How are these Great Beings explained?

[Unveiled Artist]

There you go, first thing to decide is if we are eating healthy.

Best food is what nature provides. Best food for us is eaten as picked. The food that requires cooking is more likely not so good for us, as the process of cooking removes ingredients that are not favorable to our system.

Thus my offer for the table is heaps of fresh fruit and vegatables.

I would look at cakes and fried food, but most likely eat a fruit salad.

I provided the link to the Burdekin Plum by the way.

Regards Tony

I have three questions to ask you.

1. Do you have children?

Best food is what nature provides. Best food for us is eaten as picked. The food that requires cooking is more likely not so good for us, as the process of cooking removes ingredients that are not favorable to our system.

2. How so? It could be the best dish that no one has tried before.

3. No fried foods? Hmmm.

Well, we could have either or but instead of offering and sitting it on the table (we can't read each other's minds), maybe we can ask each other instead.

Would you like fried foods?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

1. Do you have children?

Yes x 3 (&1) Eldest Son born 1975, Next Son Born 1990, Daughter Born 1992. The & 1 did not make this world in 1982.

2. How so? It could be the best dish that no one has tried before.

All dishes are made by food that is already available. We have to decide if it is best to eat them as they are, or cook them, or combine them. Each time we eat, especially if we combine foods, we have to consider how much energy we put in to how much energy we put out.

3. No fried foods? Hmmm.

Definitely no fried foods for me. Fried foods and Sugar are two great poisons. (Of course who would not like them)

Thus you then asked...

Would you like fried foods?

Note above

My wife and I have found a nice breakfast that can carry us all day if required. Dry muesli with fruit of the day and a natural pot yogurt topping.

All the best regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

In my opinion and belief our individual needs is to know ourselves first before we attempt to know someone else.

That we agree on, we must know our own selves.

So you would have to believe we continue to live here in many life times before reaching that state.

I would offer that is not necessarily a requirement in belief.

Remember, offerings aren't actions. We have to discuss what we can do as a people. That's American Culture. As a People.

That is the required action to find our Unity. Some important issues are Race Relations and Gun Control. I like it that People in the Crowd of that Mass Shooting came to the realization that owning a gun does not necessarily mean that you can then Protect yourself. On TV here a high profile Gun Lobbyist apologized for his previous firm stance on this issue. He was in the crowd and the gun could not be used.

If you read my posts, I am not talking about lesser world peace. I'm talking of greater world peace. In my opinion, greater world peace means ending rebirth. It has nothing to do with god. I know you disagree. That is the beauty of humanity. So, what should we do from here? Are you going to walk away?

I do not need to walk away, all we have to do is work together for the betterment of all Humanity. Are you willing to help in some activities? We will and do help others.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'ma brief the last post and keep it short (crosses her fingers)

I disagree with starting with lesser peace as a foundation. That is external. A kind-hearted person could have grown up in an environment where guns and killing others save his life and family. A cruel hearted person could have been raised in a loving neighborhood and family but his predisposition of empathy is less than most people.

It has to be internal. That's why there are converts. People internally realize what they been taught (external) and what they believe (internal) conflict with each other and they side for the latter.

Once we have lesser world peace, many people will still have no god. People will still go through rebirth.

We need to go beyond this... It''s been discussed for 11460 posts already about lesser peace and bahai views.

I am sorry it will most likely not happen the way you would like to see it to be.

In this matter I can only offer what will most likely happen. The world is already reflecting what Baha'u'llah said would happen and I see no reason, especially when I watch the News, to see that trend will change.

But great thing is all the while this unfolds, as it will, we can work towards the Most Great Peace, there is nothing stopping us doing this but our own selves.

The only way we can go beyond the time we live in, is if we address the issues that face us now.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

As an objection to the application of an ambiguous label that may be a misrepresentation of the nature of the Baha'i faith, not at all unreasonable but that then means that the Baha'i faith is either:

1. An entirely new revelation or

2. "a complex product of original thought and original recombination of ideas already present in the world" - as per the part of the quote that you did agree with

So the question I asked in my previous post remain - to rephrase the question again:

What is fundamentally new or original about it that was not already present in the world as a religious idea?

Like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam before it the Baha'i Faith is based on an entirely new revelation. As discussed part of that new revelation is a restatement of past universal truths within the context of a new theology.

What's new? I thought I had answered that question earlier.

