The Exclusivity of Christianity: Myth or Reality

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, and what on earth does that mean lol.

Sometimes I feel connected and attuned to Gods purpose and what He requires of me. In this regard there are six specific practices to enhance spiritual growth for a Baha'i.

1. The recital each day of one of the Obligatory Prayers with pure-hearted devotion.

2. The regular reading of the Sacred Scriptures, specifically at least each morning and evening, with reverence, attention and thought.

3. Prayerful meditation on the teachings, so that we may understand them more deeply, fulfil them more faithfully, and convey them more accurately to others.

4. Striving every day to bring our behaviour more into accordance with the high standard that are set forth in the Teachings.

5. Teaching the Cause of God.

6. Selfless service in the work of the Cause and in the carrying on of our trade or profession.

How do I do this? Abdu'l-Baha has said "little by little, day by day."

 

[pearl]

Thanks for that. I'll do some research.

In regards to the salvation of the Jews, I am debating this with a Christian who appears to argue that Jews are not saved because they have rejected Christ. My post #243 argues they are. If you are interested I would appreciate your thoughts about how such an argument could be better expressed and what other scripture would make the point more clearly.

The short of it, if the Jews are not saved, God is a liar, does not keep his word which he gave in covenant, pact, deal with Abraham. God is bound by his promises because he makes them. Men dealt with men by 'cutting' a covenant. God commanded Abraham to cut in two certain birds and animals and caused a flaming torch to pass between the pieces. It was usual for both parties to walk through the carcasses. It is only the 'angel of the lord, who passed through in the Abrahamitic covenant. Only God makes a promise. (Gen 15, Jer 34)

 

[CG Didymus]

Sometimes I feel connected and attuned to Gods purpose and what He requires of me... Teaching the Cause of God.

When you were a Christian what did you teach was the "Cause" of God?

In post #201 you talked about "remedies". Yet the "Great Physician's" remedy several times was to kill people... the flood, fire from the sky, ordering the slaughter of all the people in Jericho. Did His remedy work?

 

[CG Didymus]

All the Prophets are the first and last, the beginning and the end. If you study all the Holy Books you will find they all said similar things. Krishna even said He was the first, last and Middle thousands of years before Christ or the Gospels appeared.

We are dealing with pure semantics here.

The reality is there is only one sun in the sky. Regardless of how many names we give the days of the week there is still only one sun.

Only one God I fully agree. But Christ was not greater than the other Prophets. That is a Christian myth based on bias not the gospels but on personal egotistical desires for supremacy and superiority promoted by the clergy so Christians would be blinded to the truth of other religions, become prejudiced towards them and not join them.

All religions are antagonistic because the clergy have taught them 'they are the only truth' and completely whitewashing the truth in all the other Faiths.

One problem with "all" religions and prophets/manifestations being equal is that it sure seems like some (if not all) religions are based on myth, and some religions being all together man-made fantasy. Do you believe in ancient Greek, Norse, Egyptian religions and their prophets and teachings? Even of the "major" religions, do you believe some of the things are "myth"? By just taking Judaism... Do you believe in the Creation story and the flood? Or is it myth?

Then you say the "Christian myth"? What is that? It is based on "bias"? So in your opinion, what did the gospel writers believe about Jesus? If the "truth" was something else, why did they write what they did if they knew it would be misinterpreted?

 

[CG Didymus]

...I've learned you can't take anything for granted when it comes to issues like this. People can say they believe the Bible, and appeal to it as an authority source for truth, but then when confronted with parts of the Bible that disagree with their viewpoint they reveal they actually don't believe all of it -only the parts that agree with them.

To act as if Baha'is are the only ones doing this isn't true. If I asked you why you don't handle snakes or drink deadly poison, or why you don't pluck your eye out, you'd give a sensible and reasoned answer. Like, "It don't make sense." Or, "It's stupid." Yet, that is what Jesus says to do. Why don't you follow what He says?

