Should the oneness of humanity be taught in all schools worldwide

[bahamut19]

Part of the problem with reffering to messengers being like doctors is that unlike messengers doctors do not (ususally) declare themselves to be infallible and this allows medicine to progress through further research. This has allowed medicine to progress from the likes of leeches to the likes of antibiotics.

Could you imagine if a doctor were so arrogant as to proclaim that no one else coming after him would be able to add to medicine for a thousand years? If people believed that it would make medicine very slow to progress in my view.

And that is the problem I see with so called "messengers" such as Baha'u'llah who acquired knowledge from others, added an amount to it, declared themselves infallible then endeavoured to shut down further progress for a period of a thousand years.

Since Baha'u'llahs time some of us have learnt that women make great leaders - even at the global level, that outlawing anal sex is the cause of more harm than good, that theocracy is inferior to democracy, that copper does not turn into gold if left liquefied in it's mine for seventy years, that there is not aliens on every planet etc in my view. So I believe it is not hard for an open minded person to see why the analogy of messengers to competent doctors is a failure provided they are prepared to critically examine their own religious beliefs.

It's an analogy, also known as a literary device to used to demonstrate a particular aspect of two unlike things. The particular aspect in my analogy is the obedience to a role, not necessarily the person fulfilling the role. I could have said when a doctor takes a ****, is the doctor performing the role of doctor? No. Only when the person is acting as a doctor should they be listened to as a source. If the doctor tried to tell a civil engineer how to reinforce a bridge, it is not a good idea. Anyway... it was an analogy.

It's interesting to see how people react to literary devices such as analogy, metaphor, simile, etc. And it is interesting how people of today often feel people of yesterday were unable to use such devices to teach non-literal truths. It's a struggle even today to use such devices to teach such truths. Say when the story of Genesis was first told, it could have been a situation like a parent telling a child a simple, fictional story the child could understand. When the child becomes a parent, the child who is now an adult, would understand the story is fictional, and still passes the story down to their children. Such stories serve a purpose. It is just amusing how people of today, despite all their knowledge and access to information, feel every story of the past could not have been fictional or merely used to illustrate aspects of truth while not being literally truth.

religion of Huitzilopochtli would have to keep on sacrificing humans to their God

It seems this practice, introduced in its last form during the formation of the triple alliance around 1420, didn't go very well for the Aztec / Mexica people. That nation as it existed is gone.

 

[CG Didymus]

copper does not turn into gold if left liquefied in it's mine for seventy years,

Have Baha'is tested this? I'd like to know if it's true. I have a house full of copper pipe and a bowl full of copper pennies. Or was it a metaphor? We are like copper. And if we meditate on the word of God for 70's years, a metaphor for our lifetime, we will turn into gold... a pure spiritual being.

 

[George Washington]

Yuck! I want no such morals taught in public schools. Save the morals for private or religious schools.

 

[CG Didymus]

It's interesting to see how people react to literary devices such as analogy, metaphor, simile, etc. And it is interesting how people of today often feel people of yesterday were unable to use such devices to teach non-literal truths. It's a struggle even today to use such devices to teach such truths. Say when the story of Genesis was first told, it could have been a situation like a parent telling a child a simple, fictional story the child could understand. When the child becomes a parent, the child who is now an adult, would understand the story is fictional, and still passes the story down to their children. Such stories serve a purpose. It is just amusing how people of today, despite all their knowledge and access to information, feel every story of the past could not have been fictional or merely used to illustrate aspects of truth while not being literally truth.

Was the Bible ever meant not to be taken literally? It goes right into what sounds like history. Noah, Abraham and then Joseph ending up in Egypt. The story continues to Moses, then to Joshua and the conquering of the land of Canaan. Then there's the Law. Did God really want people to be stoned to death or was that a metaphor?

Then the NT... a star, a child born of a virgin. What part of the story is supposed to be true and which parts metaphor?

The Bible and the NT have so much more meaning and impact when believed literally. But, for some of us, that is absolutely stupid to take it literally. Sure, some parables are metaphor. But when it talks about the flood, the resurrection and Jonah getting swallowed by a big fish, it is telling the story as if it is true.

