How are these Great Beings explained?

[loverofhumanity]

Hmm. Guess another good example, since the human body was used, is attraction and the human body. The color of skin, hair, height, etc is the "outside of the person" and what we usually consider inside-spiritual, emotions, and so forth are technically the psychological part of a person.

So you have the psychological part-the spirituality which incompasses all of us that defines who we are as people.

and

you have the outside of us as above that also describes who we are as people.

If you took out the outer pieces, then nothing would exist. If you just the spirituality/psychology that wouldn't exist because there is no physical body to "hold" it and in turn define it as spirituality defines the body.

Both out/inside of a person, if you want to dichotomize it, is who a person is. I wouldn't go up to my girlfriend and say "hey, I love your spirit. Your sense of humor. Your personality" oh, by the way, "you're ugly."

That's not liking the person for who they you. You literally torn the person in two as if one aspect of that person is more important than the other. Therefore, you insulted that person because of it.

The same as religion

The outside: Traditions, Culture, and Language

and the inside, which are characteristics to each individual religion

go together.

If you separate it and say for example, "oh Catholics are just doing rituals" without looking at the spiritual, you just insulted the Catholic.

@loverofhumanity if I took the spiritual from you and disregard Bahaullah's writings, then I just insulted you. (Whether you were insulted or not isn't the issue. It's my morals not to insult people regardless of how they perceive it).

So, as a result, we keep the outside and inside of a religion and person.

Loverofhumanity, since you split the two and say that our truths are the same what is my truth if it's the same as yours?

You are clearly not your body. You are a reality that 'uses' the body like a charioteer uses a chariot. In this world we need a physical body to learn the lessons we need to learn here but in another existence we take on a different body.

The truth to you is how you know it to be at your level of spiritual progress and to me at mine. Like physically, our spirits go through changes or stages similar to childhood, adolescent and maturity.

Or classes in a school. In order to get that university degree you had to go through kindergarten and learn your ABC. Then ordinary and high school. They all teach truth needed to progress.

So you may have reached a mature understanding of truth and myself I may still be in kindergarten but we are both learning truth. My abc is just as important as your degree.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are clearly not your body. You are a reality that 'uses' the body like a charioteer uses a chariot. In this world we need a physical body to learn the lessons we need to learn here but in another existence we take on a different body.

The truth to you is how you know it to be at your level of spiritual progress and to me at mine. Like physically, our spirits go through changes or stages similar to childhood, adolescent and maturity.

Or classes in a school. In order to get that university degree you had to go through kindergarten and learn your ABC. Then ordinary and high school. They all teach truth needed to progress.

So you may have reached a mature understanding of truth and myself I may still be in kindergarten but we are both learning truth. My abc is just as important as your degree.

Do you understand it from my perspective? If so, how?

If we all share the same truth even though our expressions differ, what is my truth if it's the same as yours?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Been out of town. Lots of interesting discussion going on

I don't call my beliefs, beliefs. When I do, it's for convenience reasons. If I say it as fact in a interfaith discussion, it makes it seem I'm claiming my fact as someone else's. If that other person doesn't understand what I consider is a fact, a fact without being insulted by my stating it is, then I would say so.

Here we differ. I always call my beliefs, beliefs unless they concern the phenomenal world and can be verified using accepted scientific methods. I have a science and medical degree, as well as a postgraduate medical fellowship. That doesn't make me smart. It means I have a "name to be wise, yet inwardly foolish".

If we talk about human anatomy, it is mostly all known and for the purposes of an elementary university course would reveal few controversies. Most facts concerning anatomy there would be near unanimous agreement.

This is certainly not true of religious belief of the non-phenomenal word. The existence of God, The nature of the soul, and Divine reality of the prophets are examples where there will be significant differences depending on our 'belief' system. One person believes God exists, another does not. One person believes in reincarnation, another the progress of the soul beyond this life, and another no soul at all. One person will be accept the Divinity of Jesus and another will reject it. These are best spoken of as beliefs as it helps acknowledge the diversity of belief. If we tried to insist beliefs have the same standards as scientific facts then anyone with even basic scientific understanding would have objections.

When I use language I try to use words in a manner that are commonly used and would fit an accepted dictionary definition. I hope that works for you. I understand your use of language but I take a different approach.

This is just an example of my point of view.

This (and the other ones) are different than saying "Bahuallah is predicted by the founders of the other religions and promoted world peace just as Bahullah did."

If this is not a fact to you, and just a belief, it's hard to talk about your belief because to me it just feels like you can change beliefs. I rather talk more about what you know is true. Then I get more an idea of how you interpret reality and other religions incorporated in yours. If it is just a belief like above, then I can ask you one day about Bahaullah's statement and then another day, it's possible you can believe something else. The conversation would be wishy washy.

My beliefs are not 'wishy washy' or subject to change from day to day. I have been a Baha'i for over 25 years and know my religion well as with the Christian Faith. Unless I recant my faith in Baha'u'llah which appears very unlikely, and if my Baha'i beliefs are based on an understanding of Baha'u'llah's revelation, then my basic beliefs shouldn't change too much.

On the other hand it needs to be acknowledged that beliefs can be fluid and people can change from one belief system to another. We both have. I used to be Christian, then distanced myself and explored other belief systems such as Buddhism, Hinduism and atheism, only to return to Christianity. Soon after I became a Baha'i.

Baha'is need to be extremely humble as there is so much about our own religion we don't understand let alone that of another.

Lets take for example the two statements you have quoted, presumably from @loverofhumanity ?

"Baha'ullah is predicted by the founders of the other religions"

This is a Baha'i belief in regards to the religions Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. I am happy to explain this Baha'i belief if asked in regards to Judaism and Christianity. I would prefer not to explain in any depth how this is true in regards to Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism as I feel unqualified to do so and other Baha'is can do it much better. However I am reluctant to begin such a discussion even in regards to Judaism and Christianity as it involves complex prophetic writings that are prone to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. However you have specifically asked me to explain this to you so l will on another post.

In regards to the statement the other religions promoted world peace, this is very complicated to explain how this could be true. I try to avoid making statements that I would find so difficult to explain.

I hope that helps.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm

When I use language I try to use words in a manner that are commonly used and would fit an accepted dictionary definition. I hope that works for you. I understand your use of language but I take a different approach.

