How are these Great Beings explained?

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes I am aware of that, that is why the comment was a thought offered to consider and not a point to be further argued. I had chosen the later, but I am weak. See if I can be stronger. My apologies.

I wish you well always. Regards Tony

It's your online personality. Everyone has their personality but it takes interest to really want to "be stronger". I accept offerings of apologies but in my faith (and if in person), apologies also come with actions such as offerings to, say, The Buddha or service to a person or so have you.

If you want to converse with me, you have to have at least some interest in what I say and ask. I mean, with Adrian I can talk a long time with no one getting offended or defensive. Not just singling him out just I don't talk with the other Bahai here anymore.

If The Buddha is a revealed teacher, one of his teachings was to acknowledge the issue you're having whether you realize it or not, find the cause, acknowledge the goal, and address it by a solution. Having revealed teachers in my opinion doesn't just mean showing compassion.

If these people are actually in your faith, you have to practice what they do as well. It's respectful.

But I was serious with my questions with Adrian. If you want to answer them too, I'd be thankful.

Because it is literally driving me nuts that Bahai sees differences as negative but accepts diversity. I wish arthra was here to give his view on it or something. Bahaullah doesn't relate diversity with differences but that is why diversity is what it is, because of our differences. Why is that so negative unless we want to make it that way-if that's the case, that worldview is what causes division and wars not differences in and of themselves.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Because it is literally driving me nuts that Bahai sees differences as negative but accepts diversity.

Differences are not negative until we make them exclusivly so. Consider Compassion mentioned above and all you see the Buddha offers to be compassionate.

If this is practiced in another Faith in another way, this is Diversity.

It is common ground, with Diversity in our Frames of Reference.

Baha'u'llah has said broaden your frame of References and recognize compassion whatever the source.

I would offer if a person of any Faith or no Faith practices compassion, then it is compassion and Not Buddha Compassion and not Christain Compassion or Athiest Compassion, it is the Compassion Buddha asked us to practice.

So if we were to list what is needed to do to practice compassion from a Buddhist Perspective, we would have to prove it does not have the same aim in other faiths or a person of no faith that implements compassion.

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I would offer if a person of any Faith or no Faith practices compassion, then it is compassion and Not Buddha Compassion and not Christain Compassion or Athiest Compassion, it is the Compassion Buddha asked us to practice.

I understand where you going...

and the reason I don't agree is that the compassion each non-universalist faith has is defined by their practices.

It is Buddha compassion (compassion by liberation via meditation)

It is Christian compassion (compassion by the literal life, death, and resurrection of christ)

It is Hindu compassion (the experience and result from being one and as one with Brahman)

We all have Letters of Compassion.

That does not mean we can't get along. Compassion is just a word. It's how you interact with people, talk with people (online and offline), and how you present yourself around people that is the key.

I see the difference between a compassion from a Catholic versus a Buddhist. They are totally different because of their belief systems. They can still get along no problem. They can still be one (work together not unified) in lesser peace.

But their compassions are different because the root of it is different. Just because they use the same word does not mean they have the same experience.
​

Once you accept people for their differences (in compassion etc), you will accept their diversity (of how they express it).

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you

In Buddhism, the virtues are based on the practice not the practice on the virtues. We can believe in wisdom, and compassion, etc all day long; but, without practice, to put it bluntly in my opinion, they mean nothing.

So Hindu practice A brings about compassion B

Bahai practice C brings about compassion D

Buddhist practice F brings about compassion G

It's best and more respectful to say we all have letters of compassion rather than saying BDG are the same thing even though they are built off of and defined by the different letters preceding them. All my posts in this thread in a nut shell.

What is the Buddhist practice that brings about compassion?

From an outsider looking in, how could I tell that my workmate (apart from knowing his/her ethnicity and religion) has Buddhist compassion and not Baha'i compassion?

You're welcome. Always good to hear differing religions. I actually looked up Bahai once in my life time when the internet first start becoming popular. I was still in the middle of what I thought was christianity and figure since Bahai believe in god maybe the definition of god is different than christians since I don't believe in god. What drove me away was the different manifestations in one faith. I was never a universalist.

This is the first time actually talking to people with whom the website I saw represents.

I started posting on RF December last year. This is my first real interfaith discussion on the internet. I am pleased you have taken the time to talk to me and the Baha'is here.

I'm clearly a universalist. I've come to appreciate from this thread how people who are not universalists such as yourself and @Vinayaka are not universalist and how you find peace and harmony between yourselves.

