How are these Great Beings explained?

[Unveiled Artist]

The intention is never to offend but how do we strike an amiable note on Baha'u'llah's claim to be the Promised One?

"The time foreordained unto the peoples and kindreds of the earth is now come. The promises of God, as recorded in the holy Scriptures, have all been fulfilled."

“VERILY I say, this is the Day in which mankind can behold the Face, and hear the Voice, of the Promised One.”

How do you propose we overcome this impasse or deadlock?

The intention is never to offend but how do we strike an amiable note on Baha'u'llah's claim to be the Promised One?

"The time foreordained unto the peoples and kindreds of the earth is now come. The promises of God, as recorded in the holy Scriptures, have all been fulfilled."

“VERILY I say, this is the Day in which mankind can behold the Face, and hear the Voice, of the Promised One.”

How do you propose we overcome this impasse or deadlock?

I told Adrian this:

Take SGI (Soka Gokkai International). It's an organization based on Nichiren Shonin's teachings and interpretations of The Buddha and the Lotus Sutra. They have just about everything you mention Bahai has or does (without the god part) but their president of the organization goes to universal peace conferences, I think they are called. They bring people of different religious backgrounds into their organization and practices. They have charities with other religious (in America) and pretty much a charity organization.

They have time to build world peace "get permission" by interacting with said religions and understanding them. The difference between them and Bahai is they are very political and evangelical. However, their dogma and goals are moral. I think they are trying to be a bit more open minded. But, of course, still promoting their view of the world.

I went to a Hindu temple last year and after looking at all the gods, I saw a Buddha statue. I did my respects and asked about it. They said they sometimes have Buddhist festivals here (Buddhist use the area for space) and they are more open to people who want to learn about their faith.

Jehovah's Witness, at least here, have an interest in learning others faiths. We had a good talk about my faith and how I see the world. Of course, they promoted their mission; and, the discussion gave them knowledge so when they meet other people of other faiths, they know in a general sense how to respect them. Of course, they aren't universalist but that has been my experience talking with JW.

These are ways to get to know people from their perspective rather than one's own. If Bahai doesn't have the time to do that, I don't know how to comment given your goals and what Bahaullah said. I do know that interfaith dialogue goes beyond respect and accepting differences. If you say Hindu scriptures predicts the coming of Bahaullah an we know it does not, there's an issue that should be addressed. Either Bahai can accept the Hindu factual belief and focus on what they think is true or be open to accept what a Hindu says is true given they know more about the belief than a Bahai would.​

He was commenting Bahai doesn't have the time. I thought that odd.

Things you can do on your own is to change your perspective about other religions. I already mentioned the Pagan thing but what about the Hindu?

I feel it takes more than talking about peace and unity among beliefs to actually start doing something about it. If you didn't have that as your tenet, it would be another you vs. them belief. Since you have it, how would you address it?

 

[RESOLUTION]

I think it's ok to talk about ones religion when questions are asked or in an appropriate place like this but invading another persons privacy is another thing.


John 5 5-17

Now that day was the Sabbath. 10 So the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed.” 11 But he answered them, “The man who healed me, that man said to me, ‘Take up your bed, and walk.’” 12 They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your bed and walk’?” 13 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. 14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.” 15 The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. 16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”

The sabbath day keep it Holy.

Not lawful to take up your bed.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The Pharisee and the Sadducee held conflicting beliefs. We see clearly it is our work we are to rest from.
Jesus was showing that the Sabbath was made for the good of man, not the man for the sabbath.
Christ clearly saying to them God is working and he is doing that work through God. Can anyone question the work of God done on any day? You see if your child was in pain on the sabbath day would you refrain from going to the hospital to get them the necessary medical help?

Gods love and care for us does not only work or cover 6 days a week. His power is for all believers everywhere at all times.
Could Jesus have healed and told the man to take up his bed and walk if it was not the will of God on the Sabbath day?
The Jews knew that Jesus would bring the final truth to us.

19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.



God created the Sabbath for the good of man. Doing good does not stop because it is the Sabbath.
God does not stop from blessing us and helping us because it is the Sabbath.
The Sabbath was to give us rest. God cared about us and gives us what we need.
Resting from physical work does not mean we rest from doing the good work for others God has planned for us.
Note that Christ did not complete his work on the Sabbath day. Instead he rested and rose on the third day his work
completed.

 

[RESOLUTION]

I could say the same in regards to your post to me.

Semantics? If you had thought I had known the elementary why post what you did?
I am questioning what you wrote. I never suggested by my post you did not know the elementary.
Can we drop this now or do you want to proceed with what would become a useless argument?

I feel like I'm being preached at, and then you are saying you are not trying to convert me? Where's the truth and sincerity in that?

