Let's Sit and Talk...

[Aupmanyav]

Did this get missed? Ignored? What?

No. The answer is obvious. Accept that Bahaullah is the last manifestation of Allah for the next 800 or 1000 years (and contribute to Bahai organizations so that they can build even grander temples to impress people or conduct charitable actions - your money, their benefit). It is like that for Christians organizations also. Muslims will use the money for construction of mosques, starting madarsas where the students can learn computer work and hacking and ulema could whitewash their brains so that when they grow up they join Jihad, internet being so useful for jihad

 

[arthra]

I haven't reviewed them at all, but respect for the writings of the previous figures of authority in the Faith is not evidence of the mechanisms I was talking about.

It probably would be a good idea to at least review them if you are going to offer a comment... correctamundo? or nicht wahr?

Any way .. nice reading your comment!

 

[arthra]

It becomes a projection of their own unenlightened minds as the Word of God itself, which they then judge others in quoting as authoritative truth, "whoso disbelieveth in them, hath disbelieved in God." There is a profound lack of insight and inspiration going on at that level.
This is the inherent problem when people mythologize prophets as Authoritative Oracles of Divine Declarations, and then build up a religious institution around them with central authorities who become the final arbiters of Truth.

I see your point.. Of course it would be up to you in your search to decide what is from say our mythology and and what is Divine Revelation.

But when we speak of religion we mean the essential foundation or reality of religion, not the dogmas and blind imitations which have gradually encrusted it and which are the cause of the decline and effacement of a nation. These are inevitably destructive and a menace and hindrance to a nation's life,

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - , p. 272


In any case we have proscriptions against oppressing people or burning their books or applying any pressure on them:

The deniers and contradictors hold to four words:

First: Destroying men's lives.

Second: Burning the Books.

Third: Shunning other nations. 178

Fourth: Exterminating other communities.

Now, by the grace and authority of the Word of God, these four great barriers have been demolished. These four manifest decrees have been effaced from the Book, and God hath changed brutal manners into spiritual qualities. Glorified is His will! Exalted is His power! Great is His dominion!

(Compilations, Baha'i World Faith, p. 177)

 

[arthra]

None of the four Indian religions is a revealed religion (some people say that about Vedas and BhagawadGita but there is no evidence. Very much like Bahaullah claim of divinity). They are thought-out religions. Is there any problem with that?

As you've noted ... "some people say that about Vedas and Bhagavad Gita"... Years ago I was in a Baptist prayer meeting with other young people and read a few quotes from the Gita .. The one translated by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood.. I recommend it to you if you have not already read it.. Everyone loved it! So in my experience there is some evidence! For you of course it is a different story...

The "thought out" religion as you say was experienced in exile and the dirt of prison cells and in the life blood of it's followers.

 

[arthra]

No. The answer is obvious. Accept that Bahaullah is the last manifestation of Allah for the next 800 or 1000 years (and contribute to Bahai organizations so that they can build even grander temples to impress people or conduct charitable actions - your money, their benefit).

Again..Thanks for your comments!

We prefer to use "latest" Manifestation rather than "Last". The Houses of Worship as we call them are very few in actual number and only Baha'is can contribute toward them. Each community decides their style and yes ideally there can be charitable services adjacent to them such as schools, a hospice, hospitals depending on the needs of the community.... also anyone is free to enter them.

 

[LuisDantas]

It probably would be a good idea to at least review them if you are going to offer a comment... correctamundo? or nicht wahr?

Any way .. nice reading your comment!

That does not seem likely to make any difference, given the known parameters.

A revealed religion is a revealed religion. Laudable as it is that the Bahai Faith is honest about itself, the short of it is that I will never trust revealed religions until and unless they show a willingness to overgrown that frame. And you are telling me outright that it has no such willingness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So in my experience there is some evidence! For you of course it is a different story...

The "thought out" religion as you say was experienced in exile and the dirt of prison cells and in the life blood of it's followers.

What verse you are pointing to? I know BhagawadGita by heart ( No, I have not memorized it. Understand it in my own atheist/advaitic ways, reject mention of Krishna as a God and replace him by physical energy, Brahman). Unfortunately, I do not understand your second line. Perhaps you will clarify.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We prefer to use "latest" Manifestation rather than "Last".

Latest is Swaroopananda, Avadheshananda, Chidananda. Just three of the many.

