Spiritually Bankrupt?

[Popeyesays]

Or, maybe it's just that not everybody agrees with you.

I don't think we have two sets of "eyes", one for the material and one for the spiritual. Part of my religion is trying to see the spiritual aspects/lessons/focus of everything and every experience, and I don't doubt that many others who don't share my religious persuasion will agree with me.

I'll reiterate what others have said - it's slightly suspicious that your "spiritual master" is so enlightened, but only chooses to reveal himself to the worthy. Doesn't sound anything like any "spiritual master" I've ever heard of. Sounds more like someone looking to have control over others.

Actually, I think "two sets of eyes" or "the eye of the spirit" and "the material eye' make for fine metaphors for a significant truth.

As literal notions they are simply silly.

Regards,
Scott

 

[James the Persian]

It is a curious paradox that the more a religious tradition is oriented around providing its members with actual spiritual experience or gnosis (rather than mere belief, ritual, and scripture), the more the surrounding society has tended to suppress it, throughout the centuries. The reason is not hard to discern. One's association with a belief-based tradition is often rather casual. For example, people marry and give up "their religion" to take on their spouse's, because their religion just doesn't mean that much to them. This is particularly true in contemporary materialistic western culture, where one's actual belief system (as demonstrated by one's actions rather than one's statements) is, in fact, scientific materialism. But a religion that provides actual spiritual experience changes one's sense of reality, and most states throughout history consequently have viewed such religions as a threat, because people with a radically different sense of reality are much harder to control. Thus the belief-based, orthodox sect of early Christianity won out over the gnostic tradition, because the Roman Empire found the former less threatening. The Christian gnostic tradition was forced underground, only re-emerging every now and then in the great Christian mystics.
Many of the new religious movements gain their force from a widespread dissatisfaction with the mainstream religions, which many feel are mostly "spiritually bankrupt" at this point. It is not surprising that many of them emphasize spiritual practice and spiritual experience, since they represent a kind of pendulum swing from the belief-based traditions. But for this very reason, they draw the centuries-old taboo against gnostic or experience-based religious traditions down upon themselves.
Nowhere is that taboo against gnostic traditions in force more than when a genuine Spiritual Master is at the core of a new religious movement, because it is well-understood that such beings have always been the most potent source of the spiritual revelation that enlarges and enriches one's fundamental sense of reality.

Anyone agree with this?

Peace & Love

Again, I suggest that you research hesychasm, theosis, and I'll throw in the uncreated light, St. Gregory Palamas and St. Seraphim of Sarov. Far from being suppressed, Christianity, at least in the east, encouraged such mysticism to the point of the possibility of participation in the uncreated energies of God being dogmatised at the (for us) 9th Ecumenical Council. You know far, far less about Christianity than you seem to think you do. And no, genuine spiritual experience does not equal gnosticism. The former can be achieved through hesychasm whilst simultaneously excluding the elitest, docetist heresy that is the latter.

James

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

In that case, I suggest looking into a local community college's business writing course. While you are not doing that sort of writing, still it will cover principles of clear communication.

I am talking about things 'Spiritual', not about the things of this world. Unfortunately, modern languages do not adequately provide suitable words to get a Spiritual message across accurately. Even Jesus, I think, had many problems being understood by materialists. Scriptures themselves are also often understood incorrectly.

Thanks for your advice, but I do not think it would be of any real value to me.

 

[Popeyesays]

I am talking about things 'Spiritual', not about the things of this world. Unfortunately, modern languages do not adequately provide suitable words to get a Spiritual message across accurately. Even Jesus, I think, had many problems being understood by materialists. Scriptures themselves are also often understood incorrectly.

Thanks for your advice, but I do not think it would be of any real value to me.

You're wrong. Communication in this material world is by the use of words. If you can't use them accurately, then you are crippled-voluntarily crippled, self-hobbled, socially mutilated.

Religion is all about society, Spiritualism's base purpose is to elevate the society of man to higher levels. Otherwise you are even more deeply mired in elitism and obfuscation of reality than I thought.

Regards,
Scott

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

Again, I suggest that you research hesychasm, theosis, and I'll throw in the uncreated light, St. Gregory Palamas and St. Seraphim of Sarov. Far from being suppressed, Christianity, at least in the east, encouraged such mysticism to the point of the possibility of participation in the uncreated energies of God being dogmatised at the (for us) 9th Ecumenical Council. You know far, far less about Christianity than you seem to think you do. And no, general spiritual experience does not equal gnosticism. The former can be achieved through hesychasm whilst simultaneously excluding the elitest, docetist heresy that is the latter.