You claim to know the basics and I am naturally assuming you do.
KJV Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know
wisdom.
Not preaching just showing by my reply that I believe you already know the basics,
Hence my replies contain the basic truth. May be you have just read this and therefore relating to it.
What other answers would you have expected?

I'm just telling you what I believe because you asked. I'm sure the Jews all felt they would recognise the Messiah nearly two thousand years ago.

That is fair enough but the basics show the Jews would reject the initial stone and allow the number of
Gentiles to be added. Psalm 118:22

22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

There rejection of the Messiah foretold for the Jews were the builders. Just till the number of Gentiles
are accounted for.

Advice based on an assumption that you know and I don't.

Given what I have just said above do you see this differently now? It is basics for myself and you said
we could discuss.

Here we go.
Feel good to get that off your chest?

It wasn't on my chest it was laid upon my heart. What is your truth and how did you measure your truth?
For me the measure is the word of God. So where does your basics come from if you do not recognise them in the words
of the bible? I am assuming you do not recognise them because of your replies. I see no reason for them if we both know the basic truths of the bible or why you would make them if in agreement with those truths?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Good morning Carlita

If I believed in god, this conversation would have probably ended pages ago.

Joking aside there is a truth in there. I suspect for you believing in God equates to the Catholic Church or Christianity. If you were happily part of Christianity then we wouldn't be having a conversation. It would be you telling me I'm wrong and Jesus is the only way.

I don't meet too many christians who are in disunity. Mostly there are Catholics here and going to Mass is more of a union of souls with troubled hearts rather than people with a sinful nature. Always bugged me about the original sin, part. Never believed in it (so, well, no reason to be saved).

Catholics have been a positive part of my life. The original sin doctrine is good example of dogma or something that is man made and nothing to do with the Teachings of Christ IMHO.

The main problems are:
(1) We (humanity) are punished or 'fallen' because of a supposed sin our distant ancestors committed. But then what reasonable judge would find me guilty of a crime that my grandfather committed? It just doesn't make sense.

(2) We have this rather negative outlook of what it means to be human whereas God has created us in His image and we are noble beings. We are temples of God in the bible.

(3) The story is symbolic and not to be taken literally.

You're not going to like the symbolic part are you?

I have to know more about the Bahai faith, but that sounds confusing being both Christian and Bahai. A Bahai can be a christian, but all denominations I know (Catholic, Southern Baptist, Pentecostal, and non denominational) know that you can't be Christian if you allege yourself to any other person other than christ. Bahaullah can't be the last prophet and so forth. It has to agree with the history of teachings in the Christian area (Roman included).

Because I know and worship God, not from a Christian perspective but from a Baha'i perspective it becomes very clear. Muslims also belief Muhammad to be the last prophet or 'seal of the prophets' btw.

This is beautiful.

I'm please you like it. Its really a central Baha'i teaching that our work if offered from the fullness of our hearts is the same as worshipping God. Your work is as an artist, mine as a healer.

Justify their unholy actions with the holy and false dogma don't seem to match. Maybe false dogma is any dogma that is not the word of god?

That's it. By dogma we mean not the word of God. Like the original sin doctrine.

Take SGI (Soka Gokkai International). It's an organization based on Nichiren Shonin's teachings and interpretations of The Buddha and the Lotus Sutra. They have just about everything you mention Bahai has or does (without the god part) but their president of the organization goes to universal peace conferences, I think they are called. They bring people of different religious backgrounds into their organization and practices. They have charities with other religious (in America) and pretty much a charity organization.

They have time to build world peace "get permission" by interacting with said religions and understanding them. The difference between them and Bahai is they are very political and evangelical. However, their dogma and goals are moral. I think they are trying to be a bit more open minded. But, of course, still promoting their view of the world.

Nice website along with the message. I find the Buddhist's teachings very gentle and profound.

I went to a Hindu temple last year and after looking at all the gods, I saw a Buddha statue. I did my respects and asked about it. They said they sometimes have Buddhist festivals here (Buddhist use the area for space) and they are more open to people who want to learn about their faith.

My one time at a Hindu temple was when in Fiji nearly 20 years ago in my last year at medical school. I'd been hanging out with the a couple Indians. I went to their temple and they came to a Baha'i meeting. It was great.

Jehovah's Witness, at least here, have an interest in learning others faiths. We had a good talk about my faith and how I see the world. Of course, they promoted their mission; and, the discussion gave them knowledge so when they meet other people of other faiths, they know in a general sense how to respect them. Of course, they aren't universalist but that has been my experience talking with JW.

The Jehovah Witnesses I have meet and have as patients are all nice people.