Here are a few concepts you may struggle to find in Islam or Christianity:

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Page 5

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 46-48

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 117-118

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 133-134

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 135-137

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 140-141

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 141-142

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 144-146

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 150-151

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Page 153

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 157-158

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 158-160

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 160-161

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 163-166

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 168-169

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Page 169

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 178-179

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 179-181

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 186-188

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 195-196

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 203-204

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Page 209

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 209-211

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 264-273

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 273-282

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What's new? I thought I had answered that question earlier.

Here are a few concepts you may struggle to find in Islam or Christianity:

Yes that is one or two, definitely a few!

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

Sorry to include a large amount of text, but thought these words from a Baha'i publication called 'one common faith' are really pertinent to what we have been discussing and explains some core concepts much better than I can. I would be interested to hear your thoughts and criticisms.

Throughout history, the primary agents of spiritual development have been the great religions. For the majority of the earth’s people, the scriptures of each of these systems of belief have served, in Bahá’u’lláh’s words, as "the City of God",a source of a knowledge that totally embraces consciousness, one so compelling as to endow the sincere with "a new eye, a new ear, a new heart, and a new mind". A vast literature, to which all religious cultures have contributed, records the experience of transcendence reported by generations of seekers. Down the millennia, the lives of those who responded to intimations of the Divine have inspired breathtaking achievements in music, architecture, and the other arts, endlessly replicating the soul’s experience for millions of their fellow believers. No other force in existence has been able to elicit from people comparable qualities of heroism, self-sacrifice and self-discipline. At the social level, the resulting moral principles have repeatedly translated themselves into universal codes of law, regulating and elevating human relationships. Viewed in perspective, the major religions emerge as the primary driving forces of the civilizing process. To argue otherwise is surely to ignore the evidence of history.


Why, then, does this immensely rich heritage not serve as the central stage for today’s reawakening of spiritual quest? On the periphery, earnest attempts are being made to reformulate the teachings that gave rise to the respective faiths, in the hope of imbuing them with new appeal, but the greater part of the search for meaning is diffused, individualistic and incoherent in character. The scriptures have not changed; the moral principles they contain have lost none of their validity. No one who sincerely poses questions to Heaven, if he persists, will fail to detect an answering voice in the Psalms or in the Upanishads. Anyone with some intimation of the Reality that transcends this material one will be touched to the heart by the words in which Jesus or Buddha speaks so intimately of it. The Qur’án’s apocalyptic visions continue to provide compelling assurance to its readers that the realization of justice is central to the Divine purpose. Nor, in their essential features, do the lives of heroes and saints seem any less meaningful than they did when those lives were lived centuries ago. For many religious people, therefore, the most painful aspect of the current crisis of civilization is that the search for truth has not turned with confidence into religion’s familiar avenues.


The problem is, of course, twofold. The rational soul does not merely occupy a private sphere, but is an active participant in a social order. Although the received truths of the great faiths remain valid, the daily experience of an individual in the twenty-first century is unimaginably removed from the one that he or she would have known in any of those ages when this guidance was revealed. Democratic decision-making has fundamentally altered the relationship of the individual to authority. With growing confidence and growing success, women justly insist on their right to full equality with men. Revolutions in science and technology change not only the functioning but the conception of society, indeed of existence itself. Universal education and an explosion of new fields of creativity open the way to insights that stimulate social mobility and integration, and create opportunities of which the rule of law encourages the citizen to take full advantage. Stem cell research, nuclear energy, sexual identity, ecological stress and the use of wealth raise, at the very least, social questions that have no precedent. These, and the countless other changes affecting every aspect of human life, have brought into being a new world of daily choices for both society and its members. What has not changed is the inescapable requirement of making such choices, whether for better or worse. It is here that the spiritual nature of the contemporary crisis comes into sharpest focus because most of the decisions called for are not merely practical but moral. In large part, therefore, loss of faith in traditional religion has been an inevitable consequence of failure to discover in it the guidance required to live with modernity, successfully and with assurance.


