• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"I am the way"

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
That's too bad. I think the God you describe sounds awful, unjust, and definitely not loving...to let evil go on and not care, never deal with it or bring justice. That is not protecting or love from my perspective.

I never said he doesn’t care or lets evil run rampant. Unjust? Because he doesn’t toss people into Hell? :D Which btw we don’t believe in anyway. Not loving? Let’s think of a parent who will not let go of their child no matter how evil the child turns out, vs. a parent who sends their child to his death for a crime he manipulated others into? Yeah uh, I’ll stay with the one that says that if I think of him at my time of death, I’ll be with him without doubt.

But we’re still left with why a savior was needed in the first place. Isn’t it kind of sadistic and manipulative to have given free will to his creation then giving a test knowing they’d fail? That doesn’t sound loving to me, not to mention totally illogical.
 

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
That's too bad. I think the God you describe sounds awful, unjust, and definitely not loving...to let evil go on and not care, never deal with it or bring justice. That is not protecting or love from my perspective.

I do know that I can't live up to the perfect standards of God, but I have a Savior who did and loving forgives, washes away my sins and is changing me into His image to be transformed and set for eternity.

I have a simple question - I have seen you as well other Christian people I have met in life - describe god as just -
Simple question - Christianity has been around for 2K years - where is the justice?
There are tyrannical regimes, people that are oppressed for profit or in the name of religion
Where is the justice of this god you claim is so just? The only justice is that developed and administered by us lowly humans

Some claim we have to wait until resurrection day - that is just a story meant to keep people from thinking for themselves

There is no evidence of a "judgement day" I read how some individuals think that the five seals of revelation are revealed and the signs point to the end times - I call BS big time -

2000 years of the common era and untold centuries prior - no judgment day - never has been - and unlikely to ever be

Oh - take it from some one you would consider uneducated and a heathen as goes theology - no one's sins are "washed away" - nope does not happen - you have to pay the piper and to imagine otherwise is to think standing in the rain will not get you wet if you "think it is not raining" - no dice
 

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
To see different religious people try to defend their rightfull way of beliving in a God and to see Atheists trying their best to find faults or error within a religion is a strange feeling.
For a person who found a religious path and a religious teaching they deeply belive in there is no need for physical evidene for the God or Buddha to be here right now. To have faith or no doubt about the teaching, the practice of understand the teaching and thereby gaining wisdom of the spiritual has become natural.
To me it seem like Atheists/non belivers does not want religions to be true, or that the guidelines/rules within a religion is seen as wrong. or that God must be evil because we as humans suffer, this things is difficult for religious people to understand.

So here we stand on each side of a line, trying to convince that others are wrong? Is is not best to look within our self and see, What do I need to change within me to become the way i want? for a religious person the way most people want to be is like the teacher/God/ prophet has given teachings about, Morally good and good people.

All we want is to become better then we are right now :)

Think of we could talk with anyone without look after errors in other peoples life, because we knew that we are not perfect ourself too. As a Buddhist i am far from perfect, i have many things i am not happy with. So before i can make critique of others belief, i should better my sef first, And i know how it feels to give critique(it hurts to see when i hurt others) and receive it.


@Amanaki - most of those who are dharmics - have issues with those that believe their way is the only way. Just read some of the rejoinders - that are countered even by other members of the same faith -

No one here is perfect - I can honestly claim - other than ancient Vedic religions - every religion has its flaw and the reason I exclude the Vedic religions is because they were established with a view to understanding the universe and communing with it - any religion that purports to provide laws gets immediately outdated almost like a computer leaving a factory.

As has been called out homosexuality is considered an "abomination" in some religious texts despite it having existed for centuries - so are free thinking, intelligent and curious people not supposed to point out the fallacies and ask questions?

Buddhism works so well because in a large part the teaching is to "look inwards" - was doing some interesting reading on the concepts of Buddhism versus Dwaita Vedanta with some overlaps.

I shall admit I have a somewhat large problem with individuals that proclaim theirs is the "only" way and / or refuse to acknowledge where the religiously mandated teaching may be out of date and at times I go out of my way to try and prove to them that it is not the panacea they claim it to be.
 