James

Yes, I know little of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Perhaps you can tell me if there are any Spiritual Teachers currently in your Church that can actually reveal the Great Mysteries of the Spirit which enable the members to see the Vision of God's Light (i.e. the Beatific Vision - or whatever you call it). Jesus called it the "Baptism of Fire", by which one is initiated into this Visionary experience of Light/Fire. Moses described it as like an eternal "burning bush", i.e. it was not consumed.

Peace & Love

 

[Popeyesays]

The Eastern Church has one very important Spiritual Teacher: Jesus Christ.

Regards,

Scott

 

[James the Persian]

Yes, I know little of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Perhaps you can tell me if there are any Spiritual Teachers currently in your Church that can actually reveal the Great Mysteries of the Spirit which enable the members to see the Vision of God's Light (i.e. the Beatific Vision - or whatever you call it). Jesus called it the "Baptism of Fire", by which one is initiated into this Visionary experience of Light/Fire. Moses described it as like an eternal "burning bush", i.e. it was not consumed.

Peace & Love

You mean are there any gerontes/startsi? (That's Greek/Russian word - Romanian uses the Russian one). Yes, there are. Everyone is encouraged to have a spiritual father/mother, though obviously not everyone does. The sorts of people you might (though your rather gnostic views would certainly not fit with the sorts of things they would teach their spiritual children) mean would generally be refered to as an elder in English. Two recent ones that spring to mind immediately would be Elder Cleopa of Sihastria and Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain. If you want an example of exactly what experiencing the Uncreated Light is in our tradition then I'd advise that you read up on St. Seraphim of Sarov, who was great starets in the Russian church.

James

 

[sojourner]

It is a curious paradox that the more a religious tradition is oriented around providing its members with actual spiritual experience or gnosis (rather than mere belief, ritual, and scripture), the more the surrounding society has tended to suppress it, throughout the centuries. The reason is not hard to discern. One's association with a belief-based tradition is often rather casual. For example, people marry and give up "their religion" to take on their spouse's, because their religion just doesn't mean that much to them. This is particularly true in contemporary materialistic western culture, where one's actual belief system (as demonstrated by one's actions rather than one's statements) is, in fact, scientific materialism. But a religion that provides actual spiritual experience changes one's sense of reality, and most states throughout history consequently have viewed such religions as a threat, because people with a radically different sense of reality are much harder to control. Thus the belief-based, orthodox sect of early Christianity won out over the gnostic tradition, because the Roman Empire found the former less threatening. The Christian gnostic tradition was forced underground, only re-emerging every now and then in the great Christian mystics.
Many of the new religious movements gain their force from a widespread dissatisfaction with the mainstream religions, which many feel are mostly "spiritually bankrupt" at this point. It is not surprising that many of them emphasize spiritual practice and spiritual experience, since they represent a kind of pendulum swing from the belief-based traditions. But for this very reason, they draw the centuries-old taboo against gnostic or experience-based religious traditions down upon themselves.
Nowhere is that taboo against gnostic traditions in force more than when a genuine Spiritual Master is at the core of a new religious movement, because it is well-understood that such beings have always been the most potent source of the spiritual revelation that enlarges and enriches one's fundamental sense of reality.

Anyone agree with this?

Peace & Love

Religion is an expression of culture. When a religion rises that is not an expression of the mainstream, or cultural norm, it is suppressed by the masses. I don't think it has much, if anything to do with "belief-based" vs. "gnosis-based" religion.

You seem to be generalizing about all of Christianity again, lumping all of us in with mainstream, American Protestantism. That is neither the "mainstream," nor the majority of Christianity. It is a mostly localized phenomenon.

American Protestantism works in America because it represents the cultural norm here. Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, and even some Anglicans are excluded from many places of social interplay: Country clubs, civic organizations, politics. Look what happened to John Kerry, if you don't believe me. Why? Because these religious groups usually represent a different take on how religion expresses culture. When was the last time America-at-large celebrated Easter on the Orthodox date? And when was the last time America-at-large celebrated Yom Kippur?

While many of these American Protestant groups do ground their faith in a system of belief, many, many of their adherents exercise a profound prayer life. What about the whole Pentecostal and Holiness movements, whose ground is religious experience?

Many people change churches with their clothes, because many groups are very, very similar in professed belief and practice. What's in a name, anyway? That is not a good indicator that one's association is "casual."