Differences and diversity are the same. Diversity is diversity because of our differences. Our differences are beautiful because they make us diverse.

If Bahai cannot discuss or see differences as positive, to me it is a contradiction that they would accept diversity with open arms. It is an insult to diversity if you do not recognize what makes them diverse: our differences.

I agree that Baha'is need to be more appreciative of diversity of religion. I have a lot to learn about Buddhism and know next to nothing about Hinduism. My knowledge of Buddhism through my wife's family provides a helpful insight, along with the many other wonderful people from a Buddhist background I have met.

You cannot embrace diversity if you do not find positivity in differences.

I mean, Bahaullah does literally say unity is taking away differences to find similarities. Bahai literally said in the first pages of this thread that the rays come from one sun and the waves are part of one ocean.

There is nothing morally wrong with your intentions. It is the facts we are questioning not your view or mode of greater and lesser world peace. (I wish I can write this on the board somewhere. Ha.)

If someone from a Buddhist or Hindu background wanted to become a Baha'i, they would need to understand what that meant, and that there were certain beliefs that are incompatible with being a Baha'i. Otherwise we just have a different worldview and that's fine.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I understand where you going...

and the reason I don't agree is that the compassion each non-universalist faith has is defined by their practices.

The point of difference is that, it is the way we practice compassion that gives it Diversity.

The key to the common foundation is that the Buddha is Compassion. Likewise so is the Christ, Krishna, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah.

All the Great Beings are Compassion and yes we make up the Word to the extent we can mirror it in our lives.

Our diversity is in our practice of compassion, the Great Being Oneness is their example of Compasion.

So have we found some common ground?

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

What is the Buddhist practice that brings about compassion?

I see it the other way around. The compassion is the cause of the action. Because actions vary, it is safe to conclude that the concept of compassion varies too, unless you just give the general meaning.

A good example is an alcoholic in his last few years at a retirement home, or dying. Some people would think that it is compassionate to allow him a good shot of whiskey before bedtime, as then he wouldn't have to go through the delirium tremors involved with withdrawal, which, at that point would be far worse on him than the alcohol. Other people, and hospitals would refuse to do that. So with hard topics like euthanasia, death with dignity, methadone treatment for heroin addiction, the idea of compassion varies widely.

On a personal note, my hard and fast vegetarianism is a result of my compassion for animals. Others limit that type of compassion to humans alone, and can eat the flesh of another creature to their heart's content with no sign of remorse.

In Baha'i versus some others, the treatment of homosexuality reflects differing views on compassion.

 

[Vinayaka]

What about the core teachings of each religion?
Maybe it's time we study a little bit more about Hinduism. Here's a link to the deities of Hinduism


Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva seated on lotuses with their consorts

I had to laugh at this, as it's a western interpretation of a rare school or thought within Hinduism, that just happens to be the closest to any Christian concept of a trinity. Hardly even Hinduism at all any more. You wouldn't likely encounter it outside of western encyclopedias written by non-Hindus.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm clearly a universalist. I've come to appreciate from this thread how people who are not universalists such as yourself and @Vinayaka are not universalist and how you find peace and harmony between yourselves.

There are many versions of universalism. Some of the most intolerant people I have ever met have been universalists. (not you I have in mind, and most have been Hindu universalists, who see things very simply, not really looking onto all the faiths in any real depth) They make false accusations about dogma in other faiths or sects, and will tell you, as hard as anyone else, "I'm right and you're wrong." In other words, to them, universalism is THE ONLY WAY to go. Intolerance is intolerance, no matter how you cut it. It doesn't matter what the philosophy is, an individual, because of ego, can let you know how right they are, and how wrong you are.

In my view, as you know, better to just accept everyone's religion as valid for them, and not try to mix and match, unless you're prepared to face some heavy dilemmas with all the contradictions.

 

[Vinayaka]

“Because a man neglects his ever-present Self through the evil of ignorance (spiritual blindness), he is called ‘one who commits suicide”.

Isha Upanishad: Verse 3

I appreciate this is from a sacred text that as a Saivite Hindu you may not follow.

I follow the Vedas and the Upanishads. They are shruti. But this is incredibly different than what you said. What you said is by not following the manifestations, we're blind. You said, "I'm right and you''e wrong." This says by neglecting the Reality of the inner core of our Being, the Self God within the lotus of the heart, we are unable to see clearly. Two totally different concepts, other than the use of the word 'blind'. I see no comparison at all.