Actually, you're the only one I know (outside of atheist and other people on the RF forum around this area of thought) who separate belief from fact and not claim their belief or lack their of as fact unless it's proven by scientific knowledge.

What stuck out with me among other things is when I went to the priest before deciding to be confirmed. I've been going to Mass for almost ten years with my friend so I knew much of Catholic teaching but from an outsiders perspective. I asked him point blank, "do you actually believe jesus is in the Eucharist?" Of course, he said yes. Then he looked at me and said "there are different types of truths (he means them as facts not beliefs). There are scientific truths/facts and their are spiritual truths/facts. We consider the Eucharist mystery a spiritual truth/fact and because it is a spiritual truth (and because they literally believe jesus died for them) it is also a fact." He can't separate the two.

Actually, most religious I know say they know without a shadow of doubt their beliefs are facts or true. None say they need scientific evidence to prove it since religion isn't shaped for it to be true only by science.

So I think that's how you see things. I don't see that as a whole, though. Religion is personal after all.

This is a Baha'i belief in regards to the religions Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. I am happy to explain this Baha'i belief if asked in regards to Judaism and Christianity. I would prefer not to explain in any depth how this is true in regards to Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism as I feel unqualified to do so and other Baha'is can do it much better. However I am reluctant to begin such a discussion even in regards to Judaism and Christianity as it involves complex prophetic writings that are prone to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. However you have specifically asked me to explain this to you so l will on another post.

Christianity is pretty simple without going through scriptures and prophetic quotes. Jesus was born. Jess lived. Jesus died. Jesus was resurrected. Jesus will return. Saying Bahaullah is anywhere in this formula of the Passion is like those who say jesus is god because of indirect scriptures and others saying homosexuality is a sin because the word homosexuality is used in the English translation...and so on. Does Bahaullah actually agree that christ is the only one to god not himself as a prophet nor any other prophet other than those inside the Bible?

Buddhism is pretty common sense too but I get what you're saying.

In regards to the statement the other religions promoted world peace, this is very complicated to explain how this could be true. I try to avoid making statements that I would find so difficult to explain.

Actually not really. Religions promoted world peace. People are not their religions. They do things in the name of their religions.

Put another way, if religions didn't, why would the prophets of these religions be in your faith?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Do you understand it from my perspective? If so, how?

If we all share the same truth even though our expressions differ, what is my truth if it's the same as yours?

i think so. You respect all Faiths as well as their diversity.
You would have a different perspective of truth than me though.

 

[Dawnofhope]

This was posted to another:

For example, Christianity's foundation is human sacrifice.

But is it? What do you mean by 'human sacrifice'?

You sacrifice your sins/actions, to be with god by following the teachings of jesus. Whether you believe jesus is god or not does not matter. It does not matter if you see it metaphorical or literal. It does not matter what denomination you believe in. It does not matter how you see other people's views on the christian faith. It just means that all of their views are based on scripture. If the basic foundation in scripture is based or filtered by your faith as a Bahai, it is not christianity. If you are a christian and read it as a christian, that is christianity.

'As we turn away from sin in our thoughts and action, and turn towards the Teachings of Christ we are enabled to draw closer to Him' makes more sense. What Christian has ever been with God? No one has ever seen God, only the 'Son'.

If we are taking about going to heaven after this life then it is sounding like Islam and perhaps Zoroastrianism, as well as Baha'i. If that is true then we don't need to be a Christian reading Christian scripture to understand a spiritual principle that is part of other faiths.

Only a christian can interpret christianity correctly regardless if he disagrees with his brothers and sisters. It is a personal faith and relationship with christ. There is no Bahaullah in scripture. No prediction of him. Nothing like that. As a Bahai you cannot see it. As a christian-not bahai/christian you would.

I disagree. Christians can interpret scripture badly and non-Christians can interpret scripture well. Some 'Christians' can reflect little or none of what Christ taught, whereas some who are not Christians can be great examples of Christ's teachings. Consider the commandment to love your neighbour and your enemy. If this be the second greatest commandment, is it really only Christians that reflect this? What about the example of the good Samaritan. Could this be a warning against such thinking?

We can talk about the relationship with Christ being personal, as many Christians do, but what does that really mean? If we broke it down is it really unique to Christianity only?

In regards to Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i revelation in Christianity the best starting point is the Olivet discourse or the final sermon of Jesus on the Mount of Olives in the week leading to His crucifixion. Baha'u'llah literally translated means the 'Glory of God' which is reflected in many places in scripture. Isaiah, Daniel, and the book of revelation are very important as with many other prophetic books. In the Olivet Discourse Christ after predicting the destruction of the second temple, and the plight of the Jewish peoples, talked about His return in the very distant future and the signs accompanying His return. The Christians I know are all expecting His return. They simply understand it in terms of miraculous events by interpreting verses like from Matthew 24 literally rather than symbolically.

That is how you interpret it from a christian perspective. You have to be christian and have to be in union with other christians not Bahai.

Not necessarily true again. I know Christians to be married to non-Christians and yet they are 'in union' with them. Its all about the quality of relationships. Many interfaith friendships are better that friendships of people of the same faith.

But you got to get out of your head this one-truth issue and see people's beliefs as flurish based on their differing multiple cultures, traditions, and language. If you can't get pass that, then of course you can't see it through their eyes. It is possible but you have to separate yourself from the Bahai perspective.

To have a good relationship or friendship with people we do need to understand others and see through others eyes. However none of us can see completely see through the eyes of another, or completely walk in another's shoes.

Of course Baha'is can have some understanding of others beliefs even when the they completely contradict Baha'i beliefs as some Christian beliefs clearly do.

Say I quoted Galations 2:20 "I have been crucified in Christ. The life I live is no longer I, but Christ that liveth in me. Insofar, I live not for myself but for the son of god."

This is one of my favorite verses when I was christian so, as a former christian, I was able to interpret this verse to help myself in Christ. Whether others agreed with it was not the point. My relationship was with christ and his father not with others.

If you had deeply experienced Christ living in you as the 'Son of God', not the 'son of god', would you have left?