Last edited:

InChrist

Free4ever
I have a simple question - I have seen you as well other Christian people I have met in life - describe god as just -
Simple question - Christianity has been around for 2K years - where is the justice?
There are tyrannical regimes, people that are oppressed for profit or in the name of religion
Where is the justice of this god you claim is so just? The only justice is that developed and administered by us lowly humans

Some claim we have to wait until resurrection day - that is just a story meant to keep people from thinking for themselves

There is no evidence of a "judgement day" I read how some individuals think that the five seals of revelation are revealed and the signs point to the end times - I call BS big time -

2000 years of the common era and untold centuries prior - no judgment day - never has been - and unlikely to ever be

Oh - take it from some one you would consider uneducated and a heathen as goes theology - no one's sins are "washed away" - nope does not happen - you have to pay the piper and to imagine otherwise is to think standing in the rain will not get you wet if you "think it is not raining" - no dice

You are free to have your own opinion, but my answer to your first question is: visible justice begins when Jesus returns to rule on the earth for 1000 years and then ultimately in the new heaven and new earth for eternity. This present fallen planet earth which has been damaged by sin and the world system developed by humans is temporal, passing away, and is not intended to be the arena in which God establishes complete justice. In the meantime, I am sure God is exercising justice in many ways that you and many of us miss seeing.

But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is patient toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. 2 Peter 3:8-13
 
Last edited:

InChrist

Free4ever
I never said he doesn’t care or lets evil run rampant. Unjust? Because he doesn’t toss people into Hell? :D Which btw we don’t believe in anyway. Not loving? Let’s think of a parent who will not let go of their child no matter how evil the child turns out, vs. a parent who sends their child to his death for a crime he manipulated others into? Yeah uh, I’ll stay with the one that says that if I think of him at my time of death, I’ll be with him without doubt.

The scriptures no where indicate that God "tosses people into hell".

Let's think about a judge in a local courtroom who not only lets unrepentant murderers, rapists, child molesters, thieves, and every criminal who shows absolutely no remorse go free, but rewards them. Would you or anyone else think this judge was loving, or exercising justice? I doubt it. There would likely be outrage about how wrong and immoral this judge was in failing to promote justice and protect the community. A good judge upholds the law and quarantines criminals out of love and for protection of others. That is what God does because He is a Just Judge. I am a parent and I love my son, but if he was guilty of a crime like murder, rape, molesting kids I would want him to face the consequences and especially if he showed no indication of repentance. Even though he's my son and I love him, there is no way I would want to enable him to continue harming others.

But we’re still left with why a savior was needed in the first place. Isn’t it kind of sadistic and manipulative to have given free will to his creation then giving a test knowing they’d fail? That doesn’t sound loving to me, not to mention totally illogical.

Giving free will to His creation is not sadistic or manipulative at all, just the opposite, because real love cannot exist without free choice. Just because He knew we would fail does not in any way infringe on the fact that each of us chose to sin. Thankfully, He offers us all the choice to be set free from our mistakes and made new through the love of Christ the Savior.:heartpulse:
 
Last edited:

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
Let's think about a judge in a local courtroom who not only lets unrepentant murderers, rapists, child molesters, thieves, and every criminal who shows absolutely no remorse go free, but rewards them. Would you or anyone else think this judge was loving, or exercising justice? I doubt it. there would likely be outrage about how wrong and immoral this judge was in failing to promote justice and protect the community. A good judge upholds the law and quarantines criminals for out of love and for protection of others. That is what God does because He is a Just Judge. I am a parent and I love my son, but of he was guilty of a crime like murder, rape, molesting kids I would want him to face the consequences and especially if he showed no indication of repentance. Even though he's my son and I love him, there is no way I would want to enable him to continue harming others.
That is ascribing human qualities to god - that is where you and the likes of @Jainarayan and me differ - you speak of justice - but it is either in a mythical future or not at all - no practical intervention in this "sorry state of affairs" - are there not those who worship him and yet continue to suffer? That view makes little sense to me but I am sure it means a lot to you - you find ways to explain / rationalize it and wait for a mythical day of reckoning - well you and I will be long dead and gone - and that day will never come
 

InChrist

Free4ever
That is ascribing human qualities to god - that is where you and the likes of @Jainarayan and me differ - you speak of justice - but it is either in a mythical future or not at all - no practical intervention in this "sorry state of affairs" - are there not those who worship him and yet continue to suffer? That view makes little sense to me but I am sure it means a lot to you - you find ways to explain / rationalize it and wait for a mythical day of reckoning - well you and I will be long dead and gone - and that day will never come
How can you be so sure?
 

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
How can you be so sure?

Sure of what? That Resurrection day will never come?

