How are these Great Beings explained?

[Dawnofhope]

You make a valid point that there is little we can identify if taken in isolation that is new or unrelated to any other religion or civilisation. It is true also that Baha'u'llah's teachings build on what has been taught in previous religions and we call this progressive revelation where God reveals teachings in accordance to the capacity of humanity. He also provides the remedy required for the stage that humanity finds itself. Therefore it is not surprising that many of the teachings would be considered mainstream these days whereas in 19th century Persia they certainly were not.

In regards to the conditions of today Baha'u'llah likens the Manifestations of God to Divine physicians that in their unerring wisdom prescribe the remedy of humanities ills.

The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.

We can well perceive how the whole human race is encompassed with great, with incalculable afflictions. We see it languishing on its bed of sickness, sore-tried and disillusioned. They that are intoxicated by self-conceit have interposed themselves between it and the Divine and infallible Physician. Witness how they have entangled all men, themselves included, in the mesh of their devices. They can neither discover the cause of the disease, nor have they any knowledge of the remedy. They have conceived the straight to be crooked, and have imagined their friend an enemy.

As do Muslims, Catholics, and probably Jews.

There is no doubt that prayer and fasting an essential aspect of the Abrahamic faiths to varying degrees.

Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

Regardless, the "global civilization" is not a new concept. Thus far, nothing introduced by Baha'i is.

With the eye of faith we could see in Jesus's words the seed of a global civilisation. Baha'u'llah builds on this and takes it to another level.

Unification of the whole of mankind is the hall-mark of the stage which human society is now approaching. Unity of family, of tribe, of city-state, and nation have been successively attempted and fully established. World unity is the goal towards which a harassed humanity is striving. Nation-building has come to an end. The anarchy inherent in state sovereignty is moving towards a climax. A world, growing to maturity, must abandon this fetish, recognize the oneness and wholeness of human relationships, and establish once for all the machinery that can best incarnate this fundamental principle of its life.

“A new life,” Bahá’u’lláh proclaims, “is, in this age, stirring within all the peoples of the earth; and yet none hath discovered its cause, or perceived its motive.” “O ye children of men,” He thus addresses His generation, “the fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race… This is the straight path, the fixed and immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair 203 its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure.” “The well-being of mankind,” He declares, “its peace and security are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established.” “So powerful is the light of unity,” is His further testimony, “that it can illuminate the whole earth. The one true God, He Who knoweth all things, Himself testifieth to the truth of these words… This goal excelleth every other goal, and this aspiration is the monarch of all aspirations.” “He Who is your Lord, the All-Merciful,” He, moreover, has written, “cherisheth in His heart the desire of beholding the entire human race as one soul and one body. Haste ye to win your share of God’s good grace and mercy in this Day that eclipseth all other created days.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 202-206

You pull from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all who say the exact same thing - more or less - about the god of Abraham. Even taking in to account your interpretations of Zoroastrianism (hardly a World Religion, though) and Hinduism, this principle is nothing new.

The Persian empire was one of the largest the world has seen and arguably one of the first multicultural empires were diversity was tolerated and even encouraged.

A belief that was stifled under Abrahamism, but one that was held by many pre-Christian European nations.

Paul certainly maintained the status quo of a male dominated society with comments such as:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

The Baha'i faith is strong on equality of men and women.

“The world of humanity has two wings—one is women and the other men,” wrote ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “Not until both wings are equally developed can the bird fly. Should one wing remain weak, flight is impossible.”

