How are these Great Beings explained?

[siti]

I am not anymore and I have been cured of debate forums, to which I have been reminded many times this actually is, thus thank you and thanks to all, Goodbye all.

Dear @Tony Bristow-Stagg - I hope my comments have not contributed to your frustration - I know I was certainly one of those who "reminded" you that this is a debate forum. I just want to say that I am here for two things - to learn and to have my beliefs challenged. The learning process necessarily involves challenging ideas that are new to me - with reason and perhaps sometimes also with ridicule. I don't mean this in a way that is intended to be disrespectful of believers - but only of beliefs. In a debate forum I think that is perfectly acceptable - but it is not everyone's cup of tea. But how can any mature, thinking person acquire a better understanding of "things" without challenging the ideas that are presented to them? And isn't that the essence of the first principle of the Baha'i faith anyway? That reality must be probed independently. Surely a mature faith can withstand counter-argument and ridicule - if not, how will it stand up in the face of real opposition - such as Mahvash Sabet has endured?

 

[siti]

/contd from How are these Great Beings explained?


Eradication of prejudice and superstition

I’m sure we don’t have to establish that this was certainly not a new idea. The missions of Moses, Christ and Muhammad were all to a large extent focussed on the eradication of superstition and prejudice – especially in the form of idolatry.

Well, I would argue – in keeping with the 18th century English deists and Isaac Newton (for example) – that the worship of Christ or the elevation of any other “Manifestation” of Deity is tantamount to idolatry. I would also argue that the assumption of religious oneness is prejudicial (see my previous post).

If we take the dictionary definition of superstition:

…a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief…

…then the question arises: how is belief in Baha’u’llah’s Divine status justified? In the final analysis we have only his word for it. So in what sense is Baha’i practice – in regard to the doctrines of Divine Manifestation and Divine Revelation (at least) not superstition?

The harmony of religion and science

The priests are attached to ancient superstitions and when these are not in keeping with science, the priests denounce science. When religion is upheld by science and reason we can believe with assurance and act with conviction, for this rational faculty is the greatest power in the world. Through it industries are established, the past and present are laid bare and the underlying realities are brought to light. Let us make nature our captive, break through all laws of limitation and with deep penetration bring to light that which is hidden. The power to do this is the greatest of divine benefits. Why treat with indifference such a divine spark? Why ignore a faculty so beneficial, a sun so powerful? – Abdu’l Baha

I couldn’t agree more – but then…

…If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible… - Abdu’l Baha (my bold)…

Abdu’l Baha prophesied: "When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles - and then will mankind be united in the power of the Love of God."

Well that's a grand prospect, but once again, he was beaten to it by about a century by our old friend Thomas Jefferson who wrote in 1826 about the “The general spread of the light of science…” which, by then, he claimed had “already laid open to every view the palpable truth,…”

Jefferson was no originator of the idea that (modern) science had a key role in revealing truth. The Irish deist, John Toland had already been there much earlier – at least as early as 1696 when his Christianity Not Mysterious was published in which he insisted “Whoever reveals anything, that is, whoever tells us something we did not know before, his words must be intelligible, and the matter possible. This rule holds good, let God or Man be the Revealer.” That was fully two centuries before Abdu’l Baha similarly insisted that religious claims must be scientifically intelligible (you'd need to read the book to see that that was exactly what he meant but trust me - having studied Toland's trajectory from theism through deism to a kind of naturalistic pantheism in some detail, I am certain that is what he meant).

Again, it makes no difference that Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l Baha had probably never heard of Toland (though it is unlikely they could have failed to hear of Jefferson) – but the question is, if Toland and Jefferson could pluck these ideas from their own heads decades and centuries earlier, why would Baha’u’llah and Son require divine prompting to think of them somewhat belatedly? More to the point – how on earth are unsubstantiated claims of divinely inspired revelation to be assessed scientifically?


