfless? What evidence do you have that religious people cannot also be hedonistic and self-serving?

The challenge for you is show what has brought out the best in peoples, has been accepted world wide, lasted and that is not a Faith, or inspired by a Faith.

We are all subject to our own wordly self and the higher self, it is the virtues that can change the world for the better.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

The challenge for you is show what has brought out the best in peoples, has been accepted world wide, lasted and that is not a Faith, or inspired by a Faith.

Oh please Tony! You make a fallacious argument based on a false dichotomy and then back that up by claiming that ONLY religion has been a force for good in the world? Well let's try it. Let's get rid of religion altogether and see what happens. Except of course we can't, can we? Religion is as much part of the human psyche as lust, greed and the rest of the seven 'deadlies'. But what brings out the best in people is not faith at all, is it, but respect for the sanctity of human life. In as much as a religion promotes that, it is a force for good. By and large though, religions have been an excuse for riding roughshod over that overarching principle of moral virtue - sacrificing human lives on the altar of supposed religious "truth" time after time after time. You can't seriously deny that fact of human and religious history.

Let me ask you these questions:

Is the world a fairer, more inclusive and more compassionate place now than it was, say, in the 1500s?

Is the world a more religious or more secular place now that it was in the 1500s?

Answer those truthfully and you have the answer to the challenge you set for me.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Rituals in and of themselves dont cause wars. The rituals I did gave me more understanding of christ love and defining god through christ since I have no idea what a god is without the physical person and thing to interact with it.



Some show their love through christ via ritual. Its part of their culture. Displace the ritual you displace he person and his love for christ.



Has nothing to do with using rituals to be close to god. Youre mixing politics with christianity (not christiandom). They are not the same.



Sacraments are built off of love.

Priests are christians just as Joe Smoe and Bob Doe practitioners. I wanted to be a priest. Would my devotion and vocation make my love for christ misplaced as opposed to being a layman?

Same goal but you are displacing other peoples preference towards that goal.



Christians love each other. Youre missing the point of rituals.



Youre missing the point how culture cannot be separated from love.

Politics have Nothing to do with it.

All I’m saying is the focus has been on the wrong things. That includes politics. Christians, according to Christ are supposed to be one body not segmented opposing sects which reflects that politics has been put ahead of love and brotherhood.

The sacraments can’t fix and haven’t fixed or made better these problems but in fact made them far worse.

So a priest can commit child abuse then turn to the sacrament of confession to wipe his slate clean and reoffend all over again and that’s what’s been going on for centuries. The cover ups existed because they believed themselves forgiven through confession.

The same with wars. Kill, fight wars, seek forgiveness rinse and repeat. Catholic priests have been able to commit wrongs falling back on confession to absolve them so they felt no shame or guilt abusing children because they were guaranteed forgiveness via the sacrament of confession.

Clerical celibacy has caused the church no end of sexual crimes. They need to let priests marry as Baha’u’llah commanded them in His letter to them.

 

[loverofhumanity]

More deflection. OK here's what I agree with:

Baptism is a ritual that serves as an outward symbol of repentance and a request made to God for a "cleansed heart" (in the same way that a wedding ceremony is a ritual that serves as an outward symbol that two people have committed themselves to each other in an intimate relationship that they intend to honor).

Here's what I do not agree with: your statement that Jesus said nothing about rituals. He did say something about rituals - baptism for one - he participated in rituals - baptism for one - he encouraged his disciples to participate in and perform rituals - baptism for one. You can wriggle and squirm around it all you like but the fact is you are wrong about Jesus not promoting ritual forms of worship - that's it - just wrong. Christ, the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Protestant Reformers and almost all Christians today all approved of and participated in some forms of ritual worship and continue to do so with the backing of scriptural authority and the words of Christ himself. To say that this is not so is to deny the validity of Christian worship. Is that how you promote unity? Is that how you show your obedience to the divine command to "love one another"? Is that how you commit to the Cause of Christ or Baha'u'llah?

Siti I think that we both agree on many things. My understanding of the message of Jesus was that he ‘emphasised’ the spiritual life and virtues. Yes He took part in various symbolic ceremonies but what I was trying to say is that He did not make them laws or commandments.

I think a lot of what Jesus did eventually became exaggerated and myths woven around the miraculous instead of focusing on the morals and character building virtues He proclaimed so insistently.

Look at the Beautitudes for instance. Things like this are His central teachings.