A second barrier to a re-emergence of inherited systems of belief as the answer to humanity’s spiritual yearnings is the effects already mentioned of global integration. Throughout the planet, people raised in a given religious frame of reference find themselves abruptly thrown into close association with others whose beliefs and practices appear at first glance irreconcilably different from their own. The differences can and often do give rise to defensiveness, simmering resentments and open conflict. In many cases, however, the effect is rather to prompt a reconsideration of received doctrine and to encourage efforts at discovering values held in common. The support enjoyed by various interfaith activities doubtless owes a great deal to response of this kind among the general public. Inevitably, with such approaches comes a questioning of religious doctrines that inhibit association and understanding. If people whose beliefs appear to be fundamentally different from one’s own nevertheless live moral lives that deserve admiration, what is it that makes one’s own faith superior to theirs? Alternatively, if all of the great religions share certain basic values in common, do not sectarian attachments run the risk of merely reinforcing unwanted barriers between an individual and his neighbours?


Few today among those who have some degree of objective familiarity with the subject are likely, therefore, to entertain an illusion that any one of the established religious systems of the past can assume the role of ultimate guide for humankind in the issues of contemporary life, even in the improbable event that its disparate sects should come together for that purpose. Each one of what the world regards as independent religions is set in the mould created by its authoritative scripture and its history. As it cannot refashion its system of belief in a manner to derive legitimacy from the authoritative words of its Founder, it likewise cannot adequately answer the multitude of questions posed by social and intellectual evolution. Distressing as this may appear to many, it is no more than an inherent feature of the evolutionary process. Attempts to force a reversal of some kind can lead only to still greater disenchantment with religion itself and exacerbate sectarian conflict.

Bahá'í Reference Library - One Common Faith, Pages 13-17

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes x 3 (&1) Eldest Son born 1975, Next Son Born 1990, Daughter Born 1992. The & 1 did not make this world in 1982.

Gosh. Three. Thee reason I ask is some parents offer and tell their children what they need to do but don't ask the child anything the parent feels they can decide on their own. There is more talking to the child rather than talking with the child.

I see that pattern here on this thread.

All dishes are made by food that is already available.

We have to decide if it is best to eat them as they are, or cook them, or combine them. Each time we eat, especially if we combine foods, we have to consider how much energy we put in to how much energy we put out.

This is why we cannot do anything together. I would have to accept food already fixed rather than our making food together and we accepting ingredients together.

We would not combine them. That means what I fix and what you fix would not be unique to themselves but integrated.

We'd have to find another way because like you I don't compromise in respect of combining my food. I rather make another dish together. Collaborate rather than offer already fixed food.

Find another approach.

I would offer that is not necessarily a requirement in belief.

Here is the key. If you want to "combine" beliefs rather than finding a solution we agree on together, then I would be at a lost. If you do combine beliefs, you'd have to believe something about rebirth. Likewise, I have to believe something about god. That is the definition of combination. Instead of combining, use a different approach and appreciate we have different beliefs that we can appreciate but don't need to combine to make a good solution to solve the world's problems.

That is the required action to find our Unity. Some important issues are Race Relations and Gun Control...

I do not need to walk away, all we have to do is work together for the betterment of all Humanity. Are you willing to help in some activities? We will and do help others.

If we start with greater peace, then I'm willing to work for it because I believe greater peace influences why lesser peace has not been achieved.

If I keep putting whitening on my teeth, they will look clean but they would not be cleaned. If I went to the dentist first, I can address the actual internal issue and then whiten my teeth if he didn't whiten them all the way.

Since you believe relieve external issues is a foundation for internal issues and I believe the opposite, how would we find a solution without combining (aka compromising) our beliefs?

I do not need to walk away, all we have to do is work together for the betterment of all Humanity. Are you willing to help in some activities? We will and do help others.

If I know that giving the homeless man a dollar would not only help him put food on his plate but actually have a conversation with him and give him money from my heart. I've been around the homeless a long time and still are. A lot of people want conversation and maybe eat out at a restaurant or light meal together. We know the reality of trying to fix external issues like giving money when a job is more productive. That doesn't mean not to give, it just means the internal needs are appreciated more than the external needs depending on the situation and what the person wants and what I can do not what I can offer.

I am sorry it will most likely not happen the way you would like to see it to be.

That is why it is hard to talk with people who disagree or have differences. It's a foregone conclusion.

In this matter I can only offer what will most likely happen. The world is already reflecting what Baha'u'llah said would happen and I see no reason, especially when I watch the News, to see that trend will change.

I disagree with Bahaullah's point of view since external issues are stemed from attachment and attachment has nothing to do with a gun and killing but the mental state in which one makes his decision to kill.

