How are these Great Beings explained?

[Vinayaka]

Of course we believe it is what humanity needs today but that is more to do with relevance for this age and not egotistical claims of superiority which we reject.

Thank you for clarifying which of the two viewpoints I explained earlier that you adhere to.
I never said it was egotistical claims of superiority. I merely said you think Bahai is the best religion for the planet. I don't believe that, nor do I believe that Hinduism is the best religion for the planet. I believe Hinduism is the best religion for me. The difference, in what we practice, in action, comes down to whether or not we try to spread our religion. Hindus don't, generally. Bahai's do. One more rather large paradigm difference.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Of course you would suggest it's the same thing, That's the history of Baha'i' looking at any other system of philosophy. You overlook any differences and qualities to get to the point of it's the same. No, we are definitely speaking about the same thing. You have misunderstood on two main counts. Firstly, it is the soul, not the person, and there really is nothing to know in the sense that you are using it. This stuff is inner, not intellectual.

How we live and act is crucial on the way there, yes, but it's nowhere near the concept itself. The path at the bottom of the mountain isn't the top of the mountain.

Moksha is an end point, and one cannot go in and out of moksha, like you can go in and out of water. Once moksha is there it remains. Moksha cannot exist without the concept of reincarnation, and since Baha'i's do not believe in reincarnation, it follows you can't believe in moksha. It;s as illogical as swimming in a dry lake. You can't swim without water. You can't have moksha without reincarnation.

Our teachings say how we live and act affect the progress of our soul. But we understand that on dying we receive a spiritual body and do not return in another physical form.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No. You said we need one teacher. Which is it?



No. One said that the teachings (rituals, traditions, and dogma) are not relevant and needed to be disgarded.

No. Each religion brings spiritual teachings for this day as well.



No. They are relevant for all ages.



No. This contradicts your first statement of needing teachers. No. We need more than one teacher for guidance for this age as well as the next and in the past.

The sooner you understand this, the closer we get to world peace without domination (well intentioned, forceful, or not) of a one-sided party.

I think it's very simple. One Teacher for each age or period. That's the way it always has been.

Of course the spiritual teachings are eternal such as love and virtues but things like world unity are specific to this age.

 

[Vinayaka]

Our teachings say how we live and act affect the progress of our soul. But we understand that on dying we receive a spiritual body and do not return in another physical form.

Yes, I know. Like I said, Baha'i' s do not believe in reincarnation. Your belief about this is Abrahamic, and doesn't fit the Hindu paradigm.

Hindus believe that we need many many lifetimes to learn everything there is to learn about being a good person. We simply cannot do it in one lifetime. There is too much to know (I'm speaking about spiritual matters, not intellectual trivia) So the goal for each lifetime would simple be improvement, not moksha. But after many lifetimes, moksha will be the goal, because the consciousness that follows the soul will be purified enough to be ready.

Please don't repeat to me that we believe the same thing.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No. We need guidance from teachers of individual faiths. Hindu gets guidance of peace through Brahma and wisdom by a guru. Christians find guidance though Christ. Muslims Muhammad. Lukumi Olorin and the Orishas. You need guidance from Bahaullah. You need more than one teacher for this time period.

Do you actually believe that these teachers are irrelevant for today and only one teacher is needed; on that note, if so, why have other teachers in your faith if their teachings aren't relevant for today-their teachings: tradition, dogma, and rituals?​

Saying one teacher is limiting other faiths to arrive at world-peace for the sake of your new system. That's fine you believe this.

To me it's total disrespect for other people's rituals, traditions, and dogma. They value this and carry these traditions and practices through the next generations. You don't respect this practice. I see that as immoral regardless of what Bahaullah wants to do and why.

How is it an advance to the religious when you take out the heart of religions: their teachings, dogma, and practices?

All the religions continue to follow their Teacher and religions. We do not interfere with that. That is their freedom to worship and believe as they wish.

We tread a different path but do not interfere with other religions.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes, I know. Like I said, Baha'i' s do not believe in reincarnation. Your belief about this is Abrahamic, and doesn't fit the Hindu paradigm.

