How are these Great Beings explained?

[Vinayaka]

But why shouldn't each adult have the freedom to choose his own religion? If the parents become angry and upset I think that the problem is with them not respecting freedom of thought and belief.

Yes we will differ on this. Each adult is free to choose their own religion, but that's not the point here. The point is that often that choice is helped along by the antics of the people trying to convert. They use friendship, money, deceit, etc. You yourself claimed to be converted because the Bahai came along and helped you out of a personal circumstance. To me, that's not really a valid way to test a religion. If I would have been there, (or a friendly atheist, a friendly Christian, etc. just about anybody) would you have become a Hindu, and atheist, etc.? Those Bahai who helped you out may or may not have had secret desires to convert you, and perhaps caught you at the most vulnerable time in your life. We'll never know of they had that agenda or not.

Now, it it was me, or many other decent people, we would have just provided friendship for an alcoholic looking for help without bringing up religion at all.

That's the difference, but I don't think you will see it.

Lots of predatory evangelical groups make a point of taking advantage of people at their most vulnerable moments. Hospitals used to have all kinds of pastors trying to save the atheists before they passed away. Fortunately, in most civilised countries some restrictions have been put on it. Heck, my poor mother in law, 2 days after the death of her dear husband, had a pair of proselytizers come to her door, because that group actually reads the obituaries. Frankly, I find that disgusting. Anything to convert. It's inhumane.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I agree. But proselytizing can be subtle, without the proselytizer being aware of the harm its causing. Flirt to convert, helping with strings attached, friendship evangelism, and all the more subtle forms of attempting to sway others to your view are all very vague, and as to the harm it causes in others, that can easily be swept under the carpet, and denied. Many simply don't see the long term effects of a conversion on a family. How many divorces are there, for example, in interfaith marriages. Most certainly the rate is higher than in the average population.

No family needs some wild enthusiastic younger brother or sister preaching to them about their new found religion. It's painful.

As Hindus, we love all peace abiding people of all faiths. But we leave them alone religiously, unless questioned. The ONLY reason I gave you the name of my Guru was you asked me directly. The primary reason I won't go to an evangelical chursh, the local Bahai center, or a couple of particular Hinduish temples here in my city, even for interfaith, or a friendly gesture, is I know darn well I'll be stalked by the people there thinking i need to convert to their way.

These days, the internet is the main source for asking questions, many people have access, and any seeker can go out and find almost anything they want about any religion they want to without being pestered.

Knowing this though, the evangelical faiths are no seeing the 'ripe for the picking' communities as the poorest ones on the planet that have no access to the internet. A place where they don't have access to both sides of the coin.

What about a person who converts to Hinduism from say Christianity? What about the effects on his Christian family? The bitternesss? The anguish? Or Islam,.

He would be required to give up belief in Jesus as the only way otherwise he could not possibly accept another religion. He would have to resign from the church officially. Even meet with his priest and seek an official letter of release.

the individual seeking to enter Hinduism must
examine and reject those beliefs of his pre vi-
ous re lig ion or phi los o phy which dif fer from
those of the Hindu sect he wishes to join. Then he must ex-
am ine and ac cept the Hindu be liefs which are new to him.
If he was con firmed or oth er wise in itiated in an other
re lig ion or ideol ogy, he must effect formal severance from
his previous religion or faith before for mally en ter ing the
Hindu re lig ion through the the name-giving sac ra ment. Full
re lig ious con ver sion includes informing one’s for mer re lig-
ious or phil o soph i cal leader, preferably through a personal
meeting, that the individual is entering a new religion..

Imagine the anger of a Muslim family or Christian family. Their feelings of hurt and rejection.

So are people refused entry into Hinduism because it may cause anger or divorce?

It's an individual choice that even parents and family must just live with otherwise the only other option is to secretly believe in another religion for fear of repercussions. They call that oppression. We experience that in Iran because we made a different choice.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes we will differ on this. Each adult is free to choose their own religion, but that's not the point here. The point is that often that choice is helped along by the antics of the people trying to convert. They use friendship, money, deceit, etc. You yourself claimed to be converted because the Bahai came along and helped you out of a personal circumstance. To me, that's not really a valid way to test a religion. If I would have been there, (or a friendly atheist, a friendly Christian, etc. just about anybody) would you have become a Hindu, and atheist, etc.? Those Bahai who helped you out may or may not have had secret desires to convert you, and perhaps caught you at the most vulnerable time in your life. We'll never know of they had that agenda or not.

