od19g6
Member
So what do you mean when you say Jesus Christ is uniquely divine?
-
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!
Is progressive revelation believable?
- Thread starter od19g6
- Start date
So what do you mean when you say Jesus Christ is uniquely divine?
JesusKnowsYou
Active Member
That He was not simply another prophet nor was He one of many "Manifestations of God".
He is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh and the only Savior of Mankind and Redeemer of the world.
He is Jehovah (Yaweh) the God of Israel.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
So in the Baha'i writings, Krishna is accepted as a manifestation, but he is not mentioned in this book about all the messengers?
I think it would be important to know more than the "founders" of the big nine? And Confucius and a few others are mentioned in Baha'i writings, but I do believe that Baha'is don't consider them "manifestations." But are Adam, Abraham and Moses all manifestations? If so, then all of them are from Judaism. Why don't you accept some of the other avatars from Hinduism? Then comes the next question... people like Adam and these others, are they real historical people or are they mythical?
I always assumed that with Buddhism and Hinduism that reaching an enlightened state was possible and open to anyone. And once that level was reached, their knowledge and wisdom was passed down to others.
To me, that isn't that much different than what Baha'is say... that God is an "unknowable" essence. And I would hope any Supreme Being would continue to give wisdom and knowledge to people to help them get to a higher level. But, is it exactly how Baha'i have claimed it is?
That and what Vinayaka said, "I won't go into detail here because that would hijack this thread," are great answers. It shows that you guys are not here to find every opportunity to push your beliefs. The information you did give shows how very different Hinduism is. And how difficult it is to make it fit a progression that includes the Abrahamic religions. Thanks to both of you.
You assumed correctly. But 'everyone' means soul to me, and reincarnation comes into play. Not open to each person or personality as some aren't ready for it in this lifetime. We would have to be close to the end of the path to moksha.
od19g6
Member
Why do He have to be only the God if Israel? Can't He be the God of the whole world?
We have to be very careful not to take the holy scriptures completely literally, because doing that we miss out on what the prophecies meant thus we deny the next Prophet / Messenger that comes after.
What do you mean when you say Only Begotten of the Father?
There have been many Saviors of mankind and Redeemers of the world all throughout human history and evolution.
But that, of course, is the intellectual foundation for not only tolerance but liberalism as well and any functioning free-democracy.
Ultimately, if one genuinely believes in 'independent investigation of truth' (what St. Paul termed "working out your own salvation" (Philippians 2:12)), it is irreconcilable (in my eyes) with anything other than the attitude of 'live and let live' (or as St. Paul said: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?" (1 Corinthians 5:12)).
We don't all need to agree doctrinally to get along socially or work together for a better society (indeed, a better society is inherently a more tolerant society anyway, and that only emerges by accepting differences in beliefs).
Gandhi said it best in that quote of his from the 1920s (that I cited at the beginning of this thread).
Last edited:
Bottom line is most of us do just that, and don't go around stirring up trouble. Thank goodness.
Oddly enough, sometimes exclusivist religions can be 'tolerant' in this way (just as much as inclusive ones like Hinduism), although they can also, equally, be intolerant (like "God-botherers" and the inquisitions).
To be 'tolerant', a Christian or Muslim (for example) doesn't have to believe that the other faith positions contain even a shred of moral truth. Now, I do happen to do so (as does the post-Vatican II church), but I've met other Christians who don't, yet that doesn't make them intolerant of other people and their consciences.
When Muhammad told pagan Arabs, Jews and Christians in seventh century Arabia: "I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion" (Qur'an 109:1-6), I think he put his finger upon the pulse of tolerance and from a fundamentally exclusivist faith position himself (i.e. that the Meccan pagans worshipped idols, while the Christians committed shirk (assigning partners to Allah) by worshipping a Trinity and over-adulating the Virgin Mary).
St. Paul, likewise, was exclusive in his own beliefs (i.e. he believed Jesus was the redeemer and that pagans worshipped demons) but explicitly cautioned his followers to "as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" (Romans 12:8) and judge no one outside the church for his beliefs (1 Corinthians 5:12) because of the primacy of conscience:
συνείδησιν δὲ λέγω οὐχὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀλλὰ τὴν τοῦ ἑτέρου. ἵνα τί γὰρ ἡ ἐλευθερία μου κρίνεται ὑπὸ ἄλλης συνειδήσεως
To me, this is more important than whether your belief system is "exclusivist" or "inclusivist".