Early orthodoxy "won out" because of internal agreement with regard to truth, not because of what the Romans did or did not do. Read your Church history.

There is a tension between what Niebuhr identified as "Christ within culture" and "Christ against culture." The balance of those two paradigms is what keeps Xy from becoming either too "mystic" or too "political." Because the Church walks a fine line between the corporeal world and the spiritual world, and must speak adequately to both. Both great mystic and great political Church leaders have arisen at times, but that does not necessarily mean that one is "better" or "truer" than another -- or that a certain tradition is "better" or "truer" than another.

Your scholarship appears to be almost dangerously iconoclastic. Most spiritual masters I have known of are extremely tolerant and loving toward other religions. Your POV does not appear to demonstrate that same level of tolerance and love.

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

Originally Posted by A. Ben-Shema
I am talking about things 'Spiritual', not about the things of this world. Unfortunately, modern languages do not adequately provide suitable words to get a Spiritual message across accurately. Even Jesus, I think, had many problems being understood by materialists. Scriptures themselves are also often understood incorrectly.

Reply:
You're wrong. Communication in this material world is by the use of words. If you can't use them accurately, then you are crippled-voluntarily crippled, self-hobbled, socially mutilated.

Again, I don't think you really understand what I mean. It is not that I do not use words accurately, it is because the subject matter, being Spiritual, causes difficulties to some others in understanding the true meaning.

For example the terms:
'Word' (= Logos) - not written or spoken 'words'. How many believe the 'Word of God' to refer to Scripture?

'Name' (meaning ineffable essence of God - identified as Word/Logos, see Rev.19:13) - not a personality tag. How many believe the Name of the Lord/God to be the term 'Jesus' or 'Yehoshua'?

'Light' (meaning the visible manifestation of the Spirit of God) - not merely a 'metaphorical description' of understanding. Hence Enlightenment = having visions of the Spirit of God, and thus gaining Gnosis.

There are so many such examples which make it very difficult to explain Spirituality. In the introduction to my book I stated:
"the subject matter is very difficult to explain adequately in words. It is not actually the subject matter that is difficult (it is the simplest thing imaginable), but the indoctrinated and stubborn minds of humanity that make it difficult to explain (this is why Jesus apparently said: Come to me with the openness and simplicity of a little child). Thus, it is hoped that this will be read with an open heart and an understanding mind for what it is. There is only one qualification for understanding the Truth – and that is a real Spiritual thirst."

You said: "If you can't use them (words) accurately, then you are crippled-voluntarily crippled, self-hobbled, socially mutilated."
I would agree in terms of this world, but not as far as God is concerned. The God I know does not limit His Knowledge to people of intellect and learning. In fact, He wants exactly the opposite of this, i.e. for us to put aside all our intellectual pride, traditional ideologies, and everything religious that we have learned from mankind - to become as little children, open and ready to learn the TRUTH afresh.

I hope that I have finally explained things adequately, and in good enough English, for the true meaning to be understood.

Peace & Love

 

[Popeyesays]

The 'Word' or Logos is a reference to the creative impulse of God, "BE!" by which all that is came into being.

'Name' is an attempt to describe the unknowable Essence of God, there are many Names and Attributes of God, one no more important than the others.

'Light' does not have anything to do with the electro-magnetic spectrum, and in the term as you mean it, visibility has nothing to do with the material eye. The 'Light' of God is a reference to the presence of God, which is not sensible to the spectrum or to the material eye.

When speaking of such things one must be persistent and participate in dialogue not diatribe. I would point out that you have tried to explain yourself in words, and linguistic metaphor. You didn't do a bad job of it. The subject is immensely difficult, but when you come right down to it, the only tools in the box to build communication are words.

Please, don't misunderstand, I don't oppose the purpose of your communication, it's a worthy purpose, but I think you are betrayed by your own imagination as to the uniqueness of what you are saying, and the concept that this truth is reserved for some and not all.