Even then it isn't really clear, because normally any translation of the original Sanskrit gets distorted. I'm a Hindu amd often admit I wouldn't get the true meaning unless I was fluent in Sanskrit, let alone somebody reading an English translation.

To illustrate my point, here are two more translations of that same verse.

1) Demonic verily are the worlds which are enveloped in blinding darkness. And to them go, after death, those who harm their inner selves.

2) Verily, those worlds of the asuras are enveloped in blind darkness; and thereto they all
repair after death who are slayers of Atman.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm at home now; so, I can reply to both of you together.

Differences are not negative until we make them exclusively so. Consider Compassion mentioned above and all you see the Buddha offers to be compassionate.

When I mention differences, I'm always referring to positive ones. Now you see why I was confused?

What is the Buddhist practice that brings about compassion?

Buddhist practices vary from chanting Daimoku to guided meditation. I think there is a more specific question in this since there are many many many Buddhist practices that bring out compassion. The purpose of compassion in Buddhist teachings is to be liberated from samsara. The goal, practice, and result are interrelated thereby the compassion is defined differently than say a woman who finds her compassion from the Passion of Christ.

From an outsider looking in, how could I tell that my workmate (apart from knowing his/her ethnicity and religion) has Buddhist compassion and not Baha'i compassion?

This is my bias. I can only speak from Catholic vs. Buddhist perspective.

Compassion is defined by action not the other way around. (I can only enjoy the height of swinging if I push myself on the swing to fly back and forth. If I just sat still, I would not feel that height of enjoyment. I need action.)

A Catholic's compassion is embedded in the sacraments of Christ. So, their compassion may involve spreading their faith. It may involve inviting people to the Church. Catholic compassion if people are interested may be talking about their relationship with the Eucharist. If one understands Catholicism, they may even talk about Eucharistic adoration. Their expression is different because they want people to come to Christ. It's an inner need for people to be with them in christ to be one body, one Church.

Buddhism is not like that. The Buddha didn't teach evangelism but instruction. He taught not to talk to those who don't understand and he taught that practice brings out compassion which is universal (Buddhist definition) that everyone would understand. No one needs to share in this compassion to experience it from a devoted Buddhist. It's a humbleness that even on this thread, cultural Buddhist probably won't participate in because The Buddha taught not to debate and have harsh words of other people's religions.

Catholic compassion is defined by the grace of god through christ.

Buddhist compassion is defined by the liberation of the mind through mental training.

Yes, both have positive results. You still have letters of compassion. I just don't understand why you need the letters to relate to each other to share in the compassion without needing to integrate in any one else's but your own.

The point of difference is that, it is the way we practice compassion that gives it Diversity.

That's why I wondered why you didn't answer my never-ending question about why differences are negative. If you'd only mention this, it makes more sense because you used practice.

The difference is I am saying the practice defines compassion not brings it out.

The key to the common foundation is that the Buddha is Compassion. Likewise so is the Christ, Krishna, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah.

I never heard of Christ being compassion. If it's the same as love, the yeah, I guess. Christ gives compassion through his sacraments. (He is not compassion but gives it; the creator is not the creation but creates it)

The Buddha is only compassion when we see our compassion reflected by the Dhamma. The Buddha is not worshiped like Christ and Bahaullah. The Buddha in and of himself does nothing. When we speak of The Buddha being compassion (if one likes; I never heard it that way) it means we share in his liberation.

In Catholicism, you share in Christ himself. In Buddhism, you share in The Buddha's Mind. The Buddha's body actually died. There is no spirit or soul.

So both Christ and The Buddha can hug you with a smile. That isn't the definition of compassion. If you told Christ and The Buddha they share the same compassion, they'd probably be puzzled. Why? Because one comes from the heart and the other the mind.

How can you say they have the same thing when their foundation is drastically different.

I can't speak for the other three.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What about the core teachings of each religion?
Maybe it's time we study a little bit more about Hinduism. Here's a link to the deities of Hinduism


Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva seated on lotuses with their consorts

So Baha's believe in one God? And that all religions agree? Then how do you explain Hinduism? It may be the oldest. Yet, it is virtually ignored in the Baha'i Faith?