The equality of men and women

“All should know, and in this regard attain the splendours of the sun of certitude, and be illumined thereby: Women and men have been and will always be equal in the sight of God. The Dawning-Place of the Light of God sheddeth its radiance upon all with the same effulgence. Verily God created women for men, and men for women.” – Baha’u’llah

[I cannot establish a date for the above quote but I am inclined to believe that it purports to be a translation from Tablets that were “revealed” after the Kitab-i-Aqdas which puts its composition in the 1870s or 1880s – please correct me if I am wrong on this].

In 1859 – still apparently a decade or two before Baha’u’llah wrote anything on the subject of gender equality (as far as we know) – Frederick Evans wrote about the Shakers having been "the first to disenthrall woman from the condition of vassalage to which all other religious systems (more or less) consign her, and to secure to her those just and equal rights with man that, by her similarity to him in organization and faculties, both God and nature would seem to demand"

In fact, Shakers had observed gender equality in religious governance since Joseph Meacham had received a revelation to that effect in 1788 and by the close of the 18th century, twenty years before Baha’u’llah’s birth, the Shaker movement was headed by a woman – Lucy Wright.

to be contd...

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You could always have a break, reflect and meditate like the Buddhists do.

Ha Ha, I can not do it . Yes a day of Meditation gives me a path to follow. As you know it is not about anybody posting here, it is about ones own self and our choices.

I sold my dummies today, had a stern talk to self and self agreed to take time off when I was on Debate Forums

Now...........Breathy deeply.............breath out and here we go, watch out world.

May all stay happy now, Reagards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Dear @Tony Bristow-Stagg - I hope my comments have not contributed to your frustration

Not one thing to do with you or any posters here, but the poster Tony Bristow-Stagg

Stay Happy and well and tomorrow is another day!

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Also, the article I sent you is very well-written. I think you'd like it.

Yes I enjoyed the article.

Thank you and Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't believe in god that creates humanity; so, no, by analogy, I do not.

This is all an analogy Tony.

In my opinion the analogy will never work until you add a source of light and call it what you may. It has been suggested that instead of the Name of God as the light, use the virtues. Any Analogy will then still work.

Thus with the light of Compassion shining the colour yellow is seen in the rainbow.

Regards Tony

 

[loverofhumanity]

Thanks for asking.

In my view, God is the watcher of Himself. Everything is an extension of Himself. He isn't the puppet master. Everything is as it should be ... in a state of evolution, there is nothing wrong, it's all natural, souls are learning growing, evolving, and in that process they make mistakes. An analogy is watching your own child grow up, all through the stages of toilet training, teenage mistakes, until she/he is a capable independent mature adult, and your equal. Puppetry doesn't work, still there is some role modelling and guidance.

At the deepest level we are God. So at that level there is no relationship. Do you have a relationship with yourself. While you're (the soul) evolving to that deep level, God is father, mother, friend, brother, advisor, Guru, silent sage, and more.

There is no creation story, just lots of analogies ... sparks from a fire, raindrops from a cloud, waves on the ocean.

Why are we existing in the first place from the Hindu viewpoint? The universes, the stars just everything. What’s the point of it all according to Hinduism? We are born not out of choice and die the same way without a choice.

 

[loverofhumanity]

....

Bodhisattvas have compassion and empathy for sentiment beings. I wouldn't use "try to save them" as The Buddha says, but to use the empathy we have to help others help themselves. It's a showing of compassion and teaching the Dhamma.

Unlike the universal view, though, the philosophical differences are based on practices and those practices are extremely different (as colors of the stain glass window).

This is how we pray at the temple. This is how I pray now. Prayers aren't what "gives" compassion but they are compassion. So this prayer of compassion means totally different than this:

If you'd tell these two people that their compassion is the same/unified, you are literally telling them their foundations are the same. You are basically saying they have the same sun just different colors from the glass panes.

These two religions I know from experience the former and talked with the latter have a completely different aura in their approach, completely different biases, completely different cultures, and as a result defining what compassion actually means to each culture/religion.

These different displays of compassion are the compassion itself.

So there is Buddhist compassion. Christian compassion. Hindu compassion. etc...

