How are these Great Beings explained?

[Unveiled Artist]

I suppose these are all the traditions of the Church as you say. Of course reading the bible is a tradition too as well as the sermons and teaching.

True. True.

Maybe you go on to become a counsellor or psychotherapist instead. Often, but not always, the best people in those roles are those who have been through troubled times and come through.

Haha. My first major was to be a psychologist. After being a "patient" in many ways than one in psychology, I developed a PTSD over issues not addressed in our county/town regarding those who have legitimate psychiatric illnesses but treated as if they were criminals or so have you. Very intense environment.

On a lighter note, I was thinking of being a hospital chaplain. I thought an ASL Interpreter kind of fills that role but I realize that the interpreter has no "say" but is a medium for either party to understand each other via language/cultural translation. I've always felt I want to advocate in some way. I have many experiences as a person with seizures and as an LGBTQ person. It just feels like I'm running out of time to really enjoy it given my health issues.

I have to admit that I had the same struggle. It wasn't until I became a Baha'i that I could accept the bible in its entirety. Before that it troubled my soul.

I know this sounds backwards to most ex-catholics but that is one reason I liked the Church is because you live the bible in the Church and in Mass. Reading the bible to understand the faith is good. However, actually participating in the body rather than just studying it is a whole lot of a better experience.

I mean, I wish belief can just switch off and on then I'd totally be Catholic but how can you really change what you believe. That's kind of like asking you to be, I don't know, Wiccan at a drop of a hat and knowing that is the truth and reality and not Bahaullah, Christ, or anyone else.

I have been reading some liberal bible scholars recently who highlight all the uncertainties we have about some parts of the bible, how the life and teachings of Jesus were passed on by word of mouth originally, and it was not until at least 20 years after Jesus was crucified that the first gospel was written. It has become clear that the authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not eyewitness to the life of Jesus and there is weak evidence only that John Zebedee wrote the book of John. Perhaps at some stage in the future you will feel comfortable with the bible in its completeness.

I heard about that (education from the RF community, apparently) that Mathew, Mark, and Luke did not eye witness jesus life. Which makes me think a bit more about the Church given the Eucharist is Christ not the apostles. But protestants stick with the apostles as if they are a mirror of Christ's life.

But I don't know enough history to comment really. I enjoy reading your conversations with the others. I wish I had something to contribute.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi,
In Bahai view, Islamic sources prophesied about Two Manifestations to appear, one followed by another. According to Islamic sources, These Two are known as the Mahdi (or Qaim) and return of Christ (or Imam Hussein). The first one (the Mahdi) to stay and rule during 7 years, and after Him, the second Manifestation (Christ) rises and to remain on earth for 40 years.
Bahais believe the Bab and Bahaullah fulfilled these prophecies.

Please quote from Quran, the first and the foremost source of guidance of Islam/Quran/Muhammad is support of one's point of view.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

None of the long established religions accept Bahais as their own, or the Bahai interpretations as accurate. It's a new faith, but basically did come out of Islam, or is the most like Islam.

I agree with one. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Very few people in history have been forced to convert. (When you think about it, it makes no sense. How can a gun to the head change someone's belief?) That would be a false conversion anyway. Coerced, deceived, tricked, now that's a different matter altogether.

I agree with one, here.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, a lot of people argue, for example Islam progressed by force.
It is very general that people of other religions consider the other people deceived. Jews, considered Jesus, a false Messiah, and His followers deceived. And many consider Muhammad, a false prophet, and His followers deceived. In general, all Religions had a beginning point, in which it was new, and people just begun to convert. At that time, other people who did not believe, considered the followers of the new faith, deceived. I am sure that must have been the case for Hindus as well, even thiugh, because it is way old, the history may not be completely available. Right?

Once almost the whole India became followers of Buddha, while earlier they belonged to the religion of Vedas, then again they have mostly become of Vedas. Was it per force or on free will? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, the history of Hinduism isn't available. The Vedas were entirely oral for a long time, until somebody decided to write them down.

As for expansion by armies, it wasn't generally conversion, it was just plain murder. But most people would pretend to convert given the choice. I would. Certainly not a true conversion in the sense we see it today in many directions. The retention rate for converts varies a lot too. Hindus don't even offer it up, or spread the word, with a couple of notable exceptions.