The term Hinduism is used to describe many and varied beliefs. Within Hinduism there are sects that believe in One Universal Supreme Being as well as sects which believe in Avatars or Manifestations Who appear on earth from time to time. As well there are sects which do not believe in in just one God bu have many deities and do not accept Prophets or Avatars.

As you know Baha’is do not acknowledge all sects of all religions as being Divinely revealed by God. We acknowledge fully religions which have Manifestations as having been sent by God and others as branches or even man made. But that does not mean we do not accept the basic truths in all religions.

When you say Hinduism is virtually ignored in the Baha’i Faith what are you referring to? Baha’u’llah apoeared in an Islamic society so was never approached about Hinduism except very rarely.

You will not find most other religions as accepting of and willing to accept that there is any truth in Hinduism. Ask Christians if they will be open to accepting the Gita or Vedas or Muslims and Jews. None of them acknowledge that any part of Hinduism or any sect was revealed by God except the Baha’i Faith.

We might not embrace every sect or belief system in Hinduism but we do acknowledge the many, many truths contained within and uphold these beliefs. The reason you will not find many Baha’i Writings on Hinduism is that Baha’u’llah did not appear in a Hindu country. The same too with Judaism, Christianity and Islam - no mention of Hinduism at all. But their message was universal.

But Buddha, Who did appear in that region did speak of Hinduism so you see this has more to do with geography than negligence. Buddha addressed a Hindu society so we don’t find Him speaking about Judaism or Moses.

 

[Vinayaka]

The same too with Judaism, Christianity and Islam - no mention of Hinduism at all. But their message was universal.

Good points about geography, but they weren't universal in my view. Exclusive, in my view.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It's not sadness or anger, at all but a realisation that we're all not getting anywhere. You're correct. You personally haven't said we turn our backs on God, or said that we're blind. But people have. If you feel you need to argue against that, you certainly can. But that argument isn't with me. But so far I haven't seen any Baha'i' confront another Baha'i' on this thread. It's been nothing but lovey-dovey support.

I really felt bad yesterday but just sneaked in today worrying how to face your wrath but you’ve been kind. I’m encouraged.

When you say not getting anywhere isn’t the goal to learn? Just by mixing with those who are different to me I’m learning.

If the Manifestations weren’t supported by a Divine Entity then how do we explain their influence? I’m sure if capitalism could unravel the secret to 24/7 devotion and commitment and maintain this for thousands of years they would be very interested and to a degree they have but they have massive wealth. What did the Divine Educators have but scorn, ridicule, torture, imprisonment , crucifixion and exile?

If these Books such as the Bible, Quran and Gita and so on are not be from a Divine God then we should very easily be able to produce something similar and capture the attention of all humanity but this far we have been unable.

 

[Dawnofhope]

To "strongly discourage the Jews from worshipping other gods"? You mean like having the prophets of Baal killed? I wonder how the God of Israel would have dealt with Hindus and Buddhists?

I understand that it was the Jewish followers of Baal that were killed and not the local followers. God revealed to His chosen people a different standard and it is no coincidence that the first of ten commandments was to have none other God but Me.

Exodus 20

This culminated in God intervening through the prophet Elijah

Who was Baal?

"Did His (Jesus) Teachings transcend these cultural influences to give birth to a new theology..."? It gave birth to a religion that made Him God and the only way to God.

You know my answer to that. The exclusivity of Christ is a failure to understand the historic and culture context of verses like John 14:6

Did you take any Religious Studies courses while in college? Because they kind of do have a progression of religious beliefs... but nothing like the Baha'i progression. Since those studies try and use a scientific method, I would think it would be of some importance to Baha'is. Except that it doesn't support the Baha'is beliefs of progressive revelation very well, but I'm sure you'd find some way to make it work.

We have a very well established and reputable theology faculties here. I had the opportunity to briefly study the return of Christ with the assistance of the faculty Dean and a Master's student who completing his thesis on this topic. At least two Baha'is from my community have also studied, one completed a bachelor of divinity degree.

A friend is currently taking a religious studies paper run by an ex-Catholic Priest turned humanist who provides a secular view of religion. So religion is wholly a man made phenomena with no God or Divine beings at all, a view not shared by Baha'is.

I recently completed an introductory course on NT Greek and found it helpful.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In Baha'i versus some others, the treatment of homosexuality reflects differing views on compassion.

To @adrian009 and @Tony Bristow-Stagg

This is a great example.

Different definitions of compassion by different groups. These are not different frame references. They have their foundations. They have good intentions. You can share in their intentions but what you're sharing in is only the surface. The foundation is so different.