Now, it it was me, or many other decent people, we would have just provided friendship for an alcoholic looking for help without bringing up religion at all.

That's the difference, but I don't think you will see it.

Lots of predatory evangelical groups make a point of taking advantage of people at their most vulnerable moments. Hospitals used to have all kinds of pastors trying to save the atheists before they passed away. Fortunately, in most civilised countries some restrictions have been put on it. Heck, my poor mother in law, 2 days after the death of her dear husband, had a pair of proselytizers come to her door, because that group actually reads the obituaries. Frankly, I find that disgusting. Anything to convert. It's inhumane.

Actually the people I first met and stayed with for a month who were Baha'is never told me they were Baha'is and never tried to teach me. One day maybe years after, when I was living in a block of units i asked my neighbours what religion they were because they were very nice people but didn't preach to me and so I told them 'I know you're not Christian' but do you have a religion. And it was then that they told me they were Baha'is. Until I asked nobody ever told me anything whatsoever.

Then much later I bumped into the people who took me in and they never knew I had become a Bahá'í.

You're working on the premise that we'll wishing is deceitful and all forms of religious teaching and conversion are exploitation.

I don't believe that's the case but much of what you say has definitely occurred and you have every reason to be mistrusting.

 

[Vinayaka]

What about a person who converts to Hinduism from say Christianity? What about the effects on his Christian family? The bitternesss? The anguish? Or Islam,.

So are people refused entry into Hinduism because it may cause anger or divorce?

Yes of course. I'm against all conversion if it causes a ton of pain and anguish. Of course, some bitterness is to be expected even if the person converts totally on his own without any coercion. Pain is a matter of degrees, no? But I stand against the coercive tactics mostly.

In my sampradaya, we would counsel the potential convert, and not be in any hurry, that's for sure. We say, 'Go study out your previous faith, until you are absolutely sure. There is no hurry." Individuals almost have to push their way into this sampradaya, you're told to go away so many times, go find another far more liberal group. lol.

 

[Vinayaka]

Actually the people I first met and stayed with for a month who were Baha'is never told me they were Baha'is and never tried to teach me. One day maybe years after, when I was living in a block of units i asked my neighbours what religion they were because they were very nice people but didn't preach to me and so I told them 'I know your not Christian' but do you have a religion. And it was then that they told me they were Baha'is. Until I asked nobody ever told me anything whatsoever.

That's all really heartening to know. But I do think it does vary a lot by person too. Also by country, because there are anti-proselytizing laws in many countries.

Also, the question remains ... what if those people would have been Hindu, or some other faith that wouldn't preach at you?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes of course. I'm against all conversion if it causes a ton of pain and anguish. Of course, some bitterness is to be expected even if the person converts totally on his own without any coercion. Pain is a matter of degrees, no? But I stand against the coercive tactics mostly.

In my sampradaya, we would counsel the potential convert, and not be in any hurry, that's for sure. We say, 'Go study out your previous faith, until you are absolutely sure. There is no hurry." Individuals almost have to push their way into this sampradaya, you're told to go away so many times, go find another far more liberal group. lol.

When sensitive issues arise Baha'is are always reminded that the unity of the family is paramount. So if the family objects then they just practice their Faith quietly and not openly.

Another example is that all Baha'is are forbidden to teach their Faith in Israel. Baha'u'llah Himself forbid it. They have an agreement with the Israeli government to that effect.

 

[loverofhumanity]

When sensitive issues arise Baha'is are always reminded that the unity of the family is paramount. So if the family objects then they just practice their Faith quietly and not openly.

Another example is that all Baha'is are forbidden to teach their Faith in Israel. Baha'u'llah Himself forbid it. They have an agreement with the Israeli government to that effect.