These are ways to get to know people from their perspective rather than one's own. If Bahai doesn't have the time to do that, I don't know how to comment given your goals and what Bahaullah said. I do know that interfaith dialogue goes beyond respect and accepting differences. If you say Hindu scriptures predicts the coming of Bahaullah an we know it does not, there's an issue that should be addressed. Either Bahai can accept the Hindu factual belief and focus on what they think is true or be open to accept what a Hindu says is true given they know more about the belief than a Bahai would.

In some ways it much easier to have a conversation with Hindu's and Buddhists because they do not have this highly developed theology that says "I'm right and you're wrong". We can talk about Hinduism but my knowledge is limited.

Curious question. If you are christian, how does Bahaullah fit into Christianity when Christ is the last "prophet" and no one else? (Christian perspective not Bahai)

Christ spoke of is Return. Take away all the extraordinary events that Christians belief will accompany His Return and we have a man who is 'Christ' like. The Jews expected a Messiah based on their Hebrew bible. Most Jews rejected Jesus as being their Messiah but He was. Its simply history repeating itself, but now the Christians reject their Messiah.

Me. Really, though, I'm learning more about my family, my friend, and pretty much changing who I am and my goals. Grounding my spirituality by communing with my ancestors and recent family in spirit. Of course, I can't go without mentioning my art. It's all wrapped up. No founder, god, or any person or being to give me moral guidance. Just life, observation, application, and experience.

Sounds excellent. Do you believe we have a soul that passes from this world to the next?

I'd have to disagree. If something is a fact, then it's a fact. If you really believe in Christ and Bahaullah, it has to be (in my opinion) a part of your being. Who you are. Its something you cannot deny just as the earth and sun. That's my personal opinion, though. Many people disassociate fact and religion. I never understood it from a personal point of view.

Of course beliefs are part of our being and who we are. But it is through faith and experience I believe in God, not rational deduction.

I don't understand cultural misappropriation? Opposite of cultural appropriation? You agree with religions being in other religions?

I agree with religions being in other religions. The Abrahamic faiths all have it. All belongs to God, and God manifests Himself through Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah.

Eh. I figure if Hinduism predicts the comming of Bahaullah, then there has to be something to say about this prediction. Likewise with The Buddha. I'd assume Bahaullah can give some insight on the god describe in suttas that many Buddhist and myself can't find.

I presume you read this:

..'I am not the first Buddha Who came upon this earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a Master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach to you His religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax and glorious at the goal, in spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure, such as I now proclaim.' His disciples will number many thousands, while Mine number many hundreds.'
Metteyya

What do you make of it?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm happy to have a discussion with anyone about matters of faith if there is mutual courtesy, respect and a willingness to be to be reasonable.

What would like to talk to me about?

You claim to know the basics and I am naturally assuming you do.
KJV Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know
wisdom.
Not preaching just showing by my reply that I believe you already know the basics,
Hence my replies contain the basic truth. May be you have just read this and therefore relating to it.
What other answers would you have expected?

We believe in the same God, Jesus, and Bible. Like you I prefer the King James version. You also need to realise I'm a Baha'i, but I think you know that by now.

That is fair enough but the basics show the Jews would reject the initial stone and allow the number of
Gentiles to be added. Psalm 118:22

22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

There rejection of the Messiah foretold for the Jews were the builders. Just till the number of Gentiles
are accounted for.

Sure and there are verses in Isaiah and in Romans in reference to these themes.

We don't have a set number of gentiles, but the gospel will be preached to all the nations. That has happened.

Given what I have just said above do you see this differently now? It is basics for myself and you said
we could discuss.

I'm a little weary to be honest.

It wasn't on my chest it was laid upon my heart.

Is your heart not located within your chest?

What is your truth and how did you measure your truth?

God's word of course. However because Baha'u'llah (Glory of God) came after Christ and is the Return of Christ, then Baha'u'llah is the final authority for me, as Jesus is for you.

For me the measure is the word of God. So where does your basics come from if you do not recognise them in the words
of the bible?

That's an assumption on your part once again. When the small number of Jews that became Christians recognised Christ, they continued to believe in the OT, but they now had the new covenant and of course the NT. So I still believe in the OT and NT. However Baha'u'llah has brought a new NT.

I am assuming you do not recognise them because of your replies.

Clearly you assume too much.

I see no reason for them if we both know the basic truths of the bible or why you would make them if in agreement with those truths?

I know you will not agree with my belief, but you have asked about my belief, and I have explained it.

Was there anything specifically you were wanting to talk about?

 

[loverofhumanity]

I told Adrian this:

Take SGI (Soka Gokkai International). It's an organization based on Nichiren Shonin's teachings and interpretations of The Buddha and the Lotus Sutra. They have just about everything you mention Bahai has or does (without the god part) but their president of the organization goes to universal peace conferences, I think they are called. They bring people of different religious backgrounds into their organization and practices. They have charities with other religious (in America) and pretty much a charity organization.