If you accept the diversity, by default, you accept their differences. If you unify their differences, there is no more diversity. (If you define the colors by the sun, then you're saying diversity when you really mean unity. If you define diversity by the colors, regardless of the sun, you still respect the colors as they are without needing to define them by the sun behind it)

--

The reason I say the same/unify is when you have different colors of a window pane, when there is only One sun behind it. No matter how many colors you use, it all defines one sun. That, by definition is unification.

Other religions do not see it this way.

The problem in this thread is Bahai trying to back out of what they believe by rephrasing it to keep the peace. Own up and acknowledge your belief for what it is. Bahaullah says take away differences to bring unity-just say that. Making peace is also being honest with others not trying to find what you guys have in common.

Hi Carlita. This is very beautifully put. My personal understanding of unity in diversity is that we must keep our differences of culture and ways because it adds to the beauty and variety of the human race. It would be boring and very uninspiring if everyone was the same. So to me humanity is like a garden with many different shapes, sizes, types and colours of flowers.

My understanding of the need for unity is as in the human body where the different organs are not identical in function or size and shape but in the overall scheme of things they all work together to ensure the body as a whole can function. This diversity is absolutely necessary otherwise the body could not exist.

So I see the diversity in the human race as it’s greatest strength that keeps us all sane! The real problems arise when a group seeks everyone to become the same and force its function on all the other organs and this is destructive as we see today. Rather than live and let live we have all sorts of groups whether it be nationalism, consumerism, Islam or anything else seeking to destroy diversity and make everyone the same.

I think personally that ideas like multiculturalism although imperfect are better equipped to generate ‘live and let live’ societies where the different and diverse cultures, religions, nationalities and races all celebrate each other’s diversity and do not expect all of us to be the same.

The dangers are when any group uses force or war or violence to try and destroy diversity and establish a society without inclusiveness.

Just accepting each other ‘unconditionally’ and celebrating each other’s diversity is to me what peace and unity means. When we can live side by side rejoicing in our diversity instead of killing to try and make us all the same, that will be a great time of peace and happiness in my humble opinion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Dear @Tony Bristow-Stagg - I hope my comments have not contributed to your frustration - I know I was certainly one of those who "reminded" you that this is a debate forum. I just want to say that I am here for two things - to learn and to have my beliefs challenged. The learning process necessarily involves challenging ideas that are new to me - with reason and perhaps sometimes also with ridicule. I don't mean this in a way that is intended to be disrespectful of believers - but only of beliefs. In a debate forum I think that is perfectly acceptable - but it is not everyone's cup of tea. But how can any mature, thinking person acquire a better understanding of "things" without challenging the ideas that are presented to them? And isn't that the essence of the first principle of the Baha'i faith anyway? That reality must be probed independently. Surely a mature faith can withstand counter-argument and ridicule - if not, how will it stand up in the face of real opposition - such as Mahvash Sabet has endured?

Glad you question. It’s a sign of intelligence not to believe in anything blindly.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Religious diversity and religious harmony Few excerpts.

All religions are for the purpose of human happiness. They all teach ethics and compassion and stress harmony among people. Philosophically there are differences, and while recognizing those, we can still appreciate the similarities. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. The Dalai Lamas are believed to be manifestations of Avalokiteshvara or Chenrezig, the Bodhisattva of Compassion and the patron saint of Tibet. Bodhisattvas are believed to be enlightened beings who have postponed their own nirvana and chosen to take rebirth in order to serve humanity. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, describes himself as "a simple Buddhist monk." Dalai Lama once said that he believes the real religion is compassion.

We experience the compassion of others from infancy throughout our lives. Without the kindness and efforts of others, it would be impossible for us to sustain our lives alone.

Here are some further excerpts from this link:

Religious diversity and religious harmony

'Millions of people have been killed in the name of religion throughout history, and I thought, “What use is religion if it causes harm?” Over the years, I have come to understand that the problem is not religion disturbing attitudes in the minds of human beings that make them misunderstand the meaning of whatever religion they follow. The holy beings Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna, Moses and others—would be distressed by what beings with limited understanding have done and still do in their name.'