I don't think you can hope to put it better than this:
"Tear asunder, in My Name, the veils that have grievously blinded your vision, and, through the power born of your belief in the unity of God, scatter the idols of vain imitation. Enter, then, the holy paradise of the good-pleasure of the All-Merciful. Sanctify your souls from whatsoever is not of God, and taste ye the sweetness of rest within the pale of His vast and mighty Revelation, and beneath the shadow of His supreme and infallible authority. Suffer not yourselves to be wrapt in the dense veils of your selfish desires, inasmuch as I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure? If, in the Day when all the peoples of the earth will be gathered together, any man should, whilst standing in the presence of God, be asked: "Wherefore hast thou disbelieved in My Beauty and turned away from My Self," and if such a man should reply and say: "Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal," such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself. 144
This is one of the verities that lie enshrined in My Revelation -- a verity which I have revealed in all the heavenly Books, which I have caused the Tongue of Grandeur to utter, and the Pen of Power to inscribe. Ponder a while thereon, that with both your inner and outer eye, ye may perceive the subtleties of Divine wisdom and discover the gems of heavenly knowledge which, in clear and weighty language, I have revealed in this exalted and incorruptible Tablet, and that ye may not stray far from the All-Highest Throne, from the Tree beyond which there is no passing, from the Habitation of everlasting might and glory.
The signs of God shine as manifest and resplendent as the sun amidst the works of His creatures. Whatsoever proceedeth from Him is apart, and will always remain distinguished, from the inventions of men. From the Source of His knowledge countless Luminaries of learning and wisdom have risen, and out of the Paradise of His Pen the breath of the All-Merciful hath continually been wafted to the hearts and souls of men. Happy are they that have recognized this truth.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 142)

Regards,
Scott




quote=A. Ben-Shema;897201]Again, I don't think you really understand what I mean. It is not that I do not use words accurately, it is because the subject matter, being Spiritual, causes difficulties to some others in understanding the true meaning.

For example the terms:
'Word' (= Logos) - not written or spoken 'words'. How many believe the 'Word of God' to refer to Scripture?

'Name' (meaning ineffable essence of God - identified as Word/Logos, see Rev.19:13) - not a personality tag. How many believe the Name of the Lord/God to be the term 'Jesus' or 'Yehoshua'?

'Light' (meaning the visible manifestation of the Spirit of God) - not merely a 'metaphorical description' of understanding. Hence Enlightenment = having visions of the Spirit of God, and thus gaining Gnosis.

There are so many such examples which make it very difficult to explain Spirituality. In the introduction to my book I stated:
"the subject matter is very difficult to explain adequately in words. It is not actually the subject matter that is difficult (it is the simplest thing imaginable), but the indoctrinated and stubborn minds of humanity that make it difficult to explain (this is why Jesus apparently said: Come to me with the openness and simplicity of a little child). Thus, it is hoped that this will be read with an open heart and an understanding mind for what it is. There is only one qualification for understanding the Truth – and that is a real Spiritual thirst."

You said: "If you can't use them (words) accurately, then you are crippled-voluntarily crippled, self-hobbled, socially mutilated."
I would agree in terms of this world, but not as far as God is concerned. The God I know does not limit His Knowledge to people of intellect and learning. In fact, He wants exactly the opposite of this, i.e. for us to put aside all our intellectual pride, traditional ideologies, and everything religious that we have learned from mankind - to become as little children, open and ready to learn the TRUTH afresh.

I hope that I have finally explained things adequately, and in good enough English, for the true meaning to be understood.

Peace & Love


[/quote]

 

[Popeyesays]

The 'Word' or Logos is a reference to the creative impulse of God, "BE!" by which all that is came into being.

'Name' is an attempt to describe the unknowable Essence of God, there are many Names and Attributes of God, one no more important than the others.

'Light' does not have anything to do with the electro-magnetic spectrum, and in the term as you mean it, visibility has nothing to do with the material eye. The 'Light' of God is a reference to the presence of God, which is not sensible to the spectrum or to the material eye.

When speaking of such things one must be persistent and participate in dialogue not diatribe. I would point out that you have tried to explain yourself in words, and linguistic metaphor. You didn't do a bad job of it. The subject is immensely difficult, but when you come right down to it, the only tools in the box to build communication are words.

Please, don't misunderstand, I don't oppose the purpose of your communication, it's a worthy purpose, but I think you are betrayed by your own imagination as to the uniqueness of what you are saying, and the concept that this truth is reserved for some and not all.