This has already been cited here but is the gist of what I’m getting at. Christ was not about rituals and ceremonies as the Catholics practise it. His Cause was addressed to transformation of souls and the character of man. The emphasis was always on virtues and leading a spiritual life not rituals.

http://www.earthsite.org/commandments.htm

 

[Unveiled Artist]

All I’m saying is the focus has been on the wrong things. That includes politics. Christians, according to Christ are supposed to be one body not segmented opposing sects which reflects that politics has been put ahead of love and brotherhood.

The sacraments can’t fix and haven’t fixed or made better these problems but in fact made them far worse.

So a priest can commit child abuse then turn to the sacrament of confession to wipe his slate clean and reoffend all over again and that’s what’s been going on for centuries. The cover ups existed because they believed themselves forgiven through confession.

The same with wars. Kill, fight wars, seek forgiveness rinse and repeat. Catholic priests have been able to commit wrongs falling back on confession to absolve them so they felt no shame or guilt abusing children because they were guaranteed forgiveness via the sacrament of confession.

Clerical celibacy has caused the church no end of sexual crimes. They need to let priests marry as Baha’u’llah commanded them in His letter to them.

How does church rituals that bring people to christ in and of themselves cause wars?

Ive never experienced anything negative in The Church. I saw the positive. Priest abuse. Some. People pray to statues. Some..

It is an acusation of a group of people's relationship with christ by defining it by politics.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Another deflection of course, but this is also a false dichotomy - you are suggesting that without 'faith' (by which you really mean religious credulity) humans are doomed to selfish hedonism. What evidence do you have to show that an irreligious person cannot also be both virtuous and selfless? What evidence do you have that religious people cannot also be hedonistic and self-serving?

From my understanding, the Prophets before Jesus had established a literal Baptism. It was to enter the water to be clean. Jesus mission was to 'complete the Laws', not to destroy them. This fulfilment of the Laws by Christ can be understood that, for instance if people before literally entered the water, then later after Christ, this action be manifested in their spiritual qualities. The 'fulfilment' of 'Baptism with water', was 'purification of heart and soul'. So, a symbolic act that was done before, must have been fulfilled as a spiritual reality, so it can be said the Law became complete. This is why Jesus said He came to complete the Law. This transformation of an outward and literal Baptism, into a spiritual Baptism was the mission of Christ; so by His spiritual teachings, He created a new Baptism: a spiritual baptism.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

From my understanding, the Prophets before Jesus had established a literal Baptism. It was to enter the water to be clean. Jesus mission was to 'complete the Laws', not to destroy them. This fulfilment of the Laws by Christ can be understood that, for instance if people before literally entered the water, then later after Christ, this action be manifested in their spiritual qualities. The 'fulfilment' of 'Baptism with water', was 'purification of heart and soul'. So, a symbolic act that was done before, must have been fulfilled as a spiritual reality, so it can be said the Law became complete. This is why Jesus said He came to complete the Law. This transformation of an outward and literal Baptism, into a spiritual Baptism was the mission of Christ; so by His spiritual teachings, He created a new Baptism: a spiritual baptism.

That is a very sound point made. It also explains why in Revelation that the "Two Witnesses" (Muhammad & Ali), who were to give Prophecy for 1260 years, were clothed in sackcloth (old cloths).

Abdul'baha has explained this as a Faith returning to that like the Jewish Faith, a Faith again based in Laws.

Makes sense if we think about is, Christ message opened the fulfillment of the Laws, gave us a chance to live the fulfillment, but our maturity was such that God had to again give us a period based back in the discipline of a Laws based Faith.

With the Messages of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, we now have the fulfillment promissed by Christ of the Laws. All Ritual has been removed and the Laws given are the required balance for all Humanity.

Regards Tony

 

[loverofhumanity]

How does church rituals that bring people to christ in and of themselves cause wars?

Ive never experienced anything negative in The Church. I saw the positive. Priest abuse. Some. People pray to statues. Some..

It is an acusation of a group of people's relationship with christ by defining it by politics.

I think that the sacraments over time replaced Jesus teaching of love.

Here is part of an article by another Christian group explaining how the sacraments were never Biblical just fabricated. Here is an excerpt.

It might seem by looking at these verses by themselves that, indeed, certain external actions do convey some benefit (such as eternal life, the forgiveness of sins, the presence or power of the Holy Spirit, etc.). However, when taken in the context of Scripture as a whole, there is no foundation for the belief that God ever intended these passages to be taken as support for rituals as a means of conveying grace. In other words, the whole idea of "sacraments" that convey saving grace upon people is unbiblical.


Are the seven Catholic sacraments biblical?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Gotquestions is very bias against anyonr outside the catholic faith. Sacraments are meant to bring a person to christ.

