Buddhists, is this true?

[shunyadragon]

I gather that Ba'hai believes that all religions are fallible human attempts at understanding the divine, and that all religions are apart of a strictly human spiritual evolution.

The Messengers such as Jesus, and Mohammed revealed some aspects of divine will, but they were interpreted from a fallible human perspective in their Scriptures.

So a divine will is present at every stage of human development through the teachings of great Messengers, but much of that will is handed down to us from fallible sources.

Very close, but there is Revelation of spiritual teachings is a part of the scripture, which is followed by fallible humans followers attempting to apply the spiritual teachings to their own world, and incorporate their cultural world view into the scripture and the interpretation of scripture.

 

[shunyadragon]

You would be hard-pressed to find any Buddhist agreeing with that.

Of course, Buddhists will not agree with the Baha'i Faith, except for those that become Baha'is. Not trying to hard-press anything,

 

[Shantanu]

Actually no. That is a rather bizarro view and a leap in paradigms. Again, materiam and personal well being was not purpose of Jesus Christ, the Bab, nor Baha'u'llah. It was the Revelation and spiritual principles for the advancement of humanity.

The principle of high living if one has discovered God is to adjust to that reality, for He has no mission to change the future direction of humanity. If He had He would have found other much easier means of doing so than wickedly coming through to humanity stealthily. God can easily reveal any kind of instructions for humans without humans even realising that the instructions come from God. God in my view is highly elusive and not narcissistic at all or He would have made His presence felt to humanity in considerable detail. So that is not the reason for God wanting Baha'u'llah or any other messiah or prophet to carry out tasks for Him such as world unification of religions or people.

So what is the best way for a human being to be: it is be accepting the Reality as it exists and not striving to change it. That way one does not create enemies and one does not hurt anyone. One should not strive to change things but just survive and then when one's time is up, die and be forgotten about. While one lives one should just discover the truth and live accordingly. That is not a crime that the State can punish one for.

 

[Windwalker]

This sounds like an all to familiar story line as the history of the Bible. Things appear 'tampered with.' This may be true, but again in both cases it represents speculation of the unknown. In this problem the scripture of the Bible has the weakest provenance of any of the scriptures of the religions.

Speculation of the unknown? There is such a thing as legitimate scholarship, and that is nothing like just mere speculation, you're guess is as good as mine sort of thing. There is a reason the scholarship exists. It investigates using tools of modern research methods to get to some truth about a thing.

That you have your ideas without that, is what is in fact speculations. You can't just dismiss something that one opinion is no better than the next. That is simply untrue. Some opinions are just pure speculation. Others are informed and knowledgeable.

There is no obsession with Baha'is, despite your over the top bias and sarcasm.

I say the same thing about the genealogies in the Gospels. The creation of origin myths, tracing their founding figure right back to some prominent historical figure, like Jesus, or Moses, or whomever, is all simply a device to add a badge of credibility to that person. Personally, I find it unnecessary. The spiritual teachers teachings should stand on their own, without needing to create a fiction to sell them. I suppose could be more gracious about its importance to people.

The belief reflects a universal view of evolving progressive revelation in the relationship between God and humanity.

Yes, that's part of the mythic structure. It's a common thing where new groups try to link their founding figure back in succession of evolving teachings. "We have the fuller revelation now", can be claimed by anyone, really.

The alternative is clear that the religions and belief systems of the world represent human efforts to justify their existence in a natural cultural context of the time and place they lived, and therefore the atheist/agnostic/humanist view is the best game in town.

You're saying, that the revelation of the Baha'i' is true, while the other religions and beliefs are nothing but cultural institutions with no spiritual core, so the only other alternative the truth you have over the other religions that someone could choose would be atheism or some other non-spiritual life? Is that right? It's the Baha'i' or non-faith because the other religions fail?

 

[Windwalker]

Added note: Pretty much all variations of Christianity believe there is Salvation ONLY through some sort of variation of Jesus Christ is the only savior, and you must believe to be saved

Since you gave Vinayaka a "False" with 5 exclamation points, you get one in return. False!!!!!!

