WE must love our enemies. That is set in cement. IMO we do not have to forgive unless the person apologizes and ask for forgiveness. God requires us to ask for forgiveness, and I think that requires all siners to ask for forgiveness of the one they have harmed.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How are these Great Beings explained?
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
WE must love our enemies. That is set in cement. IMO we do not have to forgive unless the person apologizes and ask for forgiveness. God requires us to ask for forgiveness, and I think that requires all siners to ask for forgiveness of the one they have harmed.
When Jesus was on the cross did he wait for the Roman soldiers to apologise before asking God to forgive them?
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
Luke 23:24
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
So you are basically asking why religious people Revere religious figures.
Alrighty then
/Thread
This is wise. I posted material for you to read so we can be in agreement that the religions of old are not going to properly address the current crisis for humanity. We both understand this. It is useful to explore why that would be.
Baha'u'llah the Persian prophet founder of the Baha'i faith spent 40 years of His life in exile or in prison. During the 19th century the Persian and Ottoman empires did their best to eradicate this new religion and an estimated 20,000 of our early followers lost their lives. Eventually Baha'u'llah was exiled to Akka the infamous prison city of the Ottoman empire. The sewerage system was considered so poor that it was rumoured if a bird flew overhead it would plummet to its death! Around this time Baha'u'llah sent letters to the Kings and Rules of the world claiming to be the Promised One. He indicated that if they accepted His message the Most Great peace would be in their grasp. Clearly He knew that there was no way His message would be accepted.
Bahaullah: Peace Letters (Baha'u'llah)
Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 31-33
So what could this Persian Manifestation of God have to offer humanity as a solution?
Democracy!
Institutions that derive their authority from the sacred texts of Baha'u'llah's revelation. In this day few would doubt that democracy is the best of an outstanding mediocre approaches to governance. However the Baha'i institutions differ significantly in character from the forms of democracy we see today.
The lets consider a few Baha'i principles that might distinguish the Baha'i administration from a secular democracy:
The Bahá'í administration is essentially spiritual in nature, although practical in application. Bahá'ís believe in the idea of progressive revelation - that is, that each religion is from God, and that each builds on the one before it. Social laws differ from one religion to the next because they were revealed at different times and at different stages in the development of humankind. The Bahá'í administration is, in this way, ideally suited to the present stage of civilisation.
Although the Bahá'í administration is not rigid in its form, there are certain fundamental principles involved. There are local and national institutions, and there is a world body, known as the Universal House of Justice. A brief look at some aspects of these bodies will give us some understanding of the nature and purpose of Bahá'í administration.
In each area where there are sufficient Bahá'ís, a Local Spiritual Assembly is formed. An annual election takes place for the nine members of the Assembly. Bahá'u'lláh, the Founder of the Bahá'í Faith, announced: "The Lord hath ordained that in every city a House of Justice be established wherein shall gather counsellors to the number of Bahá(9)..."
The functions of the Local Spiritual Assembly are many, and a feature of Bahá'í administration is the freedom of initiative accorded to these local Assemblies. They are essentially responsible for the well-being of all: "They must endeavour to promote amity and concord... They must do their utmost to extend at all times the helping hand to the poor, the sick, the disabled, the orphan, the widow, irrespective of colour, caste and creed...
Being part of a spiritual process, all Bahá'í elections take place without any form of electioneering. Each believer is simply called upon to cast a vote by secret ballot for any nine people from the local Bahá'í community, according to his or her conscience, aided by prayer and meditation. The nine people who receive the most votes become the members of the Local Spiritual Assembly.
Administration, Bahá'í
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Perhaps what should be clear by now is that you understand it wrong.
No, actually it's not. What is evident for all to see is that the Apostles got their own ideas after his death, deified him, and spread their version of his message--which got progressively violent over time, but Peter was already a pretty violent guy.
Then the first tree didn't last too long, now did it?
Bringing more of the same, and just as much dismissal and cultural offense to go around. Bang up job.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
The Buddha said he has always been here and still present in other buddhas before and after him. He doesnt return. He isnt jesus or a messiah.