Hindus believe that we need many many lifetimes to learn everything there is to learn about being a good person. We simply cannot do it in one lifetime. There is too much to know (I'm speaking about spiritual matters, not intellectual trivia) So the goal for each lifetime would simple be improvement, not moksha. But after many lifetimes, moksha will be the goal, because the consciousness that follows the soul will be purified enough to be ready.

Please don't repeat to me that we believe the same thing.

Yes Ok.

 

[Vinayaka]

We tread a different path but do not interfere with other religions.

Then why do you send out Pioneers, sometimes go door to door, and distribute pamphlets? Isn't proselytizing interference? Yes, I agree it is far more subtle that going over to a church or temple and saying 'Stop that nonsense!" but isn't if interference all the same? I certainly think it is.

 

[crossfire]

I suggest you read some Joseph Campbell if you'd like to learn how myths and mythological figures develop and propagate.

His lectures are on Spotify!

 

[loverofhumanity]

Then why do you send out Pioneers, sometimes go door to door, and distribute pamphlets? Isn't proselytizing interference? Yes, I agree it is far more subtle that going over to a church or temple and saying 'Stop that nonsense!" but isn't if interference all the same? I certainly think it is.

All people become educated in their respective Faiths by being told about it by another person whether it be a priest, family, member, guru or any other teacher.

 

[Vinayaka]

All people become educated in their respective Faiths by being told about it by another person whether it be a priest, family, member, guru or any other teacher.

Simply not true. People are free to go on-line and read. People are free to search their city for houses of worship and go around and visit each one.,or arrange for a guided tour. There is no need for religious book distribution in this day and age. Accessibility to information has radically changed in the last 30 years. Traveling salesmen are no longer relevant. Your religion recognised this as well, because proportionately it has a huge internet presence, in order to spread the word.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think it's very simple. One Teacher for each age or period. That's the way it always has been.

Of course the spiritual teachings are eternal such as love and virtues but things like world unity are specific to this age.

You haven't addressed the points.

1. You said you need more than one teacher (progressive to this day) but then you said you only need one teacher to fix everything (so why have other teachers in your faith-you only need one?)

2. Each religion and their teachers bring their method of peace for this day. If you experienced and understand other religions, you would see that as a fact. However, you are literally disregarding their current method of peace, taking out their traditions, rituals, and dogmas as if they aren't relevant, and then say "oh, but we still love you guys."

3. All religious teachers and their teachings are relevant for this day.

To say they are not, is degrading many many religions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

All the religions continue to follow their Teacher and religions. We do not interfere with that. That is their freedom to worship and believe as they wish.

We tread a different path but do not interfere with other religions.

You didn't address my questions.

I did not say you interfere (as in forcefully-thank gosh). I was point out points in your religion and how it immorally addresses establishing world peace. The questions aren't rhetorical.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You're goals are contradicting. You want freedom for other people to believe as they please and you want to build a new world system.

Either you go to the people and tell them "hey, I want to help you out of world peace by taking out your rituals, traditions, and dogma." and see if they agree

or

Let them be free and stay in a religion that wants world peace, but doesn't make steps to establish it outside of the way they want. Help them out. Don't change them.

Neither of them have to be forceful. Just one seeks communication, agreement, and cooperation. The latter is one-sided, we fix your problems with dogma, traditions, and rituals so you won't have wars.

You can't have both. Their not going to agree that you take away their dogma, rituals, and traditions.

How are you going to have world peace at any time period without morally interferin (taking out rituals, traditions, and dogma) with another person's faith(s)?​

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My understanding is the soul is able to know God's attributes and be in a state of oneness with the Divine consciousness but I think how we live and act is crucial.

This is not in all revealed religions.

My understanding is then that we could slip in and out of Moksha depending on the life we lead.

Moksha is an end point, and one cannot go in and out of moksha, like you can go in and out of water. Once moksha is there it remains. Moksha cannot exist without the concept of reincarnation, and since Baha'i's do not believe in reincarnation, it follows you can't believe in moksha. It's as illogical as swimming in a dry lake. You can't swim without water. You can't have moksha without reincarnation.

I'm wondering if we're all not speaking about the same thing here. For a Buddhist it's Nirvana, for a Christian its Salvation and for Baha'is its Cerititude.

No. It is not.

Buddhism does not speak of oneness and consciousness in regards to any mystical experiences. It's strictly full understanding of suffering, the cause o it, the end to it, and how. It is about wisdom, understand, and knowledge. Love is a result of it not the core.