And changing, manipulating, re-interpreting and taking things out of context is something Christians do too. Lucifer as the name of Satan before he fell? How do Christians come up with that? A virgin giving birth as a sign to King Ahaz? No, you making it as a prophesy about Jesus. Yes, Jesus is all over your OT if you "correctly" read it right. The Jews, of course, didn't read it right. They are blinded to the true meaning. And that is exactly what the Baha'is are saying about you.

Does Christianity make sense? For you, yes. To them, no. Do any Christians live by the model of the early Christians? Share all and live simple lives? Maybe the Amish? What is the Baha'i model for society? Is it more practical? Is it a better way? We won't know if we don't check it out. Just like you expected the Jews to do... leave the Law and your old ways behind... God has brought a new message.

 

[Dawnofhope]

When you were a Christian what did you teach was the "Cause" of God?

In post #201 you talked about "remedies". Yet the "Great Physician's" remedy several times was to kill people... the flood, fire from the sky, ordering the slaughter of all the people in Jericho. Did His remedy work?

Teaching the cause of God is Baha'i language. I was never a particular good Christian, and I'm a marginally better Baha'i. Regardless, sometimes I acted in accordance with what I sincerely believed God wanted me to do. On one occasion that involved standing in a crowded University area and providing a testimony as to why I had become a Christian. I do recall not long after a woman approached me on the street. Evidently I had talked to her about Christ and she had decided to give her life to Jesus. I had absolutely no recollection as to what I had said. I believe sometimes God makes use of us despite all our failings and imperfections to assist another soul gain a glimpse of the Almighty or 'Teach the Cause of God'.

As a Christian I never properly studied the book of Joshua. As a child attending bible classes one of the songs we sang were about the walls of Jericho coming tumbling down. I never made the connection it being about a genocide God had commanded the Hebrew people to carry out. As I understand it the Mosaic Teachings were in part preparatory for the Hebrew people to invade and possess the land of Canaan, and to make it their home. Another aspect was laws that would enable them to live in the land in accordance with what God commanded. Both aims were achieved, culminating in the Davidic kingship. This in turned prepared people to accept the Teachings of Christ when He came. The same can be said of Muhammad and Baha'u'llah.

It was harsh times 3,500 years ago and the moral standard was very different to what it is now. On reflection the military approach used, as bloody as it was, sent a clear message to the peoples who inhabited the land who was in charge, and the consequences of trying to retake their land. Its problematic when we judge people of the past by our moral standards. We often take this approach with Islam too.

Hope that helps and sorry to ramble on.

 

[Dawnofhope]

When you were a Christian what did you teach was the "Cause" of God?

In post #201 you talked about "remedies". Yet the "Great Physician's" remedy several times was to kill people... the flood, fire from the sky, ordering the slaughter of all the people in Jericho. Did His remedy work?

Thanks again for your excellent question. I thought you may be interested in a statement released by the Baha'i International Governing body that has excerpts that address your question far better than I can.

http://www.bahai.org/library/other-...ne-common-faith/one-common-faith.pdf?de5bc4cf

'Confusion about the role of religion in cultivating moral consciousness is equally apparent in popular understanding of its contribution to the shaping of society. Perhaps the most obvious example is the inferior social status most sacred texts assign to women. While the resulting benefits enjoyed by men were no doubt a major factor in consolidating such a conception, moral justification was unquestionably supplied by people’s understanding of the intent of the scriptures themselves. With few exceptions, these texts address themselves to men, assigning to women a supportive and subordinate role in the life of both religion and society. Sadly, such understanding made it deplorably easy to attach primary blame to women for failure in the disciplining of the sexual impulse, a vital feature of moral advancement. In a modern frame of reference, attitudes of this kind are readily recognized as prejudiced and unjust. At the stages of social development at which all of the major faiths came into existence, scriptural guidance sought primarily to civilize, to the extent possible, relationships resulting from intractable historical circumstances. It needs little insight to appreciate that clinging to primitive norms in the present day would defeat the very purpose of religion’s patient cultivation of moral sense.