'All religions are for the purpose of human happiness. They all teach ethics and compassion and stress harmony among people. Philosophically there are differences, and while recognizing those, we can still appreciate the similarities. His Holiness the Dalai Lama once said that he believes the real religion is compassion. We experience the compassion of others from infancy throughout our lives. Without the kindness and efforts of others, it would be impossible for us to sustain our lives alone.'

'People from all faiths agree with this. We experience compassion naturally simply by being a human being. However, our knowledge of doctrines such as creation or karma is learned later on.'

'Through my experience of talking with people of other faiths, I have learned about the similarities and differences in religious practice. In terms of the similarities, first, the chief obstacles to any form of spiritual practice are materialism and attachment to pleasures of the five senses, praise and reputation. All spiritual people agree about this. We can only cultivate ourselves spiritually to the extent we understand the disadvantages of being distracted by and attached to external pleasures. The mind that craves more and better—be it more or better material possessions, fame, approval, or pleasure from the senses—has limited energy to direct toward the cultivation of ethical conduct, love, compassion or wisdom. All spiritual traditions emphasize letting go of our worldly attitudes'

As Baha'is there should be enormous joy and satsfaction taken with the diversity of religion and the opportunity to be friends with peoples of different faiths. Baha'u'llah has said "O people! Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship."

We are all at different stages learning to do this and it does not matter if we are hopeless fools in this arena. The important thing is we make sincere and dedicated efforts as we extend beyond our comfort zones.

 

[Dawnofhope]

No one has approached deeply about finding commonality in greater peace. If Bahai wants greater peace, how do they gain one with someone who does not believe in god when our foundations are supposed to be similar?

I would rather talk to a Buddhist or atheist who is thoughtful, gentle, kind, and fair than one who believes in God but is bereft of any of His attributes. If we see the good in each other we are well on the way to the greater peace. It starts between each one of us taking little steps that become bigger steps and eventually the world is a paradise.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The Dangers of Changing Religions

There are many different religions and cultures in the world and each has developed to suit its own people. Because of that, I always recommend that it’s best to keep the religion you were born into. In the West, most people are Christians, although there are also some Jews and some Muslims. For them, or for anyone, to change religions is not easy and sometimes it just creates confusion. His Holiness, the Dalai Lama talks about converts sticking to our own religions rather than converting. He has a reflective but criticizing view on religious diversity when it comes to conversions. Establishing Harmony within Religious Diversity.

I think it is so important to find a peace with our cultural roots. For me that is Christianity and the Dalai Talks about this. I have met Buddhists from a Western background who have grown up with Christianity and despise it. They are usually not good examples of their faith.

On the other hand I see you as being positive about your Catholic experiences which are simply not right for you as you do not believe in God. So it makes sense you being a Buddhist. Have you ever believed in God?

I had just nine months in my 20s when I decided there probably wasn't a God and so determined I would not pray as there was no point. It was the worst nine months of my life. Many things went wrong for me. When I started being mindful of God and praying, everything just started to come right again. I can't see me ever trying atheism again, but that's just me.

Another excerpt

Also, I must mention that when someone takes a new religion, they must avoid a negative view toward their original tradition, which often comes up as part of human nature. Even if you find your old tradition not very helpful to you, it doesn’t imply in general that it’s not very helpful. All religions offer help to humanity. Especially when facing difficult situations, all religions offer hope. Therefore, we must respect all religions.

Establishing Harmony within Religious Diversity | The 14th Dalai Lama

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In my opinion the analogy will never work until you add a source of light and call it what you may. It has been suggested that instead of the Name of God as the light, use the virtues. Any Analogy will then still work.

Thus with the light of Compassion shining the colour yellow is seen in the rainbow.

Regards Tony

Would you define god as virtues?