The same is true of Buddhism. Buddha left nothing in writing. Right?
Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The Hebrews sent spies into Amalekite territory and realized that they (Amalekites) were militarily superior. The Amalekites were (quite naturally) suspicious of this potential invader and defended their territory against Israelite incursions and the Israelites had to find another way itno the Promised Land. The Amalekites successfully defended their territory for 400 years before Saul's attempted genocide and finally, more than 600 years after their first encounter, an army of the tribe of Simeon obliterated the remnant of the Amalekite tribes in the 8th century BCE. At least that's what the Bible tells us - to my knowledge there is no independent archaeological or historical evidence to support the Biblical account. But I do think you should try reading the Bible from an unbiased and honestly critical point of view rather than simply quoting overtly evangelistic Christian internet resources.

In any case, none of this changes the main point I have been making since page 1, that the success of Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam as national and international cultural religions was founded more on military success than on the peaceful persuasion of the messages of their sages.

All your responses have done so far is to deflect the conversation away from the historical facts and claim that the "Manifestations" did not promote warfare and conquest. Even this is demonstrably untrue, but it is beside the point anyway. The point is that the Baha'i faith is founded on re-interpretations of religious ideas the widespread adoption of which, like it or not, necessarily hinged on the military success of the nations that adopted these "Manifestations" as religious icons.

I have another question though. If Confucianism or Taoism had made an impression in Persia before the 19th century, do you suppose that Confucius and Lao Tzu would have been considered "Great Beings" and "Manifestations"?

"the success of Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam as national and international cultural religions was founded more on military success than on the peaceful persuasion of the messages of their sages."
Please exclude Islam from it, as the teachings of Quran/Islam/Muhammad are/were most peaceful,rational and reasonable. It doesn't need any coercion/compulsion as it provides/ed brilliant reasons in Quran that are lasting, valid till today and in future.

Regards

 

[loverofhumanity]

There are some beliefs like reincarnation, the Eucharist, Satan and so on that have gradually crept into people's beliefs and prevailed but were never endorsed by any Manifestation of God.

The Manifestations of God in ages gone by spoke in parables and metaphors to teach morals and sometimes to instill fear of wrong doing.

The Buddha taught according to the mental and spiritual capacity of each individual. For the simple village folks living during the time of the Buddha, the doctrine of reincarnation was a powerful moral lesson. Fear of birth into the animal world must have frightened many people from acting like animals in this life. If we take this teaching literally today we are confused because we cannot understand it rationally.

"...A parable, when taken literally, does not make sense to the modern mind. Therefore we must learn to differentiate the parables and myths from actuality.

What the Buddha Didn't Teach About Reincarnation

Over time stories like Adam and Eve and metaphors like the Devil or Satan evolved into superstition with no basis in reality whatsoever but they served their purpose of instilling fear of wrong doing into the people of that time.

Today we don't need these aids any longer because we have greater capacity to be told directly what is true and what is false so the Manifestation speaks frankly and openly. However, there are still people who, despite the symbolism used, still believe that Satan or the devil is not our ego but a creature of sorts.

Bahaullah performs one very crucial service for humanity and that is He clearly distinguishes between truth and illusion which millions struggle with as they cannot distinguish illusion from truth ending up in calling truth falsehood and illusion truth.

People used to believe the sky and stars were the roof of our world and that our world was flat but slowly we are growing out of this mentality.

 

[Vinayaka]

"the success of Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam as national and international cultural religions was founded more on military success than on the peaceful persuasion of the messages of their sages."
Please exclude Islam from it, as the teachings of Quran/Islam/Muhammad are/were most peaceful,rational and reasonable. It doesn't need any coercion/compulsion as it provides/ed brilliant reasons in Quran that are lasting, valid till today and in future.

Regards

I feel this is just an ethnocentric view. Everyone says that all the other religions except their own were warmongers. Clearly and undeniably some of the adherents of Islam were warmongers, The same can be said for Christians. The further back you go, it's harder to tell. For example, some folks interpret the Bhagavad Gita as entirely metaphorical, while other see it as literal history. Pretty hard to say that the Islamic invasions of India, or the Christian crusades were metaphorical.

Whether of not the books or founders themselves promoted it is another story. The fact of the matter is that they were left open to interpretation, and violence remained a possibility.

Of course, defense, and aggression are two different things, like in boxing, punching and blocking are two different things.

What is the Ammadiya view on self-defense?

 

[loverofhumanity]

As you and I know, Bahai beliefs are just selective. Baha'u'llah himself said very little about Hinduism.

As with the rest of the beliefs of Hinduism, nobody really knows when any of them entered the picture. Certainly reincarnation has been there for a very long time.