There is strong leadership in the Baha'i Faith and any complaints are taken very seriously because our aim is never to harm or hurt but we are not always wise.

 

[paarsurrey]

You said "All revealed religions are peaceful," implying that if a religion isn't revealed, then its not peaceful.

If the scriptures of the warmongering faiths didn't have as much ambiguity about violence as they do, they couldn't so easily be interpreted by some as being a call to violence. On other places on RF, I've read direct quotes about killing the infidels and all that. Certainly many individuals have interpreted it that way.

But I'm still glad that isn't your interpretation, and Ammadiya, remains, at least for now, a peace loving branch of Islam.

If I would have meant it, I would have said it expressly. Non-religious people or non-believers could be peaceful, this is the only reasonable way. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It is in Hadithes and Quran. Quoting from Al-Kafi, Book 1, chapters 22 and 23:

H 554, Ch. 22, h 1
A number of our people has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id from an-Nadr ibn Suwayd from Ayyub ibn Hurr and ‘Imran ibn Ali from abu Basir from abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following. "We are the people well-grounded in knowledge and we are the ones who know how to interpret it."

H 555, Ch. 22, h 2
Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from ‘Abdallah ibn Ali from Ibrahim ibn Ishaq from ‘Adallah ibn Hammad from Burayd ibn Mu‘awiya who has narrated the following from either one of the Imams (a.s.) about the words of Allah, Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most gracious. "No one knows its true interpretations except God and those who have a firm grounding in knowledge . . ." (3:7). The Holy Prophet is the best among the people well-grounded in knowledge. Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most gracious, taught him all that He had revealed to him in the form of original text and in the form of interpretations. Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most gracious, would not reveal anything to him that he would not know the meaning thereof. The successors of the Holy Prophet (s.a.) after him knew all revelations.
As for those who do not know the interpretations thereof, when the scholar speaks to them with knowledge, they say, "We believe in it, for all of this is from our Lord." The Holy Quran consists of specific, general, clear, not so clear, abrogating and abrogated statements. The people who are well-grounded in knowledge know all of the Holy Quran."

H 556ch22, h 3
Al-Husayn ibn Muhammad has narrated from MuAlia ibn Muhammad from Muhammad ibn ’Uwarma from Ali ibn Hassan from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Kathir from abu ‘bdallah (a.s.) who has said the following. "People well grounded in Knowledge stands for Amir alMu’minin Ali (a.s.) and the Imams after him."

H 557, Ch. 23, h 1
Ahmad ibn Mahran has narrated from Muhammad ibn Ali from Hammed ibn 'Isa from al-Husayn ibn al-Mukhtar from abu Basir who has said that he heard abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) say the following about this verse of the Holy Quran. "In fact, the Quran consists of illustrious verses that exist in the hearts of those who have knowledge. . . ." (29:49) The Imams (a.s.) pointed to his own hear."

H 558, Ch. 23, h 2
It is narrated from him from Muhammad ibn Ali from ibn Mahbub from ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-‘Abdi from abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following about the words of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High. "In fact, the Quran consists of illustrious verses that exist in the hearts of those who have knowledge. . . ." (29:49) ‘They are the Imams (a.s.)’.

H 559, Ch. 23, h 3
It is narrated from him from Muhammad ibn Ali from 'Uthman ibn ‘Isa from Sama‘a from abu Basir from abu Ja‘far (a.s.) who has said the following about this verse of the Holy Quran. "In fact, the Quran consists of illustrious verses that exist in the hearts of those who have knowledge. . . ." (29:49) The Imams (a.s.) then said, "O abu Muhammad, for the sake of Allah, be the judge and tell, of who it is spoken (so often) between the two covers of the Holy Quran?" I then asked, "Who are they, "May Allah take my soul in service for your cause. The Imams (a.s.) said, "Who else can they be other than ourselves?"

H 560, Ch. 23, h 4
Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Muhammad ibn al-Husayn from Yazid Sha‘ar from Harun ibn Hamza who has said that he hear abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) say who has said the following. "In fact, the Quran consists of illustrious verses that exist in the hearts of those
who have knowledge. . . ." (29:49) ‘They are the Imams (a.s.) exclusive of all others.’"