There seems to be an assumption on the part of some, I think on this thread too, that you need to be a sort of 'syncretist' or at least a believer in an underlying unity in different faith positions to be 'tolerant' of them, but that doesn't actually amount to tolerance.
In fact, tolerance and exclusivism can exist together nicely - as the early Protestant Puritans of colonial America, who pioneered ideas of "freedom of conscience" for all religious beliefs, demonstrate.
In 1644, the Calvinist Puritan preacher Roger Williams bought land from the Narragansett Indians and wrote that “having, of a sense of God’s merciful providence unto me in my distress, called the place PROVIDENCE, I desired it might be for a shelter for persons distressed for conscience.” That's how Providence, Rhode Island originated. He then wrote a book called The Bloudy Tenent, of Persecution, for cause of Conscience, Discussed, in A Conference betweene Truth and Peace, that formed the basis of the constitution he drafted for the Colony.
That book contained the following statement:
“It is the will and command of God that, since the coming of his Sonne the Lord Jesus, a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or Antichristian consciences and worships, bee granted to all men in all Nations and Countries.”
Williams, by Baha'i standards, would not have been an "inclusivist". He was a sole fide (faith in Jesus alone) Protestant.
He certainly didn't believe in the unity of religion or in progressive revelation. Quite the contrary, he thought all other creeds 'paganish' and 'Antichristian'. But he believed firmly in universal human dignity and the inviolability of conscience, to such an extent that he counselled tolerance and acceptance of every religious belief and practice, however much he personally disagreed with it himself.
Tolerance is simply that: the ability to understand that there are people who don't, and won't, share your doctrinal beliefs but to respect the inviolability of their judgement of conscience to this effect, no matter what you actually think of the quality (or lack thereof) of the belief itself, and to just let them get on with it as they do you.
And that tolerant disposition can be possessed by people in either exclusivist or inclusivist religions (as can the reverse, incidentally, intolerance of conscientious doctrinal difference).
So, to bottom line this: I think we need to be careful in clearly separating "tolerance" from "inclusivism", and "intolerance" from "exclusivism". They are not mutually interchangeable terms or categories.
Not really a response, but I just want to say 'thank you'. For the clarity and the tolerance.
While this is true, Christianity has a long and undeniable history of both intolerance and exclusivism. While they are not necessarily always related, sometimes they are.
Of course, as has Islam. And that's my point - they are actually different things and their pairing within all the manifold possible religious worldviews is not actually interchangeable.
The reverse is also true - as my quotations from Muhammad, St. Paul and the great Roger Williams evidence in their tolerance. But I need not have cited Rogers or Muhammad or the Protestant denomination, I could have looked to my own denomination. I mentioned the Catholic 'inquisitions' at the top, alongside 'God-botherers', as examples of exclusive beliefs married to intolerance.
Yet long before the medieval inquisition or our contemporary God-botherer Evangelical missionaries, the early Catholic church father Tertullian - basing his views purely on Pauline theology in the New Testament (as Roger Williams would many centuries later in 1644) - took a very different view in the second century CE:
CHURCH FATHERS: Apology (Tertullian)
"Let one man worship God, another Jupiter; let one lift suppliant hands to the heavens, another to the altar of Fides; let one — if you choose to take this view of it — count in prayer the clouds, and another the ceiling panels; let one consecrate his own life to his God, and another that of a goat.
For see that you do not give a further ground for the charge of irreligion, by taking away religious liberty, and forbidding free choice of deity, so that I may no longer worship according to my inclination, but am compelled to worship against it."
(Apology (around 197 A.D.)
CHURCH FATHERS: To Scapula (Tertullian)
“It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions. One man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion.”
(To Scapula, 212 CE)
For see that you do not give a further ground for the charge of irreligion, by taking away religious liberty, and forbidding free choice of deity, so that I may no longer worship according to my inclination, but am compelled to worship against it."
(Apology (around 197 A.D.)
CHURCH FATHERS: To Scapula (Tertullian)
“It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions. One man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion.”