The Buddhas teaches have not been lost. Thats calling thousands of Buddhist who know more than you, bahaulllah, and I liers. Different schools teachings are preserved teachings of The Buddha and his disciples and sect founders.
The Buddha predicted his teaches will be lost and miscued. He didnt predict that they ARE lost and miscued. Many teachings via oral and traditions exist today. Not acknwedging that Buddhist hold true to their original teachings is calling them and the boddhisatvas The Buddha told to protect the teachings liers.
In christianity, its you are wrong and I am right. They dont claim unity with other faiths and at the same time change the interpretation of other faiths to match their own. Its point blank god or else.
Regardless of whst bahaullah says, if he cant acknolwedge the facts of buddhist, hindu, and christian teaching contradict the nature of a one creator faith under bahai, then hes basicaly calling everyone liers if they are not interpret by his views.
If Bahai strives for unity of two faiths, they have to agree on that unity.
1. Bahai say Buddhism has a creator; The Buddha says he doesnt believe in deities because they are illusions and distractions to enlightenment
2. Bahai say christ is sent by god "just as the Bab snd buddha." Christ taught he was the only one in union and sent by the father. He taught that he was sinless which the prophets did not claim. He also taught no one else is semt by the creator but himand the prophets in scripture. Not the Bab. Not Krishna. Not Buddha. Thats a direct insult to christianity to say otherwise
3. Bahai completely disregards other religions and They have gods. The Lukumi faith has one creator as so does other african faiths. Why arent their prophets calledn by one creator of bahai.
Basically, bahai is saying other religions dont know the truh so we can interpret the truth for them. No other religion I know interprets others truth to be in unionn with their own. Its cultural or strict black and white.
My phone iss about to die but i wish you can see the blunt contradiction in the facts of these religions. No other religion i know of mistakes one faith isnt related to another. Pagans may be open minded but evennthey distinguish who is Pagan and who isnt.
Dear Carlita,
There is a real problem with the so called authority and authenticity of Buddhist scriptures that even some Buddhists would agree with. Looking specifically at known Buddhists texts I posted this another thread recently exploring common threads between Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith. Hope this helps.
Prophet is a term the Baha'is would apply to the Old Testament prophets after Moses and before Christ, Isaiah being the greatest of the Hebrew prophets. Although Baha'is consider Moses, Christ, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah, Krishna, and Buddha as having prophetic powers they are much more than that. They are considered manifestations of an unknowable essence called God. What does Baha'u'llah say about God?
"To every discerning and illuminated heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the Divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress.... He standeth exalted beyond and above all separation and union, all proximity and remoteness. No sign can indicate His presence or His absence.."
Kitab-i-Iqan Baha'u'llah
May there be a similarity here with the words of Buddha? I tend to look to what the Buddha may have said to understand HIs message.
“There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, this Unoriginated, this Uncreated, this Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible.
But since there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is escape possible from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed. "
~ Udana, Buddha
What is a prophet anyhow, other than one who speaks knowingly of the future?
"At that period, brethren, there will arise in the world an Exalted. One named Metteyya, Arahat, Fully Awakened, abounding in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the worlds, unsurpassed as a guide to mortals willing to be led, a teacher for gods and men, an Exalted One, a Buddha, even as I am now...
...He, by himself, will thoroughly know and see, as it were face to face, this universe, with Its worlds of the spirits, Its Brahmas and Its Maras, and Its world of recluses and Brahmins, of princes and peoples, even as I now, by myself, thoroughly know and see them." Digha Nikaya Buddha
Baha'u'llah early in His mission spent two years of His life in relative seclusion during which time He conversed with the Sufis, a mystical sect of Islam. This lead to His first work "The seven, and four valleys". Even a cursory review of the text will reveal that His writings are profound and mystical. They will not fit into any stereotype of an Abrahamic Religion.