So, according to these verses and Hadithes, only the Prophet and the Successors (Shia imams) are well-grounded in knowledge and know all its interpretation. Allah said, He only purified people of the Household. So, their Heart is pure and clean, and they would have a perfect understanding, because according to Quran, with Heart we understand, and when they were purified, and had a pure heart, they had perfect understanding.

Please quote from Quran, instead of just providing a reference, as I requested with verses in the text, that is some verses preceding and some verses following, and then prove one's viewpoint. Please
Hadith was not collected in the time of Muhammad and was collected 250/300 years after Muhammad.
Regards

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Please quote from Quran, instead of just providing a reference, as I requested with verses in the text, that is some verses preceding and some verses following, and then prove one's viewpoint. Please
Hadith was not collected in the time of Muhammad and was collected 250/300 years after Muhammad.
Regards

If Hadithes are compatable with Quran, and have an evidence from Quran, they should be accepted:




These are recorded in the book al-Kafi:

Imam Sadiq said: "If they narrated to you a Hadith and you find a witness for it in the Book of God or in Hadith of the holy Prophet (it is acceptable), otherwise, it is better for the one who brought it to you. (Meaning you'd better attribute it to the narrator and do not accept that the hadith is from us)."


"Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) has said, ‘Everything must be referred to the holy Quran and the Sunnah, the noble traditions of the holy Prophet (s.a.) and any Hadith that does not agree with the holy Quran it is a useless statement.’"

abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) has said the following:
"The holy Prophet once addressed the people in Mina (a place in Makkah) saying, "O people, whatever comes to you in the form of my Hadith you must see if it agrees with the holy book of Allah then know that I have said it but whatever comes to you that does not agree with the book of Allah then know that I have not said it."

"The holy Prophet (s.a.) said: "Over every truth there is a reality and above every valid issue there is light. Whatever agrees with the holy Quran you must follow it and whatever does not agree disregard it."



These Hadithes tell us that For every Hadith of Imams, one must bring an evidence either from Hadith of Prophet or from Quran, to prove that the Hadith is authentic. And, for every Hadith of Prophet, you should have an evidence that it is compatible with Quran.

In my view, Those Hadithes regarding Well-grounded in knowledge Ones, are compatible with Quran, and has an evidence from Quran, as shown in verses 7:3 and 29:49. The verses are actually quoted in my previous post (at least the parts that are related).

 

[Vinayaka]

If I would have meant it, I would have said it expressly. Non-religious people or non-believers could be peaceful, this is the only reasonable way. Please
Regards

So people from non-revealed religions like Hinduism can be peaceful? Good to know. Of course as you know, the most superiour religion is Islam.

 

[Vinayaka]

There is strong leadership in the Baha'i Faith and any complaints are taken very seriously because our aim is never to harm or hurt but we are not always wise.

Unfortunately there have been some misunderstandings. But hey that's the way the planet is right now.

 

[Vinayaka]

Another example is that all Baha'is are forbidden to teach their Faith in Israel. Baha'u'llah Himself forbid it. They have an agreement with the Israeli government to that effect.

Wow. Too bad he didn't foresee the problems it has caused elsewhere. Don't you find it ironic that Israel is the only exception? Did he give any reason for it?

 

[danieldemol]

Please quote the text of the verse with the verses in the context, some preceding and some following verses and then make up one's point of view.
Regards

Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem

1. Ar Rahmaan
2. 'Allamal Quran
3. Khalaqal insaan
4. 'Allamalhul Bayan
5. Ashshamsu walqamaru bihusbaan
6. Wannajmu washshajaru yasjudan

As you can see, the Quran states the Quran and Bayan were taught by the "Most Merciful"

Kind regards

 

[loverofhumanity]

Wow. Too bad he didn't foresee the problems it has caused elsewhere. Don't you find it ironic that Israel is the only exception? Did he give any reason for it?

I think it's mainly a provision to protect Baha'is from Muslim animosity.... But as Muslims eventually turn to the Faith this problem will disappear.