 

[Sundance]

On the surface it sounds like an acceptance of multiple points of view, but recall what I said in my post you responded to which you didn't exactly address in this response?

"Again, as I've suggested, the very minute this happens, that the new way of understanding becomes wrapped in the symbol of "divine revelation", or new Teachings as you capitalized it, they become binding truths to be accepted and believed in, not teachings one can challenge, reconsider, or outright reject when new information comes along. The Prophet of God is Authority, and to challenge the Prophet is seen as a challenge and affront to God Himself. "​

Intrigued to read some of the sayings of Baha'u'llah since you quoted this one, I quickly discovered this one which absolutely affirms what I had just said,

The door of the knowledge of the Ancient Being hath ever been, and will continue forever to be, closed in the face of men. No man’s understanding shall ever gain access unto His holy court. As a token of His mercy, however, and as a proof of His loving-kindness, He hath manifested unto men the Daystars of His divine guidance, the Symbols of His divine unity, and hath ordained the knowledge of these sanctified Beings to be identical with the knowledge of His own Self. Whoso recognizeth them hath recognized God. Whoso hearkeneth to their call, hath hearkened to the Voice of God, and whoso testifieth to the truth of their Revelation, hath testified to the truth of God Himself. Whoso turneth away from them, hath turned away from God, and whoso disbelieveth in them, hath disbelieved in God.​

@Windwalker, that's why it's called the independent investigation of truth, which is also something Bahá’u’lláh had taught, and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi had expounded upon. No one has ever been asked to accept Bahá’u’lláh and His Teachings blindly. No one. Period.

Oh yeah, your second quote is irrelevant, as it's dealing with the Nature of God, any complete knowledge of which – as the passage states – is so far removed from our minds, which is one reason for the Manifestations, as well as their Religions: to give us, as humanity, some type of glimpses into that Ineffable Nature.

 

[Shem Ben Noah]

Hey, everyone! Uh, while looking through, as well as posting in, a thread created by @LuisDantas offering a critique of a particular way at approaching other religions, I began to notice that a certain religion was the recurrent target of such critiques, the same religion with which I, as well as a few others on the Forums, identify – The Bahá’í Faith. Having thought about those various criticisms raised concerning a particular way in which some Bahá’ís or I, myself, have approached other religions, I am prepared to open up this thread for any constructive criticisms or questions from (primarily) my Hindu and Buddhist brothers and sisters, though of course, my brothers and sisters who follow other religions (or none) are, as well, more than free to chime in with any questions or constructive criticisms. Additionally, I’m going to give my own thoughtful responses to each. This thread is designed to give me some new methods, some new considerations in my approaching other religions, going back to the quote from the Kitáb-i-Aqdas:

“Consort ye with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship!”

So, have at me....hahahahaha!! Peace and Blessings to one and all.

So, I was wondering, why there is little Bahai input on the various Noahide threads.
While I know very little about the faith, I would have thought that the universal theme of the Noahide code would find some common ground?

 

[Sundance]

So, I was wondering, why there is little Bahai input on the various Noahide threads.
While I know very little about the faith, I would have thought that the universal theme of the Noahide code would find some common ground?

Actually, I'm not too sure, Shem. I'll try to rectify the matter in the future.

 

[Windwalker]

I see your point..

Actually, I don't believe you did based on your response. Allow me to explain....

Of course it would be up to you in your search to decide what is from say our mythology and and what is Divine Revelation.

When I say people create a mythology around those who who have insights, or prophecy through the experience of divine inspiration (which is common), that is not to say "myth" in the sense of a lie; "myth" as opposed to "fact", fallacy as opposed to legitimacy, etc. So when you responded saying it's up for me to discern what is "from our mythology" versus from "Divine Revelation", you are demonstrating that incorrect understanding of what mythology is. That is not at all what I am saying. I need to explain this better as to me my understanding is so second nature to me I forget others are unaware of what myth is.