Baha'u'llah did mention He wasn't happy that Hinduism wasn't a missionary religion like Christianity and I can understand His displeasure in the light of today's violence.

Had Hindus taught their Faith of non violence fervently in every school worldwide we might have a world vastly different to now and filled with ahimsa instead of violence.

What has instead happened is large parts of the world have been deprived of ahimsa. Now we have to do the job others won't do.

That's what unity is all about. I had to painstakingly extract information from you about Hinduism and the more I know the more I wish you wouldn't all be as silent as you are as humanity needs ahimsa urgently.

 

[Vinayaka]

Bahaullah performs one very crucial service for humanity and that is He clearly distinguishes between truth and illusion which millions struggle with as they cannot distinguish illusion from truth ending up in calling truth falsehood and illusion truth.

I disagree. I would say Baha'u'llah performs a very crucial service for BAHAIS, not for humanity, just as Christ does for Christians, etc. From an outsider and objective POV, no religion is immune to falsehood. I don't understand how prophet and book based religions always claim it is their book and their prophet that humanity needs. Islam does it, The Jews are the chosen people, Bahais do it, Christians do it. It seems totally egotistical to me. Why extend it outside of your own faith at all, thereby disrespecting all faiths but your own?

 

[Vinayaka]

Baha'u'llah did mention He wasn't happy that Hinduism wasn't a missionary religion like Christianity and I can understand His displeasure in the light of today's violence.

Had Hindus taught their Faith of non violence fervently in every school worldwide we might have a world vastly different to now and filled with ahimsa instead of violence.

What has instead happened is large parts of the world have been deprived of ahimsa. Now we have to do the job others won't do.

That's what unity is all about. I had to painstakingly extract information from you about Hinduism and the more I know the more I wish you wouldn't all be as silent as you are as humanity needs ahimsa urgently.

We're not a missionary religion because we don't feel it is our right to try to change everyone. It's just human decency to let people alone. Do you go over to your neighbour and tell him how to plant his grass? Missionary religions have no respect for their fellow man, preaching away all the time. In a workplace environment, people like that are cancerous. Can you imagine a school where some obstinate determined old teacher was always telling everyone how to teach or how to parent. He or she would be shunned. (I'm speaking from personal experience.)

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Please quote from Quran, the first and the foremost source of guidance of Islam/Quran/Muhammad is support of one's point of view.
Regards

In Islam, verses of Quran needs to be interpreted correctly, without error. Ordinary believers are not infallible and could misinterpret the verses. They could make mistake. Sometimes, a word can have several meanings. Different people may usually have different opinions which meaning was intended. Therefore, in Islam, the only people who could interpret verses free from error, are Prophet Muhammad, and His people of Household, who according to Quran, God made Them clean from everything. Which means Imam Ali, Hassan, Hussein....until Imam Askari.
So, if we want to Quote a verse from Quran, and explain what that verse means really, we should see How Prophet Muhammad and People of Household explained and interpreted. We cannot make up, or invent our own interpretations.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I feel this is just an ethnocentric view. Everyone says that all the other religions except their own were warmongers. Clearly and undeniably some of the adherents of Islam were warmongers, The same can be said for Christians. The further back you go, it's harder to tell. For example, some folks interpret the Bhagavad Gita as entirely metaphorical, while other see it as literal history. Pretty hard to say that the Islamic invasions of India, or the Christian crusades were metaphorical.

Whether of not the books or founders themselves promoted it is another story. The fact of the matter is that they were left open to interpretation, and violence remained a possibility.

Of course, defense, and aggression are two different things, like in boxing, punching and blocking are two different things.

What is the Ammadiya view on self-defense?

I love you're fairness in that you say 'some' which is the truth. All religions have had some violent members but from my research

I disagree. I would say Baha'u'llah performs a very crucial service for BAHAIS, not for humanity, just as Christ does for Christians, etc. From an outsider and objective POV, no religion is immune to falsehood. I don't understand how prophet and book based religions always claim it is their book and their prophet that humanity needs. Islam does it, The Jews are the chosen people, Bahais do it, Christians do it. It seems totally egotistical to me. Why extend it outside of your own faith at all, thereby disrespecting all faiths but your own?

You're depriving humanity of ahimsa by not spreading your religion. At this point in history it's like starving a baby to death. It's like you have the medicine that can cure ills but refuse to administer it so the world suffers more. Is that truly practicing ahimsa if you deprive a sick patient of medicine causing the longevity of suffering?

Whats egotistical in administering medicine to a dying patient?

 

[Vinayaka]

We cannot make up, or invent our own interpretations.