"Last year, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published a major study on religious affiliation, beliefs and practices in the United States. One of the significant findings was that 70 percent of all Americans believe that many religions can lead to eternal life, including 65 percent of all self-identifying Christians. Perhaps the most surprising finding was that 56 percent of all Evangelical Christians believe that there are many paths, other than faith in Christ, to God and eternal life (See Religion and Public Life).

Many were so shocked by these numbers that the Pew Forum went back and did further polling to make sure that by religion, respondents did not have in mind other Christian bodies or denominations. Their earlier results were essentially confirmed."
​

Interesting, no? Here's where I found that first hit when I searched to see if there was any truth to your idea. Is Jesus Really the Only Way to God

Maybe the Baha'i' aren't really the source of understanding Truth beyond one's own religion. Seems people are getting it all on their own, without the need for a Prophet to reveal the truth to them.

 

[Windwalker]

Added note: Pretty much all variations of Christianity believe there is Salvation ONLY through some sort of variation of Jesus Christ is the only savior, and you must believe to be saved

Since you gave Vinayaka a "False" with 5 exclamation points, you get one in return. False!!!!!!

"Last year, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published a major study on religious affiliation, beliefs and practices in the United States. One of the significant findings was that 70 percent of all Americans believe that many religions can lead to eternal life, including 65 percent of all self-identifying Christians. Perhaps the most surprising finding was that 56 percent of all Evangelical Christians believe that there are many paths, other than faith in Christ, to God and eternal life (See Religion and Public Life).

Many were so shocked by these numbers that the Pew Forum went back and did further polling to make sure that by religion, respondents did not have in mind other Christian bodies or denominations. Their earlier results were essentially confirmed."
​

Interesting, no? Here's where I found that first hit when I search for that. Is Jesus Really the Only Way to God

Maybe the Baha'i' aren't really the source of understanding Truth beyond one's own religion. Seems people are getting it all on their own, without the need for a Prophet to reveal the truth to them.

 

[shunyadragon]

Since you gave Vinayaka a "False" with 5 exclamation points, you get one in return. False!!!!!!

"Last year, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published a major study on religious affiliation, beliefs and practices in the United States. One of the significant findings was that 70 percent of all Americans believe that many religions can lead to eternal life, including 65 percent of all self-identifying Christians. Perhaps the most surprising finding was that 56 percent of all Evangelical Christians believe that there are many paths, other than faith in Christ, to God and eternal life (See Religion and Public Life).

Many were so shocked by these numbers that the Pew Forum went back and did further polling to make sure that by religion, respondents did not have in mind other Christian bodies or denominations. Their earlier results were essentially confirmed."
​

Interesting, no? Here's where I found that first hit when I search for that. Is Jesus Really the Only Way to God

Your citing third hand sources and not what the churches actually teach concerning their doctrine and dogma.

Maybe the Baha'i' aren't really the source of understanding Truth beyond one's own religion. Seems people are getting it all on their own, without the need for a Prophet to reveal the truth to them.

Virtually all the major churches teach that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation in one way or another. The Roman Church (RCC) teaches it is the only true church and salvation is only through the Roman Church. extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation). This view of the Roman Church does not off hand condemn all, because salvation is God's judgement and salvation may occur up to the moment of death Individual 'opinions' most definitely do not necessarily believe as the churches believe in the USA.

more to follow . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Speculation of the unknown? There is such a thing as legitimate scholarship, and that is nothing like just mere speculation, you're guess is as good as mine sort of thing. There is a reason the scholarship exists. It investigates using tools of modern research methods to get to some truth about a thing.

That you have your ideas without that, is what is in fact speculations. You can't just dismiss something that one opinion is no better than the next. That is simply untrue. Some opinions are just pure speculation. Others are informed and knowledgeable.

Possibly true for all religions including yours and mine.

I say the same thing about the genealogies in the Gospels. The creation of origin myths, tracing their founding figure right back to some prominent historical figure, like Jesus, or Moses, or whomever, is all simply a device to add a badge of credibility to that person. Personally, I find it unnecessary. The spiritual teachers teachings should stand on their own, without needing to create a fiction to sell them. I suppose could be more gracious about its importance to people.