They have time to build world peace "get permission" by interacting with said religions and understanding them. The difference between them and Bahai is they are very political and evangelical. However, their dogma and goals are moral. I think they are trying to be a bit more open minded. But, of course, still promoting their view of the world.

I went to a Hindu temple last year and after looking at all the gods, I saw a Buddha statue. I did my respects and asked about it. They said they sometimes have Buddhist festivals here (Buddhist use the area for space) and they are more open to people who want to learn about their faith.

Jehovah's Witness, at least here, have an interest in learning others faiths. We had a good talk about my faith and how I see the world. Of course, they promoted their mission; and, the discussion gave them knowledge so when they meet other people of other faiths, they know in a general sense how to respect them. Of course, they aren't universalist but that has been my experience talking with JW.

These are ways to get to know people from their perspective rather than one's own. If Bahai doesn't have the time to do that, I don't know how to comment given your goals and what Bahaullah said. I do know that interfaith dialogue goes beyond respect and accepting differences. If you say Hindu scriptures predicts the coming of Bahaullah an we know it does not, there's an issue that should be addressed. Either Bahai can accept the Hindu factual belief and focus on what they think is true or be open to accept what a Hindu says is true given they know more about the belief than a Bahai would.​

He was commenting Bahai doesn't have the time. I thought that odd.

Things you can do on your own is to change your perspective about other religions. I already mentioned the Pagan thing but what about the Hindu?

I feel it takes more than talking about peace and unity among beliefs to actually start doing something about it. If you didn't have that as your tenet, it would be another you vs. them belief. Since you have it, how would you address it?

Over time we will develop a lot more social programs, women's empowerment, moral classes and youth development as well as charities than we have today.

We are one of NGO's at the UN and work with organizations like UNICEF.

When it comes to meeting other Faiths we meet at world environment conferences, world parliament meetings as well as interfaith dialogue all over the world.

These are only some of the large number of organisations and forums where Baha'is keep in touch with the rest of the world.

About us

 

[loverofhumanity]

Christians believe christ as god not a prophet. His divinity is the same as god's divinity, they say. He isn't seen as a prophet. That's what I mean by misinterpretation of christian scriptures. While you can believe anything; you an believe anything. My thing is this interpretation disrespects the nature of christ and christianity. If you say christianity is part of your faith, one needs to understand christ's actual nature. If not, please don't call it christianity.

Christ calls Himself a Prophet in the Bible and it is well documented by Christian commentaries on the Bible. This is just one of many.

Mark 6:4 See note on Matt. 13:57. Jesus called himself a prophet, in accord with one of his roles (cf. Mark 6:15 8:28; Matt. 21:11 46; Luke 7:16 24:19; John 6:14 7:40 9:17). own household. His own family (cf. John 7:5; Acts 1:14).

MacArthur Study Bible

Matthew 13 55-59

Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57 And they were offended in him.

But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm.

Joking aside there is a truth in there. I suspect for you believing in God equates to the Catholic Church or Christianity. If you were happily part of Christianity then we wouldn't be having a conversation. It would be you telling me I'm wrong and Jesus is the only way.

When I was a part of the Church, I didn't believe in god the Father. I believe everyone has a spirit; so, I believed in the spirit of christ. When we are baptized, the spirit of christ literally washes your sins. Going to confession, christ literally forgives you (though, I had a issue understanding forgiveness from someone I didn't know). Taking the Eucharist is literally being a part of Christ's body-the people of the Church. When the people of the Church come together to the Lord's Supper, it is an reenactment (since we are not Peter, John, and Jodas, for example) and it brings Christ himself apparent because his spirit is in each of us as the body of christ. That's a few reasons the Eucharist is literal and so important. To say it is not is saying all Catholics have a symbolic relationship with Christ. No Christian I know (and I know a lot) would call their relationship with Christ symbolic regardless the denomination.

Why would it be telling you you are wrong? Catholic's just believe non-catholics are a part of the body of christ. What I don't care for is that other Christians can't take the Eucharist. I understand why, though.

You're not going to like the symbolic part are you?

On that note,

1. The only sin I understood is the one I committed at that present moment. All day today, I could go without sinning. Probably a lot of people can. I mean I have murder in my family and I'm not a murderer. There are a lot of things from my actual blood ancestors that are a part of me and some things that are not. Since sin isn't something I believe is inherited, I would never believe my family gave me something inheritedly bad.

As for Adam and Eve, I don't agree they are the first humans. The story doesn't sound historical, factual, and it doesn't ring as something that makes sense or logic.