Because in over 6000 years of recorded human history it has not happened and no one for that matter has been seen to come back once dead either - there are schools of philosophy such as Samkhya that explain why such happenings are impossible added to my own understanding of how the world functions - my study of those leads me to be sure (just as you seem to be from studying your material)

You can take that "prophecy" I made to the bank - that R day will not happen before your and my passage from this world
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Wake yourself kiddo,
Jesus is God in flesh and blood body.

It's was Jesus was before Abraham and Moses

John 8:57-58
"Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am"

There you have Jesus was before Abraham was born and Moses.

It still seems you have a hard time in putting things in their proper order of events

There were not the words of the man Jesus, but the words of the Lord, who put his words into the mouth of the prophet Just like Moses, who he said that he would raise up from among the Israelites

Deuteronomy 18: 18-19; The Lord God our savior said to Moses, "I will raise up for them a prophet Just like you from among their own people, and I will put MY WORDS into his mouth and he will tell the people everything that I command. And I will punish anyone who does not heed MY WORDS, which he shall speak in my Name."

It was the Lord, through the mouth of his obedient servant, the man Jesus, who said, "Before Abraham was (Past tense) I Am, (Present tense)
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
No, it most certainly does not. It never did, it never will. :rolleyes:

The word "speech" in Sanskrit is "vaach". वाच् "Word" is any of these: shabda, pada or vacas.

The root to the word “BRAHMAN” originally meant “SPEECH”, much the same as the “LOGOS” is said to mean ‘WORD.

THE RIG VEDA STATES THAT BRAHMAN EXTENDS AS FAR AS VAC AND HAS HYMNS IN PRAISE OF SPEECH AS THE CREATOR


Shabda Brahman From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shabda Brahman or Sabda-brahman or Nada brahmin means transcendental sound (Shatapatha Brahmana III.12.48) or sound vibration (Shatpatha Brahmana Vi.16.51) or the transcendental sound of the Vedas (Shatpatha Brahmana Xi.21.36) or of Vedic scriptures (Shatpatha Brahmana X.20.43).

Nada Brahmin Tradition

Shabda or sabda stands for word manifested by sound ('verbal') and such a word has innate power to convey a particular sense or meaning (Artha). According to the Nyaya and the Vaisheshika schools, Shabda means verbal testimony; to the Sanskrit grammarians, Yaska, Panini and Katyayana it meant a unit of language or speech or vac. In the philosophical terms this word appears for the first time in the Maitri Upanishad (Sloka VI.22) that speaks of two kinds of Brahman - Shabda Brahman ('Brahman with sound') and Ashabda Brahman ('soundless Brahman'). Bhartrhari speaks about the creative power of shabda, the manifold universe is a creation of Shabda Brahman (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV.i.2). Speech is equated with Brahman (Shatpatha Brahmana 2.1.4.10).The Rig Veda states that Brahman extends as far as Vāc (R.V.X.114.8), and has hymns in praise of Speech as the Creator (R.V.X.71.7) and as the final abode of Brahman (R.V.I.164.37). Time is the creative power of Shabda Brahman.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
of every pleasant
As I just commented to uravip- every Christians seems to have a different idea of what "scripture" really-really says.

As it should be. There are many paths that lead to the promised kingdom.

Concerning the Manna from heaven, which is representative to the word of God. "Thou shalt not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes down from heaven, Solomon has this to say: The Wisdom of Solomon: 16: 20; "Instead whereof thou gavest thy people angels food to eat, and bread ready for use didst thou provide from heaven without their toil. Bread having the virtue of every pleasant savour, and agreeing to every taste.

For thy substance manifested thy sweetness toward thy children, ministering to the desire of the eater, and transforming itself to every man's choice."
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
The root to the word “BRAHMAN” originally meant “SPEECH”, much the same as the “LOGOS” is said to mean ‘WORD.

THE RIG VEDA STATES THAT BRAHMAN EXTENDS AS FAR AS VAC AND HAS HYMNS IN PRAISE OF SPEECH AS THE CREATOR


Shabda Brahman From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, keep misunderstanding and misinterpreting if it helps you sleep.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I am sorry to have to tell you this, but you are the poor sucker, who hasn't got a clue. The root to the word Brahman originally meant 'Speech" or in reality the thoughts in the mind of the collective consciousness that is Brahman, the essential divine reality of the universe, the eternal spirit from which all being originates and to which all must return."

I can tolerate people who lie to others for one reason or another, but I cannot tolerate people who lie to themselves.