I hear many definitions of the world I don't know nowadays.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here are some further excerpts from this link:

Religious diversity and religious harmony

'Millions of people have been killed in the name of religion throughout history, and I thought, “What use is religion if it causes harm?” Over the years, I have come to understand that the problem is not religion disturbing attitudes in the minds of human beings that make them misunderstand the meaning of whatever religion they follow. The holy beings Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna, Moses and others—would be distressed by what beings with limited understanding have done and still do in their name.'

'All religions are for the purpose of human happiness. They all teach ethics and compassion and stress harmony among people. Philosophically there are differences, and while recognizing those, we can still appreciate the similarities. His Holiness the Dalai Lama once said that he believes the real religion is compassion. We experience the compassion of others from infancy throughout our lives. Without the kindness and efforts of others, it would be impossible for us to sustain our lives alone.'

'People from all faiths agree with this. We experience compassion naturally simply by being a human being. However, our knowledge of doctrines such as creation or karma is learned later on.'

'Through my experience of talking with people of other faiths, I have learned about the similarities and differences in religious practice. In terms of the similarities, first, the chief obstacles to any form of spiritual practice are materialism and attachment to pleasures of the five senses, praise and reputation. All spiritual people agree about this. We can only cultivate ourselves spiritually to the extent we understand the disadvantages of being distracted by and attached to external pleasures. The mind that craves more and better—be it more or better material possessions, fame, approval, or pleasure from the senses—has limited energy to direct toward the cultivation of ethical conduct, love, compassion or wisdom. All spiritual traditions emphasize letting go of our worldly attitudes'

As Baha'is there should be enormous joy and satsfaction taken with the diversity of religion and the opportunity to be friends with peoples of different faiths. Baha'u'llah has said "O people! Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship."

We are all at different stages learning to do this and it does not matter if we are hopeless fools in this arena. The important thing is we make sincere and dedicated efforts as we extend beyond our comfort zones.

I thought this beautiful too. It has a Bahai zeal, so I thought this perfect.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi Carlita. This is very beautifully put. My personal understanding of unity in diversity is that we must keep our differences of culture and ways because it adds to the beauty and variety of the human race. It would be boring and very uninspiring if everyone was the same. So to me humanity is like a garden with many different shapes, sizes, types and colours of flowers.

My understanding of the need for unity is as in the human body where the different organs are not identical in function or size and shape but in the overall scheme of things they all work together to ensure the body as a whole can function. This diversity is absolutely necessary otherwise the body could not exist.

So I see the diversity in the human race as it’s greatest strength that keeps us all sane! The real problems arise when a group seeks everyone to become the same and force its function on all the other organs and this is destructive as we see today. Rather than live and let live we have all sorts of groups whether it be nationalism, consumerism, Islam or anything else seeking to destroy diversity and make everyone the same.

I think personally that ideas like multiculturalism although imperfect are better equipped to generate ‘live and let live’ societies where the different and diverse cultures, religions, nationalities and races all celebrate each other’s diversity and do not expect all of us to be the same.

The dangers are when any group uses force or war or violence to try and destroy diversity and establish a society without inclusiveness.

Just accepting each other ‘unconditionally’ and celebrating each other’s diversity is to me what peace and unity means. When we can live side by side rejoicing in our diversity instead of killing to try and make us all the same, that will be a great time of peace and happiness in my humble opinion.

Hmm. Nice. Yeah, I see unity differently than how you describe it. Words like collaboration or working together by definition of diversity makes more sense. When I read Bahaullah's words, or try to read them, I see more working together but he uses unity so that trips me up. If he didn't want to unify revealed manifestations than I can see your view. Since he does want to take out differences which is diversity, I don't see how your view matches his.

I think your view is more healthy than Bahaullah's. I know words in one language does not translate 100% well in another language. So, like many people, we probably go off our own interpretation of scripture since we don't know the original language of the people who wrote it. Which there is nothing wrong with that, really. It's personalizing your faith to make it more intimate and a way you understand.