As you are well aware, opposition to the Faith in Islamic countries is acute; there is a strong resentment against the Bahá'ís, not only on religious grounds, but also at the present time because our World Centre is situated in the State of Israel. This position, which has been brought about through the political situation in the world, only adds to our responsibility and the necessity for us to be wise and cautious in order to protect both the World Centre and our brethren who are living -- in large numbers -- in Muslim countries." [Ministry of the Custodians,p. 395]


These are protocols put in place until both the Jewish and Muslim world accept the Faith of Bahaullah, which they eventually will through their own choice.

When the victory arriveth, every man shall profess himself as believer and shall hasten to the shelter of God’s Faith. -(Baha'u'llah)


People will choose a better future.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

I wonder if it is a similar problem in New Zealand where indigenous peoples end up through the criminal justice system first before somebody actually understands what's going on. There is a lot of cultural misunderstanding that goes on, but I think we are better at recognising it these days, and having a lot more Maori working in the system. Acknowledging different paradigms and approaches depending on culture is essential too.

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.

Sounds like your health is a major factor. I have a real sense of you trying to find your place in the world with your LGBT background. Its hard to imagine as I've been straight for the most part. I appreciate some us are just wired differently. Do you need any particular theological training to be a hospital chaplain? What's an ASL interpreter?

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.

Living the life is the most important aspect for sure. I can see how difficult it would be for you remaining fully committed in the church for a number of reasons. Its seems helpful to be able to keep the relationship alive by remaining part of the community, but not fully. It sounds like you can do that as a Catholic.

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.

I think you definitely do have something to contribute. Its learning for us all I suppose, and that's why I'm here.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Bible speaks of two different Lambs. One is Christ Who appears in the Gospels. The other Lamb only appears in Revelation which refers to The Bab.

Lambs, Two Different Ones.

This is some research I have done about the two different Lambs that exist in the Bible. One is Jesus but the other is not the same lamb in Revelation because the Lamb in Revelation is slain not crucified whereas the Lamb in the New Testament is crucified. The original language describes one lamb as Arnion and the other as Amnos.

The Lamb in Revelation is not the same Lamb in The New Testament

Young Ram or Arnion is the diminutive of arĒn/arnos meaning male sheep . Arnion is a word specific to Revelation.

All the prior New Testament Books use amnos ( Lamb ) or pascha ( Paschal Lamb ), both versions clearly portraying Jesus.

But now, suddenly, an arnion Ram runs onto the Revelation stage. It displays horns, anger, and leadership—all typical of rams, not lambs.

(Apocalyse Secrets)

Jesus's title is never Arnion Lamb

Jesus is NEVER referred to as an Arnion Lamb (Ram) ever in any Book. He is always referred to as the Amnos or Paschal Lamb.

Arnion Lamb is ONLY ever used in Revelation (25 times)

Noun: ἀρνίον (arnion), GK 768 (S 721), 30x. arnion refers to a “lamb” or young “sheep.”

All uses of this word except for Jn. 21:15, where Jesus refers to his followers as “lambs,” are in Revelation.

(Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary)

arnion (ἀρνίον, 721)

It is used only by the apostle John, (a) in the plural, in the Lord’s command to Peter, John 21:15, with symbolic reference to young converts; (b) elsewhere, in the singular, in the Apocalypse, some 28 times, of Christ as the “Lamb” of God,

(Vines Complete Expository Dictionary)

Christ was crucified not slain.

Matthew 27:35 And they crucified him...

Mark 15:24. And when they had crucified him,.....

Luke 23:33. they crucified him,...

John 19:23. they had crucified Jesus,..

Crucified- Strong's Definition - g4717. σταυρόω stauroō; from 4716; to impale on the cross

Slain - Strong's definition - g4969. σφάζω sphazō; a primary verb; to butcher (especially an animal for food or in sacrifice) or (generally) to slaughter, or (specially), to maim (violently): — kill, slay, wound.

The Lamb in Revelation was not crucified but slain

Revelation 5:6

And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne ....stood a Lamb as it had been slain.....

Revelation 5:9

And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain.....

Revelation 5:12

Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain.......