2. I understand that. If I were christian, I'd agree. Every christian is a child of god since god created them. I don't know how they can see otherwise. Some to the point of submission as if god is going to rain on them because they sinned. It's saddening to see, really.

Haha. Actually, yeah, it's not symbolic.

1. We actually sin (commit transgressions against god)
2. Most christians believe they are literally a child of god. If not, is god symbolic?

Because I know and worship God, not from a Christian perspective but from a Baha'i perspective it becomes very clear. Muslims also belief Muhammad to be the last prophet or 'seal of the prophets' btw.

That's odd from me to hear. I'd think you worship god from a Christ perspective and no one else. That's just my opinion.

I'm please you like it. Its really a central Baha'i teaching that our work if offered from the fullness of our hearts is the same as worshipping God. Your work is as an artist, mine as a healer.

Ha. You'd probably get me to read more of his writings just because of those verses. If there were an art scripture, I'd totally covert.

That's it. By dogma we mean not the word of God. Like the original sin doctrine.

See! Why didn't you say so when I asked you a couple of times. Are you sure you're Bahai? JW doesn't believe in a lot of mainstream christianity yet they are still christian.

Nice website along with the message. I find the Buddhist's teachings very gentle and profound.

Yeah. They have a high emphasis on their president more than The Buddha and Nichiren Shonin. That made it as if I were worshiping a human. Never liked that. Everyone are buddhas, The Buddha said. We just have to realize it through practice.

My one time at a Hindu temple was when in Fiji nearly 20 years ago in my last year at medical school. I'd been hanging out with the a couple Indians. I went to their temple and they came to a Baha'i meeting. It was great.

Cool. I only met the Hinduis at the temple I went. Here, at RF, probably some may go to a Bahai temple if they are not offended with the message Bahai says about Hinduis. I go to Mass during Easter even though the Church misinterprets homosexuality and doesn't agree with who I am as a person. Sometimes we go out of our comfort zones. So, that's cool.

In some ways it much easier to have a conversation with Hindu's and Buddhists because they do not have this highly developed theology that says "I'm right and you're wrong". We can talk about Hinduism but my knowledge is limited.

I kinda wish I grew up in a universal accepted (collectivist) culture. I value being an individualist just don't like the right/wrong attitude. Grown up in it.

Christ spoke of is Return. Take away all the extraordinary events that Christians belief will accompany His Return and we have a man who is 'Christ' like. The Jews expected a Messiah based on their Hebrew bible. Most Jews rejected Jesus as being their Messiah but He was. Its simply history repeating itself, but now the Christians reject their Messiah.

Christians reject their Messiah????????

???????

Sounds excellent. Do you believe we have a soul that passes from this world to the next?

Yes. The next world being this earth to take care of those they love.

Of course beliefs are part of our being and who we are. But it is through faith and experience I believe in God, not rational deduction.

How do you understand yourself without analyzing yourself? There was a thread somewhere around here that talked about do christians question their own beliefs. It's not wrong to rationalize your belief. It's something you know is true, why not proble and go from your comfort zone. Don't worry, you can return.

I agree with religions being in other religions. The Abrahamic faiths all have it. All belongs to God, and God manifests Himself through Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah.

I agree to disagree. How's that?

..'I am not the first Buddha Who came upon this earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a Master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach to you His religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax and glorious at the goal, in spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure, such as I now proclaim.' His disciples will number many thousands, while Mine number many hundreds.'

What do you make of it?

The Lotus Sutra predicted many Buddhas. Each chapter or probably every other analogy he predicted another buddha. He said that buddhas will protect the Dharma. They will read, write, and recite it. They will practice the Dharma. It's not like Christianity where there is one savior. If you want to call it a savior, in Buddhism, there are many. Read The Lotus Sutra (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra) There are a lot of Buddhas returning.

I'ma get a couple of passages. There are a lot of Buddhas returning. Many are bodhisattvas becoming Buddhas who are in some sects incarnations of The Buddha himself. Others are bodhisattvas and appear in this world to help others to enlightenment before one helps themselves. You are a buddha and I am a buddha.

Think you're mixing christianity with buddhism.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Christ calls Himself a Prophet in the Bible and it is well documented by Christian commentaries on the Bible. This is just one of many.

Mark 6:4 See note on Matt. 13:57. Jesus called himself a prophet, in accord with one of his roles (cf. Mark 6:15 8:28; Matt. 21:11 46; Luke 7:16 24:19; John 6:14 7:40 9:17). own household. His own family (cf. John 7:5; Acts 1:14).

MacArthur Study Bible

Matthew 13 55-59

Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57 And they were offended in him.