Courage is a Roman Catholic organization and a deconversion religious therapy that helps LGBTQ recognize their sinful temptations in order to change and be as god created them.

For example, in their Q & A

"Why doesn’t Courage refer to its membership as “gay” or “lesbian”?"

Courage sees persons with same-sex attractions first and foremost as men and women created in the image of God, with a vocation to live a chaste and holy life through an ever-deepening union with Christ.

Some people say that identifying themselves as “gay” or “lesbian” either privately or publicly simply means that they are acknowledging that their emotional, romantic, and sexual attractions are predominantly and persistently towards the same sex. They hold that these words are simple but essential descriptors for a key part of their identity and claim that the adoption of these labels are a way of “owning” their sexuality and facing the reality of “who they are.” Further, they hold that such labels do not interfere with or diminish their commitment to chastity.

While this may be true for some, there are others for whom the embracing of LGBTQ terminology is a stumbling block, for reasons such as the following:

• It draws them into a more secular milieu, causing them to be more tempted to pursue a sexually active homosexual relationship.
• It makes them more susceptible to embracing the politics of “gay” activism which is often at odds with the Church’s moral teachings, especially in the area of marriage.
• It influences them to disregard or gloss over the Church’s teachings on the inclination to homosexual activity being objectively disordered, because the world often propounds the idea that “all things ‘gay’ are good.”

The experience of sexuality in all its subtleties and nuances does indeed have a powerful influence on our experience of life and on how we interact with others; however, we would be mistaken to root our identity in those very subjective currents that can overwhelm us and sometimes lead us astray, apart from the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit.

Courage also considers the example our adult membership and our pastoral outreach sets for young people whose psychosexual development is still in a very formative stage. Premature self-labelling may discourage a young person from being open to the possibility of further psychosexual development. It may also cause a young person to be more vulnerable to confusion and temptation in the three ways described earlier.

This is why Courage considers it pastorally prudent to avoid terms that may be stumbling blocks to others; accordingly, we gently encourage our membership to think beyond the labels “gay” and “lesbian,” while we strive together to grow in our essential identity as men and women formed in God’s image, created for intimate and eternal union with Christ.

They feel the words LGBTQ are stumbling blocks. Sincerely, they want LGBTQ to identity as heterosexuals in order to help them over the stumbling block of sin to be heterosexuals.

On the other hand...

October 11, 2017 is National Coming Out day in the states. Here is how LGBTQ individuals define compassion via equality and wanting to be seen as the same (not people that need help or are inherently tempted) everyone else.

Testimony: Kate, 28, lesbian woman.
"I actually started telling people when I was around 15, I remember inviting my friends out one by one for a drink to tell them, and I built it up to be a big revelation in my head. In actual fact, they either knew of weren’t bothered anyway. It’s not like they didn’t acknowledge it, but they just weren’t that surprised! I originally told them I was bi-sexual, which I think a lot of people do at first as a safety net just incase you decided to be straight......

....You do have to come out every day, and sometimes it’s tricky in the workplace, I had a job once where I actually lied about it. My work colleagues thought I was a single straight girl, where in fact I was gay and in a serious relationship at the time.

I was there for a year and when I left, I promised myself I would never lie about it again. I think that experience helped me realise how important my sexuality is in everyday situations. It’s ridiculous to think I lied about what I did at the weekend because I was scared someone would know I was gay."

While compassion to a Catholic towards LGBTQ youth is to be like god to have a mate of the opposite gender, LGBTQ see it in this case as not lying to ourselves about who we are and our sexuality that defines us. Catholics do not see sexuality in general defining them but only hetero-sexuality.

Compassion with LGBTQ with sexuality does not dice people up in pieces but have a plethora of letters (and growing) to say compassion is equality for all people.

Catholicism, that is not the case. If it were, Catholics would let all Christians take the Eucharist. They'd let all Christians take the sacraments. They'd worship with all Christians without singling them out as not yet part of the full body.

Many LGBTQ that believe in god see god as someone who created who they are sexuality and above. They see a god of love without reservations and showing unconditional love that in Catholicism has reservations.



I don't mean to be rude, Tony, but your compassion is walking away from a disagreement. My compassion is confronting it (hence The Buddha taught acknowledging our sufferings-the issue at hand) to find compassion in the situation.

If our compassion is the same by different name, what is my compassion if it is yours.