Accomplished under the Roman Empire

Good luck finding anything like this in the writings of ancient civilisations:

The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Bahá’u’lláh, implies the establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races, creeds and classes are closely and permanently united, and in which the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and completely safeguarded. This commonwealth must, as far as we can visualize it, consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples. A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature, and will safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth. A world tribunal will adjudicate and deliver its compulsory and final verdict in all and any disputes that may arise between the various elements constituting this universal system. A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity. A world metropolis will act as the nerve center of a world civilization, the focus towards which the unifying forces of life will converge and from which its energizing influences will radiate. A world language will either be invented or chosen from among the existing languages and will be taught in the schools of all the federated nations as an auxiliary to their mother tongue. A world script, a world literature, a uniform and universal system of currency, of weights and measures, will simplify and facilitate intercourse and understanding among the nations and races of mankind. In such a world society, science and religion, the two most potent forces in human life, will be reconciled, will cöoperate, and will harmoniously develop. The press will, under such a system, while giving full scope to the expression of the diversified views and convictions of mankind, cease to be mischievously manipulated by vested interests, whether private or public, and will be liberated from the influence of contending governments and peoples. The economic resources of the world will be organized, its sources of raw materials will be tapped and fully utilized, its markets will be cöordinated and developed, and the distribution of its products will be equitably regulated.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 202-206

Suggested heavily by Christian doctrine, noted above in Matt 28:19.

These are some of the documents that outline the succession of authority and its scope in the Baha'i writings.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh Revealed After the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 219-223

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Will And Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá

"Judge not, lest ye be judged thyself."

A little vague in regards to overcoming prejudice.

The Baha'i writings in comparison:

Bahá'í Reference Library - Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Pages 246-250

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 160-161

You are correct that the Baha'i faith stands on the shoulders of giants, and time will tell whether it becomes the giant of giants or fades into obscurity. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism of course have all stood on the shoulders of giants too, and that is the nature of progressive revelation.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Similar to the question whether or not there's false prophets, are there false religions?

Only a few Baha'u'llah says.

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. "(Gleanings CXI)

 

[loverofhumanity]

Is there such a thing as a false prophet? And by what criteria do we use to judge if a person is a true prophet?

This is a very good guide.

Matthew 7 15:20

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

For instance the Jihadist,movement is run by a false prophet. Also there are those who in the west use the proceeds from donations to build mansions and buy expensive cars.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We believe there is only one religion but that people have multiplied it due to not accepting the new prophet when He appeared.

"This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future" - Baha'u'llah

What you describe as independent processes we believe is only one process. One religion evolving over time.

People have divided this religion and created different sects and wars over Who is right ands wrong. These divisions never came from God.

We believe all the different paintings were part of a much larger picture which God created. A much larger plan and that many can only see their facet of the truth.

In your belief, god created one painting and then people started creating their own painting thereafter?

If so, wouldn't that be beautiful (if you can see the beauty rather than division) if everyone were able to have their own expression of art?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thanks for the lengthy replies to my lengthy questions. I haven't read through your entire reply yet, but this part of it I think is very important. Christians compiled their "Scriptures" and didn't they vote at one of their councils as to which ones to accept and which ones to reject?

This is history that can be easily researched so you could educate me.

Rightly or wrongly I accept the authority and authenticity of the bible in its entirety. I justify my position from the Baha'i writings. There are of course problems and I've come across Baha'is who will have similar issues to you.

And wasn't Hebrews one of them that they had a few issues with? Like who wrote it? Yet now, it's "God's Word".

That is true, but Hebrews is consistent with the rest of the NT.

Paul is pretty critical of the Law, and because of the idea that people are "saved" by grace and not "works", it essentially made following the Law meaningless. But who was Paul? Who made him the infallible interpreter of what the truth is? Of course, the Christians did. And they made the rest of the NT the Word of God.

That is all true as well, but then he was an apostle of God and guided by God's unerring spirit. We also have the writings of other apostles as well as the gospels themselves. Some Baha'is have questioned whether there was a Peter verses Paul schism in Christianity similar to the schism between Sha'i and Sunni Islam early on. There is nothing I can find in the Baha'i writings to support this view. In regards to Paul's comments about being saved by grace, Peter and James clearly indicate that it is both faith and deeds.

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. James 2:17

This is consistent with Baha'i belief.

So how much of the NT is really from God through the Manifestation, Jesus? And, how much, right from the beginning, was man's interpretation of what Jesus was saying about God?

There is certainly a case to be made along these lines but I don't see it as being necessary or consistent with Baha'i writings.