Moses is not a known historical figure. He is figure in the Bible, but not found in history.

You're saying, that the revelation of the Baha'i' is true, while the other religions and beliefs are nothing but cultural institutions with no spiritual core, so the only other alternative the truth you have over the other religions that someone could choose would be atheism or some other non-spiritual life? Is that right? It's the Baha'i' or non-faith because the other religions fail?

No.

 

[Windwalker]

Virtually all the major churches teach that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation.

Well, apparently the majority of the believers within them don't agree then. But then, honestly, how do you know that the churches these majority of Christians go to actually teach the opposite of what the majority of their parishioners believe? It seems a little odd, why they would keep going to them if they fundamentally disagreed with them. Don't you think?

The Roman Church (RCC)teaches it is the only true church and salvation is only through the Roman Church.

Swing and a miss. Strike 2.

"Explaining the passage, the Pope told the leaders, “Religions are called to help us understand that the centre of each person is outside of himself, that we are oriented toward the Most High and toward the other, who is our neighbour.”

Religious tolerance is good for society and the soul, says Pope during mosque visit | Catholic Herald​

Another quick Google search to confirm or deny your idea as truth. It seems to me that the Pope of Rome seems to be under the impression that other religions indeed lead people to God. I'm sure I'd could find other references, but I'll let you search for yourself.

Individual opinions most definitely do not necessarily believe as the churches believe in the USA.

more to follow . . .

Churches are made of individual opinions. Religious beliefs evolve all on their own, without the need for a special prophet for the age to reveal the truth. It happens on its own. All that this modern day prophet is doing, is riding the wave that have already begun without him. You could call it a type of "surfing" the wave, rather than the creator of the wave.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, apparently the majority of the believers within them don't agree then. But then, honestly, how do you know that the churches these majority of Christians go to actually teach the opposite of what the majority of their parishioners believe? It seems a little odd, why they would keep going to them if they fundamentally disagreed with them. Don't you think?

In this case I do not think in terms of vague nebulous personal opinions. I go by the documented doctrine and dogma as written and taught by the churches.

Swing and a miss. Strike 2.

"Explaining the passage, the Pope told the leaders, “Religions are called to help us understand that the centre of each person is outside of himself, that we are oriented toward the Most High and toward the other, who is our neighbour.”

Religious tolerance is good for society and the soul, says Pope during mosque visit | Catholic Herald​

This PR sound bite does not reflect the doctrine and dogma of the Roman Church as cited.

Strike 3 you're OUT!

From: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - Wikipedia

The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means "outside the Church there is no salvation".[1][2] The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body."[3]

Another quick Google search to confirm or deny your idea as truth. It seems to me that the Pope of Rome seems to be under the impression that other religions indeed lead people to God. I'm sure I'd could find other references, but I'll let you search for yourself.

I cite primary sources, not second hand sources and 'opinion polls.

From: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - Wikipedia

The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means "outside the Church there is no salvation".[1][2] The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body."[3]

This expression comes from the writings of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, a bishop of the 3rd century. The axiom is often used as shorthand for the doctrine that the Church is necessary for salvation. It is a dogma in the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches in reference to their own communions. It is also held by many historic Protestant Churches. However, Protestants, Catholics and the Orthodox each have a unique ecclesiological understanding of what constitutes the Church. The theological basis for this doctrine is founded on the beliefs that (1) Jesus Christ personally established the one Church; and (2) the Church serves as the means by which the graces won by Christ are communicated to believers.
Kallistos Ware, a Greek Orthodox bishop, has expressed this doctrine as follows:

"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.

Church's are made of individual opinions. Religious beliefs evolve all on their own, without the need for a special prophet for the age to reveal the truth. It happens on its own.

Again . . . individual opinions do not reflect what the doctrine and dogma of what churches teach.

 

[Windwalker]

Possibly true for all religions including yours and mine.

What does that mean? Do you agree or disagree that a scholar's opinion is more than just speculation? Or do you believe we can't really know anything, since we weren't actually there, or something?

Moses is not a known historical figure. He is figure in the Bible, but not found in history.