Since I am not a practicing christian, I can still reflect on my interpretation and nothing more. But if I saw another scripture I am not familiar with, I cannot interpret it or analyze it correctly because I am no longer christian. To see it from their perspective (Hindu, Christian, Muslim, etc) I have to practice these respective religions.

The problem is that religious traditions and culture can outlive its usefulness, and become a barrier to our spiritual walk. Arguably that is why it was the Gentiles, not the Jews who championed the Teachings of the Jewish Messiah.

Each faith have common foundations (with an a -s individual) to each religion. You have to be these practitioners to understand it. So the closest you can get is talking to others who do practice it, take their consideration as fact and even more so see truth as more than one.

It certainly helps to be a practitioner or to have been one. However we need to understand that the conditions within religion can change to the point that a new Teacher, Messiah, or Covenant becomes necessary. I would argue this is the foundation of Christianity, not human sacrifice.

 

[Dawnofhope]

@adrian009 and @loverofhumanity

I rather you take a week and comment on main points then take a day and comment on first or last paragraph. Take your time.

I really am trying to carefully consider your posts. I believe we are all sincere and thoughtful people.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Actually not really. Religions promoted world peace. People are not their religions. They do things in the name of their religions.

Put another way, if religions didn't, why would the prophets of these religions be in your faith?

In that case you are sounding more like a Baha'i than I am.

The problem is that none of those world religions actually led to world peace. Arguably all those religions prophesised another who would restore religion and bring peace.

It is true that each of the religions had the potential to bring world peace but the Founders knew they wouldn't because of the condition of humanity.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Actually, you're the only one I know (outside of atheist and other people on the RF forum around this area of thought) who separate belief from fact and not claim their belief or lack their of as fact unless it's proven by scientific knowledge.

What stuck out with me among other things is when I went to the priest before deciding to be confirmed. I've been going to Mass for almost ten years with my friend so I knew much of Catholic teaching but from an outsiders perspective. I asked him point blank, "do you actually believe jesus is in the Eucharist?" Of course, he said yes. Then he looked at me and said "there are different types of truths (he means them as facts not beliefs). There are scientific truths/facts and their are spiritual truths/facts. We consider the Eucharist mystery a spiritual truth/fact and because it is a spiritual truth (and because they literally believe jesus died for them) it is also a fact." He can't separate the two.

That makes sense.

Actually, most religious I know say they know without a shadow of doubt their beliefs are facts or true. None say they need scientific evidence to prove it since religion isn't shaped for it to be true only by science.

The problem is, that there no relationship between the strength of one's conviction and whether or not those convictions are actually true. Often such strongly held convictions can be accompanied by intense defensiveness and aggressiveness. Conversations with such people can be very adversarial and usually cause more heat than light. I would rather engage in discussions with people who are comfortable investigating the pros and cons of all beliefs including their own and are open to new ideas. I'm here to learn as much as to teach. Believing we are right and everyone else is wrong can be one of the biggest barriers to properly investigating truth.

I feel secure enough in my beliefs that I do not need to adopt extreme defensive and aggressive approaches.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Hmm


What is falsehood if the greater peace or essence in all religions are one truth?


You're avoiding the comment. Maybe not on purpose.

Contradictions

1. We believe in diversity and we believe in on truth @Vinayaka pointed out you said we have multiple truths and then revert to saying we have one.

Diversity means more than one truth. One-truth is not diversity. That's like saying someone is monotheistic and polytheist at the same time.​

2. We respect religions and Bahaullah came to fix religions to make them all religions into one.

How is that respecting diversity if you are changing all religions into one?​

I know you don't see the contradictions. However, like I said, view it from another person's perspective.

Can't stress this point enough.



Wait? All truth? What do you define as truth to make it "all" (all meaning more than one truth)

1. Is it all truths into one?
2. Only one truth for all people?
3. Many truths in one humanity?
4. All have their own truths?



1. Now it's truth at different levels?

2. People don't have their own truth one truth separated in different levels?

3. Isn't that still taking another person's truth and making it your own?
Only ask that since Vinayaka disagrees with you on his truth and yours. So...

4. How do you define the levels of people's truth?

When you have separate paths that do not join and each look as beautiful as the next we need to feel comfortable that we walk our own paths regardless if we are walking at the same path parallel, if you like.​

They don't share your beliefs. You share theirs. It has to work both ways.​

You're not listening. Same goals do not equal same beliefs. I said that before with the example of Hinduism. You are not Hindu just because you have the same goals.

You need the

1. beliefs
2. traditions
3. culture
4. language

Of that of a Hindu and practice Hinduism and identify as a Hindu (either verbally or not)

to be Hindu



I'm not (for example) judging you by saying you are wrong. I am saying, point blank, you are wrong about how you interpret other people's religions.

It's being honest and owning your own belief rather than trying to make everyone a part of yours. We are not Bahai just because half of us share your goals.



There's no confusion or falsehood. Learn about people individually rather than generalizing them.

My question, again.

If we all have one truth and different expressions, what is my truth since it's the same as yours?

I have explained. It should be abundantly clear.

There are many truths but one ultimate truth. The example I have used is the sun and it's rays. There are many rays but their one source is the same sun.

There are many truths but their one ultimate source is one truth.

Like the leaves and branches are of the same tree so truths are part of one greater truth. If you look only at the branches that's all you will see. But if you step back and look at the tree you will see the grand scheme of things.

You can only see what is within your field of vision.

None own truth so I don't know why you keep coming up with this idea of taking it from someone, no one has trademarked truth, it belongs to one and all.

I also explained that there is a process. There always was and always is only ONE religion which the ignorant have multiplied because they failed to turn to the subsequent Teacher Who was Promised them when He came but clung to traditions and power instead.

All Buddhists should have turned to Christ and all Christians to Muhammad and so on. There was never meant to be anymore than one religion. The ignorant have broken it up into pieces which Baha'u'llah has come to mend and put back together.

Humanity is confused and it's an abomination to have so many conflicting religions only confusing the poor people when truth is only one. They all represent the same truth. You can call one ray of the sun Hinduism and another Buddhism and another Christianity but they all come from the one same source.

Th biggest mistake made in human history is to view religions as separate and unrelated to each other when they are actually part of one process, one Plan.

