How are these Great Beings explained?

[Dawnofhope]

Adrian, you asked me about how one is "offended" by cultural appropriation. Can't remember if you commented on my answer, but this is an example:

Help Stop the Exploitation of Indian Ceremonies and Culture

As you guys may know, Native Americans became minorities and are still being colonized and tucked away. Their traditions are stolen or just driven out entirely by Christianity or mixed with it. It's sad.

The link is very familiar because nearly 15% of New Zealand's population are the Maori or indigenous peoples.

Demographics of New Zealand - Wikipedia

New Zealander's compared to Americans have a good grasp of these issues because we have a treaty between the British Crown and Maori to begin with, and because of the sheer numbers of Maori, we can not ignore the issues nor sweep them under the carpet.

The Baha'is do not have sports teams with inappropriate Maori names, nor do we do not market traditional Maori remedies.

We try to understand the history and present to build positive relationships with all peoples.

People are literally taking other people's cultures, their practices, their beliefs and mix and matching them and using them outside the context to which they come from and practiced.

When you say Krishna prophesied Bahaullah and come from the same god, that "statement in an of itself" is cultural appropriation. Regardless if it's your belief and you think it's right, the very fact the belief itself is doing this makes Bahai believe more of a suttle colonized faith. If it were not, Krishna would remain a god (who cannot be a incarnation of someone else's god) in his or her own right, not be appropriated nor stated in your belief system, and respected for the Hindu and Hindu scripture that says otherwise. Just because you believe it and not consider beliefs and facts the same, the point is, it's in your religion, and it does the same as every other belief that culturally appropriates. As a minority seeing this bothers me greatly.

I prefer to avoid commenting on the Hindu example. Lets consider Christianity. When Jesus claimed to be the fulfilment of prophecies in the Hebrew bible should we consider that cultural misappropriation? Baha'is claim Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ. Is that cultural misappropriation? I believe the answer to both questions is "no".

Adrian

I'ma do it this way. Scripture doesn't predict the coming of Bahaullah. I've read scripture and in no way does it predict the coming of anyone other than christ himself. Christ wasn't the peace-maker of "his day" but in scripture, he was the peace-maker even after his death, when his apostles took the message on in Acts and spread it around neighboring lands. His spirit still exists today in people (and in yourself as a christian) so he is always a peace-maker.

Another thing, if you are incorporating Muhammad, Krishna, Zoraster in your practice as a Bahai/Christian there are some problems.

The cultural appropriation I mentioned above.

The lack of unity each religion has with each other. They all have to unite and agree regardless of their differing beliefs. Since they do not, Bahai can't be in unity with disunity regardless if they look at the similarities rather than the differences.

So we are starting to examine the connections between Judaism and Christianity, then Christianity and the Baha'i Faith. Talk to Art and David about Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam.

Even once you understand two, you need to understand the culture and traditions.

Even if you understand the traditions and culture and the other accepts you, you are still not that culture.

So I can't change your belief. I can just say this is what you're doing. Whether you individual see it this way is the same as Christians having multiple worldviews but the same belief (so you are not different). But I'm referring to your belief system instead.

Of course we need to understand the culture and traditions of the religionist we are talking to. I agree with the quotes you included in post #1372. We are in the early stages of building relationships with other peoples and faith communities. We need to build bonds of love and fellowship. Of course we will want to share that their Messiah has come, but with wisdom and respect. If our message is accepted then well and good, if not then that's fine too. We not trying to take over their religion, just letting them know their Promised One has come.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

I don't think you addressed the question.

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?​

You always talk negative about adherents of religion who practice dogma. Wouldn't that be the same as others who talk aggressively about others just not passive aggressive?

If everyone followed religion like you, would religion be an issue?

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.

As you can see, it's not the religion nor dogma nor doctrine. It's what people do with it and in the name of it that matters. A lot of Catholics don't mimic what their bloody history provides. I've met many Catholics more spiritual than protestants who try to take out dogma all together as if it were poison or something. Dogma isn't the problem. It's if you're putting it over the father is what jesus is talking about. I don't meet many people who do. Religion is personal. Try not to generalize. You're putting yourself in this generalization.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Baha'is do not have sports teams with inappropriate Maori names, nor do we do not market traditional Maori remedies.