There are those who doubt Jesus was real too. However, even allowing for him to be a real historical person, the stories about him are mythological. Aside from that, the Gospels writers used, the, in my opinion, fiction of Moses, as well as the fiction of Adam and Eve as points of reference in their mythologies about the Christ, Jesus. That was and is my point.

It doesn't matter if they were historical figures in actually. They are historical figures through our belief systems. They are part of the history of human beliefs. Hence, why they are seized upon as significant by various groups wanting a claim to fame, such as saying Baha'ullah is a successor to Mohammad or Jesus. It's all mythmaking.

No.

Then when did you mean? What were you saying in all that? That is you, other religions, or atheism?

 

[lukethethird]

From another thread ...


"And another teaching of Buddha’s is for His followers to turn to Baha’u’llah when He comes and I have remained faithful to that. He called Baha’u’llah ‘AmitAbha Buddha. Abha is a derivative of Bahá. Buddha said to turn to Him when He appears and I have done that."

I am curious as to what Buddhists think of this. Is it true?

It's all true, just like all religions are true.

 

[ajay0]

I have never heard of Buddhists believing this unless it is some wacko cult.

The Baha'is have never believed such a foolish thing. Baha'u'llah spent most of his adult life in exile, prison, and house arrest, and all his material belongings were taken from him and his family were taken by the governments.

Both the Baha'is and Buddhist believe in detachment from physical wealth, and against materialism.

Jokes apart, I would like to say that Baha'u'llah do deserve to be a Maitreya or Bodhisattva like character, considering that the bahai religion stands for unity, harmony and mutual understanding between all the world religions.

Seeing the disturbing religious strife and conflict that has pervaded the past centuries and now as well, Baha'u'llah''s efforts and results in this regard, can be seen as a remarkable achievement in itself.

The bahai religion is the only abrahamic religion that does not have a violent past like the others.

 

[SalixIncendium]

**MOD POST**​

Rule 1 reminder:

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

You are free to critique ideas, but attacking the character of another member will not be tolerated.

 

[Sundance]

As someone who has explored Pure Land Buddhism briefly, I can say that the belief that Bahá’u’lláh is the Amitabha Buddha is unequivocally false; it is rooted in a harmless misunderstanding. Amitabha is the Buddha-name for a human being who lived long ago by the name of Dhamakara, who had practiced the Dharma perfectly and achieved the ultimate goal. He made 48 Vows, with his 18th Vow being the most fundamental:

“If any person of sincere faith recites my Name, (Namo Amitabha Buddha) even ten times, he or she will be reborn into my Pure Land, Sukhavati.”

As someone who was once a Bahá’í, I don’t recall ever having come across any mention of the 48 Vows in the writings of Bahá’u’lláh at all. So, it can only be rightfully said that Bahá’u’lláh is not Amitabha Buddha.

 

[MonkeyFire]

If you want to put off buddhahood because your content.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The bahai religion is the only abrahamic religion that does not have a violent past like the others.

It is good to note that there was a lot of violence in the time of the Bab, prior to Baha'u'llah abolishing Holy War. There were some epic battles fought, as the time had not yet dawned for war to be abolished.

When Baha'u'llah gave this law, all have observed and practiced that law from that day on.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

When Baha'u'llah gave this law, all have observed and practiced that law from that day on.

All? You mean all Baha'is?

 

[ajay0]

It is good to note that there was a lot of violence in the time of the Bab, prior to Baha'u'llah abolishing Holy War. There were some epic battles fought, as the time had not yet dawned for war to be abolished.

When Baha'u'llah gave this law, all have observed and practiced that law from that day on.

Regards Tony

Well, the bahais may have not indulged in any 'holy war', but I can't say the same for the others.

 

[Vinayaka]

Well, the bahais may have not indulged in any 'holy war', but I can't say the same for the others.

Generally we don't actually know until a group is in the majority. The Buddhist have a very peaceful philosophy, but look what happened in Sri Lanka, and in Myanmar. The Baha'is would be foolish to go to arms in Iran. If they were in a majority situation somewhere, (yes that's a big 'if') and there was an armed rebellion, how could they put it down in a peaceful way? So we may never know.