You get to choose CG. I see it foretold the progression of the Revelations and allowed for Revelations that were not of the Abrahamic line. It's all in there, just needed the keys.
Regards Tony
-
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!
Aren’t we all really worshipping the same God?
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
Regards Tony
We believe in the God of the Quran so are you saying the God of the Quran is a deceiver?
No son was in the end sacrificed. Abraham was tested and passed the test that God came first. But although the Bible says Isaac and the Quran Ishmael it does not matter as all the seed of Abraham were blessed and were to inherit the earth spiritually and that has happened.
idea
Question Everything
Some Jews believe Abraham failed the test.
The real test was - can you stand for what is right, no matter what? Can you refuse evil orders? Can you think for yourself?
Abraham failed.
"
God never speaks to Abraham after commanding him to take Isaac as a burnt offering. In the end of the story an emissary angel speaks to Abraham – but where is God? Why doesn’t God just speak directly to Abraham?
Indeed midrash after midrash depicts just such a counter narrative, Abraham crying, the angles crying and arguing with God and ultimately, Sara’s cries when she hears of the Akedah that according to the midrash are the source of the shofar’s sound.
Perhaps if we begin to see the Akedah as a test in which the right answer is to protect an innocent child rather than sacrifice him in obedience to God, our world might be a bit different, perhaps for the better." Did Abraham Fail his Final Test? By Rabbi Hyim Shafner
Many examples like the above article.
Last edited:
When a Buddhist prays to a statue of Buddha and a Christian a statue of Christ aren’t they both addressing a mystical reality not the stone or concrete? What or who is it they pray to? I read that some Buddhists pray to Amitabha Buddha so that they may reach the Pure Land upon death just like Christians may ask for heaven. Apart from terminologies to me the real difference is only the outward form but the inward reality seems identical.
Another example. Just by chance the Muslim calendar and the Baha’i calendar have their month of Fasting now so that both Muslims and Baha’is are now fasting. During the Fast both Muslims and Baha’is pray to God. So what’s the real difference? Outwardly we may express how we observe the fast differently or pray different prayers but inwardly I believe we are doing the same thing. That mystic feeling which connects us to a ‘higher reality’ I believe is experienced in all religions including Buddhism.
Of course it seems that way. You only have a surface understanding of both religions and fill in the gaps with your prejudice.
I consider that God tests His servants with both reward and punishment. One should not build their faith on either of these.
Self and faith do not mix very well.
Regards Tony
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The Bible verses that Baha'is believe are symbolic don't make the Bible FIT into our beliefs.
The Bible does not FIT into our beliefs, it is not our scripture. The Bible is NOT a Baha'i holy book.
Baha'i beliefs are based upon the Writings of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi.
Tony said that he trusts the Bible to be a 'sure spiritual guide' because he is going off what Abdu'l-Baha said in the first quote below.