(To Scapula, 212 CE)
And as Pope Nicholas I (though equally "exclusivist" as St. Paul and Tertullian) wrote to the Bulgar Khan in 866 CE, "concerning those who sacrifice and bend their knees to idols":
Internet History Sourcebooks
Violence should by no means be inflicted upon them to make them believe. For everything which is not voluntary, cannot be good; for it is written: Willingly shall I sacrifice to you,[Ps. 53:8] and again: Make all the commands of my mouth your will,[Ps. 118:108] and again, And by my own will I shall confess to Him.[Ps. 27:7] Indeed, God commands that willing service be performed only by the willing. But if you ask about what should be judged concerning perfidious persons of this sort, listen to the apostle Paul who, when he wrote to the Corinthians, says: Why indeed is it my business to judge concerning those who are outside? Do you not judge concerning those who are inside? God will judge those who are outside.[I Cor. 5:12-13] It is as if he said: Concerning those who are outside our religion, I shall judge nothing...All the gods of the nations are demons,[Ps. 95:5] and the Apostle says: Whatever the nations sacrifice, they sacrifice it to demons and not to God [I Cor. 10:20]...
[But] violence should not be inflicted upon the pagan in order to make him become a Christian.
[But] violence should not be inflicted upon the pagan in order to make him become a Christian.
But just as "exclusivist" faith positions can be as tolerant as Tertullian and as intolerant as the Spanish Inquisition, inclusivist positions can also be admit of both tolerance and intolerance.
For example, Buddhism would be viewed by most of us - I imagine - as an inclusive worldview compared to the Abrahamic monotheisms. While it has 'right view' as part of the Noble Eightfold Path, the Buddha was inclusivist when it came to metaphysical speculation, thinking them of no great significance, as he said in the Atthakavagga:
Paramatthaka Sutta: Supreme
"When dwelling on views as "supreme," a person makes them the utmost thing in the world, &, from that, calls all others inferior and so he's not free from disputes [...] One who isn't inclined toward either side — becoming or not-, here or beyond — who has no entrenchment when considering what's grasped among doctrines, hasn't the least preconceived perception with regard to what's seen, heard, or sensed. By whom, with what, should he be pigeonholed here in the world? — this brahman who hasn't adopted views."
This is inclusivistic and a repudiation of exclusivist doctrines.
In traditional Abrahamic faiths, this kind of detachment from metaphysical doctrines would have been unthinkable, as we both know - because they were less inclusive religions.
Now, on the basis of this inclusivist worldview (compared to traditionalist Abrahamics), the ancient Indian Buddhist emperor Ashoka famously preached great tolerance in his Mauryan Empire:
Edicts of Ashoka - Wikipedia
Far from being sectarian, Ashoka, based on a belief that all religions shared a common, positive essence, encouraged tolerance and understanding of other religions.
The Beloved of the Gods, the king Piyadassi, wishes that all sect may dwell in all places, for all seek self-control and purity of mind. (Major Rock Edict No.7[27]
For whosoever praises his own sect or blames other sects, — all (this) out of pure devotion to his own sect, (i.e.) with the view of glorifying his own sect, — if he is acting thus, he rather injures his own sect very severely. But concord is meritorious, (i.e.) that they should both hear and obey each other's morals. For this is the desire of Devanampriya, (viz.) that all sects should be both full of learning and pure in doctrine. And those who are attached to their respective (sects), ought to be spoken to (as follows). Devanampriya does not value either gifts or honours so (highly) as (this), (viz.) that a promotion of the essentials of all sects should take place. (Major Rock Edict No.12[62][27]
For whosoever praises his own sect or blames other sects, — all (this) out of pure devotion to his own sect, (i.e.) with the view of glorifying his own sect, — if he is acting thus, he rather injures his own sect very severely. But concord is meritorious, (i.e.) that they should both hear and obey each other's morals. For this is the desire of Devanampriya, (viz.) that all sects should be both full of learning and pure in doctrine. And those who are attached to their respective (sects), ought to be spoken to (as follows). Devanampriya does not value either gifts or honours so (highly) as (this), (viz.) that a promotion of the essentials of all sects should take place. (Major Rock Edict No.12[62][27]
Tertullian, the second century north African Catholic church father, would have approved of this tolerance (even if he would have dissaproved of the inclusivism that motivated it).