It's an example of using other founder's "beliefs and founders" into your religion. I don't know anything about Maori to comment, though. I understand you build positive relationships with people. I'm talking about cultural appropriation not your manners and interest in learning other people's beliefs.

I prefer to avoid commenting on the Hindu example. Lets consider Christianity. When Jesus claimed to be the fulfilment of prophecies in the Hebrew bible should we consider that cultural misappropriation? Baha'is claim Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ. Is that cultural misappropriation? I believe the answer to both questions is "no".

Christianity taking Paganism is cultural appropriation. Catholics taking Lukumi faith and mixing it is cultural appropriation. Actually, that's a nicer word for lack of more strong words I'd replace with it.

Yes, Bahaullah is the return of Christ is cultural appropriation. You are sticking a belief in that is not of the christian faith and saying it is. The former doesn't refer to Bahai but Hebrew. No. However, Jews may have a second opinion on that one.

So we are starting to examine the connections between Judaism and Christianity, then Christianity and the Baha'i Faith. Talk to Art and David about Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam.

Bahai connects with Christianity. Christianity doesn't connect with Bahai. We can believe anything and if it helps us grow, so be. The facts are different, though. But we discussed belief and facts so there isn't much I can say. I see them one and the same and you don't, so...

Of course we need to understand the culture and traditions of the religionist we are talking to. I agree with the quotes you included in post #1372. We are in the early stages of building relationships with other peoples and faith communities. We need to build bonds of love and fellowship. Of course we will want to share that their Messiah has come, but with wisdom and respect. If our message is accepted then well and good, if not then that's fine too. We not trying to take over their religion, just letting them know their Promised One has come.

You're confusing my telling you your religion cultural appropriates with thinking I'm saying you don't respect other people's faiths. Of course you do. Not saying you personally don't. I'm saying your religion doesn't because of the fact of the founders in your faith but more importantly (and confirmed by other people) it's interpretation of other religions that are not its own.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You're dodging my question.





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

Our truth comes from the same one source although we may both outwardly call it by a different name.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Our truth comes from the same one source although we may both outwardly call it by a different name.

Can't come from the same source. Your source is god, many religions don't have that as the same source. It isn't by another name. TLC is embedded in beliefs. They have different sources thus different interpretations and beliefs that involve love etc.

Once you come from that one-source thinking, you'd have a better understanding of why and how other religion's source is not by another name but unique unto themselves.

Also, this is a pretty short reply to my post. Didn't answer my question, though.

If there is only one source and it's the same source as mine and other religions, what is my source if it's the same as yours?

 

[Dawnofhope]

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

Of course, I'm a Baha'i.

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.

I believe to understand the NT we need to understand the OT as the OT is the foundation for the NT. To understand the OT and NT requires we understand history. More important we need to apply the teachings to our lives. As we apply the teachings to our lives we naturally come across peoples of different values, cultures, and faiths who appear to have many of the same core values. To make sense of this we need to understand comparative religion and history. As we develop our understanding it becomes clear that there is much sacred scripture that is no longer relevant to the time we are living in now but much that is.

I see sacrifice being part of all religion, but animal sacrifices as part of a bygone era. Sacrifice is about giving up something for the greater good.

I do not believe there is any connection between Jesus sacrificing His life for humanity and the human sacrifices that make up B grade movies.

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.

Universal goals doesn't mean a faith is universal but it doesn't rule it out either.

I think the problem is that we lack understanding and experience in life.

It does not concern me that religions make contradictory statements because when I looked deeper into both the Baha'i Faith and Christianity I resolved those contradictions. If I were more motivated I would do the same for the other religions.

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.

In a previous post, maybe 500 posts or so ago )), I recall we talked about dogma being false beliefs. The example we agreed on was the doctrine of original sin. Another could be the divinity of Christ. Maybe we just talk about true and false beliefs.

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.

Studying the NT and history assists us to understand that there were many problems with Judaism at that time, not least the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who Jesus likened to a cup, clean on the outside and dirty inside. Matthew 23:25

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?