Do you really think that you can deceive yourself into believing that you were correct. Wake up to yourself blue-boy.

Do you really want to tell a Hindu his own theology?

The sound that created the universe is not speech. It is aum. Aum is nada brahma.

Brahman - Wikipedia

In Vedic Sanskrit:

  • Brahma (ब्रह्म) (nominative singular), brahman(ब्रह्मन्) (stem) (neuter[25]gender) from root bṛh-, means "to be or make firm, strong, solid, expand, promote".

Trying to equate and universalize Hindi and Christianity is a reach at best, if not downright MUS.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My humble understanding is that what will really deeply unite all humanity and all religions I believe, is when they discover that their Promised One has come and find it is all the same Person.
You really believe what unites people is a shared belief? I don't think that has nearly the energy for that end. I think Love is what unites, not beliefs. For instance, you will never get me to believe in a "messenger" that tells us the right things to believe in. That concept is completely foreign to my understanding of the nature of the Divine. It works for some, but not for me, nor ever will.

What will however, is the recognition of the Divine spark within all of us that sees each other across the divides of divergent beliefs. Everyone has that spark of Divine Love within them. You can see it in the eyes of a child, whose heads have not yet been programmed with all this "belief" stuff. When we can see beyond our beliefs, beyond our religions, then there will be Unity. We don't need another belief system.

Baha’u’llah confirms all religions gone before as one eternal evolving religion.
All endeavours of humanity seeking connection to the greater whole is part of the same impulse. Religion is just one expression of that. Science is another. Culture is another. Religion, like a raft that one uses to carry themselves across the river, must at some point be abandoned in order to walk on the shore at the destination side.

That they divided is due to the religious leaders of each faith refusing to accept the new Teacher.
Absolutely not at all. It's not a matter of "refusal". It's a matter of it doesn't speak to them. The Prophet model speaks to those that need to be told truth from outside of themselves. It speaks to those who see Truth as external to themselves. I am not one of those.

Otherwise all would have moved together as one Faith and there would never have been the disunity and segmentation we see today.
I think where you, and those like yourself fail to grasp this is that you see uniformity of beliefs as the same thing as unity. I do not. Uniformity is an artificial unity. What happens when someone has a different thought? Cohesiveness is destroyed, and in many tribes, so is the person who thought outside the approved beliefs.

Unity on the other hand is held together through the bonds of Love. Love allows for diversity of thoughts and beliefs. It sees each other with Grace, and understands that all beliefs, including our own, are simply window-dressings, not Truth itself.
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
The root to the word Brahman originally meant 'Speech" or in reality the thoughts in the mind of the collective consciousness that is Brahman, the essential divine reality of the universe, the eternal spirit from which all being originates and to which all must return."

Oh really? Not in my understanding of the word's etymology...

"Sanskrit Brahman (an n-stem, nominative bráhmā) from a root bṛh- "to swell, expand, grow, enlarge" is a neuter noun to be distinguished from the masculine brahmán—denoting a person associated with Brahman, and from Brahmā, the creator God in the Hindu Trinity, the Trimurti. Brahman is thus a gender-neutral concept that implies greater impersonality than masculine or feminine conceptions of the deity. Brahman is referred to as the supreme self. Puligandla states it as "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world",[23]while Sinar states Brahman is a concept that "cannot be exactly defined""

Brahman - Wikipedia


I showed you mine, now you show me yours.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Still remains the problem of the Biblical description and timing, and the objective geologic evidence and timing of known floods. The only possible evidence for a catastrophic flood event is the Sumerian records and description describes a catastrophic flood on the Tigris Ephraties River. Noothing here about an Arc, Noah or the Biblical account. You describe two floods, which is equally problematic as far as the actual evidence for flood events.


The flood of Noah's didn't cover the whole earth, only in the area where Noah was at.

Otherwise can someone explain exactly how the isles of the Gentiles survived ?

Now notice in Verse 5, If the Flood of Noah's were to cover the whole earth, as people believe it did, then where did the isles of the Gentiles come from?

In Genesis 10:1-5---"
1--"Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.

2--"The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

3--"And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.

4--"And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.

5--"By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations"

So where did the isles of the Gentiles come from?
The other question is, as Scientist discovered in the area of the North Pole,
Plants and animals buried under neath the ice, How did they get there?

As some try to say, the giant mammoth lived up there, but yet the giant mammoth is a vegetarian animal.
So why would a vegetarian animal such as the giant mammoth be doing there, where there is no living plants to eat.