The falsehood is that people assume these religions are separate and unrelated when clearly they are related. The leaders of each religion intent on controlling their followers have always taught the opposite that the other religions are not true thus trying to say that they are the only religion and all others are false. This is a lie.

All the religions are connected by a covenant. The Covenant each Teacher made with His followers was to send another Teacher. The disunity occurred when they didn't accept Him.

Hinduism and a Buddhism focus on the truths of non violence, Christianity focuses on love and forgiveness, Muhammad focused on Ummah or Community establishment, a form of nation state and Baha'u'llah focuses on world unity. These are all truths or rays of one sun and can be accepted by all humanity.

The greater truth is that they are all a part of ONE process not disjointed belief systems as some imagine.

The reasons they became disunited are many and the history books can explain that in detail but basically each sect after time followed man made customs and beliefs and strayed from what the Teacher taught and they broke into many sects.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, that is definitely how I see it. More of the same. But I'm an outsider to the Abrahamic faiths. A prophet. Infallibility. Proselytizing. Dualism. God in the sky. Good works, with strings. These are all in common, with the possible exception of Judaism.

I'm afraid you've yet to convince me Bahai is anything new.

I'm not trying to convince you.

You have repeatedly stated you are happy with Hinduism, you are not keen on interfaith debates, and you are here to defend Hinduism from being misrepresented.

I respect that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ha. I'll always be Catholic minded. I went to Mass for about fifteen years of my life and experienced it personally for four years continuously. So, what I say comes from a Catholic perspective (unless another Catholic corrects me )

But is it? What do you mean by 'human sacrifice'?

Sacrifice in itself is the core of Christian faith. One must sacrifice their sins (repent), to live in Christ (follow his teachings), and be resurrected in christ (be saved by faith in christ) so that they can be joined with god forever after death. Without that, another word, scapegoat, there is no shedding of blood. There needs to be shedding of blood for sins to be cleansed. In the OT, it was animals, in the New Testament, god sent his son to die on the cross (as jesus said he was doing his father's will not his own etc) just as animals are slain on the altar, to relieve christians of their sins. Since jesus is human, Christianity is based on human sacrifice.

Whether one sees it symbolic or not, that's up to the individual christian. Catholics see it literal. Literal experience of repentance, following christ, communion, resurrection, and baptism. Anything not literal would make many Catholics feel "incomplete."

'As we turn away from sin in our thoughts and action, and turn towards the Teachings of Christ we are enabled to draw closer to Him' makes more sense. What Christian has ever been with God? No one has ever seen God, only the 'Son'.

If we are taking about going to heaven after this life then it is sounding like Islam and perhaps Zoroastrianism, as well as Baha'i. If that is true then we don't need to be a Christian reading Christian scripture to understand a spiritual principle that is part of other faiths.

I don't understand. I just mean it doesn't matter if you believe jesus is god or not, literal or not, and what denomination you believe in. I didn't single them out just said you don't have to believe one or the other to be christian.

Other than that, I don't understand the connection.

I disagree. Christians can interpret scripture badly and non-Christians can interpret scripture well. Some 'Christians' can reflect little or none of what Christ taught, whereas some who are not Christians can be great examples of Christ's teachings. Consider the commandment to love your neighbour and your enemy. If this be the second greatest commandment, is it really only Christians that reflect this? What about the example of the good Samaritan. Could this be a warning against such thinking?

Why do you see this negatively? Christians grow in christ regardless of how they interpret scripture. Each person is different because, well, each person is different. No one will have the same interpretation even if they use the same words. Expressions are different just as art No one art is the same as another. I can tell the difference between Gato Barbiere and Kenny G and they both play saxophone. (Both very good artists).

That's like telling me that I can play the same son Kenny G plays because I play it better than he does. Yet, playing the sax isn't my passion so no matter how well I play, if I want to know more about the sax, I wouldn't consult my own understanding but those who have the passion and growing knowledge and practice in playing it.

Take jesus is not god vs. jesus is god. Sounds like a contradiction? It isn't. Jesus is sent by god and still has the divinity of god just the former separates god the father from his son and the latter feels jesus divinity from the father makes jesus the father himself. However, in both cases even Muslims see jesus having the divinity of the father. The common foundation is christ is not an everyday Joe Smoe.

Some people feel there is no spirit others believe there is. It doesn't matter because scripture says there is a spirit but they won't be judged until judgement day anyway. So whether they are sleep first or walking around as spirits (I read somewhere in scripture) the point is in the future they will be judged. Christians will be judged by their deeds. Non-christians will be turned away with jesus telling them he never knew them. How do you get a candy if you never asked for it. Then get upset when your mother says, "well, you didn't ask."

We can talk about the relationship with Christ being personal, as many Christians do, but what does that really mean? If we broke it down is it really unique to Christianity only?

Religion is personal. You and loverofhumanity have different views of the Bahai faith because yours are viewed from a christian perspective. I'm not sure @loverofhumanity has the same worldview. But both of you are passionate about your faith. Why would you be passionate about something that was not personal to you?

Personal meaning something like a passion, interest, or character unique to you and your interest in growth and well-being.

Ha. Nothing is unique to christianity. It's not an old religion. Just not many christians like that. I almost gave my co-worker a heart attack when I told her Pagan religions existed before christ did.

In regards to Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i revelation in Christianity the best starting point is the Olivet discourse or the final sermon of Jesus on the Mount of Olives in the week leading to His crucifixion. Baha'u'llah literally translated means the 'Glory of God' which is reflected in many places in scripture. Isaiah, Daniel, and the book of revelation are very important as with many other prophetic books. In the Olivet Discourse Christ after predicting the destruction of the second temple, and the plight of the Jewish peoples, talked about His return in the very distant future and the signs accompanying His return. The Christians I know are all expecting His return. They simply understand it in terms of miraculous events by interpreting verses like from Matthew 24 literally rather than symbolically.

That I'd have to study. That doesn't rang true in the whole of things. One because of era, location, and three christianity isn't a universalist religion. But I don't read the bible anymore. It bothers my soul.

Not necessarily true again. I know Christians to be married to non-Christians and yet they are 'in union' with them. Its all about the quality of relationships. Many interfaith friendships are better that friendships of people of the same faith.