There are over 60 references to the OT in the book of Matthew alone.

OT Quotations in the Gospel of Matthew

Animal sacrifices were symbolic. What difference does it make to God if we give him a dead animal. Hebrews 10:1-10

God wants for us to live the best we can, that's why He sent his Great teachers or messengers for all humanity.
John 10:16

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.

If that is true does it not concern you that you will not be saved and go to heaven?

Did you disagree with the verses from Matthew 25:31-46?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Of course, I'm a Baha'i.

Haha. How soon I forget.

I believe to understand the NT we need to understand the OT as the OT is the foundation for the NT. To understand the OT and NT requires we understand history. More important we need to apply the teachings to our lives. As we apply the teachings to our lives we naturally come across peoples of different values, cultures, and faiths who appear to have many of the same core values. To make sense of this we need to understand comparative religion and history. As we develop our understanding it becomes clear that there is much sacred scripture that is no longer relevant to the time we are living in now but much that is.

True, we need to understand history. Some things are just blunt. It's kind of like telling me that even though two and two is four, I need to know the history to make sure.

I see sacrifice being part of all religion, but animal sacrifices as part of a bygone era. Sacrifice is about giving up something for the greater good.

Sacrifice still exist. Human, I hope not. Animal, most definitely. They are used for remission of sins.

I do not believe there is any connection between Jesus sacrificing His life for humanity and the human sacrifices that make up B grade movies.

Haha. Jesus is human and he was a sacrificial lamb. Human sacrifice. As for B rated movies, I agree, I don't think it was like that. But pining someone to the wood is pretty painful.

Universal goals doesn't mean a faith is universal but it doesn't rule it out either.

If you like. Foundations aren't universal and everything is built on the foundation so many religions aren't universal.

It does not concern me that religions make contradictory statements because when I looked deeper into both the Baha'i Faith and Christianity I resolved those contradictions. If I were more motivated I would do the same for the other religions.

That's one thing I don't believe in is resolving contradictions as if we should all be one system of belief. Never sat right with me.

In a previous post, maybe 500 posts or so ago )), I recall we talked about dogma being false beliefs. The example we agreed on was the doctrine of original sin. Another could be the divinity of Christ. Maybe we just talk about true and false beliefs.

Well, when you said you were christian then a weight fell on me like "THAT'S why he thinks like this and that. Go figure." I practiced dogma, though. I never saw it that way. I never witnessed it that way in the Church. I can't figure a dogma that is violent, actually. Contradiction, yes; but, to me, that's not an issue since everyone has their own truth

Animal sacrifices were symbolic. What difference does it make to God if we give him a dead animal. Hebrews 10:1-10

This just proves Catholicism could be wrong if they say they are doing what OT priest did. I don't see a reference to symbolism, though.

If that is true does it not concern you that you will not be saved and go to heaven?

Exactly. Another reason I'm not christian. I don't have a reason to be saved.

Did you disagree with the verses from Matthew 25:31-46?

I don't understand the point of the scriptures. Just a side note, though. I see scriptures as literal. I don't agree with a lot of it and the parables are nice to learn from but the source is the father; so, they have no inherent meaning unless I believed in the person who sent the message not just the message and founder himself.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.



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?



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



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.



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.



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).



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.​

Maybe it's hard for you to understand, but the concept that all 'religions' were always a part of one process is the issue here.

Without understanding progressive Revelation it's hard to understand what we are speaking about.

There was always a major plan to have only one religion. It failed along the way because of the leaders of religion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Can't come from the same source. Your source is god, many religions don't have that as the same source. It isn't by another name. TLC is embedded in beliefs. They have different sources thus different interpretations and beliefs that involve love etc.

Once you come from that one-source thinking, you'd have a better understanding of why and how other religion's source is not by another name but unique unto themselves.

Also, this is a pretty short reply to my post. Didn't answer my question, though.

If there is only one source and it's the same source as mine and other religions, what is my source if it's the same as yours?

The source of all truth is from God. Whether one acknowledges it or not doesn't matter.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The source of all truth is from God. Whether one acknowledges it or not doesn't matter.