I'm happy to discuss further if you like and can compile some Baha'i writings to support the argument.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We are all artists in the sense that we express ourselves. Art is often a deeper expression of the inner self, where the world of humans and the spirit connect.

Do you understand the expression is the artist and who the artist is? Thereby, his is art is not part of one truth but a individual truth of many?

Art is not philosophy or religion but art. It lifts the senses, inspires, shocks, and touches hearts. Often it is an expression of our culture or our common humanity.

It can be both. It tells us about life. I'm starting to use it as my basis in religion and prayer. It's becoming my religion; and, it is my passion. It is me. The expression is me therefore I have a another/art truth that is different than the artist I just mentioned.

The Baha'i faith like all religions is composed of people with different personalities, outlooks, backgrounds, passion, and interests. We are not a soulless, uniform monolith. We are a diverse group of people from practically every culture on the planet but we do have shared beliefs and understandings. A conversation about faith starts between two people who are willing participants. That relationship means listening and understanding and seeing the perspective and individuality of the other.

These are what the "artists" have in common. It does not explain the individuality of each person and how art is (personalities, outlooks, backgrounds) and these people and because they are, their art/truths are different; multiple not one.

Not every belief is a truth and not every truth is a belief. Does it really matter? It is more important to have heartfelt, friendly association with peoples than to be right. One may be the most knowledgeable person, but if there is no love it is all in vain.

Yes, every religion is a truth. That is the purpose of religion. It is also heartfelt, friendly association with peoples' (than to be right--the last part is in some religions but it is not bad in and of itself).

Religion's purpose, all religions, have love. That the purpose of many truth, many expressions of love.

Abdu'l-Baha once said that when there is love, there is always time, and nothing is too much trouble.

I agree. We disagree that one can be squeezed into one expression. I see many. It's beautiful because expressions are are our religion. They are who we are. They are not isolated

Christians like all of Abrahamic Faiths are a diverse group. Many Christians already do this.

I'm saying any similar attributes I listed don't make a religion one. No religion make a religion one. If so, they are depreciating other religions. That is something I disagree with

It is nothing to do with chistians; it's an example

Compassion, empathy, and love are at the heart of any true faith. If there is no sincere love, what are we about?

All faiths have this. All expressions have this. Expressions are who we are. They are different truths not one. Why are looking at the people as the people are defining the scripture that promotes love, compassion, and all the above?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Carlita... Let me say I appreciate your attempts here to support your views... In my view the Manifestations could be compared to teachers in a school... We attend school and pass through various grades. All the teachers are qualified to teach. The first grade is suited for entering students. Each grade has certain goals as the capacities of the students must be acknowledged and respected.

Looking back on your school experience you likely had some favorite teachers and some you may not have liked as much but they all had a mission to educate you and bring your education to a certain level of attainment.

That's a good example of your faith; and, I don't see life like that. When I was a ESL each all who taught ESL of course taught differently. However, because of my expression I do no separated from myself. So regardless, I am still expressing myself regardless the language. The same language doesn't make it one truth because each student are experiencing different truths/expressions and learning different things. Like I said, common attributes do not make all of these expressions come from one source.

However, that is my belief. I understand yours. I hope you understand mine?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Division is beautiful. It means people are starting to learn individuality and about ourselves. Its like a relationship. When a new relationship happens we start to learn each other's differences. Then we accept these Differences are a part of this person. We cannot separate them. We know there are more than one person on the earth. Regardless our history, you all should know our individuality and expression/Who we are personally. Understand we are not each other. Without that understanding, and action, many people are and will be oppressed. Their indiv. are seen as a whole which in my culture/who I am/how I see the world, we are not one

Our expressions are who we are. When you squeeze who we are by one truth, you literally divide who we are from our expressions. I disagree with that. If god created use he didn't isolate who we are and how we express ourselves. Its beautiful that People express worship in different ways.