Try to find the "metaphor" in all those stories? Yeah, why not. But the whole Bible and NT is filled with so many stories. What's the metaphor of the star, the Magi, the shepherds and the virgin birth? The metaphor of the plagues against Egypt and the parting of the sea? I know the Baha'is make a metaphor out of the resurrection of Jesus, but nowhere in the story does it sound to me like it is meant to be a metaphor. The gospel writers sure seem to be claiming that it happened.

But even easier than explaining these stories away as metaphor, I like to think of them as religious myth... fictional stories that the writers embellished with miracles to make their God sound all-powerful. Like the resurrection... Jesus is killed but does he stay dead? No, God brings him back to life. Jesus conquers death and Satan. He is a God-man to be believed and followed... even to death. Because his followers now know that there is a life eternal waiting for them... that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.... that Jesus has forgiven them of their sins.

A cruel joke if the resurrection was a metaphor, and the followers of Jesus let themselves by martyred for a metaphor. But just as cruel if the resurrection and all the rest of the stories were just fictional myth.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yuck! I want no such morals taught in public schools. Save the morals for private or religious schools.

What about that thing about us holding these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and have equal rights life and liberty and such?

Of course, when a religion does it, we know it's just the tip of the big religious iceberg. By the time they are done, they are teaching that God is one and that all religions are one. Next step... there is a new messenger from God, and we should all give him a listen and learn what he has to say. No matter which religion has done this, it just doesn't work for everybody. For some of us, it does become Yucky.

 

[danieldemol]

It's an analogy, also known as a literary device to used to demonstrate a particular aspect of two unlike things. The particular aspect in my analogy is the obedience to a role, not necessarily the person fulfilling the role. I could have said when a doctor takes a ****, is the doctor performing the role of doctor? No. Only when the person is acting as a doctor should they be listened to as a source. If the doctor tried to tell a civil engineer how to reinforce a bridge, it is not a good idea. Anyway... it was an analogy.

I'm afraid I just don't see what infallibility is an analogy for. Perhaps Baha'u'llah could have explained his analogy better so we could be clear as to what he meant by it.

It seems this practice, introduced in its last form during the formation of the triple alliance around 1420, didn't go very well for the Aztec / Mexica people. That nation as it existed is gone.

Yes it is a shame that they couldn't simply be reasoned with, and instead had to be forcefully converted or killed at sword point to be swayed in their belief. Wouldn't it have been better for them to have adopted their legislation on the basis of demonstrable harm rather than having it handed down by human/(s) claiming without evidence to speak for the divine?

 

[Trailblazer]

But in the OP there is already a condemning of religions because they've been corrupted. Should that be part of the curriculum too? Teaching the kids how "originally" all religions taught virtues and the golden rule? But power-seeking religious leaders ruined it all?

In my opinion, neither oneness of humanity or oneness of religion should be taught in schools, nor should religions have been corrupted be taught in schools. Those are religious beliefs and if they are to be taught, parents can teach them to their children, if they choose to.

 

[Trailblazer]

What doubt is there to have beyond
vanishingly small?

I have no doubt, not even one that is vanishingly small.

 

[Trailblazer]

Next step... there is a new messenger from God, and we should all give him a listen and learn what he has to say.

No, that is not the next step.

No matter which religion has done this, it just doesn't work for everybody. For some of us, it does become Yucky.

Yes, it would be yucky.

 

[bahamut19]

Was the Bible ever meant not to be taken literally? It goes right into what sounds like history. Noah, Abraham and then Joseph ending up in Egypt. The story continues to Moses, then to Joshua and the conquering of the land of Canaan. Then there's the Law. Did God really want people to be stoned to death or was that a metaphor?

So I mention a potential story in Genesis could have a story telling device, and you try to equate this statement as if I'm referring to the entire Bible? It's hard to respond if I know anything I say will be taken grossly out of context.

 

[CG Didymus]

So I mention a potential story in Genesis could have a story telling device, and you try to equate this statement as if I'm referring to the entire Bible? It's hard to respond if I know anything I say will be taken grossly out of context.

Where does the metaphor start and stop then? That's why, if a person is not going to believe the Bible and NT are literally true, then the easiest thing to do is say that is fictional religious stories. For those Baha'is that believe Abdul Baha, they believe that the resurrection of Jesus is a metaphor.

I've argued with Baha'is now for a couple of about that. I think the gospel stories about the resurrection were written as if true and meant to be believe as true. Maybe it happened, but for me, I think it's more likely that it didn't happen... that the story was made up. But I also believe that about the virgin birth, Jesus walking on water, people coming out of their graves and so on.