But just as Ashoka was a tolerant inclusivist, other early Buddhists took a different approach - one not dissimilar to the medieval Islamic mihna or the Catholic inquisition.
This is evidenced by the Mahāvaṃsa, the "Great Chronicle" of 5th century Buddhist Sri Lanka written in the Pali language, composed by a Buddhist monk at the Mahavihara temple in Anuradhapura.
One of the Buddhist kings it describes, Dutugamanu destroyed his opponents in battle. After the bloodshed, he laments for causing the deaths of millions in the campaign. Eight enlightened monks (arhant) comfort him with this explanation:
"From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven. Only one and half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken on himself the five precepts. Unbelievers and men of evil life were the rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast away from thy heart, O ruler of men!"
(Geiger 1993 translation; 178)
(Geiger 1993 translation; 178)
This is no different to what you'd expect to hear from the most intolerant Abrahamist, for example in the Catholic Spanish Inquisition or Islamic Mihna. Buddhists are distinguished from non-Buddhists, the murders in the narrative of the "unbelievers" of "evil life" are dismissed, because the king has pure intent with the desire to defend Buddhism.
This kind of rhetoric has been used today in majority Buddhist Burma, against the Muslim minority in that country:
Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar - Wikipedia
A BBC article on it:
Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?
Of all the moral precepts instilled in Buddhist monks the promise not to kill comes first, and the principle of non-violence is arguably more central to Buddhism than any other major religion. So why have monks been using hate speech against Muslims and joining mobs that have left dozens dead?
This is happening in two countries separated by well over 1,000 miles of Indian Ocean - Burma and Sri Lanka. It is puzzling because neither country is facing an Islamist militant threat. Muslims in both places are a generally peaceable and small minority...
On Tuesday, Buddhist mobs attacked mosques and burned more than 70 homes in Oakkan, north of Rangoon, after a Muslim girl on a bicycle collided with a monk. One person died and nine were injured...
Aggressive thoughts are inimical to all Buddhist teachings...while your compassion for all living things grows.
Of course, there is a strong strain of pacifism in Christian teachings too: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," were the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount...
Christian crusaders, Islamist militants, or the leaders of "freedom-loving nations", all justify what they see as necessary violence in the name of a higher good. Buddhist rulers and monks have been no exception.
Burmese rulers, known as "kings of righteousness", justified wars in the name of what they called true Buddhist doctrine.
In Japan, many samurai were devotees of Zen Buddhism and various arguments sustained them - killing a man about to commit a dreadful crime was an act of compassion, for example. Such reasoning surfaced again when Japan mobilised for World War II.
This is happening in two countries separated by well over 1,000 miles of Indian Ocean - Burma and Sri Lanka. It is puzzling because neither country is facing an Islamist militant threat. Muslims in both places are a generally peaceable and small minority...
On Tuesday, Buddhist mobs attacked mosques and burned more than 70 homes in Oakkan, north of Rangoon, after a Muslim girl on a bicycle collided with a monk. One person died and nine were injured...
Aggressive thoughts are inimical to all Buddhist teachings...while your compassion for all living things grows.
Of course, there is a strong strain of pacifism in Christian teachings too: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," were the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount...
Christian crusaders, Islamist militants, or the leaders of "freedom-loving nations", all justify what they see as necessary violence in the name of a higher good. Buddhist rulers and monks have been no exception.
Burmese rulers, known as "kings of righteousness", justified wars in the name of what they called true Buddhist doctrine.
In Japan, many samurai were devotees of Zen Buddhism and various arguments sustained them - killing a man about to commit a dreadful crime was an act of compassion, for example. Such reasoning surfaced again when Japan mobilised for World War II.
The justifications are little different from the intolerant Abrahamic ones, despite the exclusivity of the latter's doctrine i.e. the Spanish Inquisition:
Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia
But, of course, intolerance doesn't have to be "deadly" - like the Catholic intolerance during the Spanish Inquisition, or the Sri Lankan Buddhist intolerance in the Mahāvaṃsa - it can be much subtler and non-lethal but no less invasive of the rights of conscience, in the sense of having an innate inability to understand that there are people who don't, and won't, share your beliefs - whether or not you employ violence against them.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
It is not obligatory for an enlightened person to pass on his knowledge to others. I am an enlightened person, but I have no strong interest in passing my knowledge to others. If it happens, it is incidental. Buddha enumerated two kinds of enlightened persons - Samyaka SamaBuddhas, those who pass on their knowledge to others; and PaccekaBuddhas, who may not be interested in this.