A myth is simply a story-wrapper we place around something that has meaning to us in order for us to "put handles on it". It's simply a type of story that is useful to communicate truth to ourselves and other which speaks to our current understandings, such as they may be. It is a symbolic world. Mythological worldviews as a general category have a certain type of stories characteristic of them in general. This is a good basic description of what I am talking about here:

Many myths deal explicitly with man's (unperspectival) separation from nature. Witness the story of the Fall in Genesis (and its admonition to go forth and dominate nature); and the myth of Prometheus and the giving of fire to man. These both indicate a strong awareness of man's differentness from nature. Man is coming into his own, although he is anything but independent of it. One could characterize this as a two-dimensional understanding of the world. Within the circle of believers is where the important acts of life take place. The mere forces of nature have a beingness, often anthropomorphized, but a beingness nevertheless. Myth, then, or the mythologeme is the primary form of expression of this period. Subsets of this basic form would be the gods, symbols and mysteries. These figures provide the emerging consciousness with imaginative images around which to center man's knowledge and understanding of the world. If the Magic structure of consciousness is the emotional aspect, then the Mythical structure is the imaginative one.

[From here: http://www.gaiamind.org/Gebser.html ]
​

So when I say we, as humans functioning within a general mythological framework (as opposed to Modernist, rationalist frameworks, or magic frameworks, etc), speak of these individuals who have insights opened to them through the experience of the Divine, the mythic understanding of these is that this is a communication to them through this special person who must be an divine mouthpiece from God Himself. He is the "prophet", speaking what God has "revealed" to him from His hidden Self. It's a "wrapper", a "story" about this phenomenon that people hold to put "handles" on it, to relate to it for themselves, etc. It's gives it a context for them in order to approach it and have a relationship with it. When they read the words from the prophet, they lace them with meaning, inspiring hope and Truth in themselves through the myth as a vehicle for their own awakening consciousness.

Ok, that's a little dense, a bit packed I realize. But it's hard to lay all this out in just one simple post. When I speak of "mythologies", it's a shorthand way to speak about all of that, and much more. In no way am I meaning "made up debris that can be discarded light the chaff from the wheat". Absolutely not, that is not what I'm expressing at all! Myth i simply the "story-wrapper" people speak of things with coming from a certain mode of thinking itself which is very imaginative and creative where things are controlled by external higher forces beyond them which is in charge of everything, and so forth.

But when we speak of religion we mean the essential foundation or reality of religion, not the dogmas and blind imitations which have gradually encrusted it and which are the cause of the decline and effacement of a nation. These are inevitably destructive and a menace and hindrance to a nation's life,

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - , p. 272

I don't find disagreement with this. However, this is a realization many thinkers and philosophers have realized all on their own without the need to put a wrapper of mythology around it calling it Divine Revelation. It's unnecessary to do that, as it's simply good observation. Check out what this is saying here that has nothing to do with some Prophet revealing divine knowledge to us about that very thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy

In any case we have proscriptions against oppressing people or burning their books or applying any pressure on them:

The deniers and contradictors hold to four words:

First: Destroying men's lives.

Second: Burning the Books.

Third: Shunning other nations. 178

Fourth: Exterminating other communities.

Now, by the grace and authority of the Word of God, these four great barriers have been demolished. These four manifest decrees have been effaced from the Book, and God hath changed brutal manners into spiritual qualities. Glorified is His will! Exalted is His power! Great is His dominion!

(Compilations, Baha'i World Faith, p. 177)

Now, while all of these are of course an advance in our ways of relating to each other globally, they are part of the advance of our evolutionary process itself on a general large scale, occurring outside religion too. That religion, in this case Baha'u'llah responded to this with his "Revelation" to religious communities, is not in fact the origin of this at all. He did not "bring this realization into the world" through prophetic revelation. It was already well underway due to many forces and pressures happening worldwide. People were already realizing these things do that alone. His "revelation" is itself, in a sense part of this "Divine activity", in the sense that he translated it into mythological terms in order for not only himself to understand it, but to communicate its truth to others with the language he shared in common with them.

Ok, that's a huge mouthful, and a lot to digest. I'll leave you to it.

( @YmirGF thought you might like this)

 

[Windwalker]

that's why it's called the independent investigation of truth, which is also something Bahá’u’lláh had taught, and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi had expounded upon. No one has ever been asked to accept Bahá’u’lláh and His Teachings blindly. No one. Period.