That's why I made it about the whole Bible and the whole of the NT. If one is a metaphor, then what are you going to do with the rest of the stories? Samson, the Nephilim, Mose's staff turning into a snake, Elijah being carried off in a fiery chariot... I'm sure, if a person wanted to, they could find some great metaphors in all those stories. I just think that the writers meant them to be believed as true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Where does the metaphor start and stop then? That's why, if a person is not going to believe the Bible and NT are literally true, then the easiest thing to do is say that is fictional religious stories. For those Baha'is that believe Abdul Baha, they believe that the resurrection of Jesus is a metaphor.

A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)

Definition of METAPHOR

a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Abdu'l-Baha was not making the resurrection into a metaphor. He was saying that the resurrection story was symbolic of something rather than a real event that took place.

I don't believe that the resurrection of Jesus was intended to be symbolic of something. Addu'l-Baha made it symbolic because he felt like it.

I've argued with Baha'is now for a couple of about that. I think the gospel stories about the resurrection were written as if true and meant to be believe as true. Maybe it happened, but for me, I think it's more likely that it didn't happen... that the story was made up.

I think that the resurrection was intended to be believed as a true story, but I believe it was fictional.

But I also believe that about the virgin birth, Jesus walking on water, people coming out of their graves and so on.

I believe that Jesus walking on water, people coming out of their graves and so on is fictional but the virgin birth was real.

That's why I made it about the whole Bible and the whole of the NT. If one is a metaphor, then what are you going to do with the rest of the stories? Samson, the Nephilim, Mose's staff turning into a snake, Elijah being carried off in a fiery chariot... I'm sure, if a person wanted to, they could find some great metaphors in all those stories. I just think that the writers meant them to be believed as true.

Maybe the writers intended for those Bible stories to be believed as true stories, but that does not mean they really happened.
I believe many of the stories in the Bible are symbolic and they are intended to convey spiritual truths.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Where does the metaphor start and stop then? That's why, if a person is not going to believe the Bible and NT are literally true, then the easiest thing to do is say that is fictional religious stories. For those Baha'is that believe Abdul Baha, they believe that the resurrection of Jesus is a metaphor.

I've argued with Baha'is now for a couple of about that. I think the gospel stories about the resurrection were written as if true and meant to be believe as true. Maybe it happened, but for me, I think it's more likely that it didn't happen... that the story was made up. But I also believe that about the virgin birth, Jesus walking on water, people coming out of their graves and so on.

That's why I made it about the whole Bible and the whole of the NT. If one is a metaphor, then what are you going to do with the rest of the stories? Samson, the Nephilim, Mose's staff turning into a snake, Elijah being carried off in a fiery chariot... I'm sure, if a person wanted to, they could find some great metaphors in all those stories. I just think that the writers meant them to be believed as true.

Revelation 5:1-5 NIV
[1] … Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. [2] And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” [3] But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. [4] I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. [5] Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.” …

Whether a passage is to be understood metaphorically or literally or both can only be determined by the ‘Lion of the tribe of Judah’ no one in heaven or on earth, so no priest, lay Christian or scientist etc. No one but the Lion. Baha’is believe Baha’u’llah is that Lion because He is of the root of David descended through David through his father Jesse and He was descended from Abraham through His wife Keturah. Christ’s line ended after His death as He had no heirs but Baha’u’llah’s generation from Judah was a direct bloodline line to Him.

So we Baha’is believe that only the Lion of the tribe of Judah can explain the hidden meanings of the Bible as Revelation states. . Not you nor I nor any other person on earth as the passage clearly indicates. So we fully believe in the Lion, Baha’u’llah’s interpretation and as He appointed Abdul-Baha as infallible Interpreter and later Shoghi Effendi, then all the Baha’i interpretations come from an infallible and divinely guided Source NOT our own selves.

So for example. We are told that the virgin birth was true but that the resurrection was spiritual. Who but God knows and He has told us this through His Manifestation.

 

[Trailblazer]

So for example. We are told that the virgin birth was true but that the resurrection was spiritual. Who but God knows and He has told us this through His Manifestation.

No, we were not told by Baha'u'llah that the resurrection of Jesus was spiritual.
We were told what "Resurrection" means.