I think that the sacraments over time replaced Jesus teaching of love.

They are jesus love. Take out the hugs, you can love all you want but how are you showing it?

Your acts Are sacraments. Visual signs and actions that you do in the name of god.

Here is part of an article by another Christian group explaining how the sacraments were never Biblical just fabricated. Here is an excerpt.

It might seem by looking at these verses by themselves that, indeed, certain external actions do convey some benefit (such as eternal life, the forgiveness of sins, the presence or power of the Holy Spirit, etc.). However, when taken in the context of Scripture as a whole, there is no foundation for the belief that God ever intended these passages to be taken as support for rituals as a means of conveying grace. In other words, the whole idea of "sacraments" that convey saving grace upon people is unbiblical.

Thats like saying since hugs arent in the bible, whoever hugs becaue they love someone is not showing the love of christ.

A hug in and lf itself does nothing. Its a visual sign that reflects the love from that person who hugs.

Likewise, rituals are the same. They are like hugs.

--

How would my using rituals void my communion and love for christ?

What about what I do voids the source and reason behind that action?

If symbolism is above materialism, why dont you value the "symbolism" of the sacraments if not its literal interpretation?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Gotquestions is very bias against anyonr outside the catholic faith. Sacraments are meant to bring a person to christ.


They are jesus love. Take out the hugs, you can love all you want but how are you showing it?

Your acts Are sacraments. Visual signs and actions that you do in the name of god.





Thats like saying since hugs arent in the bible, whoever hugs becaue they love someone is not showing the love of christ.

A hug in and lf itself does nothing. Its a visual sign that reflects the love from that person who hugs.

Likewise, rituals are the same. They are like hugs.

--

How would my using rituals void my communion and love for christ?

What about what I do voids the source and reason behind that action?

Without true love religion is useless to humanity. Any religion.

If the sacraments led to love of Jesus then all Christians should be one religion.

There are 40,000 Christian sects. Will the real Christianty please stand up? Only a loving and united Christianity could ever qualify and there isn’t one. Why? Because man made interpretations have been placed above love and unity.

So it was more important for Catholics to have ceremonies and rituals than to be united with their brothers and sisters throughout the world? Jesus emphasis was on love not disunity yet man made rituals have divided Christians.

The bottom line for me is if the sacraments lead to Jesus love then we would have one united Christianity all over the world not 40,000 but they don’t because the law of love was the formula Jesus gave and that was not carried out so we have a house divided against itself.

Where is the one, loving and united Christianity? Will it please stand up?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Where is the one, loving and united Christianity? Will it please stand up?

My point is you are judging every single Catholic's expression of devotion based on politics, the world situation, and your experiences.

Its as if statistics and institution of sacraments is more concern to which these individual catholics base their visual expression on: love.

You didnt answer my questions.

I made it more specific because youbare generalizing and to me tbat is less showing love than one who believes by spirit and water his love for god strengthens. Who denies him that right.

How would my communion be invalid and without love since you base christian devotion by looking at the state of the world not the state of their hearts?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

My point is you are judging every single Catholic's expression of devotion based on politics, the world situation, and your experiences.

Its as if statistics and institution of sacraments is more concern to which these individual catholics base their visual expression on: love.

You didnt answer my questions.

I made it more specific because youbare generalizing and to me tbat is less showing love than one who believes by spirit and water his love for god strengthens. Who denies him that right.

How would my communion be invalid and without love since you base christian devotion by looking at the state of the world not the state of their hearts?

We could look at it this way;

"In his City of God, Saint Augustine defined virtue as “rightly ordered love” (City of God,XV.23).

The right ordering of love was a running theme in Augustine’s life and writings. In one of his clearest explanations, he said:"

"But living a just and holy life requires one to be capable of an objective and impartial evaluation of things: to love things, that is to say, in the right order, so that you do not love what is not to be loved, or fail to love what is to be loved, or have a greater love for what should be loved less, or an equal love for things that should be loved less or more, or a lesser or greater love for things that should be loved equally. (On Christian Doctrine, I.27-28)"

These practices may have moved the right order of Love.

Augustine (354—430 C.E.) was an interesting read.

:...Neoplatonism, propagating a contemplative way of life which points to the Godhead beyond the nameable God.... Neoplatonists did not believe in an independent existence of evil. They compared it to darkness, which does not exist in itself but only as the absence of light." Very Baha'i.

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We could look at it this way;

"In his City of God, Saint Augustine defined virtue as “rightly ordered love” (City of God,XV.23).

