Supersessionism and beyond - Can Christianity meaningfully address religious pluralism?

[TransmutingSoul]

And if we break it down even more... how many accept that Jesus is God and rose from the dead? How many believe Krishna is an Avatar and teaches that reincarnation is true? And how many Baha'is believe Jesus is God and rose from the dead? And how many Baha'is believe Krishna is an Avatar and taught that reincarnation is true? I'd be surprised if any Baha'i believed those things about Jesus and Krishna.

So... what do they believe about them? Not much. So a Baha'i doesn't even believe in the Krishna of the Hindus. They believe in a Baha'i version of Krishna. And need him to be real to be part of their progression from one religion to the next. And again, Baha'is believe all people in all religions should love each other and be as one... and respect the beliefs of others... Unless those beliefs don't agree with what Baha'u'llah has said is true about that other religion. Then a Baha'i is obligated to "correct" those people about their own religion. That way we will all agree and all religions will finally all be one.

It is indeed a quandary, there was a thread on RF about such a quandary.

It boils down to the questions, are we one human race, or are we not? Is the only One God? How we answers those questions, will no doubt give our own perspective of that quandary.

Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

How we answers those questions, will no doubt give our own perspective of that quandary.

It should not depend on 'individual perspective'. We should see if there is any evidence of what we believe or otherwise change our belief according to evidence. What is the quandary about this?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Why should you see Krishna as having been a real man who walked the earth and not Herakles, Thor, Odin or Gilgamesh?
You people (the theists) have this 'not-so-good' habit of believing things without any evidence and on magic, prophecies, cures with prayers, etc.; and of course, the lovey-dovey God (Islam does not claim its Allah to be lovey-dovey. He is the tough one. He sees all). How many people have been saved in the Americas and Europe in the Covid-19 rampage with prayers??

In some ways your position has similarities to the well known atheist and critic of Christianity, Richard Carrier who denies any evidence for the historicity of Christ. However most historians agree Jesus Christ existed, preached and was crucified, though clearly wouldn't agree He was literally resurrected.

With the passage of time it becomes increasingly difficult to prove the historicity of characters that lived several thousand years ago, depending on the locality and the existence archaeological records. So with the existence of Krishna, the evidence of his existence would most likely not be as strong as Jesus the Jewish Messiah.

To compare Krishna to Thor or Odin appears disingenuous and disrespectful to the many Hindus who view Him as having existed. While its hard to find the types of clear divisions in Hinduism as we can for Christianity, without doubt the largest broad division appears to be the Vaishnava HIndus to whom Krishna is not only an historic character but Vishnu incarnate. There are clear and extensive records within the Vedas but some probable mythological elements. However to what extend this constitutes proof and whether or not any other evidence exists is an important question.

This of course is unrelated the topic of this thread. I will probably start another thread soon examining the historicity of Krishna. Please let me know whether you wish me to tag you in the OP to enable your contribution.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But, like Jesus, do Baha'i believe the "legends and myths" surrounding the life of Krishna? Like playing flute for the Gopis and being Arguna's charioteer and being as incarnation of one of the Hindu Gods? So, like the historical Jesus, what would be left of the historical Krishna? Or, does that miss the point? Are these people supposed to be and need to be bigger than life God/men?

As posted to Aup above the question of the historicity of Krishna, though important is not relevant to this thread. The question about our approach to the more extraordinary events associated with Krishna's life as recoded in the Vedas could be considered in a separate thread examining the historicity of Krishna. Please let me know if you would like to participate and I will tag you in the OP.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I have had conversations with many good Baha'is here in the forum, and actually it does seem that you accept and build on the prophets in the Tanakh. However, you put your own and very definitely non-Jewish spin on the interpretation, just as Christians do. Not wanting to start a debate, but just to illustrate with an example, Jews have Messianic prophecies that say the Messiah will be David, meaning he will rule Israel from Jerusalem. Baha'is have a very different interpretation, and you all definitely don't believe any Messiah will rule from Jerusalem in any sort of earthly governmental fashion.