Book is the Bible of Salvation, the noble Gospel
"This Book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is the Bible of Salvation, the noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God."(Written by 'Abdul-Bahá in the Bible of the pulpit of the City Temple in London, quoted in "Star of the West", Vol. 2, No. 11, p. 8)
The Bible is not wholly authentic
"As to the question raised by...in connection with Bahá'u'lláh's statement in the 'Gleanings' concerning the sacrifice of Ishmael; although this statement does not agree with that made in the Bible, Genesis 22:9, the friends should unhesitatingly, and for reasons that are only too obvious, give precedence to the saying of Bahá'u'lláh, which, it should be pointed out, is fully corroborated by the Qur'an which book is far more authentic than the Bible, including both the New and Old Testaments. The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh."(From a letter dated July 28, 1936 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States and Canada; in Scriptures of Previous Dispensations)
When Abdu'l-Bahá States that We Believe What is in the Bible, He Means in Substance
"When Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet."(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer and cited on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, March 13, 1986 in a letter to a believer, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1660)
Cannot add to list of Lesser Prophets beyond those found in the Bible, Qur'án, and our own Scriptures
"Regarding your questions: We cannot possibly add names of people we (or anyone else) think might be Lesser Prophets to those found in the Qur'an, the Bible and our own Scriptures. For only these can we consider authentic Books."(From a letter dated March 13, 1950 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer; in Scriptures of Previous Dispensations)
Old Testament
We Cannot Substantiate Stories of the Old Testament
"We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho."(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, November 25, 1950, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1659)
Torah confirmed by God consists of words of Moses
"...the Torah that God hath confirmed consists of the exact words that streamed forth at the bidding of God from the tongue of Him Who conversed with Him (Moses)."(From a recently translated Tablet of Bahá'u'lláh; in Scriptures of Previous Dispensations)
Torah is that revealed in Tablets to Moses or that to which He was bidden; the stories are historical narratives written after Moses
"Know ye that the Torah is that which was revealed in the Tablets to Moses, may peace be upon Him, or that to which He was bidden. But the stories are historical narratives and were written after Moses, may peace be upon Him."(From a recently translated Tablet of 'Abdu'l-Bahá; in Scriptures of Previous Dispensations)
New Testament
The Divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized
"As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation...that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized,.."(Shoghi Effendi, Promised Day Is Come, par. 269)
The book of Jesus was confirmed in the Islamic Dispensation
"Every discerning observer will recognize that in the Dispensation of the Qur'an both the Book and the Cause of Jesus were confirmed."(Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 20)
Cannot be sure of how much of the four Gospels are accurate; what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá are authentic; we may assume much of the Gospel of St. John is accurate
"...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate."(From a letter dated January 23, 1944 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer; in Scriptures of Previous Dispensations)
Bible authenticity - Bahai9
bahai9.com
Yes, if you took the Bible literally you would have a sure guide to Christian fundamentalism, but the Bible is not a sure guide to the Baha'i Faith, not in any manner, shape or form. The Bible has nothing to do with the Baha'i Faith and I thank God for that, since otherwise I could never be a Baha'i.
Look at all the quotes above. Do any of those quotes say that the Bible is 'a sure guide to the Baha'i Faith?' No. The Bible is not a necessary foundation for the Baha'i Faith or any other religion, it is a book that is the basis for Judaism and Christianity. The Bible cannot be disregarded because it is part of progressive revelation from God to man, but Baha'is do not need the Bible since it is not the basis for the Baha'i Faith.
Last edited:
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Here's the verses in question...
Genesis 21:8 And the child grew and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned. 9 But Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, laughing. 10 So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.”
14 So Abraham rose early in the morning and took bread and a skin of water and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.
22:1 After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering...
Now what Baha'is believe...After Isaac was born the Bible states that Abraham exiled Hagar and Ishmael at Sarah's request.[22] God then instructs Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and Abraham takes Him to a mountain to perform the sacrifice, however an angel appears and informs Him He is not required to sacrifice Isaac but due to His obedience He is blessed and His descendants will spread to all nations of the earth.[23] The Qur'an states that it was Ishmael, and not Isaac, who was to be sacrificed and Bahá’u’lláh confirms this having revealed the following:
A letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi provides clarification:
Now the New Testament...
Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[c] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
James 2: 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
A couple of things... First, Do Baha'is take the story about the sacrifice literally? If you do, that means that God actually asked such a thing? And then, Abraham really thought this voice that asked such a thing was really God? And he was going to go through with it?
Next... Isaac being the son taken to be sacrificed is part of the continuing story in Genesis that leads to the children of Israel and on through to Moses and the rest of the Bible story. Ishmael was cast out and is gone.
The New Testament says it was Isaac. So, do Baha'is say the New Testament was wrong too?
Of course, you do, because you believe Baha'u'llah can't be wrong. But somebody is wrong here. And it does matter. Baha'is just can't blow it off as not important. If the Jews and the Christians are wrong about this, then what else are they wrong about? Oh yeah, Baha'is say that Christians are wrong about Satan being real and about the resurrection being real.