To be honest, this sounds quite suspicious to me. What all does that mean? What does that look like in actual practice being part that group? When you speak of an independent investigation of the truth, and then follow that up with that no one is being asked to accept the teachings blindly, what I hear is a sort of "don't take our word for it, read it yourself and see if what we say is true," sort of tactic of conversion. There are inherent problems with this I don't want to get into here, other than on the surface mentioning that ideas are planted, then group pressure motivates the lens through which the person reads what they gave him to "investigate for yourself", and you end up with, "Yeah, I see that what you said! You're right. Am I one of you now?" results. There's much wrong with that approach I could speak to if you're interested.

Oh yeah, your second quote is irrelevant, as it's dealing with the Nature of God, any complete knowledge of which – as the passage states – is so far removed from our minds, which is one reason for the Manifestations, as well as their Religions: to give us, as humanity, some type of glimpses into that Ineffable Nature.

Um... not the part I was talking to! Of course it's speaking about the nature of God. But it is also talking about his prophets. Behold:

The door of the knowledge of the Ancient Being hath ever been, and will continue forever to be, closed in the face of men. No man’s understanding shall ever gain access unto His holy court. As a token of His mercy, however, and as a proof of His loving-kindness, He hath manifested unto men the Daystars of His divine guidance, the Symbols of His divine unity, and hath ordained the knowledge of these sanctified Beings to be identical with the knowledge of His own Self. Whoso recognizeth them hath recognized God. Whoso hearkeneth to their call, hath hearkened to the Voice of God, and whoso testifieth to the truth of their Revelation, hath testified to the truth of God Himself. Whoso turneth away from them, hath turned away from God, and whoso disbelieveth in them, hath disbelieved in God.​

He is speaking of those whom God has ordained as sanctified, who speak his truth prophetically, and how those who hear their call, who hear their revelation hear God. And those who don't accept the prophet, the "Daystars of HIs Divine guidance", are turning away from God! That is exactly what I was talking about which is being confirmed in what I am reading here.

Out of curiosity, is there a reason he wrote this using King James English from the early 1600's when he lived in Persia in the 1800's? It just seems odd why you have things like recognizeth and disbelieveth in the texts. It would be like me typing in a way no one talks today, 'Dost thou understandeth what thou readest? Verily, it seemeth quite strange to me! ' I guess, I don't just understand the connection and the reason for it. Or is this just someone who translated it decided to make it sound holy because that's how the King James version reads?

I think Joseph Smith who started the Mormon church with his revelation from God did the same thing, copying King James English language to make his scriptures he wrote sound biblical and hence sanctified and holy. From a practical point of view, it's much easier for a prophet to speak in their native languages, rather than trying to imitate another century's language style, as if it were native to the revelation itself.

 

[Vinayaka]

“Consort ye with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship!”

So, have at me....hahahahaha!! Peace and Blessings to one and all.

I agree with the quote, and try to practice it, but find an essential difference between the way Bahais seem (to me) to view it than the way I view it. I just see it as being friendly, getting along with my neighbours, doing stuff together outside of religion, like talking to my Mormon neighbours in a spirit of humanity, sharing this planet. We don't need to discuss religion to do this. There is a lot to talk about besides religion.

From my interactions with Bahais (only on this forum, haven't had any opportunities in real life) it seems that the approach differs rather drastically from mine. There seems to be a need somehow to find and highlight the religious similarities. In that effort, much is projected onto Hinduism that simply isn't there, in my view. Much of it is the dualism into monism, Abrahamic thinking where it isn't. So the search is there, and if you can't find what you're looking for, it just gets 'created'. Often this comes across to me as misrepresentation of my faith. I don't really personally have a problem with that, just so long as the alternate view is available to the reader, and its not like some school curricula set in stone.

So DJ, perhaps my question is just this ... why is it so important to Bahais to find all the common grounds at all. What is wrong with celebrating diversity, agreeing to disagree philosophically, and having a tea together?

 

[Sundance]

To be honest, this sounds quite suspicious to me. What all does that mean? What does that look like in actual practice being part that group? When you speak of an independent investigation of the truth, and then follow that up with that no one is being asked to accept the teachings blindly, what I hear is a sort of "don't take our word for it, read it yourself and see if what we say is true," sort of tactic of conversion. There are inherent problems with this I don't want to get into here, other than on the surface mentioning that ideas are planted, then group pressure motivates the lens through which the person reads what they gave him to "investigate for yourself", and you end up with, "Yeah, I see that what you said! You're right. Am I one of you now?" results. There's much wrong with that approach I could speak to if you're interested.