Also, action is more productive than offering. That's like JW giving me Watchtowers and waiting for me to say yes. Instead, they invited me to their Hall. They did an action to promote change in my faith not just offer me information to where I have a choice to toss it in the trash.

The only way we can go beyond the time we live in, is if we address the issues that face us now.

That's why we act. However, if you are (above) unwilling or can't go beyond what you offer, then there is no reason to address the issues. Bahai can do it by themselves but working together doesn't mean putting two separate dishes on the table. My view on rebirth and your view of Bahaullah together won't end rebirth or let me go to god just because we work together. We shouldn't expect each other to follow each other's beliefs (hoping every one thousand years we would). Instead, make a new solution of action.

It starts with you. Other religions go beyond offering. I can't work together with you if you just want to put already fixed food on the table.

 

[Vinayaka]

They even reject the obvious.

I agree. Things like homosexuality being a natural drive for some souls, or that religious paths can stand alone for thousands of years without any need to be replaced, modified, or changed. The fact that the world does well with many languages, and doesn't really need one language or one world government, as long as we have interpreters, and the spirit of ahimsa. The idea that women would be as capable as men to sit on the highest board of any group. You're so right. Lots of things are just so very obvious.

 

[Vinayaka]

The food is put on the table, choose what you like. I stand back and do not interfere with those choices.

Since when is insulting other faiths food?

What you said, to repeat, is that if a person doesn't accept the prophet's words, then he turns his back on God. All I'm asking for is a half-hearted attempt to imply that you didn't really mean that, and that other people of non-prophet based religions can believe in God, listen to God, act in accordance with dharma, without the need of prophets. That's tolerance, even love for the rest of humanity.

But perhaps you're only being the most truthful Baha'i' here, and your fellow adherents are just being nice to manipulate.

 

[Vinayaka]

Like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam before it the Baha'i Faith is based on an entirely new revelation. As discussed part of that new revelation is a restatement of past universal truths within the context of a new theology.

What's new? I thought I had answered that question earlier.

When I read through that stuff, it's quite apparent that he and the people who come after are upset with the ways of the Abrahamics up to that point in history. He says things like 'Europe and the rest of the world' but doesn't really understand what was going on in the rest of the world. So it's a very limited vision, and a lot of it is well, frankly, quite 'out there'. I certainly don't have the time to go through it all, but as I read, several ideas jump out at me. For example, in the third one he talks about ending the diversity of religion on this planet. As you can understand, for people like me who love diversity, enjoy it immensely, that's just sad. Sounds like in communism states ... no color.

But to be clear, I think it is an improvement on Islam and on Christianity, but much of the 'innovation' stuff has already been done in various dharmic faiths. So much of it is new to where he was, but not new to the entire world. So the entire message isn't nearly as unique as you would like us to believe.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

bviously


No, obviously number of converts has nothing to do with it. Hinduism gets very few converts, and I'm a Hindu. It just seems so important to Bahai though. I find that odd, frankly. Not my paradigm.

Based on Bahai Scriptures, number of converts has nothing to do with Truth. So, even if there was no Believer in Bahaullah, the truth does not change.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I don't understand - what did I think I did? You replied to the post in which I quoted several sources attesting to Baha'u'llah's love of books and learning - I didn't just think I posted them, I did post them and you responded by explaining them away - but most of the quotes I used were from Baha'i sources.

Yes, so you would still owe a response to my post that you are saying i explained them away. Otherwise, you simply left that conversation, and did not prove your point.
You are saying Bahaullah got His knowledge from Quran, or other things by reading and learning, or associating with others, and you are basing it on the fact that Bahaullah had knowledge of Quran or other things. Whereas, I am not saying that Bahaullah did not have the knowledge of Quran, or everything else. The Question is if you think He learned from others, why there is no evidnce that He learned from other sources? You would have to be fair in your responses, or judgement. What I can agree, is, it is unbelievable to most people that a person knows things without learning. But just because it is unbelievable that does not refute the claim of Bahaullah. To refute His claim, one needs to provide evidnce that He has been reading and learning books for a long time, and that He had many books, and teachers to learn from. All witnesses agree that Bahaullah wrote His books from His mind. There is no evidence that Bahaullah had to find another book to get quotes from it. He knew verses of Bible, Quran, Hadithes, and History from His memory. Yet there is no evidence He memorized all that.