I don't think you can hope to put it better than this:
"Tear asunder, in My Name, the veils that have grievously blinded your vision, and, through the power born of your belief in the unity of God, scatter the idols of vain imitation. Enter, then, the holy paradise of the good-pleasure of the All-Merciful. Sanctify your souls from whatsoever is not of God, and taste ye the sweetness of rest within the pale of His vast and mighty Revelation, and beneath the shadow of His supreme and infallible authority. Suffer not yourselves to be wrapt in the dense veils of your selfish desires, inasmuch as I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure? If, in the Day when all the peoples of the earth will be gathered together, any man should, whilst standing in the presence of God, be asked: "Wherefore hast thou disbelieved in My Beauty and turned away from My Self," and if such a man should reply and say: "Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal," such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself. 144
This is one of the verities that lie enshrined in My Revelation -- a verity which I have revealed in all the heavenly Books, which I have caused the Tongue of Grandeur to utter, and the Pen of Power to inscribe. Ponder a while thereon, that with both your inner and outer eye, ye may perceive the subtleties of Divine wisdom and discover the gems of heavenly knowledge which, in clear and weighty language, I have revealed in this exalted and incorruptible Tablet, and that ye may not stray far from the All-Highest Throne, from the Tree beyond which there is no passing, from the Habitation of everlasting might and glory.
The signs of God shine as manifest and resplendent as the sun amidst the works of His creatures. Whatsoever proceedeth from Him is apart, and will always remain distinguished, from the inventions of men. From the Source of His knowledge countless Luminaries of learning and wisdom have risen, and out of the Paradise of His Pen the breath of the All-Merciful hath continually been wafted to the hearts and souls of men. Happy are they that have recognized this truth.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 142)

Regards,
Scott




quote=A. Ben-Shema;897201]Again, I don't think you really understand what I mean. It is not that I do not use words accurately, it is because the subject matter, being Spiritual, causes difficulties to some others in understanding the true meaning.

For example the terms:
'Word' (= Logos) - not written or spoken 'words'. How many believe the 'Word of God' to refer to Scripture?

'Name' (meaning ineffable essence of God - identified as Word/Logos, see Rev.19:13) - not a personality tag. How many believe the Name of the Lord/God to be the term 'Jesus' or 'Yehoshua'?

'Light' (meaning the visible manifestation of the Spirit of God) - not merely a 'metaphorical description' of understanding. Hence Enlightenment = having visions of the Spirit of God, and thus gaining Gnosis.

There are so many such examples which make it very difficult to explain Spirituality. In the introduction to my book I stated:
"the subject matter is very difficult to explain adequately in words. It is not actually the subject matter that is difficult (it is the simplest thing imaginable), but the indoctrinated and stubborn minds of humanity that make it difficult to explain (this is why Jesus apparently said: Come to me with the openness and simplicity of a little child). Thus, it is hoped that this will be read with an open heart and an understanding mind for what it is. There is only one qualification for understanding the Truth – and that is a real Spiritual thirst."

You said: "If you can't use them (words) accurately, then you are crippled-voluntarily crippled, self-hobbled, socially mutilated."
I would agree in terms of this world, but not as far as God is concerned. The God I know does not limit His Knowledge to people of intellect and learning. In fact, He wants exactly the opposite of this, i.e. for us to put aside all our intellectual pride, traditional ideologies, and everything religious that we have learned from mankind - to become as little children, open and ready to learn the TRUTH afresh.

I hope that I have finally explained things adequately, and in good enough English, for the true meaning to be understood.

Peace & Love


[/quote]

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

The 'Word' or Logos is a reference to the creative impulse of God, "BE!" by which all that is came into being.

Agreed.

'Name' is an attempt to describe the unknowable Essence of God, there are many Names and Attributes of God, one no more important than the others.

Firstly, one might consider something to be unknowable when one does not know. Secondly, there may be many names to represent God, e.g. Allah, God, El, etc. BUT there is only ONE True, Divine, Ineffable, HOLY NAME!

“There is no other name under heaven revealed to men, which can bring Salvation.” (Acts 4:12).

“There is one Name which is more excellent than them all, the Name in which are all names and all lights and all powers. Whoever knows that Name… no darkness, no worldly power can hold down the soul which knows that Name.” (Pistis Sophia).

“One single name is not uttered in the world, the Name which the Father gave to the Son, the Name above all things: the Name of the Father. For the Son would not become Father unless He wears the Name of the Father. Those who have this Name know it, but they do not speak it. But those who do not have it do not know it.” (Gospel of Philip - NHL).

“The Name is invisible because it alone is the mystery of the invisible which comes to ears that are completely filled with it. For, indeed, the Father’s Name is not spoken, but it is revealed through a Son. In this way, then, the Name is a great thing. Who, therefore, will be able to recite His Name, the great Name, except Him alone to whom the Name belongs, and the sons of the Name in whom rests the Name of the Father, and who in turn themselves rest in His Name.” (Gospel of Truth - NHL).

'Light' does not have anything to do with the electro-magnetic spectrum, and in the term as you mean it, visibility has nothing to do with the material eye. The 'Light' of God is a reference to the presence of God, which is not sensible to the spectrum or to the material eye.