Yeah, most Hindus are theists. They believe in this clap-trap, though we have avoided having a historical founder of Hinduism. But the difference between the idea of Brahman and that of a God is that Brahman does not interfere in worldly affairs, does not require worship, is not a judge after death, etc. It is not a creator, it is not involved. As I said Brahman is energy \ space, you cannot seek succor from it, you can't blame it for evils of the world. It just is. I am a staunch believer of non-duality (Advaita) and a strong atheist, and a strong Hindu too.
Yeah, we try to be nice people, but falsehood irritates us..
Last edited:
My personal meditation on this is that I think time may have erased a lot of the original Essence of those Messages. As this may be so, the only way I can confirm what those Messengers may have offered, is to compare what is now commonly believed is the Essence of those lost messages, with the Essence of later Revelations.
The first correction I can see that is needed, is that there is only One God. On the other hand I can see why that can also be many Gods and thus discussions are possible, but in the end some frame of references will need to be changed, on both sides more likely.
Regards Tony
JesusKnowsYou
Active Member
The God of Israel is God of the whole world.
I believe that there are Prophets and Apostles alive today.
I do not believe that they are practitioners of either Islam or Baha'i, because these faiths do not teach that the Lord Jesus Christ is uniquely divine.
He was the only mortal to be sired by an Immortal.
He is the literal Son of God the Father in the flesh and the Firstborn in spirit.
No, He is the only Savior and Redeemer. The only name whereby Man can be saved. The only advocate with the Father.
His servants can perform vicarious works for others, thus allowing them to be like Him, as in being a savior, but all salvation relies on Him and through Him and of Him.
It is my opinion that any man who claims to be a prophet or messenger, yet denies these things then he is a false prophet. A false messenger.
Thanks again for an excellent post. Great examples from history. I can’t help but consider the famous saying about the only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. Let’s consider a more recent example in history, communism based on the theories of Karl Marx which first became established in Russia after the revolution in 1917. You may or may not agree communism has been a wholesale disaster for whatever country that’s been unlucky enough to embrace its ideology. The obvious examples of abuses of human rights in Russia, China and Cambodia appear unparalleled in human history. Where were the religious institutions of the West and the East one would have hoped to provide the moral guidance to prevent such calamities?
Its the same deal in Germany when Hitler rose to power through appealing to the masses and being democratically elected. Here was a country where Christianity was well established for over a millennium and more than 90% of her population were Christians. However Christian leaders joined the choir of approval as initially it appeared Hitler would provide Germany with the opportunity for renewed economic prosperity and to make Germany great again. Sound scarily familiar today as the forces of nationalism and racism are regrouping. Although Nazism with its anti-Semitic ideology wasn’t an inevitable consequence of Christianity, centuries of antisemitism made it possible.
So one problem Bahá’u’lláh observed is the vitality of men’s belief in God in every land is dying. The twentieth century witnessed humanity bewildered and lost lurching from crisis to crisis including two world wars and of course the Cold War. So one problem with organised religion has been a lack of vision and a failure of moral leadership. A second problem is its unwittingly fanned the flames of fire and dissension through legitimising hateful ideologies. Such corruption has not been the sole domain of Christianity of course but other faiths too.
In regards inclusiveness and tolerance, I agree they are different and we can have one without the other as you have clearly illustrated with reference to history. However the world has moved on. The twentieth century has seen vast change in regards humanity seeing ourselves as one people, the development of international relationships, democracy and consultation as a basis for governance, the equality of men and women, and overcoming racism and prejudices of every kind.
One of the remaining challenges for the twenty first century is overcoming religious prejudice, intolerance and discrimination. What has previously worked in the past with exclusive and competing faiths proclaiming superiority and a monopoly on truth, appears completely at odds with the increasingly interconnectedness of our modern world.