Expressions are truths. Truths define people. There is no one person earth. There are many truths because there are many people in the world and each culture group creates many religions. Those expressions of those religions are the religions. It is not separate. As such, because there are many religions, there are many truths.

As for many truths coming from god, I do not see that. Not all religions/people believe in god. (coming from the religious perspective, not my own; it's not about me). In other words, who they are/their expression doesn't come from god and god is not a part of their expression. Since that is the case, unless Bahai says they are lying (it's honest to say they are), Bahai are wrong about those religions that have no god in them such as Buddhism. Truth/expressions of christianity are not the same as other religions. While christ was sent by god, he said he is the only one to god-not the words of Bahaullah, not Muhammad, not The Buddha, and not Zoaraster. It's not in the Torah nor in the New Testament scripture.

Since Bahai and Christianity differ in expression, they differ in truths because both of you are different. Different expressions equal different truths.

If a Christian came to me, a pagan, and said I am wrong about my ancestors, I'd try to hold my breathe and say that is your belief.

If a Bahai said my ancestors were sent by god and foretold the coming of Bahaullah, I'd be insulted. One because you just told me something I know is not true and two you have incorporated my religion (analogy) into yours without my agreement.

Unity comes with agreement. Agreement can't happen unless you take other faiths as their own truths not your truth. Don't say that you accept Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism because what you believe about them do not reflect their different foundations/expressions and, thus, different truths. Don't call it these three religions. It's an insult. I know you don't mean it that way, but that is how it is taken by myself and probably many others on this thread.

 

[loverofhumanity]

In your belief, god created one painting and then people started creating their own painting thereafter?

If so, wouldn't that be beautiful (if you can see the beauty rather than division) if everyone were able to have their own expression of art?

You have painted a very beautiful painting. It's an expression of your diversity and anytime you can hang it in my home.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Do you understand the expression is the artist and who the artist is? Thereby, his is art is not part of one truth but a individual truth of many?

You are an artist and so am I. We can be as rays from the one sun, the glistening light reflected upon the ocean, and mesmerised by it all. If you are an artist then you appreciate the mystery that lies within us all.

It can be both. It tells us about life. I'm starting to use it as my basis in religion and prayer. It's becoming my religion; and, it is my passion. It is me. The expression is me therefore I have a another/art truth that is different than the artist I just mentioned.

Then that is a beautiful place to be in life.

It can be both. It tells us about life. I'm starting to use it as my basis in religion and prayer. It's becoming my religion; and, it is my passion. It is me. The expression is me therefore I have a another/art truth that is different than the artist I just mentioned.

We are all souls passing through this mortal realm and so we should be careful never to invalidate the spiritual path of another. Abdu'l-Baha has cautioned care that we do not be the cause of harm to another soul, nor give offence.

These are what the "artists" have in common. It does not explain the individuality of each person and how art is (personalities, outlooks, backgrounds) and these people and because they are, their art/truths are different; multiple not one.

Are we not a mystery to ourselves? We need to know ourselves and that which leads to glory or abasement, to poverty or wealth.

Yes, every religion is a truth. That is the purpose of religion. It is also heartfelt, friendly association with peoples' (than to be right--the last part is in some religions but it is not bad in and of itself).

Religion's purpose, all religions, have love. That the purpose of many truth, many expressions of love.

Sounds good. Works for me.

I agree. We disagree that one can be squeezed into one expression. I see many. It's beautiful because expressions are are our religion. They are who we are. They are not isolated

Even Muhammad said let there be no compulsion in religion.

I'm saying any similar attributes I listed don't make a religion one. No religion make a religion one. If so, they are depreciating other religions. That is something I disagree with

It is nothing to do with chistians; it's an example

Sometimes to be one, we need to be separate. Sometimes we think we are separate, but we are one. Sometimes we really are separate. Once again there is no one coercing anyone to be something they are not.

All faiths have this. All expressions have this. Expressions are who we are. They are different truths not one. Why are looking at the people as the people are defining the scripture that promotes love, compassion, and all the above?

Perhaps this is another way of saying unity in diversity?