That is a very interesting point to consider. I would need to consider some of the specific passages from the Tanakh you make reference to. It would then be useful to consider the types of approaches to interpreting those verses taken within both Judaism and the Baha'i Faith. I would presume diversity within both Judaism and the Baha'i Faith. There are may or may not be common ground. Any discussion would be to explore and identify different approaches taken by adherents within both faiths rather than to debate who is right or wrong. I'm happy to have that discussion or not if you are interested. It may be best to start a new OP as its somewhat off topic for this thread.

 

[CG Didymus]

But Bahaollah. And Bahaollah gave the responsibility to explain what he said to his son, whom he called the master. His son gave the responsibility to guide the Bahais to his grandson, who was called the guide. So, Bahaollah, an Iranian preacher of 19th Century who did not know anything beyond Tanakh, Injeel and Quran available in his time and place and Arabic language, knew all. All the rest in the world are wrong. What they all believe needs a correction, and the correction is that Bahaollah was the manifestation (avatara) of Allah. Practically no difference between Allah and his manifestation.
All revealed religions are 'Napkin religions' since they and those who started them do not give any evidence whatsoever. 'Revealed' actually means fake.
'Progressive revelation' actually means 'progressive fakery'.

I wonder how "unrevealed" religions got started? Did the person make the mistake of saying, "Hey, I just came up with some spiritual ideas and was thinking about starting a religion." When he should have said, "The all-glorious God just showed me the truth and wants me to share it with all of you."

 

[Aupmanyav]

To compare Krishna to Thor or Odin appears disingenuous and disrespectful to the many Hindus who view Him as having existed. While its hard to find the types of clear divisions in Hinduism as we can for Christianity, without doubt the largest broad division appears to be the Vaishnava HIndus to whom Krishna is not only an historic character but Vishnu incarnate. There are clear and extensive records within the Vedas but some probable mythological elements. However to what extend this constitutes proof and whether or not any other evidence exists is an important question.

This of course is unrelated the topic of this thread. I will probably start another thread soon examining the historicity of Krishna. Please let me know whether you wish me to tag you in the OP to enable your contribution.

I do not think any Hindu will have problem about comparison of Krishna with Zeus, Thor or Odin. They were the Gods of their own people like we have ours. A Hindu will notice that all these Gods are from the Indo-European people and their mythology. We have Vishnu, Rudra and others in Hinduism from the same source.

Oh, sure. You are most welcome to do that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That is a very interesting point to consider. I would need to consider some of the specific passages from the Tanakh you make reference to. It would then be useful to consider the types of approaches to interpreting those verses taken within both Judaism and the Baha'i Faith. I would presume diversity within both Judaism and the Baha'i Faith. There are may or may not be common ground. Any discussion would be to explore and identify different approaches taken by adherents within both faiths rather than to debate who is right or wrong. I'm happy to have that discussion or not if you are interested. It may be best to start a new OP as its somewhat off topic for this thread.

If it's okay with you, I'm going to pass for the most part. I've already rehashed this particular discussion with other Baha'is on more than one occasion.

Just for your reference, Jews see that the Tanakh states that the Messiah:
1. Will "be David," meaning he will rule Israel from Jerusalem
2. Will complete the bringing in of Jews from exile back to the Land of Israel
3. Will usher in an era of world wide peace where nation will not lift up sword against nation.

To us, it is more than obvious that none of these has been fulfilled, thus the Messiah has not yet come. They are not processes. They are are items that you check either complete or incomplete. This is how we see it.

I am pretty much aware of the Baha'i position from my discussions with them.

Be well.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I wonder how "unrevealed" religions got started? Did the person make the mistake of saying, "Hey, I just came up with some spiritual ideas and was thinking about starting a religion." When he should have said, "The all-glorious God just showed me the truth and wants me to share it with all of you."