The right ordering of love was a running theme in Augustine’s life and writings. In one of his clearest explanations, he said:"

"But living a just and holy life requires one to be capable of an objective and impartial evaluation of things: to love things, that is to say, in the right order, so that you do not love what is not to be loved, or fail to love what is to be loved, or have a greater love for what should be loved less, or an equal love for things that should be loved less or more, or a lesser or greater love for things that should be loved equally. (On Christian Doctrine, I.27-28)"

These practices may have moved the right order of Love.

Augustine (354—430 C.E.) was an interesting read.

:...Neoplatonism, propagating a contemplative way of life which points to the Godhead beyond the nameable God...." Very Baha'i.

Regards Tony

I dont see how this supports LH's point.

Lets use baptism. What about baptism voids its "purpose and meaning" when water is used as a visual sign as well as (not instead of) spirit of christ's love?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I dont see how this supports LH's point.

Lets use baptism. What about baptism voids its "purpose and meaning" when water is used as a visual sign as well as (not instead of) spirit of christ's love?

Do Christains see in Baptisim, the Christ that is also Muhammad, or Krishna, or Zoroaster or any of the Great Beings?

If not Baptisim has directed Love to only one Source of Christ, which was Jesus.

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Do Christains see in Baptisim, the Christ that is also Muhammad, or Krishna, or Zoroaster or any of the Great Beings?

If not Baptisim has directed Love to only one Source of Christ, which was Jesus.

Regards Tony

Most christians dont. Its not taught in christianity only bahai.

Baptism is the love of christ.

What about the visual sign of baptism invalidates the love that that sign expresses?

How does water invalidate love?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Most christians dont. Its not taught in christianity only bahai.

Baptism is the love of christ.

What about the visual sign of baptism invalidates the love that that sign expresses?

How does water invalidate love?

So we go back to this good advice by St Augustine;

"But living a just and holy life requires one to be capable of an objective and impartial evaluation of things: to love things, that is to say, in the right order, so that you do not love what is not to be loved, or fail to love what is to be loved, or have a greater love for what should be loved less, or an equal love for things that should be loved less or more, or a lesser or greater love for things that should be loved equally. (On Christian Doctrine, I.27-28)"

A doctrine that may aid in the failure to Love what should be Loved, has become a veil. Or as Christ said, a Cloud that He would return upon.

Clouds Obscure the Sun from our vision, they are not beasts of burden to be ridden by a flesh bodied Christ.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

I think a lot of what Jesus did eventually became exaggerated and myths woven around the miraculous instead of focusing on the morals and character building virtues He proclaimed so insistently.

Look at the Beautitudes for instance. Things like this are His central teachings.

If the account of Jesus' life and teachings is exaggerated and mythical, how on earth could you possibly know what he may or may not have "proclaimed so insistently" or what really were his "central teachings"? For all we know he could well have been the murderous seditionist he was accused of being by the Pharisees. How do we know that Jesus even uttered "the beatitudes" at all - and in any case there are two versions which differ somewhat - Matthew 5:3-13 has eight or nine beatitudes (depending on whether you interpret vss 11-12 as one of them or not) and Luke 6:20-26 has only four, immediately followed by 4 woes which seem to make being wealthy, well-fed, happy and of good repute undesirable qualities (?).

Unless we take the Biblical account as at least reasonably reliable, we can say nothing about what Jesus' central teachings may have been. So if we do that in regard to the ritual of baptism (as an example), here is what we find:

1. Jesus was himself baptized by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-23) whereupon God himself declared his approval of his Son (and presumably, by extension, his Son's participation in the ritual of baptism)

2. Both John and Jesus and their disciples continued to perform the ritual of water baptism and Jesus apparently approved (John 3:22-26, John 4:1-2)

3. Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize people of all the nations (Matthew 28:19-20)

4. Jesus' disciples interpreted water baptism as a necessary ritual associated with receiving the baptism of holy spirit (Acts of the Apostles 2:38-41, Acts of the Apostles 9:17-18, Acts of the Apostles 10:44-48)

5. Baptism was not limited either to the Jews or to the time before Jesus opened up the baptism with holy spirit (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts of the Apostles 8:36-38, Acts of the Apostles 10:44-48)

There is no question whatsoever that the ritual of water baptism is strongly supported as a valid Christian practice by a fair-minded examination of the Christian scriptures. If you want to say the scriptures are not reliable on this or that these examples do not set a precedent that, by sacred writ, turn Jesus' great commission into a commandment regarding ritual water baptism, then you have discredited all four Gospels and the Book of Acts. And without those, we have no evidence that Jesus even existed - let alone what his "central teachings" might have been.