 

[RESOLUTION]

How do we explain these Great Beings: Buddha, Moses, Krishna, Christ, Zoroaster, Muhammad, the Bab & Bahaullah? They are somewhat unique and unparalleled in human history and were clearly not ordinary people.

There are famous people in history, famous artists, musicians and scientists but none can compare to the influence of the Educator, Teacher, Messiah or Prophet.

But Who were they? And why were they and still are so influential throughout history? Why did they inspire civilizations? Why have their scriptures become patterns of life followed daily by billions of people for thousands of years?

What gift did they possess to be able to be persecuted, oppressed, tortured, exiled and crucified by the most despotic and powerful leaders of their age with but a handful of followers and yet eventually triumph over adversity and establish Their Cause all over the world?

Statues, Churches, Temples, Pagodas, Mosques and Synagogues are built all over the world to pay tribute to these Great Souls.

Are they from another world? Did they pre exist? Without a special power how could they have accomplished what they did and who is their equal in influence?

And aren't we in dire need of another Great Spiritual Teacher to revive us spiritually?

They aren't great beings. They are each defined by their teachings and more importantly for some their God.
They all died but one resurrected. Jesus Christ is the only person amongst them known for the miracle of resurrection.
There is no great spiritual leaders now. Christ is the only leader who is alive and promised to come again.
If he is still alive who could possibly replace him? Do you believe any spiritual leader could do anything for the world today?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Take your time reading this guys. Get the whole picture. I think you both are missing some points. Let me know if you understand it, how you understand it, and, because you believe in diversity, how it fits into your religion without changing the purpose of it.

My overall points is this:

I'm not saying different expressions of the same truth. I'm saying expressions are what makes up the truth; and, because there is a diversity, there is no one truth.

We share passion for art. We share creative expression. We share the human yearning for freedom of expression These DO NOT represent one truth. Our truth IS the actual art we made. To tell Carol she expresses the same "truth" as me is depreciating her expression, her art, HER truth.

To understand our passion, our love, our religion, you must see our arts as unique and a reflection of ourselves as the truth of three not as a whole. We don't deny the passion other artist have. We are glad. But we understand the boundaries.

We believe there is only one religion but that people have multiplied it due to not accepting the new prophet when He appeared.

I believe there is more than one religion/truth, and each religious truth do not represent one truth but are unique on to themselves.

Not every belief is a truth and not every truth is a belief.

Who says this? That's the very definition of religion is that each person has their own truth and by that truth they live by it. It's personal and it is not mixed with any other truth. For example, Hinduis are Hindu but their truths vary depending each person. This is not a bad thing.

Which is the true religion to which other religions are not?​

Do you understand the expression is the artist and who the artist is? Thereby, his is art is not part of one truth but a individual truth of many?

Adrian and LoverofHumanity

Art (Traditions, beliefs, etc)=Artist (Religion)

Many religions are not from one art but many. Adrian, my art is not yours and visa versa.

On that note,

These:

-Our Passion for art
-Different arts
-Expressing love through are art

These are what the "artists" have in common. It does not explain the individuality of each person and how art is (personalities, outlooks, backgrounds) and these people and because they are, their art/truths are different; multiple not one.

Please re-read above.

Religion's purpose, all religions, have love. That the purpose of many truth, many expressions of love.

Yes, every religion is a truth. That is the purpose of religion. It is also heartfelt, friendly association with peoples' (than to be right--the last part is in some religions but it is not bad in and of itself).

Religions purpose: There are many. Let's say they all make a person whole

Traditions and culture: Expressions of what makes a person whole.

Traditions/Culture is the religion

Religion is what makes one whole

Religion=Artist
Traditions and Culture=Art

They cannot be separated. Therefore, unless you're saying I am you, each religion is different and do not come from the same source because I am not you and you are not me.

You have painted a very beautiful painting. It's an expression of your diversity and anytime you can hang it in my home.

It's not an expression of diversity. It's an expression of one truth. You have another truth. John has another truth.

