Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
But you are not allowed to (edit) disagree, cant say "you are wrong", and dont see differences.
Is differences unity and peace?
If so, why cant you say "you are wrong" without feeling you are causing division?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How are these Great Beings explained?
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
But you are not allowed to (edit) disagree, cant say "you are wrong", and dont see differences.
Is differences unity and peace?
If so, why cant you say "you are wrong" without feeling you are causing division?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Actually, I am just learning that Bahai cant disagree. So, it could be like you said a get away with psoselytising by placing it debates or um.. cant think of the or
Answer these two questions as the the Fruits of Debate.
1) Is the purpose of the Debate to find fault and to disprove? or
2) Is the Purpose of the Debate to find Common Ground and agreement?
I see # 2 is a worthy Debate that can result from differing opinions, that do indeed want to find truth in all things and
# 1 is the History of Mankind and a fruitless pursuit.
Regards Tony
Thank you for the Courtesy it is always appreciated.
I offered that a debate that chases a negative result, that is to disprove another Persons Faith, is fruitless.
It was offered to debate, is to search for Truth in all things, to find common ground.
So, we could try that. that is look for common ground in what we believe and why that is so.
Regards Tony
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Technically, a debate is where both parties present their arguments (claims with evidence), state their evidence to support their argument, and use what they know to defend their claim.
Debate is about proving to others you are right.
Arguments are proving the other is wrong.
Discussion is conversing different opinions right or wrong
Without the need to prove ourselves right and the other wrong.
--
So far, if it is true Bahai cant disagree and they find unity in everything, how can tbey debate? (If I believe bahallauh is 300yrs old and a Bahai believes he is, say 50 and you cant form an opposing opinion, what is the point of the debate?)
You guys dont argue. Even if it is a polite to say "you are wrong" for some reason that causes disunity. So, that means bahaullah is both 300 and 50 years old at the same time.
Discussion is minimal. If it isnt quotes, its short cut off statements, or derailing the topic, or completely disregarding a question in a two sentence post.
So how do you guys conversate if you got these road blocks. In America, differences by debate ("naw. I like you in this color."), argument (trump will win...no he wont) and discussion (i disagree with X but im interested in it nonetheless) is a highly valued asset of our culture.
Freedom of speech, and the rest is evidence to that. So its natural that I wonder how you can converse without disagreeing...
That and @loverofhumanity says there is truth in all religions. I asked him and you, if my truth is murder and that is my religion, what foundation in this truth do you agree with.
Baha'u'llah has redefined Healthy Debate as stated in my Post. I see no fruit in Arguing, but differing opinion is always assured. Holding on to ones own opinion does not find the common ground, one must be able to let go if they find something that is indeed good.
It is good to say what you have to say in a few words, as listening is better than speech. We use quotes, as in the end that is what we would want to say.
So lets fine what is the Common Ground and then debate the fringes. When we realise how much common ground we have, the fringes are less important.
Regards Tony
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
The common ground in religion is there Is No common ground. Once you work off of what we dont have in common and take interest to know each other in discussion, we find mutual respect without needing to agree.
Unity does not mean common ground. Real life is not monotheistic. There is no one truth. No one ground. Its diverse as there are people.
It is healthy to say one is wrong.
Again, if I say bahaullah was 300yrs and you say he was 50 yrs old at death, and I am only "expressing a statement without argument"
In your view as a bahais. Is it wrong to correct me in your words?
I can read all kinds of things in bahaullah quotes. Its not my religion.
We do it all the time but sometimes the clash of differing opinions is required to get to the truth of the matter.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
How do you clash with differing opinions if you can't disagree with each other?
We do it with goodwill and dignity and moderation. It's the way it's done that's important.
It just boils down to who is the most stubborn, and the other person just gives in because they know the other person won't. That's actually not agreement at all. It's just the sense of wanting to get it over with.
'The truth of the matter' for any fundamentalist version of religion, (mostly Islam, and Christianity, but including Baha'i',) is their version of it.
Let me make it clearer. There are 15 million Baha'i' on this planet of 7 billion people. The ratio of non-Baha'i' to Baha'i' is about 500 to one. So, for every 1 person who feels there is an infallible prophet, and his name is Baha'u'llah, and world peace is impossible without Him, there are 499 people on this planet who disagree.
There can never be agreement on this. It just won't happen. The Baha'i' certainly aren't going to give an inch, as evidenced on this thread repeatedly. And why should they? It's what they believe. You're asking a person to give up what they believe. I know I couldn't give up what I believe, with the wave of some magic wand ... that life is diverse, reincarnation, that all peaceful religions have validity, that all individual souls are here for moksha, and will attain it ... all that. That's my faith ... a legitimate true acceptance of diversity, conditional on one word ... peaceful. Baha'i', I believe would, on the surface, agree with this, but certainly have several more conditions attached.
So the only agreement possible is the agreement to disagree. But within the Baha'i' faith, even that is impossible, because 'we' can't disagree. Which only leaves one possible solution for humanity, according to that belief system ... and that's that all of humanity accepts Baha'u'llah, even the 6.85 billion people who don't believe it. Quite the conundrum, lol.
'The truth of the matter' for any fundamentalist version of religion, (mostly Islam, and Christianity, but including Baha'i',) is their version of it.