But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

The disciples call christ a high prophet and son of god. He isn't in the same category as Muhammad and the other prophets you believe in. He has the same nature as the creator. No other prophet not even Moses have the same nature as the creator.

That's the difference between prophet and someone sent by god who is in god's image. Plus, jesus didn't write the gospels, so...

 

[Vinayaka]

In my town in Australia I've been living here for 15 years yet no one knows we're Baha'is because I don't tell them as there is no way I can do so without invading their privacy so I've avoided it.

Good to know.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I see it also can be a cultural thing. For instance my wife is Burmese. Her family lives in a village in Burma where the doors are always open and they love to have visitors no matter teaching religion or selling something. But it depends on the place and people. But the best situation is where is a place where people go to talk about these issues.

In my town in Australia I've been living here for 15 years yet no one knows we're Baha'is because I don't tell them as there is no way I can do so without invading their privacy so I've avoided it.

But we often do misjudge and make mistakes some deliberately but I'm ready to admit an error of judgement as I'm far from perfect.

Just to add. I love having the Mormins, Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists knock on my door and I always invite them in as I believe in Jesus too and see it as a good time for us to have fellowship. I not only dont feel offended, I wish theyd come more often.

What do you mean by invading their privacy?
Also, are you christian?

 

[loverofhumanity]

What do you mean by invading their privacy?
Also, are you christian?

Well if they don't talk about religion I see no reason to bring it up. But if they came to me and began speaking about religion then I might mention my Faith to them.

Today our 95 year old neighbor brought a bunch of red roses from his garden for my wife and they smell so beautiful. All over the house we can smell rose.

 

[RESOLUTION]

I'm happy to have a discussion with anyone about matters of faith if there is mutual courtesy, respect and a willingness to be to be reasonable.

What would like to talk to me about?

I guess I just automatically take some things for granted. Don't mean to come as being without mutual respect
or common curtesy. I am just happy to learn what you believe and more importantly, why.

We believe in the same God, Jesus, and Bible. Like you I prefer the King James version. You also need to realise I'm a Baha'i, but I think you know that by now.

That is an interesting point. We do believe in God, Jesus and the Bible and the use of the KJV bible. But
it is the Baha'i part that does leave me wondering why.

Sure and there are verses in Isaiah and in Romans in reference to these themes.

We don't have a set number of gentiles, but the gospel will be preached to all the nations. That has happened.

As the preaching has happened of the Gospels then surely you see the times of the Lord approaching.
We differ here if you believe Christ has already returned.

I'm a little weary to be honest.

I am not weary, I see no reason to be weary and maybe it is because I am sure about where I am in my faith.
Though I am not complacent in that I still believe there are things to learn.

Is your heart not located within your chest?

My heart spiritually the belly if your prefer. I guess we are going to get some punns over that one.

God's word of course. However because Baha'u'llah (Glory of God) came after Christ and is the Return of Christ, then Baha'u'llah is the final authority for me, as Jesus is for you.

I don't understand the Baha'u;llah. God has always been the final authority for me and Christ came in that
authority. So whilst I believe Christ fulfilled the scriptures my trust is in God.I believe it was the
same with Christ.

That's an assumption on your part once again. When the small number of Jews that became Christians recognised Christ, they continued to believe in the OT, but they now had the new covenant and of course the NT. So I still believe in the OT and NT. However Baha'u'llah has brought a new NT.

The NT was not around in the time of Christ and the Disciples. They only ever preached from the OT
Scriptures. Believers are Jews the Christian was really just an insult name as you know, which stuck.
Like Christ, I see only OT as the scripture but I do believe the NT is the works of the disciples though
I do not think they would have really used it as man has done today. I believe these inspired men wrote
letters and accounts for people to know the truth.

Clearly you assume too much.[.QUOTE]


Not assuming just knowing we come from different places in our beliefs.

I know you will not agree with my belief, but you have asked about my belief, and I have explained it.

Was there anything specifically you were wanting to talk about?

I believe it is not about differences. To be honest I believe that we have to be honest with ourselves
first. It is more important who we trust. Man has made it so difficult today so many different beliefs.
But thankfully only one true God.

 

[CG Didymus]

You might like to ask those in the Hindu DIR if you want more in depth detail about what Krishna taught.

We believe we are not our body and that a lot of pain and suffering comes from attachment to this world and there is evil from disobedience to the laws of God or spiritual laws. When we go against our nature which is spiritual we are bound to suffer and thr world is bound to fill with evil.

As far as how the world was created we believe in God as the creator but also that creation evolved basically according to what science teaches.