http://www.bahai.org/library/author...lleys/seven-valleys-four-valleys.pdf?0e05daed
For example:
"Love accepteth no existence and wisheth no life: He seeth life in death, and in shame seeketh glory. To merit the madness of love, man must abound in sanity; to merit the bonds of the Friend, he must be full of spirit. Blessed the neck that is caught in His noose, happy the head that falleth on the dust in the pathway of His love. Wherefore, O friend, give up thy self that thou mayest find the Peerless One, pass by this mortal earth that thou mayest seek a home in the nest of heaven. Be as naught, if thou wouldst kindle the fire of being and be fit for the pathway of love."
siti
Well-Known Member
This is really getting back to my contention in this thread overall...you could make the same argument about the Hindu scriptures, the Torah, the Christian scriptures...even, to a lesser extent, the Qur'an. So how do we really know what Moses, Krishna or Jesus really said or did? Or even if any of them really existed as a single individual even roughly corresponding to the mythological characters that their 'followers' have morphed them into?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Baha'i faith in these past manifestations or incarnations of God is based solely on the revelations of the Bab and Baha'u'llah? So the only way of knowing that the "Great Beings" of the past really existed is if that fact is divinely revealed by a new "Great Being" - a more recent manifestation of God incarnate? The rest of us have to make do with second-hand hearsay evidence to confirm their historicity?
I take your point about the democratic organization of the Baha'i religion (not unique exactly but unusual), but you are surely not claiming that the notion of democratic governance was divinely revealed to an Iranian prophet in the 1860s? I think you'll find that idea has been around for some considerable time quite independent of any of the Great Educators mentioned in this thread and that he might very well have got the idea from a rather more mundane source. Don't you think?
all I said originally reductionism is lame. Great for making things that's about it. My whole business is completely in totality reductive. But this thread has zero to do with reductionism. In fact the exact opposite. If it's Reductism is valid in context to the original topic I might as well be believing creationism in an evolutionary biology class!!! Ha, wrong headed reductive religion mixing with reductive science makes for confused dim wits. Nature is the big dog in all this not reductionism .
.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
My whole point rests on: If Bahai says they are in unity with selective faiths, there has to be an agreement between both parties without either one telling each other they are "misguided; lost; wrong; or anything like that." They have to be in perfect accord to bring world peace. My second point is you cannot single out a couple of great educators out of thousands in the world. That alone limits world peace in the limitations of Bahai interpretations rather than an agreement between all parties involved.
This is a huge issue. You are basically calling those who do practice The Buddha's teachings and those who do believe in it's authenticity misguided.
Christianity just says everyone else is plain out wrong, Bahai included. But misguided is another context saying "we acknowledge you that you have received the truth but we think you really s/things up with it."
Bahai agrees with Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't agree with Bahai. They have to match for them to be in union with each other. It doesn't matter if the Bahai says "we agree" and the Buddhist say "we agree." The issue is the Dharma does not agree with Bahualluah's claims. It is the other way around.
Remember, it has to go both ways.
That is specific to the Bahai faith but my overall point is if Bahai claims unity with all faiths via the manifestations of god through prophets, all religions they selectively choose as great have to agree with Bahai; it can't be one sided.
Krishna is not a manifestation of an unknown god that Bahai'is believe in. Krishna is not even a god in his or her own right. He is a manifestation of Vishnu. Vishnu is one of many creators. Bahai believes in only one creator.
If a well-knowledge Hindu (which there are many on RF) can quote suttas and tell you their gods are not your god (Hindu is polytheistic-meaning they have more than one god; Bahai only has one), why would you tell them they are wrong based on what Bahaullah says?
I know it is your belief but can you see why it is a contradiction?
These are adjectives and they work for any person Pagan gods included. My point is, the characteristics of Christ-as a person of the Hebrew god. Vishnu (Krishna) the god of Hindu. The Buddha who does not believe in any god do not represent the creator of Bahai. They both have to agree that this is true. If you are claiming Bahai has unity with a selective amount of religious teachers, you have to have an agreement of both sides and interpreted by Christ, Muhammad, and The Buddha themselves not The Bab and not Babaullah.