Christianity does not fit this either. Salvation is not a mystical experience nor one of oneness and consciousness. Christians actually believe they will be with Christ. There is no symbolism involved. No oneness with all people only within their circle of brothers and sisters of christ. The oneness isn't abstract. It just means church-a body-a mass. Nothing more. There is no consciousness in the bible. It's not based on knowledge but on faith and deeds.

These are differences. Stop putting them together.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Simply not true. People are free to go on-line and read. People are free to search their city for houses of worship and go around and visit each one.,or arrange for a guided tour. There is no need for religious book distribution in this day and age. Accessibility to information has radically changed in the last 30 years. Traveling salesmen are no longer relevant. Your religion recognised this as well, because proportionately it has a huge internet presence, in order to spread the word.

I am very glad that Baha'is taught me about their Faith. It brought peace and contentment to my life. I am very grateful they shared with me the truth.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is not in all revealed religions.







No. It is not.

Buddhism does not speak of oneness and consciousness in regards to any mystical experiences. It's strictly full understanding of suffering, the cause o it, the end to it, and how. It is about wisdom, understand, and knowledge. Love is a result of it not the core.

Christianity does not fit this either. Salvation is not a mystical experience nor one of oneness and consciousness. Christians actually believe they will be with Christ. There is no symbolism involved. No oneness with all people only within their circle of brothers and sisters of christ. The oneness isn't abstract. It just means church-a body-a mass. Nothing more. There is no consciousness in the bible. It's not based on knowledge but on faith and deeds.

These are differences. Stop putting them together.

To me they're all family and brothers and sisters no matter what they believe.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You didn't address my questions.

I did not say you interfere (as in forcefully-thank gosh). I was point out points in your religion and how it immorally addresses establishing world peace. The questions aren't rhetorical.

We only apply our ideas and beliefs only to ourselves, no one else. We've created a world community with all the races, nationalities and religions. People can either use our example or ignore it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

To me they're all family and brothers and sisters no matter what they believe.

I don't understand. If I want someone a part of my family, context analogy, I wouldn't place myself in their family all because of what I feel about it. It wouldn't be about me. I'd feel selfish if I tried to place myself in a Cherokee nation because I agree with their ethics and minorities view of cultural appropriation. We're part of a culture. So, incorporating myself in some place I do not belong, is wrong.

You're not selfish about it in a negative sense but even well-intentioned, that is a "I care about myself not others" point of view.

I don't see spirituality in contradiction statements. "We see people as a family regardless of what they believe."

No one would want to be a family with you if you disregard what they believe in favor of your belief and definition of peace.

Just being blunt.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We only apply our ideas and beliefs only to ourselves, no one else. We've created a world community with all the races, nationalities and religions. People can either use our example or ignore it.

That does not make sense. If you want world peace you'd communicate and apply ideas with each other. You can't be isolated and say "we don't want to interfere" and not spread your faith at the same time. Many missionaries go out for the very purpose of world peace (thinking positive here). Many Churches contribute to world peace by their expression of belief and action thereof.

Your view of world peace is, how do they say, causes a boomerang effect. (It's on the tip of my tongue)

You cannot have world peace when you disregard other people's beliefs in favor of your own.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don't understand. If I want someone a part of my family, context analogy, I wouldn't place myself in their family all because of what I feel about it. It wouldn't be about me. I'd feel selfish if I tried to place myself in a Cherokee nation because I agree with their ethics and minorities view of cultural appropriation. We're part of a culture. So, incorporating myself in some place I do not belong, is wrong.

You're not selfish about it in a negative sense but even well-intentioned, that is a "I care about myself not others" point of view.

I don't see spirituality in contradiction statements. "We see people as a family regardless of what they believe."

No one would want to be a family with you if you disregard what they believe in favor of your belief and definition of peace.

Just being blunt.

We have our beliefs and other people have their beliefs and we accept that they don't believe the same as us.

We still see them as fellow human beings even though we have different beliefs.

It doesn't tmatter what people believe as long as we don't mistreat each other or use violence against each other because of religion.

Can't you see that we're not putting ourselves in the Cherokee family. We have our own Bahá'í World Community. We have nothing to do with cherokees but we act peacefully to all religions.