Funny, you are so worried about all the religions believing in the same God as Baha'is... but not so worried about changing the things that were said in the Scriptures of the other religions.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Because Baha'is believe that all the major religions were part of a progression leading up to the Baha'i Faith, then I think the Baha'i Faith is very much dependent on the other religions. Looking up "The Baha'i view of other religions" This is what I found....
Bahá'ís believe that there is only one real religion, which is the religion of God. The different faiths we see in the world are different approaches to that religion.
From the beginning, Bahá'u'lláh taught that the great world religions are different conceptions of and reactions to the same divine reality.
Since Bahá'ís believe that all religions come from a single source they are happy to study other religions as 'earlier chapters of the same changeless faith of God'.
While Bahá'ís don't believe they have the final truth, they do believe that by engaging in dialogue with other faiths they create the opportunity for the other faiths to be changed in ways that promote the Bahá'í idea of unity.
They also accept that the Bahá'í faith can benefit from the insights of the other faiths.
Shoghi Effendi taught that the different religions were like "stages in the eternal history and constant evolution of one religion".
This thread is all about making a connection between all religions by pretending that all of them worshipped and believed in the same God... they just called that God by different names. The Baha'i Faith needs the other religions. It supposedly progressed from them.
I'm saying the Bahai explanation of the Quran would make God into a deceiver.
Thanks. I think you have good point and it may be true that in some cases people are really attempting to worship the same, but have slightly different understanding of the God. In that case I think they don't really have any contradiction in the matter, just not exactly the same knowledge about it. I think one example of this is also in the Bible:
for passing through and looking up at the objects of your worship, I also found an altar on which had been written, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Not knowing, then, whom you worship, I make Him known to you.
Acts 17:23
It is possible that many are trying to worship the same, just with different name and different knowledge. But, even then, they can't be all correct, if they have contradicting definitions.
Some of the ideas can be true, and then they can really attempt to worship the actual God. But, I think many have also totally wrong idea what the worship should be. Bible tells about it:
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24
The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn't dwell in temples made with hands, neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things.
Acts 17:24-25
Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
James 1:27
In this case, I think, at least some of them, could still try to go towards the same God, but they have just some errors in what the God is and means. In a way they could be speaking about the same, they just insist that the God is something else than what others say. Obviously they all can't be correct about the matter, but the idea can still be about the same God. This leads to question, if there is a contradiction, who is right and why. To answer that, we would need an example of a such issue. I think often the problem is really in the opinions of the people, not necessary in the original message.
For example, if we would be talking about the desk in your room. I could say that it is red and you could say it is white. You could be right about it, but we would still be talking about the same desk. Obviously, my idea of it would not be correct and if I would insist it to be red, I would be wrong. And if I would come to buy the red desk, I would not find it, because it would not exist. I would find then the white desk and think it is something else and would not recognize it as the desk we were talking about. Or maybe I would then understand that I was wrong and know how it is really.
Not always, or even often. Even if they did, that would not even approach belief in "the same god". Nor is praying even a main characteristic of religion, nor mystical realities well-defined ideas.
That is indeed said, and very unwelcome; people ought to learn better than making such hurried, forced and unhelpful comparisons.
With all due respect, what this tells me is that you are uninterested in religion.[/quote]
SeekingBalance
Member
Hi 9-10ths_Penguin,
I was going to ask what the other tenth was, interesting. I hadn't heard that before. I think a lot of us suffer from some form of Dunning-Kruger, or enjoy the illusion of explanatory depth. For many people, life is challenging and shortcuts to thinking are not being done because of laziness but usually out of necessity. The US is where I'm from and many people seem split on political issues and have no idea what they are talking about. They just have these cognitive biases that make it very hard to have real conversations.