Expression are our individual truths (with an -s). Please stop saying we are unity in a diversity because that is oppressing many religions whose expressions are the truth and because there are many expressions there are many truths.

You are an artist and so am I. We can be as rays from the one sun, the glistening light reflected upon the ocean, and mesmerised by it all. If you are an artist then you appreciate the mystery that lies within us all.

Nope. Like above, those are attributes. Where I get my art passion is different where you get your art passion. I know one planet has two moons.

Your expression is you.

My expressions is me.

Expression=truth

We have two different truths in this analogy.

It is not the motivation of truth that defines the expression. It's not that we both have the same goal. The art is a reflection of it's artist. We are different. Two different truths only.

Sometimes to be one, we need to be separate. Sometimes we think we are separate, but we are one. Sometimes we really are separate. Once again there is no one coercing anyone to be something they are not.

We are not one. We are separate. We act as one and I am not you and you are not me.

Again, you are separating expression from the person. Many expressions/religions equals many truths.

Perhaps this is another way of saying unity in diversity?

Nope. This is saying many truth with many goals and many religions and many expressions. Unity? I am not you and you are not me. No artist will express the same art (exact same art) thereby no art/religion/truths are the same.

So the 6,5 billion souls are all wrong for not accepting Bahalullah, but the 5-10 million Bahais are right? Do you actually realise how exclusionist and 'the chosen people' this sounds?

Adrian and LoverofHumanity.

Remember I said above

Who says this? (about not every religion is true) That's the very definition of religion is that each person has their own truth and by that truth they live by it. It's personal and it is not mixed with any other truth. For example, Hinduis are Hindu but their truths vary depending each person. This is not a bad thing.

Which is the true religion to which other religions are not?

Be honest if it is yours. I know your interpretation of Hindu, Christianity, and Buddhism is incorrect; but, if that is how you understand it through Bahai eyes only, let us know. Because no art is another person's art, and if you want to interpret my art as if it is yours saying we share one truth, you are being rude to who I am. If that is your belief, so be but clarify if that is the case.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Who says this? That's the very definition of religion is that each person has their own truth and by that truth they live by it. It's personal and it is not mixed with any other truth. For example, Hinduis are Hindu but their truths vary depending each person. This is not a bad thing.

Which is the true religion to which other religions are not?

Thanks Carlita for your patience in engaging with this discussion.

You have raised many interesting issues and points. There are difficulties with taking a subjective rather than objective approach to the nature of reality and truth. I wonder if the best starting point is to consider the nature of truth and beliefs and how we understand this. So stepping outside of our own very unique and individual experiences lets consider the nature of the known universe. For example lets consider two statements:

(a) The earth revolves around the sun.

(b)The sun does not revolve around the earth.

When we talk about the relationship of the earth to the sun we can establish what is true from false, what is real from unreal.

Statement (a) is true and statement (b) is false.

If I believe (b) to be true, that is my subjective belief, but it is not true.

If in the early days of humanity if no one believed that the earth revolves around the sun, that does not invalidate the truth or reality of the earth revolving around the sun. It is simply meant that the people at that time had not considered this question properly or lacked the capacity to investigate this truth.

So when I am talking about truth and reality, I am considering the objective truth of the nature of the universe. I'm not talking about the subjective experience of my life. That does not invalidate the subjective, but enables us to better assess our experiences by differentiating facts from feelings.

I'll try to find time to better consider some of the other points you have raised soon.

 

[Dawnofhope]

They aren't great beings. They are each defined by their teachings and more importantly for some their God.
They all died but one resurrected. Jesus Christ is the only person amongst them known for the miracle of resurrection.
There is no great spiritual leaders now. Christ is the only leader who is alive and promised to come again.
If he is still alive who could possibly replace him? Do you believe any spiritual leader could do anything for the world today?

The only problem with that argument is you depend on a physical resurrection that can not be proven, and can easily be disproved.

 

[RESOLUTION]

The only problem with that argument is you depend on a physical resurrection that can not be proven, and can easily be disproved.