I agree with your definition outside the manifestations part.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why are we existing in the first place from the Hindu viewpoint? The universes, the stars just everything. What’s the point of it all according to Hinduism? We are born not out of choice and die the same way without a choice.

For the monistic Saivite, It's Siva's nature, just as the previous analogies expressed. Sparks from a fire, waves on an ocean, each spark or wave slightly different than the others. His emanation is a natural process.

Of course, personal pronouns mean something different in our different paradigms. For many Hindus, 'we' or 'I' means the soul or soul body, and reincarnation of that soul body is a given. In the west, it can mean the soul, but just for one lifetime, or it can mean the individual ego identity of this one lifetime.

 

[Vinayaka]

Hi Carlita. This is very beautifully put. My personal understanding of unity in diversity is that we must keep our differences of culture and ways because it adds to the beauty and variety of the human race.

Why do you use the term 'culture' rather than the term 'religion'? For me, your statement would work if it was 'religion'. That does not imply that just because these words are used, that we see it in action. One can talk the talk but not walk the walk.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

On the other hand I see you as being positive about your Catholic experiences which are simply not right for you as you do not believe in God. So it makes sense you being a Buddhist. Have you ever believed in God?

The only god I knew was jesus christ. I never believed a god/entity or god being exist and never been around people long enough to know what god is.

Catholics believe that god is jesus christ. So, the only way I knew about god is the actual person jesus. I couldn't translate the way Catholicism describes god to jesus because if god is a creator and jesus is his son, I don't see the link how jesus can be the creator himself. More intimately though, you need to believe in god to believe in christ. So, that really got me to think really about what I believed.

To me, god is an experience rather than a being. When I hear people talk about god, I mostly hear people talk about and/or quote people's experiences. I don't know any religion that depicts god himself. I spoke with my friends who are JW and they explained it in a biblical light. It gave me a better insight in why Catholics believe what they do (without my mentioning the word Catholic) and even more so how the bible supports that idea.

Here is how I see god (edit) except for the "greater" part. I don't understand that concept.

Father Brian Kilkenney Finn: The truth is, I don't really learn that much about your faith by asking questions like that... because those aren't really questions about faith, those are questions about religion. And it's very important to understand the difference between religion and faith. Because faith is not about having the right answers.

Faith is a feeling. Faith is a hunch, really. It's a hunch that there is something bigger connecting it all... connecting us all together. And that feeling, that hunch, is God. And coming here tonight, on your Sunday evening... to connect with that feeling, that is an act of faith. And so all I have to do is look around the room at this packed church... to know that we're doing pretty well as a community." Keeping the Faith
​

It's a good movie and cute comedy romance.

I actually don't believe in Buddhism because there is no god. That's just a plus after hearing Dhamma talks and Buddhist telling me they don't rather than online commentaries and wisdom from online atheists. I just have more of a connection with life that Christianity doesn't give me. Whether christ is god really doesn't matter, though. I still believe the spirit of christ exists (I do believe in spirits) but now I know that everything is a product of the mind and the mind interprets and relates things it wants to externalize that's actual internal, I see it different now.

So, I can't click with belief in god. I love being in a community with Catholics. We just have to be on the same page for my to be Christian.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Why do you use the term 'culture' rather than the term 'religion'? For me, your statement would work if it was 'religion'. That does not imply that just because these words are used, that we see it in action. One can talk the talk but not walk the walk.

Culture to me includes both religions and traditions.

It is precisely because good ideas and thoughts are not put into practice that nothing changes so this is the touchstone of any belief, the extent to which it is translated into reality.

 

[loverofhumanity]

For the monistic Saivite, It's Siva's nature, just as the previous analogies expressed. Sparks from a fire, waves on an ocean, each spark or wave slightly different than the others. His emanation is a natural process.

Of course, personal pronouns mean something different in our different paradigms. For many Hindus, 'we' or 'I' means the soul or soul body, and reincarnation of that soul body is a given. In the west, it can mean the soul, but just for one lifetime, or it can mean the individual ego identity of this one lifetime.

So we are an emanation of Siva? Or an image of Siva?