Windwalker, I think that you'll find that we Bahá’ís are the least interested in trying to convert people to our religion, trying to forcefully convince them of our understandings of things. We don't put any pressure on anyone to declare faith in Bahá’u’lláh. Study all religions, investigate them, and you decide whether or not you believe in any one of them. If you decide that the Bahá’í Faith, or Christianity, or Buddhism, or Paganism, or your own set of beliefs is what rings true for you, pursue that! You do your own thing!

Um... not the part I was talking to! Of course it's speaking about the nature of God. But it is also talking about his prophets. Behold:

The door of the knowledge of the Ancient Being hath ever been, and will continue forever to be, closed in the face of men. No man’s understanding shall ever gain access unto His holy court. As a token of His mercy, however, and as a proof of His loving-kindness, He hath manifested unto men the Daystars of His divine guidance, the Symbols of His divine unity, and hath ordained the knowledge of these sanctified Beings to be identical with the knowledge of His own Self. Whoso recognizeth them hath recognized God. Whoso hearkeneth to their call, hath hearkened to the Voice of God, and whoso testifieth to the truth of their Revelation, hath testified to the truth of God Himself. Whoso turneth away from them, hath turned away from God, and whoso disbelieveth in them, hath disbelieved in God.​

He is speaking of those whom God has ordained as sanctified, who speak his truth prophetically, and how those who hear their call, who hear their revelation hear God. And those who don't accept the prophet, the "Daystars of HIs Divine guidance", are turning away from God! That is exactly what I was talking about which is being confirmed in what I am reading here.

I said that the quote was also referring to the Prophets, the Messengers of God. Speaking of whom (prophets, holy teachers), do you know another purpose for such as these? To guide people towards the right ways of living, the ways that God has for them to live. To get people back on track. That, I believe, is God's Message for people. I believe that it's been the same throughout all time, every culture. Obey the commandments of God (or, varyingly, follow your religion wholeheartedly), and be a righteous person. That’s it, man! It don't get anymore complicated than that. That's another reason, I believe, Bahá’ís we don't push our religion on people or we don't say other religions are wrong, even that they originate from God and “are reflections of His Will and Purpose”. Don't they all (or most of them, at least) teach love, and compassion, and mercy, and righteous living?

Out of curiosity, is there a reason he wrote this using King James English from the early 1600's when he lived in Persia in the 1800's? It just seems odd why you have things like recognizeth and disbelieveth in the texts. It would be like me typing in a way no one talks today, 'Dost thou understandeth what thou readest? Verily, it seemeth quite strange to me! ' I guess, I don't just understand the connection and the reason for it. Or is this just someone who translated it decided to make it sound holy because that's how the King James version reads?

I think Joseph Smith who started the Mormon church with his revelation from God did the same thing, copying King James English language to make his scriptures he wrote sound biblical and hence sanctified and holy. From a practical point of view, it's much easier for a prophet to speak in their native languages, rather than trying to imitate another century's language style, as if it were native to the revelation itself.

Bahá’u’lláh initially had written His Writings in Arabic and Persian (and the originals are still widely available today....), as those were the languages He spoke. He didn't speak English. Neither did, I think, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Shoghi Effendi, who did speak English, and extremely well I might add, was the Authorized Translator of the Scriptures into English (but of course, as the Bahá’í Faith had spread out all over the world, they were translated into so many languages!). Back to why Shoghi chose the King James English, similar to The Holy Bible, he did so for two reasons:

#1) The level of reverence, the type of deep respect that such a translation establishes in people. (Shoot, is there any wonder as to its immense popularity, even today? )

#2) Shoghi had felt that the King James English would be the truest to the original Persian and Arabic Writings in both translation and establishing that reverence I talked about in my previous point.

In ending, King James English is ‘The Beatles’ of English. This version of The Holy Bible is STILL, EVEN AFTER 405 YEARS OF IT'S COMPLETION, THE BEST-SELLING ENGLISH-LANGUAGE BOOK OF ALL TIME! This version of The Holy Bible had an incaluably everlasting influence on the way an entire language was spoken!! If you had the eyes to see, dear Windwalker.