Divinity is not soley from a creator. Things and people are sacred in many religions and traditions that have nothing to do with a creator. You are attributing adjectives that The Bab and Bahaullah share with The Buddha, Krishna, Christ, and Muhammad but not understanding the nature of these adjectives are from different sources thereby not the same thing as the Bahai point of view. Since they are not equal, they are not in union.
Christ would never say The Bab and Bahaullah (B/BH) are prophets of the creator.
Muhammad would never say these two are prophets nor would he say they are the last prophet.
The Buddha would never say B/BH are anything more than human beings with whom are diluted by belief in deities and with whom, like the rest of us, need to understand the nature of suffering (karma), by training the mind and practice without distractions of the supernatural and beliefs of the creator. The very fact The Buddha and Hinduism does not mix makes it hard for me to understand how B/BH can put the two in the same category.
Christ did not call himself great. The Buddha came down from his riches and became one with other people. That was his point, The Buddha. Christ attributed all greatness to the creator. So saying both are great are belitting their teachings.
But saying they are misguided and teaches are lost is completely ignoring the fact that the believers and scripture and Dharma says the opposite that the teaches are eternal both scripture and Dharma and cannot be lost regardless of what we do with the physical teaches. That's why The Buddha comes in many incarnations and has his disciples protect the teachings so they won't be lost.
There goals may be similar, the source and methods are different. Since the source is different, they are not similar regardless of how you see them on the surface. The very fact there is no creator in Buddhism does not make Buddhism in line with Bahai teaches.
And what I find shocking is that you say The Buddha's teachings are lost, even Buddhist say this, and then quote B/BH as if he can make up The Buddha's lost teachings.
Buddhist do not recognize B/BH as an authority over the Dharma. The Dharma is eternal. It is not lost. That's prevalent in all of The Buddha's teachings.
Suffering, laws of cause and affect, etc are in life even after our deaths. It is not lost. B/BH can't reinterpret the teachings because a lot of the physical teachings are lost. That's just, well, wrong.
The Buddha didn't speak the future. He is not a prophet. If I assumed that my words on RF would disappear and then one day RF goes out of business, my prophecy has been fulfilled. That doesn't make me great, that just means I'm being realistic. My physical teachings can only last but so long. RF may have them filed somewhere in a vault for legal purposes, but my message to those who wish to remember them are eternal. Once I said it, I can't take it back. This is one of many of The Buddha's teachings. It cannot be destroyed or lost.
Buddha means enligtened one. There are many buddhas there is only one Buddha. There are incarnations of The Buddha himself. Being a buddha doesn't mean one is an incarnation of The Buddha.
But that's Buddhist teachings. You are saying again that The Buddha was sent as a manifestation of the creator. That's like saying I am part of your family generations ahead of time. I don't know your family. It's a nice belief but not a fact.
Brahmas is a Hindu teaching. Both are in India, The Buddha was aware of Hindu gods. He didn't deny their existence just no gods (bahai included) lead to enlightenment.
How can a creator send a manifestation of himself who denies the very person he is a manifestation of?
I had to cut a lot short.
My whole point is if you are going to be in union with other selective religions, those religions and religious (since the Sangha and Church is part of the religion) has to agree with B/BH. It cannot be one sided. The B/BH interpretation has no authority over other Christ, The Buddha, Muhammad, and Krishna's words.
Do you understand?
This is a huge issue. You are basically calling those who do practice The Buddha's teachings and those who do believe in it's authenticity misguided.
Christianity just says everyone else is plain out wrong, Bahai included. But misguided is another context saying "we acknowledge you that you have received the truth but we think you really s/things up with it."
Bahai agrees with Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't agree with Bahai. They have to match for them to be in union with each other. It doesn't matter if the Bahai says "we agree" and the Buddhist say "we agree." The issue is the Dharma does not agree with Bahualluah's claims. It is the other way around.
Remember, it has to go both ways.
Bahaullah has no authority to speak for other religions and their teachings, scripture, or Dharma. Christ has authority to speak for Christian scripture. Muhammad of the Quran. The Buddha and Hindu over the Dharma. Not Bahaullah and not The Bab. Neither of them are Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist or Jewish for that matter. They can't speak for other people's faiths. Even Christians don't speak for other people they just say they are wrong.