I serve on my cities Interfaith Council. The Baha’is and Catholics both have significant roles to play as we work together to support an increasingly diverse community in regards religion. Most of us who have worked in this space for even a brief period will recognise expressions of exclusivity and superiority are contrary to harmony and reciprocity. We need both tolerance and inclusion moving forward. I can’t see one without the other working. Can you?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
If you think that changes are needed on your side you are less of a Bahai, doubting the message of last but one manifestation (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the last). On our side we see no need to prune our mega list of Gods and Goddsses, each working in his \ her own sphere or collaborating happily and peacefully with others.
Krishna exchanging his flute for Shiva's snake.
playing 'Catch if you can', Krishna running away with Shiva's Trident with Mother Yashoda looking on
Krishna offering yoghurt to Shiva. Krishna sure is naughty.
Last edited:
I do see many see no need to change. I am not one of those.
I see we need to change and that change will no doubt come.
Progress is impossible without change, science also shows we need an ever advancing mind.
Regards Tony
od19g6
Member
You know I think that when we're having the conversation on topics such as religion, philosophy, theology etc. we have to be truthful and honest and do the best we can.
Sometimes the things that goes on in religion if we don't have an answer to we have to be honest and say 'I don't know'.
I sincerely believe that if you don't have an answer to something there's no shame in saying as of right now I don't know. Now there's always more to learn and discover, that's why I said the words 'as of right now'.
You can ask why did Prophet Muhammad have more wives than the Qur'an said.
Why did Jesus Christ drove out the money changers by tipping over the tables? Did Jesus Christ lose His temper?
I'm just making the point that a critic / sceptic can try and find an 'ahha' moment in religion, but we have to be careful about some people's mindset and intentions. That's why I say that it's a difference between questioning and asking questions. Questioning is when the person is already coming with the mindset of doubt and criticism. Asking questions on the other hand is the person coming to really want to know, gain more knowledge and seek a better understanding.
That's why I said that when we're investigating an individual's claim of Messengerhood we have look at 'all' of the criterias not just isolate them. You will get the complete picture of the Messager if you 'combine' all of the criterias, that's how you weigh the Messengers to really see who they are.
You can ask the question, do the Prophets / Messengers / Manifestations make mistakes? That would be an interesting question because what is ment by 'mistakes'. Did they ever they ever trip when they were walking? Did they ever lose a step when walking up?
The Messengers are human beings too living in the physical world but the role of divine Messenger is the part that is 'perfect' and 'infallible'
Baha'u'llah says that the Messengers has a double station:
He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” And in like manner, the words: “Arise, O Muḥammad, for lo, the Lover and the Beloved are joined together and made one in Thee.” He similarly saith: “There is no distinction whatsoever between Thee and Them, except that They are Thy Servants.” The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.”
Why did Baha'u'llah have more wives then the Kitáb-i-Aqdas says? Ultimately and honestly I don't know.
As far as the other three goes: I've heard from another baha'i that the hair verse was for the particular point in time of Baha'u'llah and that it doesn't apply as of now, but ultimately I don't know.
Bahá'u'lláh was born into wealth but refused the offer of wealth inheritance from His dad.
Their we're 'covenant breakers' during the formation of the administration bodies but even though that we have kept the unity.
Sometimes we don't know, but let's combine and mix all the criterias and see if the person is legitimate.
od19g6
Member
Actually religion is God's attempt to educate human beings from age to age.
Look, if it wasn't for the Prophets / Messengers / Manifestations people wouldn't even know who God was.
That's the mindset of a person that has bad intentions.
Bird123
Well-Known Member
your quote:Actually religion is God's attempt to educate human beings from age to age.
MY ANSWER: Is that really how God is teaching? While it's true knowledge whether accurate or not is passed down over the generations. Does religion really account for the knowledge mankind has acquired over the generations? On the other hand, religion is a catalyst that brings people problems to the surface so they can be dealt with. This leads to a certain amount of learning, however I have found so much of religion is about mankind, not God.
your quote:Look, if it wasn't for the Prophets / Messengers / Manifestations people wouldn't even know who God was.
My Answer: AS I see it, I have found no religion that understands God at all so what are they really teaching? Further, you might just be surprised that if you got rid of all religions, mankind would start new ones again. Deep down. everyone knows God exists whether they know they know or not.
your quote:That's the mindset of a person that has bad intentions.[/QUOTE]
MY ANSWER: That person doesn't think so. They are merely trying to shape the world to their view. Mankind is a controlling lot. Aren't you guilty of this in some form?