Yes, you have a Jew on RF married to a Catholic. They are in union but the Jew (not to put it rudely) understands the boundaries between his belief and that of his wife. When you understand boundaries in any relationship, it is a healthy one. Bahai belief (not talking about all Bahais) doesn't respect the boundaries of other people's faiths because the founders are incorporated into theirs by their interpretation of people's faiths that are not their right to interpret.

To be in union, you have to disengage with that. That's like if I were dating a Catholic and I took the Eucharist because I believed the love of christ is beyond the bread and wine and that how I define the Eucharist is just the same as she and the Church. That's total disrespect to her faith. I'd need to go to confession, be back in union with the Church, and then take the Eucharist. (Pretending the Church lets us marry as two people blessed by god regardless of gender and sex)

To have a good relationship or friendship with people we do need to understand others and see through others eyes. However none of us can see completely see through the eyes of another, or completely walk in another's shoes.

Not many people want to in a friendship. In a relationship, I feel that's crucial. In my world, friendship as well. Just not the intimacy part. But you have to at least show interest in knowing the other person and their shoes to be a good friend and mate. That doesn't make sense. That sounds like a halfa friend.

Of course Baha'is can have some understanding of others beliefs even when the they completely contradict Baha'i beliefs as some Christian beliefs clearly do.

How do you reconcile with Christian beliefs that conflict with Bahai?

If you had deeply experienced Christ living in you as the 'Son of God', not the 'son of god', would you have left?

I feel you can fall in love with people and stay in love with them even if you are not around them or even want a relationship with them. I talk with my ex a lot, I still love her, but she has her own family and I'm dating someone else. So, like my ex, yes, I left for the outside reasons. I believe outside and inside work together. (Sorry, not Bahai material ) so if one half doesn't work, the other half is so-so. That, and I realized I didn't believe christ is god. So I was baptized in the spirit of christ while others believed it the spirit of god.

So, my interpretation and experience is different than and how other Catholics would explain theirs. Doesn't mean mine is less valid or less Catholic. No priest would tell me that. Just we didn't mesh. (I believe Catholicism is Christianity. I'd say Orthodox, though. But there are no Orthodox Churches in my area, only Roman)

The problem is that religious traditions and culture can outlive its usefulness, and become a barrier to our spiritual walk. Arguably that is why it was the Gentiles, not the Jews who championed the Teachings of the Jewish Messiah.

Could be. It's not all true. At least not for a lot of people I know whose TLC is their spiritual walk not a barrier to it or supplement to it. That's kind of like wanting to eat a delicious meal, believing in the essence of the taste of the meal, but figuring picking up the fork to eat the meal is a barrier to enjoying what you eat.

It certainly helps to be a practitioner or to have been one. However we need to understand that the conditions within religion can change to the point that a new Teacher, Messiah, or Covenant becomes necessary. I would argue this is the foundation of Christianity, not human sacrifice.

Come on now Do you believe jesus was crucified in order for you to be saved?

Many Christians call it the Passion rather than human sacrifice. If I said animal sacrifice if talking about the OT, christians probably wouldn't lift a finger. But, yeah, Jesus is the "Sacrificial lamb". Lord's supper symbolic or not explains it well.

Jesus was human. He was the sacrifice needed to redeem you all from sins. Human sacrifice.

Am I missing something? (Scratches her head)

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don't believe that ... at all. Neither does well over half the planet. Am I going to a hell I don't believe in too?

Actually I don't believe in 'truth' as a concept at all, not like book religions do anyway.

You're more a mystic then?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In that case you are sounding more like a Baha'i than I am.

The problem is that none of those world religions actually led to world peace. Arguably all those religions prophesised another who would restore religion and bring peace.

It is true that each of the religions had the potential to bring world peace but the Founders knew they wouldn't because of the condition of humanity.

If all the religious were like you as a christian who does not support war, would you change your mind and say religion leads to world peace or do you judge religion based on a group of people rather than individually?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I feel secure enough in my beliefs that I do not need to adopt extreme defensive and aggressive approaches.

You're not the only one. Maybe it's just the others are outnumbering you but they don't define religion and it's affects since it's personal.

If religion did anything, it would cause you to be aggressive the same as everyone else. You notice that everyone has their own interpretations and some are aggressive others are not. So, what you say sounds like a generalization. If you don't cause wars because of your religion, why would you think religion does anything?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have explained. It should be abundantly clear.

It just doesn't sound logical. It's like a child. I understand why he got two and two is five. But logically, I know it's wrong so I corrected him by showing how it equals four. I'm trying to figure out why you are saying five. I understand what you're saying. I'm just trying to figure how it equals five.

There are many truths but one ultimate truth. The example I have used is the sun and it's rays. There are many rays but their one source is the same sun.

I understand how you got five. Just that interpretation doesn't sound logical.

Do you understand what I am saying?

The rays are the sun. There is no ultimate truth since the sun is one of many "truths" in this analogy of the universe? The moon isn't the sun and so forth?

There are many truths but their one ultimate source is one truth.

I don't understand that. There are so many religions/truths that to put them in one-box just does not make sense.

Like the leaves and branches are of the same tree so truths are part of one greater truth. If you look only at the branches that's all you will see. But if you step back and look at the tree you will see the grand scheme of things.

Many trees, though not just one. One tree is unique onto itself. The leaves can be the traditions, language, and culture. The tree itself can be the beliefs. The tree next to it is different. Different leaves. Different tree. Yes, you can see them as all trees but once you make one the other, there is a problem.

You can only see what is within your field of vision.

Likewise. But do you understand what I'm saying? I'm trying to understand what you're saying more deeply. I'm twisting and turning it in my head and I'm just not diggin' it.

None own truth so I don't know why you keep coming up with this idea of taking it from someone, no one has trademarked truth, it belongs to one and all.

I guess you have to experience it? I don't know. I'd have to know your background, really because you and Adrian are the only ones I know that don't see people having their own truths.

Like the link I gave you about "Seeking native american spirituality, read this first!" If you read it, that's what I'm talking about. That's how they "own" their truth. Shared experience, culture, language, traditions, and beliefs that no one else is a part of but them. That means to be native american, hindu, christian, and so forth, you have to be a part of that respective faith to understand how they own their individual truths (with an -s).