 

[arthra]

What verse you are pointing to? I know BhagawadGita by heart ( No, I have not memorized it. Understand it in my own atheist/advaitic ways, reject mention of Krishna as a God and replace him by physical energy, Brahman). Unfortunately, I do not understand your second line. Perhaps you will clarify.

The Bhakti verses of the Gita are very close to the 14th chapter of the Gospel of John... Here's an example:

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Now in the Gita as you know there are verses that refer to the love of Krishna...

Sri Krishna:

For those who set their hearts on me
And worship me with unfailing devotion and faith,
The way of love leads sure and swift to me.
...
Better indeed is knowledge than mechanical practice.
Better than knowledge is meditation.
But better still is surrender in love,
Because there follows immediate peace.

When Abdul-Baha was in Paris in 1911 He focused on this theme:

An Indian said to 'Abdu'l-Bahá:

"My aim in life is to transmit as far as in me lies the message of Krishna to the world."

9.1
Abdu'l-Bahá said: The Message of Krishna is the message of love. All God's prophets have brought the message of love. None has ever thought that war and hate are good. Every one agrees in saying that love and kindness are best.

9.2
Love manifests its reality in deeds, not only in words -- these alone are without effect. In order that love may manifest its power there must be an object, an instrument, a motive.

9.3
There are many ways of expressing the love principle; there is love for the family, for the country, for the race, there is political enthusiasm, there is also the love of community of interest in service. These are all ways and means of showing the power of love.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 35

You'll recall above I gave some emphasis to the importance of the closeness of the Avestan and the Vedic terms... The reason is there's a bridge of common language and semantics that existed in ancient times that suggests an affinity between the Vedic and the Mazdayasnian religion..

 

[Sundance]

I agree with the quote, and try to practice it, but find an essential difference between the way Bahais seem (to me) to view it than the way I view it. I just see it as being friendly, getting along with my neighbours, doing stuff together outside of religion, like talking to my Mormon neighbours in a spirit of humanity, sharing this planet. We don't need to discuss religion to do this. There is a lot to talk about besides religion.

From my interactions with Bahais (only on this forum, haven't had any opportunities in real life) it seems that the approach differs rather drastically from mine. There seems to be a need somehow to find and highlight the religious similarities. In that effort, much is projected onto Hinduism that simply isn't there, in my view. Much of it is the dualism into monism, Abrahamic thinking where it isn't. So the search is there, and if you can't find what you're looking for, it just gets 'created'. Often this comes across to me as misrepresentation of my faith. I don't really personally have a problem with that, just so long as the alternate view is available to the reader, and its not like some school curricula set in stone.

So DJ, perhaps my question is just this ... why is it so important to Bahais to find all the common grounds at all. What is wrong with celebrating diversity, agreeing to disagree philosophically, and having a tea together?

Vinayaka-ji, I hear what you're saying, and I absolutely agree: celebrating the diversities amongst human beings is a very groovy thing! I guess the common ground is not as important as establishing that mutual respect, that acceptance among followers of different religions. To be willing to eagerly listen to the different perspectives on religion is truly enlightening, and we as Bahá’ís, going back to the examples set for us by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, encourage all people to fellowship peacefully with one another, worship with one another, discuss with one another, study with each other. Discovering similarities, I think, are one of the by-products of these things, y’know?

 

[arthra]

why is it so important to Bahais to find all the common grounds at all. What is wrong with celebrating diversity, agreeing to disagree philosophically, and having a tea together?

Baha'is love diversity but we also recognize a common Divine Source over the epochs ... By finding common ground we are also celebrating that Source. Finding common ground does not mean we must all be uniform and conforming.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You'll recall above I gave some emphasis to the importance of the closeness of the Avestan and the Vedic terms... The reason is there's a bridge of common language and semantics that existed in ancient times that suggests an affinity between the Vedic and the Mazdayasnian religion..

Well, keep Abdu'l-Baha for yourself. I am an atheist, I do not subscribe to any divinity. But about the people of Zoroaster - not just language and semantics, they were the same people, same clan, same belief, till Zoroaster chose to adopt a different line. Some of the mantras are nearly the same, though very little of the old is found in Gathas. Zoroaster changed it big way.

 

[LuisDantas]

Baha'is love diversity but we also recognize a common Divine Source over the epochs ... By finding common ground we are also celebrating that Source. Finding common ground does not mean we must all be uniform and conforming.

That is not recognition nearly so much as it is projection.