All because scientist found the remains bones of the giant mammoth, then they say, the giant mammoth must haved lived up there,
Which I consider quite funny. How a vegetarian animal would be in area of snow and icebergs ?
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
There were not the words of the man Jesus, but the words of the Lord, who put his words into the mouth of the prophet Just like Moses, who he said that he would raise up from among the Israelites

Deuteronomy 18: 18-19; The Lord God our savior said to Moses, "I will raise up for them a prophet Just like you from among their own people, and I will put MY WORDS into his mouth and he will tell the people everything that I command. And I will punish anyone who does not heed MY WORDS, which he shall speak in my Name."

It was the Lord, through the mouth of his obedient servant, the man Jesus, who said, "Before Abraham was (Past tense) I Am, (Present tense)

Well it's still evidence that you have no idea or clue who exactly Jesus is.
Jesus is the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
You really believe what unites people is a shared belief? I don't think that has nearly the energy for that end. I think Love is what unites, not beliefs. For instance, you will never get me to believe in a "messenger" that tells us the right things to believe in. That concept is completely foreign to my understanding of the nature of the Divine. It works for some, but not for me, nor ever will.

The claim that 'Love unites' is far too vague, anecdotal and naive to believe it would unite people of diverse different beliefs, because for the most part people believe what they believe motivated by the desire of belonging, and well being.

You may not believe in a messenger (Manifestation of God) that reveals to us the right things to believe, but most of the world believes in a messianic figure that does just that.

Actually, it is the spiritual principles of the Baha'i Faith that will first unite humanity, and not belief in the mesage of the Baha'i Faith. I believe that is well on the way.

What will however, is the recognition of the Divine spark within all of us that sees each other across the divides of divergent beliefs. Everyone has that spark of Divine Love within them. You can see it in the eyes of a child, whose heads have not yet been programmed with all this "belief" stuff. When we can see beyond our beliefs, beyond our religions, then there will be Unity. We don't need another belief system.

This is closer to the belief of the Baha'i Faith. The spark of Divine Love within humanity is very much a part of the "belief" stuff you object to. The bold above would be very much apart of the belief system that unites humanity in the future.

All endeavours of humanity seeking connection to the greater whole is part of the same impulse. Religion is just one expression of that. Science is another. Culture is another. Religion, like a raft that one uses to carry themselves across the river, must at some point be abandoned in order to walk on the shore at the destination side.

The Baha'i Faith acknowledges this in uniting the diversity of humanity reflected in and based on the Baha'i principles.

Your generalization of what is called 'religion' reflects a common generalization of using the word 'religion' as a stone to through at others who believe differently in an insulting self motivated context.


Absolutely not at all. It's not a matter of "refusal". It's a matter of it doesn't speak to them. The Prophet model speaks to those that need to be told truth from outside of themselves. It speaks to those who see Truth as external to themselves. I am not one of those.

What you believe will not determine the future of the spiritual beliefs of humanity

I think where you, and those like yourself fail to grasp this is that you see uniformity of beliefs as the same thing as unity. I do not. Uniformity is an artificial unity. What happens when someone has a different thought? Cohesiveness is destroyed, and in many tribes, so is the person who thought outside the approved beliefs.

The Baha'i Faith does not propose a rigid uniformity of belief. This would unlikely ever happen. The spiritual evolution of the diversity of belief within the Baha'i Faith is more likely the outcome. It remains that the spiritual principle of the Bah'i Faith that unites.

Unity on the other hand is held together through the bonds of Love. Love allows for diversity of thoughts and beliefs. It sees each other with Grace, and understands that all beliefs, including our own, are simply window-dressings, not Truth itself.

Love remains to a naive anecdotal claim to unite humanity. It will be the spiritual principles of the Baha'i Faith that will first begin the unification of humanity under a common cause.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The claim that 'Love unites' is far too vague, anecdotal and naive to believe it would unite people of diverse different beliefs, because for the most part people believe what they believe motivated by the desire of belonging, and well being.
I always hope when I say thing such as I did, that the use of the capital letter in Love, would indicate I am speaking of Divine Love, not "love" in the sense of human attachments. What people call love, "I used to love him, but now I don't", is not actually Love at all. It's simply attachments.

So yes, I agree that sort of "love" will never unite. Divine Love however, does. It is the Nature of God's Being, which is Unity in diversity.