Not without a body it can't. If they had a body the Romans and the Sanhedrin would have made sure the body was shown to stop any further preaching.

So we can be sure Christ rose from the dead as you couldn't hide a body in those times.
The rising of those other saints from death also happened.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thanks Carlita for your patience in engaging with this discussion.

You have raised many interesting issues and points. There are difficulties with taking a subjective rather than objective approach to the nature of reality and truth. I wonder if the best starting point is to consider the nature of truth and beliefs and how we understand this. So stepping outside of our own very unique and individual experiences lets consider the nature of the known universe. For example lets consider two statements:

(a) The earth revolves around the sun.

(b)The sun does not revolve around the earth.

When we talk about the relationship of the earth to the sun we can establish what is true from false, what is real from unreal.

Statement (a) is true and statement (b) is false.

If I believe (b) to be true, that is my subjective belief, but it is not true.

If in the early days of humanity if no one believed that the earth revolves around the sun, that does not invalidate the truth or reality of the earth revolving around the sun. It is simply meant that the people at that time had not considered this question properly or lacked the capacity to investigate this truth.

So when I am talking about truth and reality, I am considering the objective truth of the nature of the universe. I'm not talking about the subjective experience of my life. That does not invalidate the subjective, but enables us to better assess our experiences by differentiating facts from feelings.

I'll try to find time to better consider some of the other points you have raised soon.

How do you seperate your expression/subjective view of reality and see it objectively?

By whose definition is your reply on reality based on in regards to religion? It cant be god. Thats subjective.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Not without a body it can't. If they had a body the Romans and the Sanhedrin would have made sure the body was shown to stop any further preaching.

I don't think we could locate too many bodies of people that died two thousand years ago. Doesn't mean they rose from the dead.

So we can be sure Christ rose from the dead as you couldn't hide a body in those times.
The rising of those other saints from death also happened.

If your evidence is that we don't know where is body is, we can be certain he didn't rise from the dead.

 

[Dawnofhope]

How do you seperate your expression/subjective view of reality and see it objectively?

By agreed on observations of the phenomenal world as with the example given. From here we can at least begin a reasonable discussion about what is true, and what is belief.

By whose definition is your reply on reality based on in regards to religion? It cant be god. Thats subjective.

If we are using reason and objective knowledge as a criteria, we can consider religion using these tools as well as the subjective. If we discount reason and objective knowledge and rely solely on subjective experience, how can we hope to find agreement or have a meaningful conversation?

 

[Dawnofhope]

"I'm not saying different expressions of the same truth. I'm saying expressions are what makes up the truth; and, because there is a diversity, there is no one truth."

This is equating the subjective with the objective.

"We share passion for art. We share creative expression. We share the human yearning for freedom of expression These DO NOT represent one truth. Our truth IS the actual art we made. To tell Carol she expresses the same "truth" as me is depreciating her expression, her art, HER truth."

As with this comment.

"To understand our passion, our love, our religion, you must see our arts as unique and a reflection of ourselves as the truth of three not as a whole. We don't deny the passion other artist have. We are glad. But we understand the boundaries."

So maybe the boundary we need to establish is what we can objectively know compared to subjective experience.

When we are talking about the Founders of the great religions, we are talking about real people who lived and taught. There may well be a great deal of myth associated with their lives and teaching but they were still real people with a real message.

The problem is that some religionists are uncomfortable separating myth from reality, or simply lack the tools so have no idea where to start.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Take your time reading this guys. Get the whole picture. I think you both are missing some points. Let me know if you understand it, how you understand it, and, because you believe in diversity, how it fits into your religion without changing the purpose of it.

My overall points is this:











I believe there is more than one religion/truth, and each religious truth do not represent one truth but are unique on to themselves.



Who says this? That's the very definition of religion is that each person has their own truth and by that truth they live by it. It's personal and it is not mixed with any other truth. For example, Hinduis are Hindu but their truths vary depending each person. This is not a bad thing.