No. All religions do not necessarily resort to a God. RigVeda categorically denied "Creation by God" as early as 3,000 years ago.

"Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production, who knows then whence it first came into being?"
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

 

[CG Didymus]

I see God added Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah and all other branches.

That the Jews have not accepted this could be possible, to date, to me that is foretold. The return of theJews to the Holy land is triggered by events foretold.

I see it has unfolded as predicted and every person on this planet can now have that same choice, no one is excluded in this modern age.

Regards Tony

Did God add branches to his tree? Where were these branches growing before he added them to his Abrahamic tree? To go back to the Baha'i analogy of kids in grade school... If Hinduism is one grade. And Buddhism another grade. When did these grades "progress" into Judaism and Christianity? They seem more like separate trees growing in a different far away land that had nothing to do with branches and trees in another faraway land. And we've been through this... Hinduism and Buddhism aren't mentioned all that much in the writings of Baha'u'llah. Baha'is have four people from Judaism that they make into manifestations, but only Krishna for Hinduism?

What's wrong with the religions that started in India just simply being completely different and standing alone? With some religions, Baha'is don't even bother including them in their progression... like the religions of the native people of the Americas. Or the religions of China. Or the religions of Egypt. I know you barely include Zoroastrianism but why not Mithraism? Then, I guess Pagan religions don't count for nothing. Then what about the religions of other tribal people?

But even with Judaism and Christianity, Baha'is have to do a lot of pruning to get those branches to stick onto the Baha'i tree.

 

[CG Didymus]

As posted to Aup above the question of the historicity of Krishna, though important is not relevant to this thread. The question about our approach to the more extraordinary events associated with Krishna's life as recoded in the Vedas could be considered in a separate thread examining the historicity of Krishna. Please let me know if you would like to participate and I will tag you in the OP.

Always.

 

[CG Didymus]

No. All religions do not necessarily resort to a God. RigVeda categorically denies "Creation by God" as early as 3,000 years ago.

"Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production, who knows then whence it first came into being?"
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

So God didn't necessarily "reveal" religions to man, but man "revealed" or brought the concept of an invisible all-knowing God to man? And then when someone asked, "Prove it? Prove this invisible God is real? They answered and said, "What do you mean prove it? We just told you that God said it. If he wasn't real, how could he have said it?"

 

[CG Didymus]

It boils down to the questions, are we one human race, or are we not? Is the only One God? How we answers those questions, will no doubt give our own perspective of that quandary.

One human race? I can see that? One God? How do you define God? How do others define their concept of God? Why do some people think that these concepts of a God are only figments of some people's imagination? So no, who knows if there is a God or not. What is for sure, people can be made to follow most any belief about a God or the Gods... But, most all those beliefs were wrong. Even the beliefs about God from religions that Baha'is believe to be true religions, have beliefs about God that Baha'is say are wrong.

It should not depend on 'individual perspective'. We should see if there is any evidence of what we believe or otherwise change our belief according to evidence. What is the quandary about this?

Yes, evidence. The evidence shows that people have believed all kinds of things. Since, even for Baha'is, those beliefs about God or Gods weren't true, then what does that show? That people have invented or come up with explanations of why things are like they are.

Now back to Tony... Many people have explanations that include invisible spirit beings. Some people have said they have talked to these spirit beings. Some people have said that the most great spirit being of all has sent them. But all these messages are different. Now we have one more person saying a spirit being told him that the most great spirit being has sent him to reveal the truth for today. Why are you surprised that people question its validity? Too many things don't make sense.

 

[CG Didymus]

If it's okay with you, I'm going to pass for the most part. I've already rehashed this particular discussion with other Baha'is on more than one occasion.

Just for your reference, Jews see that the Tanakh states that the Messiah:
1. Will "be David," meaning he will rule Israel from Jerusalem
2. Will complete the bringing in of Jews from exile back to the Land of Israel
3. Will usher in an era of world wide peace where nation will not lift up sword against nation.