You may not believe in a messenger (Manifestation of God) that reveals to us the right things to believe, but most of the world believes in a messianic figure that does just that.
So, 55% of the world's religions which happen to be part of the Abrahamic strain of religion, dicates truth? Popularity to me, when it comes to things like understanding the nature of God, is usually going to not be found in the majority beliefs. It's usually the exact opposite.

Actually, it is the spiritual principles of the Baha'i Faith that will first unite humanity, and not belief in the mesage of the Baha'i Faith. I believe that is well on the way.
So then you do believe Love unities, not beliefs? Why are you debating me then? Love is also the spiritual principle of any spiritual seeker. Religion often gets in the way of that, with all it's emphasis on beliefs.

Would you support someone rejecting Bahaullah as God's "Messenger", if it supported Love for them, with a capital L? Or would you say they are rejecting God, in rejecting your beliefs he is?

This is closer to the belief of the Baha'i Faith. The spark of Divine Love within humanity is very much a part of the "belief" stuff you object to. The bold above would be very much apart of the belief system that unites humanity in the future.
I didn't state that I "object" to beliefs. I said I do see them as important, as supports to faith. However, what I do object to is the belief that belief is more important than Love. That's just wrong.

Your generalization of what is called 'religion' reflects a common generalization of using the word 'religion' as a stone to through at others who believe differently in an insulting self motivated context.
You make a lot of assumptions here. You are projecting someone else here, that is not me.

What you believe will not determine the future of the spiritual beliefs of humanity
I'm not sure what you meant by this?

The Baha'i Faith does not propose a rigid uniformity of belief. This would unlikely ever happen. The spiritual evolution of the diversity of belief within the Baha'i Faith is more likely the outcome. It remains that the spiritual principle of the Bah'i Faith that unites.
So you would accept someone who says they believe Bahualla'a was wrong about his ideas of human evolution? Every time I probe this question, I don't hear much tolerance for true diversity to exist for long in the Baha'i faith.

Love remains to a naive anecdotal claim to unite humanity. It will be the spiritual principles of the Baha'i Faith that will first begin the unification of humanity under a common cause.
Again, you are placing human beliefs, or "principles" as you identify them here, as more important than Love, which transcends beliefs.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I always hope when I say thing such as I did, that the use of the capital letter in Love, would indicate I am speaking of Divine Love, not "love" in the sense of human attachments. What people call love, "I used to love him, but now I don't", is not actually Love at all. It's simply attachments.

So yes, I agree that sort of "love" will never unite. Divine Love however, does. It is the Nature of God's Being, which is Unity in diversity.

Either/or any version of Love or love, is far to vague as you refer to to unit anything alone.

So, 55% of the world's religions which happen to be part of the Abrahamic strain of religion, dicates truth?

Never claimed that. Your over stateing my statements to justify your agenda.

Popularity to me, when it comes to things like understanding the nature of God, is usually going to not be found in the majority beliefs. It's usually the exact opposite.

True, but equally true that your assertions are problematic.

So then you do believe Love unities, not beliefs? Why are you debating me then? Love is also the spiritual principle of any spiritual seeker. Religion often gets in the way of that, with all it's emphasis on beliefs.

Absolutely NO.

Would you support someone rejecting Bahaullah as God's "Messenger", if it supported Love for them, with a capital L? Or would you say they are rejecting God, in rejecting your beliefs he is?

I would neither support nor reject base don this limited anecdotal mine field.

I didn't state that I "object" to beliefs. I said I do see them as important, as supports to faith. However, what I do object to is the belief that belief is more important than Love. That's just wrong.

Base on what you previously stated you object to "beliefs." The difference between beliefs and Love or love is to vague and anecdotal for your view to be no more than your anecdotal view.

You make a lot of assumptions here. You are projecting someone else here, that is not me.

No assumptions made other than those you stated yourself..

I'm not sure what you meant by this?

Exactly as stated.

So you would accept someone who says they believe Bahualla'a was wrong about his ideas of human evolution? Every time I probe this question, I don't hear much tolerance for true diversity to exist for long in the Baha'i faith.

This assumption on what 'someone' says about the Baha'i Faith and evolution is based on limited citations from the biased perspective.

The Baha'i Faith writings clearly states that the harmony of science and religion, and that ALL scripture including the Bah'i scripture MUST be interpreted and understood in the light of the evolving knowledge of science.

Again, you are placing human beliefs, or "principles" as you identify them here, as more important than Love, which transcends beliefs.

NO! It is just that your anecdotal subjective assertions concerning the unifying possibilities of Divine Love is not meaningful.
 
Top