That is specific to the Bahai faith but my overall point is if Bahai claims unity with all faiths via the manifestations of god through prophets, all religions they selectively choose as great have to agree with Bahai; it can't be one sided.
Krishna is not a manifestation of an unknown god that Bahai'is believe in. Krishna is not even a god in his or her own right. He is a manifestation of Vishnu. Vishnu is one of many creators. Bahai believes in only one creator.
If a well-knowledge Hindu (which there are many on RF) can quote suttas and tell you their gods are not your god (Hindu is polytheistic-meaning they have more than one god; Bahai only has one), why would you tell them they are wrong based on what Bahaullah says?
I know it is your belief but can you see why it is a contradiction?
Are you saying everyone else doesn't know their own faith but Bahaullah?
These are adjectives and they work for any person Pagan gods included. My point is, the characteristics of Christ-as a person of the Hebrew god. Vishnu (Krishna) the god of Hindu. The Buddha who does not believe in any god do not represent the creator of Bahai. They both have to agree that this is true. If you are claiming Bahai has unity with a selective amount of religious teachers, you have to have an agreement of both sides and interpreted by Christ, Muhammad, and The Buddha themselves not The Bab and not Babaullah.
Divinity is not soley from a creator. Things and people are sacred in many religions and traditions that have nothing to do with a creator. You are attributing adjectives that The Bab and Bahaullah share with The Buddha, Krishna, Christ, and Muhammad but not understanding the nature of these adjectives are from different sources thereby not the same thing as the Bahai point of view. Since they are not equal, they are not in union.
Christ would never say The Bab and Bahaullah (B/BH) are prophets of the creator.
Muhammad would never say these two are prophets nor would he say they are the last prophet.
The Buddha would never say B/BH are anything more than human beings with whom are diluted by belief in deities and with whom, like the rest of us, need to understand the nature of suffering (karma), by training the mind and practice without distractions of the supernatural and beliefs of the creator. The very fact The Buddha and Hinduism does not mix makes it hard for me to understand how B/BH can put the two in the same category.
Christ did not call himself great. The Buddha came down from his riches and became one with other people. That was his point, The Buddha. Christ attributed all greatness to the creator. So saying both are great are belitting their teachings.
But saying they are misguided and teaches are lost is completely ignoring the fact that the believers and scripture and Dharma says the opposite that the teaches are eternal both scripture and Dharma and cannot be lost regardless of what we do with the physical teaches. That's why The Buddha comes in many incarnations and has his disciples protect the teachings so they won't be lost.
There goals may be similar, the source and methods are different. Since the source is different, they are not similar regardless of how you see them on the surface. The very fact there is no creator in Buddhism does not make Buddhism in line with Bahai teaches.
And what I find shocking is that you say The Buddha's teachings are lost, even Buddhist say this, and then quote B/BH as if he can make up The Buddha's lost teachings.
Buddhist do not recognize B/BH as an authority over the Dharma. The Dharma is eternal. It is not lost. That's prevalent in all of The Buddha's teachings.
Suffering, laws of cause and affect, etc are in life even after our deaths. It is not lost. B/BH can't reinterpret the teachings because a lot of the physical teachings are lost. That's just, well, wrong.
The Buddha didn't speak the future. He is not a prophet. If I assumed that my words on RF would disappear and then one day RF goes out of business, my prophecy has been fulfilled. That doesn't make me great, that just means I'm being realistic. My physical teachings can only last but so long. RF may have them filed somewhere in a vault for legal purposes, but my message to those who wish to remember them are eternal. Once I said it, I can't take it back. This is one of many of The Buddha's teachings. It cannot be destroyed or lost.
Buddha means enligtened one. There are many buddhas there is only one Buddha. There are incarnations of The Buddha himself. Being a buddha doesn't mean one is an incarnation of The Buddha.
But that's Buddhist teachings. You are saying again that The Buddha was sent as a manifestation of the creator. That's like saying I am part of your family generations ahead of time. I don't know your family. It's a nice belief but not a fact.