So Who is the Arnion Lamb mentioned in Revelation that was slain not crucified? It was not Christ. But a Christ or One like Christ - The Bab.

Of course the "lamb" is the Bab. Why would it be Jesus? I think Jesus and his religion is beginning to look like a total fabrication. No resurrection. No Satan. No hell. No Jesus coming back. Since Jesus, the alleged manifestation, didn't write the NT, then fallible men wrote it and misled people. Other fallible men interpreted it and made Jesus and the Holy Spirit part of God. And now the "lamb" in Revelation is different than the "lamb" in the gospels? Christians never mentioned this. That is deception. So I'm beginning to question just which doctrines, which Christian beliefs are really true, if any?

 

[CG Didymus]

CG I sincerely apologize. Could you kindly redirect me to which post and I'll try again?

I believe God gave us qualities that we could use either for good or for evil but are not evil within themselves. A knife is neither good not evil but can be misused. Anger against what is evil is good. Aggression against a tyrant is good. An immune system attacking germs to protect the body from disease is for our benefit.

This was what I asked:

How about Judaism? Why don't they send missionaries out? But with Christianity, what was the message they were spreading? Did they teach acceptance of the people's previous religion, or did they teach them that their old beliefs were false and had to be stopped?

Other religions didn't teach non-violence? You know like the Golden Rule, turn your other cheek, you know that stuff?

You might have read it before I edited it and put in the missing "question mark" after the "non-violence". So I was really saying that I thought all religions did teach non-violence.

Now on this one I'm arguing that all of nature does use violent acts to mate, to protect territories, and for food. People can rise above that and work together, but even if we stop killing each other and slugging it out over a girl or guy, then we still can be attacked by creatures on the land and sea... and attacked by microbes. So there is a fight going on to survive on this planet.

 

[CG Didymus]

Except for a couple of suckers. lol.
Certainly I've seen a lot of 'delusions of grandeur' about the Bahai by the Bahai. Overall, it's a small and minor faith but really disproportionately represented on sites like this because of the insatiable drive to spread the teachings, which has still been largely unsuccessful. Still its far better than most of the individual messiah claimants who often don't get a single follower.

There are 7 or 8 relatively active Bahai on this site. Each of Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism have 100 times as many followers. If it was proportionate to real life population, there's be around 700 active people for each of those faiths.

I have learned a lot, because I had to research a lot. I really do think you've caused them to do a lot of research also. That a generalized quote of "all religions are one" isn't going to fly.

But should knowing the "Truth" of recognizing a prophet/teacher of God be this difficult? There's just too many contortions of words. I looked at a Baha'i site that explained the "true" meaning of Revelation. It spoke mostly about Islam? I read one paragraph of the site about Zoroastrian prophecies. It said essentially that on the surface the prophecies don't work and even contradict. That's all I needed to know that somehow they were going to twist it, turn it, and make it fit to show that Baha'u'llah is the man.

Since the purpose of a thread like this is really to teach the Baha'i Faith, I can see why not very many people from other religions bother posting. They know the Baha'i aren't going to change their minds. And, they know the Baha'is are going to try and prove their religion is the true way.

I'm so glad you've stuck it out. Thanks for all your comments. How many posts have you done on this one thread now... like 500?

 

[CG Didymus]

All true. We just have to keep trying. Spiritual education doesn't happen overnight and unfortunately often it takes a tragedy before we make real progress.

But the thing is, people need help and encouragement to find ways of getting away from aggression to solve disputes. People need to be taught how to consult in a living manner. Politicians are just confrontational instead of reconciliatory and they need to learn too how to come together in spiritual consultation.

It's not good this gunboat diplomacy where they point a gun or nuke at each other. One day they'll pull the trigger.

I know you have a plan to "spiritualize" the world economy. Could you comment on that also, because it is such a big cause of anger and hate. Poor nations have their resources and people used and abused to the point of lashing out. The rich and powerful then use force to shut down the rebellion.

But even in the U.S., the "disparity" between the rich and poor causes a lot of strife. I know this was part of the Peace Plan you guys had. Is there anything new in resolving that problem?