To us, it is more than obvious that none of these has been fulfilled, thus the Messiah has not yet come. They are not processes. They are are items that you check either complete or incomplete. This is how we see it.

I am pretty much aware of the Baha'i position from my discussions with them.

Be well.

A work in progress? That's a problem for Christians too. All the bad stuff happens, then Jesus returns. With Baha'u'llah, he came and left and the bad stuff continues.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So God didn't necessarily "reveal" religions to man, but man "revealed" or brought the concept of an invisible all-knowing God to man? And then when someone asked, "Prove it? Prove this invisible God is real? They answered and said, "What do you mean prove it? We just told you that God said it. If he wasn't real, how could he have said it?"

Gods/Goddesses/Allah are fictitious entities created by human imagination. How can they reveal anything? And, when they are supposed to have revealed, it should be taken as coming out of the mind of that person who is claiming a revelation. You are correct when you say what I have underlined in your post.

In Hinduism, people debated the things which they did not understand. Had differences. Some believed one thing, some the other. Students did not necessarily ditto the teachers line all the time, you have examples of Yajnavalkya and Buddha. These views constitute the "Upanishads" and "Darshanas".

* "The Sanskrit term Upaniṣad (from upa "by" and ni-ṣad "sit down") translates to "sitting down near", referring to the student sitting down near the teacher while receiving spiritual knowledge." Wikipedia - Upanishads.
* "The term (Darshana) also refers to six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy and their literature on spirituality and soteriology." Wikipedia - Darshana
Literally, Darshana means seeing, view, opinion.

So the 4 Vedas, these 13 or 14 main (old) Upanishads and 6 Darshanas form the basis of Hindu thought. Nothing revealed, all researched, debated and peer-reviewed.

Why are you surprised that people question its validity? Too many things don't make sense.

Yeah, not much sense. To some, it is said, God sent Gabriel, to others the 'Maid of Heaven'.

It should not depend on 'individual perspective'. We should see if there is any evidence of what we believe or otherwise change our belief according to evidence. What is the quandary about this?

That is what happened in my case. I did not find any evidence for Gods and Goddesses in Hinduism or for soul, heaven or hell. So, I changed my belief to atheism and science. Fortunately, I did not face any problem because atheism had always been a part of Hinduism (Nireeshwaravada).

In some ways your position has similarities to the well known atheist and critic of Christianity, Richard Carrier who denies any evidence for the historicity of Christ.

What is in question is not the historicity of Jesus but his divinity. Son of God in his case, being a beloved prophet of a supposed God or Allah, or being a messenger/manifestation/mahdi in case of others. Even if Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Bahaollah or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad may have been historical, that does not give them any 'divine' authority.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But even with Judaism and Christianity, Baha'is have to do a lot of pruning to get those branches to stick onto the Baha'i tree.

I see it is God that does that pruning CG, nothing to do with any Baha'i, except we see the beauty in what the pruning ultimately achieves.

It is all metaphor CG and Abdul'baha has said; "This pruning of the old tree of knowledge, now full of dead branches, will vivify the stock and cause it to produce new and beautiful fruits for the benefit of mankind."

Abdul'baha also explains to us how God gives us a beautiful garden full of trees and plants, this is a short extract from a talk on "BEAUTY AND HARMONY IN DIVERSITY";

"...The Creator of all is One God.

From this same God all creation sprang into existence, and He is the one goal, towards which everything in nature yearns. This conception was embodied in the words of Christ, when He said, 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end'. Man is the sum of Creation, and the Perfect Man is the expression of the complete thought of the Creator -- the Word of God.

Consider the world of created beings, how varied and diverse they are in species, yet with one sole origin. All the differences that appear are those of outward form and colour. This diversity of type is apparent throughout the whole of nature.