Brahmas is a Hindu teaching. Both are in India, The Buddha was aware of Hindu gods. He didn't deny their existence just no gods (bahai included) lead to enlightenment.
How can a creator send a manifestation of himself who denies the very person he is a manifestation of?
I had to cut a lot short.
My whole point is if you are going to be in union with other selective religions, those religions and religious (since the Sangha and Church is part of the religion) has to agree with B/BH. It cannot be one sided. The B/BH interpretation has no authority over other Christ, The Buddha, Muhammad, and Krishna's words.
Do you understand?
Are you sure you've read this link? There is no reference whatsoever to the "oneness of God" in there. Can you elaborate on what you are reading in there that says this? I can't see it.
I'll respond to the rest later....
The counterfeit Dhamma does not teach the oneness of God. The true Dhamma did.
Yes but change is a part of this world and the Buddha said things would change and another Buddha named Mettya would come and bring a new religion and so I assume that Buddhists would turn to Mettya as it was the Buddha Who spoke of Him.
Now if Mettya says things that the Buddha did not, isn't He still right because the Buddha already confirmed He was the Buddha of the future to which His followers should turn.
Who will teach us when thou art gone? He answered that in the future Mettya would teach Buddhists. So if I'm a Buddhist and Mettya comes I want to accept Him because He is part of Buddhism not separate from it. And if He teaches us new things then I'm not going to read Him the riot act because He is, after all, the Buddha.
Loyalty to the Buddha to me also a means loyalty to Mettya.
No it didn't last long which is why only 600 years later Muhammad was sent and even if you look in the Quran it seeks to correct the trinity and Christ being the physical son of God among other misconceptions Christians had developed.
So it wasn't long before another Messenger was sent.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
With a radically different message. And certainly not much peace.
Satans serrated edge... gulp....I suppose you seek my neck in the noose?
Just asking where people understand they got their power and influence from considering they mostly were poor and without power yet their influence spread all over the world and they are still winning hearts and minds today thousands of years after their death.
siti
Well-Known Member
Well this is another problem - neither Muhammad nor Muslims hold Muhammad as anything greater than a Prophet. But you seem to be suggesting that he was in fact a manifestation of God - this idea would be anathema to a Muslim - and as far as we can tell - to Muhammad himself. Was the Great Prophet mistaken about his own divinity? And since he had Adam and Ibrahim among the divinely commissioned messengers as well as Musa and Isa, are they also in the Baha'i list of great Teachers? But we have no idea what Adam taught - what we learn from the supposed sayings of Musa about him are not very flattering for a manifestation of God.
Yes but Muhammad was right to question the thinking of the day as it had degenerated into superstition and man was meant to use reason and logic and discover sciences and advance intellectually and morally yet fallacious beliefs in things like three gods in one and physical gods walking around had had reduced Christians intellects and the Prophets all seek to raise our intellects and create reasonable, rational, logical and morally upright human beings.
As sciences were trying to be born it was Christianity persecuting them. Muhammad sought to save them from that downhill path in their history but they refused to listen .
As it turned out the Muslims were more open to sciences and all sorts of learning whereas Christians, because of their superstitions persecuted knowledge so to speak. Humanity cannot advance without learning so Muhammad established a Cause based on learning and many sciences came from it.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
I am quite sure that even you can see that Mohammed's message is radically different from Jesus'. So Jesus' influence still died with him, and was not persistent for 2,000 years. As the Muslim message is so different, you also cannot claim that it's the same message, or that they were both incarnations of the same god - especially given what Siti pointed out about Mohammed. Unless, of course, this god changes his mind quite often to fit political agendas. Who knows? Maybe George W. was speaking for god!
It's just another term for Prophet but explained in the Baha'i Writings in more detail. A Manifestation of God is NOT an incarnation of God but a 'reflection' of God's virtues and attributes like the reflection of the sun in a polished mirror. Muhammad certainly fulfills those requirements but the term may be alien to Muslims. Bit it does not in any way mean an incarnation of God, just a Prophet.
Manifestation of God - Wikipedia