You're not getting it.

We love you just the same, though.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Maybe it's hard for you to understand, but the concept that all 'religions' were always a part of one process is the issue here.

Without understanding progressive Revelation it's hard to understand what we are speaking about.

There was always a major plan to have only one religion. It failed along the way because of the leaders of religion.

If your truth is the same as my truth, what is my truth then?

 

[Vinayaka]

You're more a mystic then?

Yes, but not an advanced one.

Here's a quote from a very famous Hindu mystic that sums it up well I think.

Only two kinds of people can attain self-knowledge: those who are not encumbered at all with learning, that is to say, whose minds are not over-crowded with thoughts borrowed from others; and those who, after studying all the scriptures and sciences, have come to realize that they know nothing.
-- Sri Ramakrishna (1836-1886), famed guru of Swami Vivekananda

 

[loverofhumanity]

You're not getting it.

We love you just the same, though.

Not true. I'm just not giving you the answer you want or expect.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think we need to differentiate between what a religious founder teaches and what their adherents do.

I think that's very true, but I would also add that we can tell the relative clarity of said religious leader by how his adherents behave. If his message is clearer, there would be less disagreement (I mean on major things, not individual tastes) amongst adherents.

 

[Vinayaka]

Not true. I'm just not giving you the answer you want or expect.

We are putting it out there in pretty black and white terms, as simple as we can muster, and still, often there is avoidance, or at two different times, you answer differently.

So I will ask you the same question Carlita did. if your's and my truth are the same, what then is my truth?

For example, if you said you owned a Honda Civic, and I said, "My car is the same", would you not be able to identify what car I drive?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not true. I'm just not giving you the answer you want or expect.

Actually, it is true. The answer I want is "I understand and this is why...." the answer I expect is "I understand...and this is why..."

I don't know how you understand what I'm saying. You just say you respect other faiths, understand me (on a surface level, in my opinion), and leave it alone just as you did now.

If we both have the same source, what is my source?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, but not an advanced one.

Here's a quote from a very famous Hindu mystic that sums it up well I think.

Only two kinds of people can attain self-knowledge: those who are not encumbered at all with learning, that is to say, whose minds are not over-crowded with thoughts borrowed from others; and those who, after studying all the scriptures and sciences, have come to realize that they know nothing.
-- Sri Ramakrishna (1836-1886), famed guru of Swami Vivekananda

That's a beautiful quote.

 

[Vinayaka]

Actually, it is true. The answer I want is "I understand and this is why...." the answer I expect is "I understand...and this is why..."

haha .. Reminds me of my teaching days. Saying, 'I understand' and actually understanding are two very different things. So I'd ask the kids, 'How many of you know the capital of France?" then count hands ... say 19 out of 25 would put their hands up. Then I'd get them to write it out on a slip of paper. Then I'd count, and inevitably we'd have only 6 who knew it. But that was just the precursor to the discussion about that process, and the whole idea of being able to ask for help. In other words, 'It's okay if you don't know something. Better to just admit it."

 

[Vinayaka]

That's a beautiful quote.

One of the ironies in all this discussion with the Bahai is that there are probably at least 50 individual Hindu organisations with larger numbers worldwide than the Bahai. For example, Ramakrishna Mission, the group that adheres to this wise mystic (Sri Ramakrishna) teachings has 186 branches worldwide. Several other groups are substantially larger.

But none of them advertise much, none are interested in discussing much, almost none have declared themselves non-Hindu etc. They just go about the social work, keeping to themselves, and have no reason to expand. Very few feel they themselves are THE solution to mankind's problems.

It's another difference in paradigm for sure. But its all good too.

 

[loverofhumanity]

We are putting it out there in pretty black and white terms, as simple as we can muster, and still, often there is avoidance, or at two different times, you answer differently.

So I will ask you the same question Carlita did. if your's and my truth are the same, what then is my truth?

If yours and my truth are the same then your truth is - "truth" also.

For example, if you said you owned a Honda Civic, and I said, "My car is the same", would you not be able to identify what car I drive?

Yes. But the question is concerning truth not belief. Not all beliefs are truth.