Behold a beautiful garden full of flowers, shrubs, and trees. Each flower has a different charm, a peculiar beauty, its own delicious perfume and beautiful colour. The trees too, how varied are they in size, in growth, in foliage -- and what different fruits they bear! Yet all these flowers, shrubs and trees spring from the self-same earth, the same sun shines upon them and the same clouds give them rain."

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How do you define God?

By all the Messengers of God and all that is Good. Otherwise I have no comprehension as to what God may be.

How do others define their concept of God?

As they choose CG, I have no intent to change their view, that will always be their God given choice.

Why do some people think that these concepts of a God are only figments of some people's imagination?

Again, they have that choice as to how to live and think about this life.

So no, who knows if there is a God or not.

Many have Faith that the Messengers speak the Truth about God, that faith gives us the yearning to be more than we are, to become the potential we have been given.

But, most all those beliefs were wrong.

You can see it that way. Personally I see it as part of the process of gaining knowledge, we should learn by the errors we have made, if we did not make those errors, how would we progress? One does not learn without error, its all part of what is given by God.

I had an interesting week learning about the shortfalls of my own self. 3 true stories, over 3 days, that have given me great metaphor in life. I see I can use these events to make much needed change. I might start a thread along that line, with those stories and the metaphor I see in them. I will share it with you if I do.

Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

From this same God all creation sprang into existence, and He is the one goal, towards which everything in nature yearns. This conception was embodied in the words of Christ, when He said, 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end'. Man is the sum of Creation, and the Perfect Man is the expression of the complete thought of the Creator -- the Word of God.
Consider the world of created beings, how varied and diverse they are in species, yet with one sole origin.
Behold a beautiful garden full of flowers, shrubs, and trees. Each flower has a different charm, a peculiar beauty, its own delicious perfume and beautiful colour. The trees too, how varied are they in size, in growth, in foliage -- and what different fruits they bear! Yet all these flowers, shrubs and trees spring from the self-same earth, the same sun shines upon them and the same clouds give them rain."

Word salad.
Give us proof of existence of this God. 'He is the goal'. How does everything in nature yearns for him - an animal, a tree or a stone? 'Man is the sum of creation' What rubbish! A chimp also is the sum of creation and so is a bat (in news these days). Perfect man with no coccyx or appendix? I have not heard of one.
If all the created things have one sole origin, it is 'physical energy' with which we started at the time of Big Bang.
The variety is known as mutation and evolution. Not every thing may be termed as beautiful by all people. A wolf would not be termed as beautiful by a shepherd. Depends on how a thing relates to someone.

 

[Aupmanyav]

By all the Messengers of God and all that is Good. Otherwise I have no comprehension as to what God may be.
Many have Faith that the Messengers speak the Truth about God, that faith gives us the yearning to be more than we are, to become the potential we have been given.
.. we should learn by the errors we have made, if we did not make those errors, how would we progress? One does not learn without error, its all part of what is given by God

None of the prophets/messengers/manifestations/mahdis ever saw God or Allah. Only Moses saw his hind parts. So the information from these people too is not first hand. Did any one of them provide any proof for what they were professing?
We are told of three types of persons in India. 1. Those who learn by the mistakes that other people make. 2. Those who learn by the mistakes they make. And lastly 3. Those who would not learn even when they make a mistake. |There is no succor for the people of type 3.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

None of the prophets/messengers/manifestations/mahdis ever saw God or Allah. Only Moses saw his hind parts. So the information from these people too is not first hand. Did any one of them provide any proof for what they were professing?
We are told of three types of persons in India. 1. Those who learn by the mistakes that other people make. 2. Those who learn by the mistakes they make. And lastly 3. Those who would not learn even when they make a mistake. |There is no succor for the people of type 3.

I see there may be a 4th, those that do not think they can make mistakes and will never learn.

I beleive I see there is a 5th. Special people that do not make mistakes. I see, that all of us that do make mistakes, that they are the ones to learn from.

I hope you are well Aupmanyav, India is in difficult times.

Regards Tony