Let me make it clearer. There are 15 million Baha'i' on this planet of 7 billion people. The ratio of non-Baha'i' to Baha'i' is about 500 to one. So, for every 1 person who feels there is an infallible prophet, and his name is Baha'u'llah, and world peace is impossible without Him, there are 499 people on this planet who disagree.
There can never be agreement on this. It just won't happen. The Baha'i' certainly aren't going to give an inch, as evidenced on this thread repeatedly. And why should they? It's what they believe. You're asking a person to give up what they believe. I know I couldn't give up what I believe, with the wave of some magic wand ... that life is diverse, reincarnation, that all peaceful religions have validity, that all individual souls are here for moksha, and will attain it ... all that. That's my faith ... a legitimate true acceptance of diversity, conditional on one word ... peaceful. Baha'i', I believe would, on the surface, agree with this, but certainly have several more conditions attached.
So the only agreement possible is the agreement to disagree. But within the Baha'i' faith, even that is impossible, because 'we' can't disagree. Which only leaves one possible solution for humanity, according to that belief system ... and that's that all of humanity accepts Baha'u'llah, even the 6.85 billion people who don't believe it. Quite the conundrum, lol.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Firstly I wonder where you get 15 million Baha'is from. I didn't know that. Actually I have no idea but even some were saying only about 1 million active Baha'is.
I think if you looked at our consultation methods you would see that there is room for 'the clash of differing opinions' and that's happened almost every post here but we just try to avoid being argumentive or aggressive yet it's still point and counterpoint just a lot gentler.
As I stated previously, the highlight for me personally is I gained more knowledge and respect and love for Hinduism.
Note that a major difference is reincarnation but we haven't gone into it but rather gone into things we may have in common like ahimsa but we could always share notes on reincarnation no problems with that.
Nobody is going to give up their beliefs here but through interaction we can gain a wider appreciation of our own and others beliefs. I didn't know there were sects in Hinduism that didn't believe in avatars, now I do. Things like ahimsa came to the forefront that I hadn't thought of before. Now I definitely have a much deeper and more profound understanding of Hinduism so for me I've gained that as well as learning how to communicate with others very different from myself.
I think it's about learning not winning or giving in because the other person doesn't. I always saw this as an opportunity to learn and share and I gained a lot.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
That's exhausting just reading that.
The spirit in which we consult should be with love and good feeling. Not to belittle the thought of another but just respectfully share. But as I said we are bound to these laws not anyone else so you are free to speak to me in any manner you wish and that is acceptable to me.
My vibration is rubbing off on you. This thread is exhausting. I need a longer break than one day, lol.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Here is the thing. I love religions and I love culture. That's my study and career path and passion. So...
If I said Bahaullah died at 500 years old and you said he died at 74, and I said you were wrong and in the context of this discussion it is not an insult, discourteous, nor confrontational.
If you agreed with me to "not cause a war" you are compromising your belief not bringing unity.
If you disagree, then you are not compromising your beliefs. Instead, you can say No He died at 74. I would like to show you Bahaullah writings do you want to see them?"
and the discussion continues with Yes, I am interested. No, it's okay.
A debate is when you bring on the "evidence" (or quotes) before the person tells you they are interested in learning why you disagree with them even though you won't say.
It's like the quotes are your "I disagree" statements but you can't say them yourselves. It's a passive aggressive way of discussing and debating (not arguing)
and it gets frustrating passive aggressive debating. Really frustrating.
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I did pretty good this morning. I visited my grandmother's resting place with family, turned off my phone, and threw it in the car. Good five hours without a phone. I'm working on it.
Good to know you see that we are actually from very different paradigms. That's some movement, although I can never really tell, because you might go ahead and contradict that statement right away. I never know whether your politeness is a tactic to get people to continue, or whether it's actually sincere. I'm not a mind reader.
Getting back to the original question though, 'How are these Great Beings Explained?" . One of the problems with any 'debate' on these forums is that the question holds assumptions, that people like me (and many others) will question. So we can't really get to the debate at all. It's like saying, 'Does the Earth have 2 moons or 3 moons, let's debate it.'
So if we look at the original question, I can honestly say I don't believe in the manifestations you talk about at all, let alone explain them. So the very question itself doesn't make sense to me. I believe Baha'u'llah existed as a person, and I believe Muhammad existed as a person. However, I don't believe either one was a 'great being' because of the celibacy condition factor in Hinduism. The rest of the 'manifestations', I don't even know if they existed. Perhaps they were just stories. So for me, the entire question doesn't make any sense. How can you explain the existence of something you don't believe existed?
Last edited:
I don't own a cell phone. I'm the volunteer landscaper at our local temple. So this morning I moved about 10 wheelbarrrows of dirt around, removing the bad, and puttin' in the good, then I seeded some grass, watered it all, and rode the riding lawnmower for awhile. A guy with 14 cubic yards of topsoil in a truck didn't show cause it was raining, but when he dumps it, I will move the entire thing all over the lawn, called topping up, all by shovel and wheelbarrow. (Keeps me in shape) Then there are rose beds to dig around, more lawn cutting, trimming, planting in the pots, repainting the priest's house trim, parts of the entire fence. I also 'helped' some plums with their friendly neighbourhood pollinator by brushing one bunch of flowers onto the other ones. So yeah, in Hinduism it's called seva (service), and I'm incredibly lucky to be in a position to do lots of it. Sure beats sitting on here debating, lol.