I also explained that there is a process. There always was and always is only ONE religion which the ignorant have multiplied because they failed to turn to the subsequent Teacher Who was Promised them when He came but clung to traditions and power instead.

That's your belief. Not others. Like I said, it's fine to have differing beliefs. It's not find to have other founders support your beliefs when they don't. That's the problem not your belief itself.

All Buddhists should have turned to Christ and all Christians to Muhammad and so on. There was never meant to be anymore than one religion. The ignorant have broken it up into pieces which Baha'u'llah has come to mend and put back together.

I don't know what to say. You see one, I see many. I don't understand squeezing people into one truth. Like having all children have one mother. Doesn't make sense.

Humanity is confused and it's an abomination to have so many conflicting religions only confusing the poor people when truth is only one. They all represent the same truth. You can call one ray of the sun Hinduism and another Buddhism and another Christianity but they all come from the one same source.

Also, the pestimistic point of view really doesn't solve anything. Maybe look at the good side of people's faiths and how they are different. Focus on their differences not making everyone alike.

Th biggest mistake made in human history is to view religions as separate and unrelated to each other when they are actually part of one process, one Plan.

Yours is separate too. Just by saying "we respect different religions" is separating beliefs. If your belief is one, there'd be no Bahai religion.

The falsehood is that people assume these religions are separate and unrelated when clearly they are related. The leaders of each religion intent on controlling their followers have always taught the opposite that the other religions are not true thus trying to say that they are the only religion and all others are false. This is a lie.

That's your belief. The fact from the religions themselves say this is false. I understand your belief to an extent but it's false because I get the knowledge from the people who know better than me, you, and Bahaullah and the scriptures and suttas etc.

All the religions are connected by a covenant. The Covenant each Teacher made with His followers was to send another Teacher. The disunity occurred when they didn't accept Him.

That's definitely not true.

Disunity is not bad as long as you respect their boundaries. People don't. Some kill. Bahai culturally appropriates. Religions do a lot of things in their histories. Never liked it.

Hinduism and a Buddhism focus on the truths of non violence, Christianity focuses on love and forgiveness, Muhammad focused on Ummah or Community establishment, a form of nation state and Baha'u'llah focuses on world unity. These are all truths or rays of one sun and can be accepted by all humanity.

Same goals different truths. Study their TLC first, that is their spirituality. Without these things, it's all new age. You cant make love in all faiths run together without their TLC. Their TLC shapes their religion. They are different completely. So their love is different.

Nothing wrong with that.

The greater truth is that they are all a part of ONE process not disjointed belief systems as some imagine.

Disjointed isn't wrong if we don't look at them negatively like you do, or kill as others do.

The reasons they became disunited are many and the history books can explain that in detail but basically each sect after time followed man made customs and beliefs and strayed from what the Teacher taught and they broke into many sects.

Man-made customs? Never liked that term.

You must understand their traditions, language, and culture shapes and defines their beliefs.

You can't get further than what you are saying unless you delve more into this, understand it, before you disagree with it.​

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You're dodging my question.

There are many truths but their one ultimate source is one truth.

Loverofhumanity, since you split the two and say that our truths are the same what is my truth if it's the same as yours?

Since there is one source, my source should be the same as yours. What is my source?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Sacrifice in itself is the core of Christian faith. One must sacrifice their sins (repent), to live in Christ (follow his teachings), and be resurrected in christ (be saved by faith in christ) so that they can be joined with god forever after death. Without that, another word, scapegoat, there is no shedding of blood. There needs to be shedding of blood for sins to be cleansed. In the OT, it was animals, in the New Testament, god sent his son to die on the cross (as jesus said he was doing his father's will not his own etc) just as animals are slain on the altar, to relieve christians of their sins. Since jesus is human, Christianity is based on human sacrifice.

Whether one sees it symbolic or not, that's up to the individual christian. Catholics see it literal. Literal experience of repentance, following christ, communion, resurrection, and baptism. Anything not literal would make many Catholics feel "incomplete."

To understand Christianity is to understand Judaism and the OT. There was the sacrificial system set up in Mosaic law along with the tabernacle and then later the temple.

Tabernacle - Wikipedia

It was Solomon that dedicated the temple that replaced the tabernacle. This temple was destroyed of course during the Babylonian exile period and reconstructed again when the Hebrew people were under the rule of the Persians. It was the Persian King Cyrus that ordered the rebuilding of the Jewish temple. This is important to know because Isaiah refers to Cyrus as 'the anointed one'.

Isaiah 44:28, Isaiah 45:1-8

Who was Cyrus? He was not a Jew, but a Persian King, possibly a Zoroastrian. Yet God through Isaiah called him the anointed of God! The anointed one is also a title given to Jesus so it could be argued that as King David is used as a metaphor and Messianic reference to Jesus the Christ (who was a spiritual not, worldly King), Baha'u'llah was the Spiritual King prefigured through the Persian anointed King Cyrus.

Eventually this temple was rebuilt through Persian decree, initially by King Cyrus and later by Artaxerxes. Jerusalem was also reconstructed during this time. You may recall the prophet Daniel 9 had prayed to God on behalf of his people to forgive the sins of his people. God responded with a rather cryptic response (Daniel 9:24-27) which refers to the rebuilding of the temple and Jerusalem, outlining a time frame, but also referring to very distant events that I would argue refers to the Baha'i revelation. This is highly significant as Jesus made reference to these verses during His Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:15).

Jesus early in Matthew 24:2 refers to the destruction of this second temple along with Jerusalem which of course is hugely significant to the Jewish way of life and central to their hopes and aspirations for the previous fifteen hundred years.

Jesus became the new focal point of worship for those who recognised Him. The language about sacrifice and the blood of Jesus relates to this history and I do not believe any of it for one moment is intended literally. However it was necessary to use the language and symbols of the OT to make sense of who Jesus was and to bring a new understanding. The problem develops when what was used as a metaphor is understood literally.

I don't understand. I just mean it doesn't matter if you believe jesus is god or not, literal or not, and what denomination you believe in. I didn't single them out just said you don't have to believe one or the other to be christian.

Other than that, I don't understand the connection.