 

[Vinayaka]

Based on Bahai Scriptures, number of converts has nothing to do with Truth. So, even if there was no Believer in Bahaullah, the truth does not change.

That's just common sense. Please don't tell me you needed Baha'u'llah to figure that one out. What does change is how truth is perceived by various adherents in various faiths. Some of us can look at it objectively and see diversity. Others adamantly claim that their truth is the ONLY truth. That's called fundamentalism.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is why we cannot do anything together. I would have to accept food already fixed rather than our making food together and we accepting ingredients together.

The food is already fixed, you and I can not change that, it is on the table. If for a future meal we wish to change what is offered then we can put human input in to it and graft to make another variety.

Until that time we have a choice of what the earth provides. There is also great spiritual wisdom in this.

Find another approach.

Think deeper.

Here is the key. If you want to "combine" beliefs rather than finding a solution we agree on together, then I would be at a lost

A Baha'i does not Combine Beliefs, we are told to find the Truth within and hold fast to the Truth.

Thus lets say 9 Faiths have a teaching on Being Born again, lets consider the passages of each that give that understanding and lets find what they really say. After discussion many doors to new understandings are opened.

If we stick to doctrine we close all other doors

If we start with greater peace, then I'm willing to work for it because I believe greater peace influences why lesser peace has not been achieved.

We Must learn to walk before we can run. A person will always have trouble if they try to run before they can walk. Life teaches us this.

That is why it is hard to talk with people who disagree or have differences. It's a foregone conclusion.

There is a balance we must find. The balance is God. So yes, it will be difficult.

When we are yet to put the names of God in our Lives, a good foundation can still be found if we can be Trustworthy and Truthful in all our dealings with each other.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I disagree with Bahaullah's point of view since external issues are stemed from attachment and attachment has nothing to do with a gun and killing but the mental state in which one makes his decision to kill.

All Mind of man is connected. Someone playing a violent video game projects that mind into Humanity and it has outward consequenses.

Yes it is about all of us, humanity as a whole. If you do not think Unity in purpose and Mind are not important, keep watching this world as calamities and natural disasters multiply by the day.

The cancer of materialism and immorality that has made sick the mind of man and now requires radical and harsh treatment.

The treatment has begun. Now the patient's have to accept the elixer and not fight against it.

Stay safe and happy, Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Bahai can do it by themselves

No they can not, it would have happened.

We are Humanity we are connected, we must do it together.

Together we must decide what is the best way.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

that religious paths can stand alone for thousands of years without any need to be replaced, modified, or changed.

That is not reflected in Hinduisim, are you suggesting it is?

What of the Caste System?

, and that other people of non-prophet based religions can believe in God, listen to God, act in accordance with dharma, without the need of prophets. That's tolerance, even love for the rest of humanity.

We have always offered Unity in what is of God, and that is that we all look for the good in all.

That's just common sense. Please don't tell me you needed Baha'u'llah to figure that one out. What does change is how truth is perceived by various adherents in various faiths. Some of us can look at it objectively and see diversity. Others adamantly claim that their truth is the ONLY truth. That's called fundamentalism.

That is what we look for Unity in our Diversity.

To do that you would have to look how the teachings of Baha'u'llah are indeed offering that Unity of thought. This is what to look for in any Scriptures a Unity of Purpose.

If one does not look to the source, as you do not use scripture as a base, then I can see that is hard to accept.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

That is not reflected in Hinduisim, are you suggesting it is?

Hinduism is constantly changing, reflecting the times. When new science comes out, we use it. The key as always, of course is wisdom.

As far as the caste system goes, it is always changing. Originally it was merely a reflection of how, in olden days, people did what their parents did. So a tailor's son became a tailor.

It's class we of humanity have to be worried about, not caste. Distribution of wealth is a major problem. Religions that think in terms of 'us versus them' are horribly class conscious. It's the upper class (us) versus the lower class (them). The ruling class in a utopian Baha'i' society will be all Baha'i'. No room at the top for us poor blokes on the outside. Even the Baha'i' women are on the outside.

 

[Vinayaka]

If one does not look to the source, as you do not use scripture as a base, then I can see that is hard to accept.

It's not that I don't accept it because Hinduism isn't scripture based. It's that it makes no sense to me personally. Yes it makes sense to yo, you're a Baha'i'. If it made any sense to me, I'd be a Baha'i' too.