Which is the true religion to which other religions are not?​

Adrian and LoverofHumanity

Art (Traditions, beliefs, etc)=Artist (Religion)

Many religions are not from one art but many. Adrian, my art is not yours and visa versa.

On that note,

These:

-Our Passion for art
-Different arts
-Expressing love through are art



Please re-read above.





Religions purpose: There are many. Let's say they all make a person whole

Traditions and culture: Expressions of what makes a person whole.

Traditions/Culture is the religion

Religion is what makes one whole

Religion=Artist
Traditions and Culture=Art

They cannot be separated. Therefore, unless you're saying I am you, each religion is different and do not come from the same source because I am not you and you are not me.



It's not an expression of diversity. It's an expression of one truth. You have another truth. John has another truth.

Expression are our individual truths (with an -s). Please stop saying we are unity in a diversity because that is oppressing many religions whose expressions are the truth and because there are many expressions there are many truths.



Nope. Like above, those are attributes. Where I get my art passion is different where you get your art passion. I know one planet has two moons.

Your expression is you.

My expressions is me.

Expression=truth

We have two different truths in this analogy.

It is not the motivation of truth that defines the expression. It's not that we both have the same goal. The art is a reflection of it's artist. We are different. Two different truths only.



We are not one. We are separate. We act as one and I am not you and you are not me.

Again, you are separating expression from the person. Many expressions/religions equals many truths.



Nope. This is saying many truth with many goals and many religions and many expressions. Unity? I am not you and you are not me. No artist will express the same art (exact same art) thereby no art/religion/truths are the same.



Adrian and LoverofHumanity.

Remember I said above

Who says this? (about not every religion is true) That's the very definition of religion is that each person has their own truth and by that truth they live by it. It's personal and it is not mixed with any other truth. For example, Hinduis are Hindu but their truths vary depending each person. This is not a bad thing.

Which is the true religion to which other religions are not?

Be honest if it is yours. I know your interpretation of Hindu, Christianity, and Buddhism is incorrect; but, if that is how you understand it through Bahai eyes only, let us know. Because no art is another person's art, and if you want to interpret my art as if it is yours saying we share one truth, you are being rude to who I am. If that is your belief, so be but clarify if that is the case.

Lets try and clarify by quoting what Abdul-Baha has said on some of these matters.

“They are universal Educators, and the fundamental principles they have laid down are the causes and factors of the advancement of nations. Forms and imitations which creep in afterward are not conducive to that progress. On the contrary, these are destroyers of human foundations established by the heavenly Educators."

“The Jews have traditional superstitions, the Buddhists and the Zoroastrians are not free from them, neither are the Christians! All religions have gradually become bound by tradition and dogma.

“All consider themselves, respectively, the only guardians of the truth, and that every other religion is composed of errors. They themselves are right, all others are wrong! The Jews believe that they are the only possessors of the truth and condemn all other religions. The Christians affirm that their religion is the only true one, that all others are false. Likewise the Buddhists and Muhammadans; all limit themselves. If all condemn one another, where shall we search for truth? All contradicting one another, all cannot be true. If each believe his particular religion to be the only true one, he blinds his eyes to the truth in the others. If, for instance, a Jew is bound by the external practice of the religion of Israel, he does not permit himself to perceive that truth can exist in any other religion; it must be all contained in his own!

We should, therefore, detach ourselves from the external forms and practices of religion. We must realize that these forms and practices, however beautiful, are but garments clothing the warm heart and the living limbs of Divine truth. We must abandon the prejudices of tradition if we would succeed in finding the truth at the core of all religions. If a Zoroastrian believes that the Sun is God, how can he be united to other religions? While idolaters believe in their various idols, how can they understand the oneness of God?”

“Therefore it is imperative that we should renounce our own particular prejudices and superstitions if we earnestly desire to seek the truth. Unless we make a distinction in our minds between dogma, superstition and prejudice on the one hand, and truth on the other, we cannot succeed. When we are in earnest in our search for anything we look for it everywhere. This principle we must carry out in our search for truth.”

Excerpt From: Bahá, Abdu’l. “Paris Talks.”