It is very simple. Every religion encourages its followers to lives a virtuous life, to turn away from that which is blameworthy and harmful. The result is a heightened spirituality. The language and symbolism of Christianity has led some to believe that this is a unique experience that only Christians can experience, whereas the language which appears 'Christian' is describing universal principles.

Why do you see this negatively? Christians grow in christ regardless of how they interpret scripture. Each person is different because, well, each person is different. No one will have the same interpretation even if they use the same words. Expressions are different just as art No one art is the same as another. I can tell the difference between Gato Barbiere and Kenny G and they both play saxophone. (Both very good artists).

Except many no longer grow in Christ, but become enmeshed in dogma and doctrines that have either outlived their usefulness or have nothing to do with the original teachings of Christ. The result is prejudice and intolerance rather than love and understanding.

Jesus became very angry at the distortion of Mosaic teachings, as exemplified by turning the temple into a market place. The condition of Christianity today arguably has parallels with the Judaism during the first centuries of Christianity.

Take jesus is not god vs. jesus is god. Sounds like a contradiction? It isn't. Jesus is sent by god and still has the divinity of god just the former separates god the father from his son and the latter feels jesus divinity from the father makes jesus the father himself. However, in both cases even Muslims see jesus having the divinity of the father. The common foundation is christ is not an everyday Joe Smoe.

We are agreed that Jesus was not God. However the language and experience of the Old Testament was used to describe the nature of Jesus so the term 'Son of God' was used.

Some people feel there is no spirit others believe there is. It doesn't matter because scripture says there is a spirit but they won't be judged until judgement day anyway. So whether they are sleep first or walking around as spirits (I read somewhere in scripture) the point is in the future they will be judged. Christians will be judged by their deeds. Non-christians will be turned away with jesus telling them he never knew them. How do you get a candy if you never asked for it. Then get upset when your mother says, "well, you didn't ask."

We need to look again at what scripture actually says. Matthew 25:31-46

Getting into heaven according to these scripture has absolutely nothing to do with who is a Christian and who is not. It has everything to do with how we treat those who are struggling in life.

Religion is personal. You and loverofhumanity have different views of the Bahai faith because yours are viewed from a christian perspective. I'm not sure @loverofhumanity has the same worldview. But both of you are passionate about your faith. Why would you be passionate about something that was not personal to you?

Personal meaning something like a passion, interest, or character unique to you and your interest in growth and well-being.

Of course our religion is personal. I really appreciate @loverofhumanity and @arthra efforts to make sense of the religions from a Baha'i perspective that I have little knowledge of. In the absence of Baha'is from a Buddhist or Hindu background it is the best we have here on RF.

Ha. Nothing is unique to christianity. It's not an old religion. Just not many christians like that. I almost gave my co-worker a heart attack when I told her Pagan religions existed before christ did.

Exactly. Christianity is not a unique religion in the sense that it builds on Judaism, and influenced by the cultures which it came in contact with, particularly during the exile and post exile periods.

I can see why your co-worker didn't feel good hearing about paganism if she is a Christian. Were you trying to wind her up?

That I'd have to study. That doesn't rang true in the whole of things. One because of era, location, and three christianity isn't a universalist religion. But I don't read the bible anymore. It bothers my soul.

How about Christianity is a universalist religion and the reason it bothers your soul is that it has been turned into something else. Wouldn't it be great if you could read the bible again and it didn't offend your soul?

Yes, you have a Jew on RF married to a Catholic. They are in union but the Jew (not to put it rudely) understands the boundaries between his belief and that of his wife. When you understand boundaries in any relationship, it is a healthy one. Bahai belief (not talking about all Bahais) doesn't respect the boundaries of other people's faiths because the founders are incorporated into theirs by their interpretation of people's faiths that are not their right to interpret.

I think the Baha'is do understand the boundaries and we are misunderstood. I will comment on your earlier post about indigenous peoples soon.

How do you reconcile with Christian beliefs that conflict with Bahai?

That's an easy one because there is no contradiction or conflict. To resolve apparent contradictions we need to better understand both religions. Once we have the understanding then there is no contradiction.

I feel you can fall in love with people and stay in love with them even if you are not around them or even want a relationship with them. I talk with my ex a lot, I still love her, but she has her own family and I'm dating someone else. So, like my ex, yes, I left for the outside reasons. I believe outside and inside work together. (Sorry, not Bahai material ) so if one half doesn't work, the other half is so-so. That, and I realized I didn't believe christ is god. So I was baptized in the spirit of christ while others believed it the spirit of god.

So, my interpretation and experience is different than and how other Catholics would explain theirs. Doesn't mean mine is less valid or less Catholic. No priest would tell me that. Just we didn't mesh. (I believe Catholicism is Christianity. I'd say Orthodox, though. But there are no Orthodox Churches in my area, only Roman)

At some point you need to work out who you are going out with and distance yourself from the other. If you start having candlelit meals with your ex that will cause problems with your current partner.

I have a healthy relationship with my ex (Christianity) and I don't want anymore romantic dinners (communions).

Come on now Do you believe jesus was crucified in order for you to be saved?

Many Christians call it the Passion rather than human sacrifice. If I said animal sacrifice if talking about the OT, christians probably wouldn't lift a finger. But, yeah, Jesus is the "Sacrificial lamb". Lord's supper symbolic or not explains it well.

Jesus was human. He was the sacrifice needed to redeem you all from sins. Human sacrifice.

Am I missing something? (Scratches her head)

I believe it is through belief in Christ (the Manifestation of God or Messiah) and abiding by His Teachings we are saved. Christ's crucifixion just helps us to understand that better, and certainly was necessary to explain to the Jews who became Christians what they needed to do. What is more important to you, the sacraments or living the life?

 

[Dawnofhope]

If all the religious were like you as a christian who does not support war, would you change your mind and say religion leads to world peace or do you judge religion based on a group of people rather than individually?

I think we need to differentiate between what a religious founder teaches and what their adherents do. Why? Because eventually the two become so separate that straight path becomes crooked, the valleys are deepened, and the mountains raised, and spiritual blindness prevails. Then God needs to straighten the crooked, fill the valley, and make low the mountains, so every eye can see. Luke 3:4-6

You're not the only one. Maybe it's just the others are outnumbering you but they don't define religion and it's affects since it's personal.