 

[Vinayaka]

I really felt bad yesterday but just sneaked in today worrying how to face your wrath but you’ve been kind. I’m encouraged.

When you say not getting anywhere isn’t the goal to learn? Just by mixing with those who are different to me I’m learning.

If the Manifestations weren’t supported by a Divine Entity then how do we explain their influence? I’m sure if capitalism could unravel the secret to 24/7 devotion and commitment and maintain this for thousands of years they would be very interested and to a degree they have but they have massive wealth. What did the Divine Educators have but scorn, ridicule, torture, imprisonment , crucifixion and exile?

If these Books such as the Bible, Quran and Gita and so on are not be from a Divine God then we should very easily be able to produce something similar and capture the attention of all humanity but this far we have been unable.

Wow. Wrath? I must be one horrible communicator if you see my words are full of wrath.But then I'm just a lowly non-Baha'i'. What could one expect besides wrath?

By not getting anywhere I meant slow progress. Others, well, it seems like it's just the same thing reiterated many times. So learning is individual.

You keep saying you would like to know more about Hinduism, but than nobody asks anything about Hinduism, lol.

How do we explain the manifestations influence? Did you read my firs post on the subject almost 600 pages ago? (Do you see now why I see little progress?)

Lots of people have been totally able to produce stuff similar to the sacred writings, the sacred books. Gibran, Aurobindo, Tiruvalluvar, Tirumular, too many to count. Maybe you just are so fixated on the few of the 'manifestations' you haven't looked elsewhere.

Lots of people have been scorned, imprisoned. Nelson Mandela comes to mind. My point, as always, is that the so called manifestations are nowhere near as unique as you seem to thing they are. Wise men, arguable, amongst many wise men on this planet. The difference? ... none really, other than circumstance or good PR representatives.

Is this not just reiteration, LH? On both sides?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You keep saying you would like to know more about Hinduism, but than nobody asks anything about Hinduism, lol.

Wow. Interesting. Don't ask. Seemed appropriate for the moment.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

it is literally driving me nuts that Bahai sees differences as negative but accepts diversity

Perhaps I can help, if you will tell me what made you think that Bahai sees differences as negative.

 

[Dawnofhope]

@adrian009 - I am genuinely impressed by your patience which clearly surpasses mine by orders of magnitude!

I also find myself in agreement with many of the points you have listed in the sense that I agree that - for example - independent investigation of truth, gender equality (although I believe equity would be a more sensible goal), eradication of superstition and acceptance of scientific knowledge...etc...are important aspects of any rational religion that will be suitable for the post-post-modern era of the 21st century globalized (for better or worse) world that our children and grandchildren will inherit from us.

But almost none (if any at all) of these ideas are genuinely new and neither were they in 19th century. And that has been my point - that Baha'u'llah essentially repackaged existing ideas that were already in the world. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that - unless you are claiming that the "novelty" of the ideas is evidence of divine inspiration of the miraculous kind

I appreciate the time and thought you have put into this. Novel as per a previous post is not the best word, but it is useful to consider similar ideas that were happening elsewhere in the world and how they have featured previously in religion. It is useful to consider where Persia stood in the modern world and exposure that Baha'u'llah may have had to European ideas.

To orientate us to these times you may like to consider when the first telegraph was sent and the contents of the message

Samuel F.B. Morse Sent the First Telegraphic Message

The Significance of Samuel Morse Inventing the Telegraph | Synonym

along with the declaration of the Bab and birth of Abdu'l-Baha that happened on the same day.

Baha'is celebrate the declaration of the Bab | Canadian Baha’i News Service

`Abdu'l-Bahá - Wikipedia

I want to respond more fully - at some point - by comparing your list (if I may use it) with my own thoughts about what religion is (or at least might yet become) - but although all the thoughts are clear in my head - it will take me a while to get it down in words. In essence, I think Baha'u'llah might have been onto something - especially if your point about eradicating superstition is to be taken at face value. Clearly, the global brotherhood of humanity has moved on significantly since the mid-19th century - clearly we need a genuinely new religious paradigm if we need one at all. Don't you think?

I'm enjoying your well considered thoughts and analysis about the human origins of Baha'u'llahs teachings. Clearly I believe we do need a new religious paradigm, but I respect your views that we probably don't and why. Once you have finished responding, I'll reply further.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Abdulbaha says, these expressions are not to be taken literally.

Do you have a source for that?