Perhaps they were saying many people perform outwardly different religious rituals and believe various things but at the end of the day, everyone is just interpreting their true nature through their own religious stories which may vary widely from faith to faith to only end up in the same place eventually.
I am more of an agnostic but if someone said many faiths are at their core similar because they cause the adherents to embrace kindness, and compassion and give them meaning then in some sense religions are similar. They can serve as a purpose or a driving force. Without religion, I think there might have been times when I got lost but also there were times when religion led down the wrong roads.
I hope all is well!
Gods can be true, but thus far there is no substantive evidence thaat will convince critical thinkers that any exist as imagined.
What makes the New Testament true? What makes it more valid than the Old Testament? Jews don't recognize the NT, so are Jews wrong just because Christians believe in the NT stories about Jesus? And what about the Quran, that tells us a different story, so maybe Christians are wrong and Muslims correct. And then we have Mormons, maybe their Bible is true and you dead wrong.
How do you believers solve this problem of so much disagreement?
Maybe it's you that has things wrong? How would you know?
If any sort of God exists how did it allow so much confusion, false prophets, false verisions, false offshoots, etc? There's no evidence to resolve these to a conclusion that will settle the matter.
To my mind the lack of evidence suggests non-belief in Gods is the rational conclusion.
The question is who told you I had a red desk in the first place? If you come by to buy the red desk and in the room there are no desks at all, wouldn't you not only question the person or persons, or organization, that told you I had a red desk, but also where the idea that I had desks at all? Discovering that the thing you were told exists doesn't exist SHOULD inform you to not immediately trust people's fantastic claims. That is how I approached the religious claims as a kid. They were fantatstic and did not add up.
You're debating the nature of a specific thing that can't be determined to be real and true, and you aren't questioning whether the thing exists at all as commonly imagined. It is the details of all the different Gods that people worship. Catholics will worship Mary as a virgin who gave birth to Jesus. Is that probable? Why aren't Jews and Muslims convinced about the Christ story?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Well, let's do some "investigating". I looked up "What is God like in Buddhism". Here's the answer in one article. It was "enlightening" to me. How about to you?
It is often asked if there are gods in Buddhism. The short answer is no, but also yes, depending on what you mean by "gods."
It also is often asked if it is all right for a Buddhist to believe in God, meaning the creator God as celebrated in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other philosophies of monotheism. Again, this depends on what you mean by "God." As most monotheists define God, the answer is probably "no." But there are lots of ways to understand the principle of God...
What Do We Mean by Gods?
Let's start with polytheistic-type gods. In the world's religions, these have been understood in many ways, Most commonly, they are supernatural beings with some kind of agency...
Practice in a religion based on polytheism mostly consists of practices to cause these gods to intercede on one's behalf. If you deleted them the various gods, there wouldn't be a religion at all.
In traditional Buddhist folk religion, on the other hand, the devas are usually depicted as characters living in a number of other realms, separate from the human realm. They have their own problems and have no roles to play in the human realm. There is no point praying to them even if you believe in them because they're not going to do anything for you...
The Tantric Deities
Now, let's move on to the tantric deities. In Buddhism, tantra is the use of rituals, symbolism and yoga practices to evoke experiences that enable the realization of enlightenment. The most common practice of Buddhist tantra is to experience oneself as a deity. In this case, then, the deities are more like archetypal symbols than supernatural creatures.
Here's an important point: Buddhist Vajrayana is based on Mahayana Buddhist teaching. And in Mahayana Buddhism, no phenomena have objective or independent existence. Not gods, not you, not your favorite tree, not your toaster (see "Sunyata, or Emptiness"). Things exist in a kind of relative way, taking identity from their function and position relative to other phenomena. But nothing is really separate or independent from everything else...
Other Mahayana Godlike Beings
Although they may not practice formal tantra, there are tantric elements running through much of Mahayana Buddhism. Iconic beings such as Avalokiteshvara are evoked to bring compassion to the world, yes, but we are her eyes and hands and feet.