“It hath been demonstrated and definitely established, through clear evidences, that by “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause, and by “attainment unto the divine Presence” is meant attainment unto the presence of His Beauty in the person of His Manifestation.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 170

“Strive, therefore, O my brother, to grasp the meaning of “Resurrection,” and cleanse thine ears from the idle sayings of these rejected people. Shouldst thou step into the realm of complete detachment, thou wilt readily testify that no day is mightier than this Day, and that no resurrection more awful than this Resurrection can ever be conceived.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 144

 

[loverofhumanity]

Was the Bible ever meant not to be taken literally? It goes right into what sounds like history. Noah, Abraham and then Joseph ending up in Egypt. The story continues to Moses, then to Joshua and the conquering of the land of Canaan. Then there's the Law. Did God really want people to be stoned to death or was that a metaphor?

Then the NT... a star, a child born of a virgin. What part of the story is supposed to be true and which parts metaphor?

The Bible and the NT have so much more meaning and impact when believed literally. But, for some of us, that is absolutely stupid to take it literally. Sure, some parables are metaphor. But when it talks about the flood, the resurrection and Jonah getting swallowed by a big fish, it is telling the story as if it is true.

Try to find the "metaphor" in all those stories? Yeah, why not. But the whole Bible and NT is filled with so many stories. What's the metaphor of the star, the Magi, the shepherds and the virgin birth? The metaphor of the plagues against Egypt and the parting of the sea? I know the Baha'is make a metaphor out of the resurrection of Jesus, but nowhere in the story does it sound to me like it is meant to be a metaphor. The gospel writers sure seem to be claiming that it happened.

But even easier than explaining these stories away as metaphor, I like to think of them as religious myth... fictional stories that the writers embellished with miracles to make their God sound all-powerful. Like the resurrection... Jesus is killed but does he stay dead? No, God brings him back to life. Jesus conquers death and Satan. He is a God-man to be believed and followed... even to death. Because his followers now know that there is a life eternal waiting for them... that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.... that Jesus has forgiven them of their sins.

A cruel joke if the resurrection was a metaphor, and the followers of Jesus let themselves by martyred for a metaphor. But just as cruel if the resurrection and all the rest of the stories were just fictional myth.

To add to my previous post re interpretation. Baha’u’llah states:

Those divine verses concerning the Resurrection and the Hour, whether they were revealed in past scriptures or in the Qur'an, are for the most part to be interpreted figuratively. "And none knows its interpretation, save only God."

The Christ Spirit is what is important and what lives on today in the hearts of people. If the Spirit of belief in Jesus did not eventuate after the 3 days of doubt then Christianity would have died there and then.

Then there’s the passage in the Bible which says in John 4:24

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

So Christians are forbidden to worship a bodily resurrection and must worship God in spirit! So even according to the Bible things such as bodily worship are wrong. And Christ is the spiritual Son of God as God is spiritual not physical. So many materialistic interpretations placed on verses which are purely spiritual. On Mount Tabor the disciples saw Moses, Elias and the Heavenly Father and Christ said’ Tell this vision to no man until after I have ascended. So a vision of God and Moses etc. Matthew 17:9 As was the resurrection just a vision. Christian worship has descended into bodily worship against the teachings of the Bible that :

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

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, we were not told by Baha'u'llah that the resurrection of Jesus was spiritual.
We were told what "Resurrection" means.

“It hath been demonstrated and definitely established, through clear evidences, that by “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause, and by “attainment unto the divine Presence” is meant attainment unto the presence of His Beauty in the person of His Manifestation.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 170

“Strive, therefore, O my brother, to grasp the meaning of “Resurrection,” and cleanse thine ears from the idle sayings of these rejected people. Shouldst thou step into the realm of complete detachment, thou wilt readily testify that no day is mightier than this Day, and that no resurrection more awful than this Resurrection can ever be conceived.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 144

I was speaking about Christ’s resurrection which Christians believe to have been bodily but we believe were visions and spiritual awakenings of the disciples. After Christ died His disciples had doubt about His divine station but after 3 days they became confirmed as to His true station. It was a spiritual awakening.

the spiritual resurrection of man... is...his acceptance of Divine Manifestations.
Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, 1988 revised edition, p.481

We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually his true greatness and realized He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and been misunderstood. His eating with disciples after resurrection is the same thing.
Shoghi Effendi, High Endeavors: Messages to Alaska, p.69-70