I can't believe how many pages have gone by. Remember this post of yours? I was using the school analogy and had Krishna as the teacher. You answered with "ask those in the Hindu DIR"? No. You can't get off that easy. In post #904 you say you believe in the "original" teachings of the founder of a religion, then tell me... what are those original teachings? What did they say about why we are here? Where are we going? How do we get there? When did and how did creation happen? You know, just the basic beliefs that each founder taught, originally.

 

[CG Didymus]

How's that for ignoring context?

Me neither. Psychologically, the only answer that makes sense to me as to why people go into these lengthy discussions is to try to convince themselves. All this despite people of several religions refuting their 'logic' it continues. It's a tough battle, and not everyone makes it.

You know, thanks to this thread, I realized I've been influences by Hinduism. All those gurus that came over and taught the yoga postures, breathing exercises and a vegetarian diet. I tried those things and still do them. I've been a vegetarian since 1970. I even danced in Haight Asbury with the Hare Krishna's. So nothing to deep, but the teachings of India did make their way into American culture.

And why was that? The Christian Church was losing the young. We found more truth in rock and roll than in Jesus. Of course a lot of us went to the extreme and fell over the edge, but some of us looked to the East and found a wealth of spiritual truths that we had never heard before. One of those was the Baha'i Faith, and I learned a lot from them. But then, ironically, in the mid '70 a bunch of my hippie friends found Jesus?

I've been screwed up ever since, because they say "Jesus is the only way" "Jesus rose from the dead" "We are all sinners and can't save ourselves. Jesus paid the penalty. Just believe and be saved... or you're going to hell." I tried to believe but couldn't. And since none of the religions taught the same thing... what was the truth? Even sects within a religion don't teach the same thing.

So all I have is my yoga, deep breathing, my fruit smoothy in the morning and meditating on "What the %&#$@ is going on". Hey my spiritual paths have been filled with detours, dead-ends, washed out bridges, boulders in the middle of the road, taking the wrong exit, going up the mountain to find God and getting stuck in an avalanche, but all and all, I think I'm moving forward... Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[CG Didymus]

...I believe humans have enormous capacity for good in the world and to make such a system work.

The cynic knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

I had to look this up and found it was from a story by Oscar Wilde, The next line interesting also:
“Cecil Graham: What is a cynic?
Lord Darlington: A man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
Cecil Graham: And a sentimentalist, my dear Darlington, is a man who sees an absurd value in everything and doesn’t know the market price of any single thing.”

What do you mean by it? 'Cause I think I'm very cynical of religion sometimes. Considering all the bad that comes from religions, is this a wrong attitude? Should I disregard the bad and only look at the few good things that religions have done?

Now humans and their capacity for good? Why do you say that all the religions were originally good and have been corrupted by humans? Why would humans not corrupt the "good thing" that Baha'u'llah has brought to the world also?

 

[Vinayaka]

You know, thanks to this thread, I realized I've been influences by Hinduism. All those gurus that came over and taught the yoga postures, breathing exercises and a vegetarian diet. I tried those things and still do them. I've been a vegetarian since 1970. I even danced in Haight Asbury with the Hare Krishna's. So nothing to deep, but the teachings of India did make their way into American culture.

Thanks for the short bio there. I would say that if you are less confused, you're doing fine. Part of it is just sorting out the 'dross' (garbage) of what didn't work. Sounds like you've got it down really well. Breathing, diet, there isn't much else.

 

[CG Didymus]

Thanks for the short bio there. I would say that if you are less confused, you're doing fine. Part of it is just sorting out the 'dross' (garbage) of what didn't work. Sounds like you've got it down really well. Breathing, diet, there isn't much else.

Thanks and thanks for the comments you've made on this thread.

 

[Vinayaka]

Thanks and thanks for the comments you've made on this thread.

Hey, someone has to help keep people honest, and counter the lies.

I was one of the lucky ones in the late 60s early 70s. Raised 'nothing' when I hit Hinduism, I had far less to figure out. That was 'religion' to me. Still is.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That's an important bit there that you blew through. You focus on Classical Athens, which is after the "decline of equality." This is a better source for pre-Archaic Greek women, particularly that of the Bronze Age. Women held power in spheres of influence both religious and secular. Several very powerful queens are known of - queens not through marriage, but in their own rights. This would not be possible if there was an uneven view of gender equality.

From that same source, we can see that Spartan women were taught literacy, self-defense, and had the right to own property. You shouldn't cut out Spartan equality to quickly.

Priestesses were also a big thing in Ancient Greece; from Delphi to Sparta. That there was a high number of goddesses - equally worshipped and revered, and often times more so than the gods - also indicates a more equal notion of gender freedoms.