If religion did anything, it would cause you to be aggressive the same as everyone else. You notice that everyone has their own interpretations and some are aggressive others are not. So, what you say sounds like a generalization. If you don't cause wars because of your religion, why would you think religion does anything?

Religion has the greatest power to transform people for better or for worse. If it causes love and unity then its purpose is fulfilled. If it leads to hate and estrangement then best to be without such a religion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You have a very nontraditional way of viewing christianity, I must say.

To understand Christianity is to understand Judaism and the OT. There was the sacrificial system set up in Mosaic law along with the tabernacle and then later the temple.

I read everything. I can't have an intelligent conversation just basically say in the OT they sacrificed animals and in the new testament, Jesus was sacrificed. Since jesus is human and both animal and jesus are sacrificed to redeem people of sins, one is animal sacrifice and the other human. Many Christians wouldn't phrase it that way, but there it is.

It is very simple. Every religion encourages its followers to lives a virtuous life, to turn away from that which is blameworthy and harmful. The result is a heightened spirituality. The language and symbolism of Christianity has led some to believe that this is a unique experience that only Christians can experience, whereas the language which appears 'Christian' is describing universal principles.

Universal goals doesn't mean the faith is universal. Buddhism is put in the same mixing cup as Christianity and Hinduism in Bahai (referring to the founders in your faith). They all three conflict. Universal religions don't conflict. That's the problem.

Except many no longer grow in Christ, but become enmeshed in dogma and doctrines that have either outlived their usefulness or have nothing to do with the original teachings of Christ. The result is prejudice and intolerance rather than love and understanding.

Dogma and doctrines aren't bad. I followed dogma. My spiritually grew from it because I didn't separate it from spirituality. They are one and the same.

Jesus followed Jewish teachings. Jewish teachings have dogma. Jesus was concerned of putting the teachings over the father not the teachings themselves unless they lead people away from his father.

Jesus became very angry at the distortion of Mosaic teachings, as exemplified by turning the temple into a market place. The condition of Christianity arguably has parallels with the birth of the Christian religion.

Probably because the jews were putting their traditions over the creator, as claimed by Jesus during the time of his arrest, I believe or before. He fussed at the pharisee for it too.

We are agreed that Jesus was not God. However the language and experience of the Old Testament was used to describe the nature of who Jesus was, and so the term 'Son of God' was used.

Many Christians say that. Jesus referred to the Old Testament. When I read the Old Testament the only thing I found similar to the new is the role of sacrifice. Shedding blood for the remission of sins. People actually killed animals (and still do today) to redeem themselves from sins. Why would jesus, being human, be seen as symbolic sacrifice but animals not?

Getting into heaven according to these scripture has absolutely nothing to do with who is a Christian and who is not. It has everything to do with how we treat those who are struggling in life.

We disagree. All non-universal religions have a standard of faith. Whether it's right or wrong is up to the person to decide. I'm no more christian then the Buddhist next to me because I have to participate in the body of christ. My doing good deeds does not save me and bring me to heaven.

Of course our religion is personal. I really appreciate.

I can see why your co-worker didn't feel good hearing about paganism if she is a Christian. Were you trying to wind her up?

Haha. Naw. We used to talk a lot about religion. Unfortunately, we only talked about hers. Once in a blue moon she'd ask about my religion. We were watching t.v. one time and the sun rose I think to mid point in the sky, forgot the holiday. Pagans came to the stone hinge to see and appreciate the beauty because we feel that is sacred to be a part of nature and life in general. I said that was beautiful. She said it was pagan. Then I said yes, paganism existed before christianity. Most christians can take that but they won't accept it's part of christianity. Many call it indigenous beliefs or belittled names.

How about Christianity is a universalist religion and the reason it bothers your soul is that it has been turned into something else. Wouldn't it be great if you could read the bible again and it didn't offend your soul?

Nope. If I could be Catholic again, I would. I never say a "change" into anything. If anything protestants who left the Church took a lot away from Christianity specifically it's Roman influence. I guess they feel if they take out the Roman influence some of the apostles put in, it would be more like jesus. Yet, jesus never told I think Peter he wasn't accepted all because he was half Roman.

Actually, no. It won't change. It still talks about human sacrifice and killing for remission of sins. I don't agree with killing. It could be in any book. It doesn't have to be religious in nature. No.

I think the Baha'is do understand the boundaries and we are misunderstood. I will comment on your earlier post about indigenous peoples soon.

Don't think so. I just don't think you and especially loverofhumanity are understanding what it means to cross one's boundaries and respecting beliefs.

That's an easy one because there is not contradiction or conflict. To resolve contradictions we need to better understand both religions. Once we have the understanding then there is no contradiction.

Shrugs.

At some point you need to work out who you are going out with and distance yourself from the other. If you start having candlelit meals with your ex that will cause problems with your current partner.

I haven't been with my ex for over 10 years. We are still friends. My current friend knows this. (Please use friend or girlfriend rather than partner or significant other) I don't believe in divorcing friends. That's one of the few things my ex and I had in common. We don't divorce our friends regardless the healthy circumstances.

Haha. No, I wouldn't have a candlelit meal. We just talk on the phone. If my friend and I see each other for a year, I'll introduce her to my ex (or my other friend's) family. She has two beautiful kids and a wife. It's too early in the relationship to introduce my friends with her. I can tell she gets hurt easily.

I have a healthy relationship with my ex (Christianity) and I don't want anymore romantic dinners (communions).

I have a healthy friendship with my ex. I don't want to date her anymore nor go out on dates and commune. Like my other friend, we talk once in a blue moon but I don't have intimate feelings for her anymore. Lost those years ago. I go to the Easter Vigil to congratulate people coming into the Church; but I'm not "intimate" at Mass aka take communion.

I believe it is through belief in Christ and abiding by His Teachings we are saved. Christ's crucifixion just helps me to understand that better, and certainly was necessary to explain to the Jews who became Christians what they needed to do. What is more important to you, the sacraments or living the life?

If I followed christ, both. I can't follow his teachings without being part of his body. I can't understand his teachings without taking the sacraments (confession and communion) often to keep myself in one body. You separate the two. I don't.

I don't understand why other than a negative view of people and how they depend on dogma. Are there positive reasons that you separate the two?[/QUOTE]