Concerning the meaning of `Resurrection': although the term is used by Bahá’u’lláh in His Writings,... its meaning is figurative. The tomb is also allegorical, i.e., the tomb of unbelief.
Shoghi Effendi, Dawn of a New Day: Messages to India, p.79

we say that the meaning of Christ's resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, his bounties, his perfections, and his spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after his martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost; for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and, when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting his counsels into practice, and arising to serve him,... his religion found life, his teachings and admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body, until the life and bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, old edition, p.119-121

 

[Trailblazer]

I was speaking about Christ’s resurrection which Christians believe to have been bodily but we believe were visions and spiritual awakenings of the disciples. After Christ died His disciples had doubt about His divine station but after 3 days they became confirmed as to His true station. It was a spiritual awakening.

I know that is what you were talking about but I do not believe that is what happened just because Abdu'l-Baha said what he did.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Oneness of humanity is one thing, but the OP also included the "oneness" of religions.


But in the OP there is already a condemning of religions because they've been corrupted. Should that be part of the curriculum too? Teaching the kids how "originally" all religions taught virtues and the golden rule? But power-seeking religious leaders ruined it all?

"Scoffers", "hecklers" is that how Baha'is are told to view people that disagree with them? Like one of the previous posts said, Baha'is have not earned the trust of some of us. Some of us did try to learn and believe in some of the religions. All of them had some good things. But too many of them demanded complete and total belief and obedience to their religion.

When it comes from me, I'm not heckling or scoffing but have real concerns about some of the beliefs held by Baha'is. I'm questioning and doubting whether or not the claims made by Baha'u'llah and his religion are true.

We Baha’is follow the major religions but not the man made doctrines or interpretations of the clergy. The Bab and Baha’u’llah have always said that God will guide those who are sincere. We only teach children the essence and virtues of religion and moral stories from other religions. They are taught all the major religions are true. All religions have a time including ours. The time will come when a new teaching will appear to evolve humanity further. We are not the last religion. All children are taught that each religion including ours has a temporary role in the evolution of humanity. No religion Is for all time. You must doubt. Because unless you question you can never find truth. I was very doubtful and until my doubts were cleared up I considered Baha’i as false. It took many years so take your time and as reject as long as you feel you need to even all your life.

 

[ppp]

We Baha’is follow the major religions but not the man made doctrines or interpretations of the clergy. The Bab and Baha’u’llah have always said that God will guide those who are sincere. We only teach children the essence and virtues of religion and moral stories from other religions. They are taught all the major religions are true. All religions have a time including ours. The time will come when a new teaching will appear to evolve humanity further. We are not the last religion. All children are taught that each religion including ours has a temporary role in the evolution of humanity. No religion Is for all time. You must doubt. Because unless you question you can never find truth. I was very doubtful and until my doubts were cleared up I considered Baha’i as false. It took many years so take your time and as reject as long as you feel you need to even all your life.

There is at least 10% (and perhaps up to 20%) of the world who don't accept the assumptions of gods, the supernatural or magic. How do you intend to deal with those of us who consider god/supernatural/magic thinking to be not only false, but deceptive and toxic?

 

[F1fan]

To add to my previous post re interpretation. Baha’u’llah states:

Those divine verses concerning the Resurrection and the Hour, whether they were revealed in past scriptures or in the Qur'an, are for the most part to be interpreted figuratively. "And none knows its interpretation, save only God."

The Christ Spirit is what is important and what lives on today in the hearts of people. If the Spirit of belief in Jesus did not eventuate after the 3 days of doubt then Christianity would have died there and then.

Then there’s the passage in the Bible which says in John 4:24

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

So Christians are forbidden to worship a bodily resurrection and must worship God in spirit! So even according to the Bible things such as bodily worship are wrong. And Christ is the spiritual Son of God as God is spiritual not physical. So many materialistic interpretations placed on verses which are purely spiritual. On Mount Tabor the disciples saw Moses, Elias and the Heavenly Father and Christ said’ Tell this vision to no man until after I have ascended. So a vision of God and Moses etc. Matthew 17:9 As was the resurrection just a vision. Christian worship has descended into bodily worship against the teachings of the Bible that :

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

None of this is factual. As a believer you can believe it, but you can't use it as the basis of an argument because it isn't factual.

Since this thread is about teaching children truth you need to show the forum that what you claim is true.