From the little I've seen, this is what happens all the time, each saying their invented interpretation is the correct one. In my view, there is no 'correct; view, but only interpretations. One size does not fit all.

 

[loverofhumanity]

We're not a missionary religion because we don't feel it is our right to try to change everyone. It's just human decency to let people alone. Do you go over to your neighbour and tell him how to plant his grass? Missionary religions have no respect for their fellow man, preaching away all the time. In a workplace environment, people like that are cancerous. Can you imagine a school where some obstinate determined old teacher was always telling everyone how to teach or how to parent. He or she would be shunned. (I'm speaking from personal experience.)

You should be teaching ahimsa in every school on the planet because it's what's needed. As long as you get permission and do it with courtesy and not a gun there no reason you can't teach ahimsa worldwide. It's needed badly.

 

[Vinayaka]

You should be teaching ahimsa in every school on the planet because it's what's needed. As long as you get permission and do it with courtesy and not a gun there no reason you can't teach ahimsa worldwide. It's needed badly.

I agree that it is needed, but I disagree that it could ever be implemented. Sometimes the soul needs to see the bad contrasted with the good before they get it. The instinctive greedy insecure mind is always not considering peace. A man will beat his own wife just to get 'sex'.

An amazing number of people have become vegetarian after just one visit to a slaughterhouse. Tough lessons are needed some days, because there are too many young instinctive souls on this planet for your and my comfort.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Lots of religions don't do that as well. In Hinduism, only one sect does that. Many of the others have a continuous line, called parampara, so there is a living successor each time, appointed by the previous one. In this way, there is always a living preceptor. Some paramparas have lasted 2000 years or more It certainly eliminates the fighting about 'I'm the next one'.

That is actually an unanswered view in my opinion. You see, for example Hinduism has originated from God, or some gods according to Hindus. Hinduism, according Hindus, was not invented by ordinary human beings. It was revealed by God, gods, and has a supernatural source and concept.
Now, these different sects in Hindusim, differ from each other. They have different interpretations, views, and even teachings. However, the Truth is One. So, how is it logical that, the God or gods who originally taught the Truth, would not reveal that Truth again, and judge between people about their differences, and misunderstandings, or anything that was not part of the Original Truth?
Moreover, there are so many other Religions, such as Christianity, Islam..etc,. Their followers think, they are following the Truth. If Hinduism is the one revealed by God or gods, why the God does not care about all the people who are following other religions which were not revealed by Him?

The Bahai Faith has an answer to these. It says all major Religions originated from the same source, but in different Ages, and for a different people. Now, it is time for the Truth be renewed. It is time for unity of all Mankind.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I agree that it is needed, but I disagree that it could ever be implemented. Sometimes the soul needs to see the bad contrasted with the good before they get it. The instinctive greedy insecure mind is always not considering peace. A man will beat his own wife just to get 'sex'.

An amazing number of people have become vegetarian after just one visit to a slaughterhouse. Tough lessons are needed some days, because there are too many young instinctive souls on this planet for your and my comfort.

It may be the only way as you say because in order to appreciate light we must live in darkness but if each Hindu was a candle imagine how much light would be shed on humanity even in the darkness.

If humanity were shown a better way I think they'd embrace it wholeheartedly but they are lost without a guide. I just think that Hinduism could have changed the course of history had it actively spread ahimsa all over the world and it still can.

It doesn't mean conversion but rather transformation from a violent world to a non violent world.

I just can't see, honestly how the world will ever reach a state of relative peace without the input of Hinduism and ahimsa. Sooner or later, Hinduism is going to be called upon to play a much more prominent role in world affairs as the world is stuck in a vicious cycle of never ending violence it can't extricate itself from.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

From the little I've seen, this is what happens all the time, each saying their invented interpretation is the correct one. In my view, there is no 'correct; view, but only interpretations. One size does not fit all.

True, but suppose you write a book, which has several hundred pages, and When people read your book, each person would have a different view about each sentence you have written. Each person would have a different interpretation or impression about what you mean by a particular phrase or word, thus, according to his imagination, interprets it. However, who can really say what you really meant? No one, except yourself can perfectly explain what you meant.
And that is the story regarding Quran, Muhammad, and His House hold, explained the verses of Quran, and these are in recorded Traditions, so, if one wants to know what He meant by a verse, He can see how the Prophet and His chosen successors explained it. This is how it should be. But most people do not refer to interpretations of Muhammad and His successors and instead invented their own. Are you familiar with Islamic sources?