Thank you for the links to clarify your position. Its interesting to consider the history of ancient Greece. This discussion resulted from my comment about how the ancient Greeks had democracy but women were not eligible to vote. I certainly did have in mind Athens and to what extent democracy was established in other states and the levels of participation that was allowed by women in these other institutions if they really were democratic is unclear. Athens was certainly what we know most about in regards to Greek democracy and women were not allowed to vote.

Ancient Greek Democracy Facts | Synonym

Athenian democracy - Wikipedia

The link you have provided about women in the bronze age is interesting and discusses the role of women based on mythology, which really doesn't give us to much to go on. The author acknowledges this at the end when he writes:

All these statements must be qualified with the fact that we get these ideas from mostly male accounts not female ones, so we are trying to discover a perspective that is obscured by smoky glass. There are very few primary sources, mostly secondhand accounts

What were the Greek queens you had in mind?

Not quite, and this is where I am more loathe to use Wikipedia than not. Aristotle noted that Spartan women "live in every sort of intemperance and luxury", and that "many things were managed by their women". Aristotle is noted as being very critical of Sparta because in his view, they were "ruled by women."

Then there are such figures as Queen Arachidamia, who is noted as addressing the Gerousia, or the council of Elders. This alone shows women taking part in politics, as well as testimony backing up them having a large hand in economic ownership and thus, a hand in politics from that angle. At one point in time, the two wealthiest people in Lacedaemon were women. Spartan women are also noted as helping during battles and preparing cities for war.

The problem that you're having is that you're looking at Athens, and taking that to be all of Ancient Greece. When in actuality, Greece was not a united nation as it is today. There are Athenians, and then there are Spartans.

The woman of Spartan appears your strongest argument for women having real power, as we have solid historical evidence in the way of Aristotle's account. However it appears to strengthen my argument that such occurrences where women in history have equal status to men are the exception rather than the rule.

Sparta - Wikipedia

Spartan women, of the citizenry class, enjoyed a status, power, and respect that was unknown in the rest of the classical world.

You suspect wrong.

Right from the get-go, Celtic women were distinct in the ancient world for the liberty and rights they enjoyed and the position they held in society. Women were rulers and warriors, children of both genders were taught to fight, and could hold any public position right along side men.

And before you get too hopped up on these examples being nonetheless patriarchal, know that Baha'i is patriarchal as well. And should you question that, first question why there are no "great messengers" recognized by Baha'i that are women.

The problem with the article you sent is it has no references to original sources, just other books written in the last 30 years that in all likelihood perpetuate mythology rather than provide us with any concrete facts. Once again if you can find evidence to the contrary I'm happy to hear it.

References to Celtic women are not only rare, but are also, excluding medieval source material from the inhabitants of Brittany, Wales, Ireland and Scotland, derived from the writings of the Celts' Greek and Roman neighbours.

Ancient Celtic women - Wikipedia

It is true that the 'Manifestations of God' identified by Baha'is are all men. However that is simply history rather biased selection from the Baha'is. Most likely over 99% of national leaders prior to the 20th century would have been men too. It just observing history, nothing more.

Uganda and Guinea. Yet even looking at the top slot, Iceland, there was a case of nepotism, where apparently "People in Iceland are sick of corruption and nepotism" and the government was likened to "mafia-style families". Apparently even Heaven is not free of human error. Even your own country, which ranked #1 for quite some time, is not free from corruption.

So here's the thing. Having presented this in evidence of the fickle and realistic nature of human politics, I want you to stop calling me a cynic. Or even suggesting that I have nationalistic ideologies, as you did here recently.

I certainly don't idealise any country let alone my own. If we had countries that had successfully extricated themselves from an epidemic of corruption world wide then it would strengthen the argument that we may not need religion at all to lead us out of our current crisis.

I'm both a cynic and a sceptic, but I can also see there is much good in people and in the world. We have come a long way in the last 200 years where we have moved from a world that had its power based in Europe with much of the world ruled by these colonial powers, with governance based on monarchy or autocracy. Now democracy despite the flaws and limitations of the current model is well established. Women enjoy much more equality whereas in times past it was relatively uncommon instances where women enjoyed true equality alongside men.

The Baha'i revelation that came out of the despotic, male dominated, autocracy of Persia in the nineteenth century clearly proposed a democratic world order and the equality of men and women. As you have rightly pointed out, this is not a new thing. However a worldwide system that incorporates such progressive principles in existence in practically every land is new whether it be the example of the Baha'i community itself with nearly 20,000 elected assemblies world wide, or the rise of democracy ad human rights in the generality of humankind. There has been a profound shift of human consciousness with accompanying change in the way we conduct human affairs. The Baha'i faith is part of that change rather than stubbornly clinging to outdated approaches that belong to a bygone era.

Drop those from our discussion, and we can progress in a civil manner. Otherwise there's very little to discuss.

I hope we can have a civilised discussion.