Once again you did not understand what I said. Do you really think that I was referring to physical light? or physical eyes? I was referring to the Mystical 'inner' LIGHT of God, which can actually be seen through the Mystical 'inner' EYE of the soul.
"If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of Light." (Matt 6:22).

Peace, Love, & Understanding

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

You mean are there any gerontes/startsi? (That's Greek/Russian word - Romanian uses the Russian one). Yes, there are. Everyone is encouraged to have a spiritual father/mother, though obviously not everyone does. The sorts of people you might (though your rather gnostic views would certainly not fit with the sorts of things they would teach their spiritual children) mean would generally be refered to as an elder in English. Two recent ones that spring to mind immediately would be Elder Cleopa of Sihastria and Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain. If you want an example of exactly what experiencing the Uncreated Light is in our tradition then I'd advise that you read up on St. Seraphim of Sarov, who was great starets in the Russian church.

James

Thanks for the info. I will definitely look up St. Seraphim of Sarov.

In the meantime, may I ask you if these gerontes/startsi (elders) do anything more than their equivalents in other churches, e.g. guiding and teaching from books, traditions, and various exoteric rites and rituals?

Also, is there currently, within your Church, someone who can actually reveal the 'Keys' which enable one to experience the Uncreated Light?

Peace & Love

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

The Eastern Church has one very important Spiritual Teacher: Jesus Christ.

Regards,

Scott

So is that good enough in your eyes?

 

[Popeyesays]

So is that good enough in your eyes?

Yes. For those who espouse the Orthodox beliefs.

Regards,
Scott

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

Yes. For those who espouse the Orthodox beliefs.

Regards,
Scott

I am not sure of what you mean. Are you saying that believing in and following, say, Krishna is good enough for a Hindu, or that Moses is good enough for a Jew, etc. Do you mean that no one actually needs to believe in or follow Baha'ullah, as long as they follow some other genuine Master from history?

 

[Popeyesays]

Okay, you're asking if it is good enough to follow one chapter of the Religion of God and NOT be open to finding the next.

No.

Now is Jesus a good enough spiritual teacher that Eastern Orthodoxy does not need another to BE Jesus, then yes. None of the good and innovative teachers and mentors of Eastern Orthodoxy are better at teaching the truth of Christianity than Jesus.

See the difference?

Speaking as to what is better than anything else, it is better to find, recognize and follow the newest renewal of the Covenant of God. The Great Prophets, Divine Messengers, Manifestations of God have great superiority over any "living master" you might find.

I received spiritual guidance from a lot of people in my life, I still remember Joe and Alice Turner who were my "spiritual parents" in teaching me the Baha`i Faith--thirty-some years later, they are both gone now, at least from this plane of existence.

Their patient nurturing was wonderful, but neither of them would think of posing as a "Living Master" and teacher on the same level as Jesus or Baha`u'llah or Krishna. To think they might be accused of doing so would have mortified them both.

there will be no Great Prophet again until some 1000 years from now. "Living Masters" in the meantime are small potatos and it's best if they do not have delusions of grandeur.

Jim Jones was such a person. David Koresh was another. Even Charlie Manson was one of those.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Booko]

I am not sure of what you mean. Are you saying that believing in and following, say, Krishna is good enough for a Hindu, or that Moses is good enough for a Jew, etc. Do you mean that no one actually needs to believe in or follow Baha'ullah, as long as they follow some other genuine Master from history?

(italics mine)

Religious hatred and rancor is a world-consuming fire, and the quenching thereof most arduous, unless the hand of divine might give men deliverance from this unfruitful calamity.

Beware of prejudice; light is good in whatsoever lamp it is burning. A rose is beautiful in whatsoever garden it may bloom. A star has the same radiance if it shines from the east or the west.

All the prophets of God have come to unite the children of men and not to disperse them; to put in action the law of love and not enmity.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 25)

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

(italics mine)

Well, if it doesn't matter which ancient Prophet we follow, why do new ones continue to come? If it is OK to follow Jesus, why did Mohammad come? And if it is OK to follow Mohammad, why did Baha'ullah come?

 

[Booko]

Well, if it doesn't matter which ancient Prophet we follow, why do new ones continue to come? If it is OK to follow Jesus, why did Mohammad come? And if it is OK to follow Mohammad, why did Baha'ullah come?

Why does 5th grade come, even though it was ok to be in 4th grade?

Why should we continue reading through chapter 9, when there was nothing wrong with chapter 7?