The same is true of Amitabha. Some may understand Amitabha as a deity who will take them to paradise (although not forever). Others may understand the Pure Land to be a state of mind and Amitabha as a projection of one's own devotional practice. But believing in one thing or another really isn't the point...
What About God?
Finally, we get to the Big G. What did the Buddha say about him? Well, nothing that I know of. It's possible the Buddha was never exposed to monotheism as we know it. The concept of God as the one and only supreme being, and not just one god among many, was just coming into acceptance among Jewish scholars about the time the Buddha was born. This God concept may not have ever reached him.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the God of monotheism, as commonly understood, can be dropped seamlessly into Buddhism. Frankly, in Buddhism, God has nothing to do.
The creation of phenomena is taken care of by a kind of natural law called Dependent Origination. The consequences of our actions are accounted for by karma, which in Buddhism is also a kind of natural law that doesn't require a supernatural cosmic judge.
And if there is a God, he is us, too. His existence would be as dependent and conditioned as ours.
Sometimes Buddhist teachers use the word "God," but their meaning is not something that most monotheists would recognize. They may be referring to the dharmakaya, for example, which the late Chogyam Trungpa described as "the basis of the original unbornness." The word "God" in this context has more in common with the Taoist idea of "the Tao" than with the familiar Judaic/Christian idea of God.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Yes, there is an "idea", a concept of a God and people are told it is real and to believe in it and to pray and worship it. But are those "ideas" and concepts all the same? No. If they are all different, can they all be real? Do any of them have to be real? To accomplish their purpose, I don't think they have to be real.
A religious leader or prophet says, "The Great Being in the Sky has spoken. He wants us to worship and praise him and build him a temple. He has given us these laws to live by and says that he wants you to give him 10% of your earnings to him. He has entrusted me to be the keeper of all that is collected until which time he comes to get them."
How many religions do that or something similar? An invisible God that only the prophets can speak to... that gives the people laws and has the people give him offerings or sacrifices?
For me the simplest explanation is still that each people and culture created their own Gods and religion to suit them. Compared to some other religion in some other culture, it's probably going to be different. And what do we see? We see those differences.
One explanation used by some religions is that they are the one true religion that believes in the one true God... all the others are false and those Gods aren't real.
Some religions say that one or more of the other religions are true but then have gotten a few things wrong. So, their prophet was sent by God to correct those misunderstandings.
Baha'is are the extreme of that. They say that most all the religions were true and the only reason there are "apparent" contradictions is because the people misinterpreted things and added in some of their own ideas into the original teachings of the religion.
For Baha'is that settles the confusion. The claim is that "originally" all the prophets came with a true and pure message from the one true God. Then people messed it up. Naturally, it is the Baha'is that tell us what is true and false about those other religions.
So, for a Baha'i, since they believe there is only one true God, then all these old religions must have come from that one true God. Just because people describe that God a little different and call him by another name, that doesn't mean it's a different God. Sure, great for Baha'is... But does the reality of what we see in the beliefs of the different religions support it?
Why not discuss it and debate it? As we know, that's not a Baha'i strength. They are good at claiming things... just not so good at showing evidence that supports their claims.
Again, the intent of LH is to get us all to love each other and accept each other's beliefs as true. Why fight and quibble over beliefs? But, ultimately, the only true belief, because it is the newest and the only one that hasn't been messed up by people, is theirs, the Baha'i Faith. It is the only one that has the truth needed for today. Or so they say.
Okay, let's discuss it. Let's debate about it. Oh yeah, we've been trying to do that. And they've already told us. They are right, because Baha'u'llah said so. And what he said came from the all-knowing, invisible God that we can believe is real. Why? Because he said so.
So, it all hinges on whether or not Baha'u'llah is who he says he is. Okay, let's discuss... No, no. No discussing. No debate. It is clear and evident he is God's prophet. Why? Because his mission, his character, his writings. I know that's such "solid" evidence, but can we discuss and debate about that just a little?