Comparable considerations have pertained in relations between societies. The long and arduous preparation of the Hebrew people for the mission required of them is an illustration of the complexity and stubborn character of the moral challenges involved. In order that the spiritual capacities appealed to by the prophets might awaken and flourish, the inducements offered by neighbouring idolatrous cultures had, at all costs, to be resisted. Scriptural accounts of the condign
punishments that befell both rulers and subjects who violated the principle illustrated the importance attached to it by the Divine purpose. A somewhat comparable issue arose in the struggle of the newborn community founded by Muḥammad to survive attempts by pagan Arab tribes to extinguish it—and in the barbaric cruelty and relentless spirit of vendetta animating the attackers. No one familiar with the historical details will have difficulty in understanding the severity of the Qur’án’s injunctions on the subject. While the monotheistic beliefs of Jews and Christians were to be accorded respect, no compromise with idolatry was permitted. In a relatively brief space of time, this draconian rule had succeeded in unifying the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula and launching the newly forged community on well over five centuries of moral, intellectual, cultural and economic achievement, unmatched before or since in the speed and scope of its expansion. History tends to be a stern judge. Ultimately, in its uncompromising perspective, the consequences to those who would have blindly strangled such enterprises in the cradle will always be set off against the benefits accruing to the world as a whole from the triumph of the Bible’s vision of human possibilities and the advances made possible by the genius of Islamic civilization.


Among the most contentious of such issues in understanding society’s evolution towards spiritual maturity has been that of crime and punishment. While different in detail and degree, the penalties prescribed by most sacred texts for acts of violence against either the commonweal or the rights of other individuals tended to be harsh. Moreover, they frequently extended to permitting retaliation against the offenders by the injured parties or by members of their families. In the perspective of history, however, one may reasonably ask what practical alternatives existed. In the absence not merely of present-day programmes of behavioural modification, but even of recourse to such coercive options as prisons and policing agencies, religion’s concern was to impress indelibly on general consciousness the moral unacceptability—and practical costs—of conduct whose effect would otherwise have been to demoralize efforts at social progress. The whole of civilization has since been the beneficiary, and it would be less than honest not to acknowledge the fact.


So it has been throughout all of the religious dispensations whose origins have survived in written records. Mendicancy, slavery, autocracy, conquest, ethnic prejudices and other undesirable features of social interaction have gone unchallenged—or been explicitly indulged—as religion sought to achieve reformations of behaviour that were considered more immediately essential at given stages in the advance of civilization. To condemn religion because any one of its successive dispensations failed to address the whole range of social wrongs would be to ignore everything that has been learned about the nature of human development. Inevitably, anachronistic thinking of this kind must also create severe psychological handicaps in appreciating and facing the requirements of one’s own time.


The issue is not the past, but the implications for the present. Problems arise where followers of one of the world’s faiths prove unable to distinguish between its eternal and transitory features, and attempt to impose on society rules of behaviour that have long since accomplished their purpose. The principle is fundamental to an understanding of religion’s social role: "The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require", Bahá’u’lláh points out. "Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements." '

 

[CG Didymus]

Teaching the cause of God is Baha'i language. I was never a particular good Christian, and I'm a marginally better Baha'i. Regardless, sometimes I acted in accordance with what I sincerely believed God wanted me to do. On one occasion that involved standing in a crowded University area and providing a testimony as to why I had become a Christian. I do recall not long after a woman approached me on the street. Evidently I had talked to her about Christ and she had decided to give her life to Jesus. I had absolutely no recollection as to what I had said. I believe sometimes God makes use of us despite all our failings and imperfections to assist another soul gain a glimpse of the Almighty or 'Teach the Cause of God'.

As a Christian I never properly studied the book of Joshua. As a child attending bible classes one of the songs we sang were about the walls of Jericho coming tumbling down. I never made the connection it being about a genocide God had commanded the Hebrew people to carry out. As I understand it the Mosaic Teachings were in part preparatory for the Hebrew people to invade and possess the land of Canaan, and to make it their home. Another aspect was laws that would enable them to live in the land in accordance with what God commanded. Both aims were achieved, culminating in the Davidic kingship. This in turned prepared people to accept the Teachings of Christ when He came. The same can be said of Muhammad and Baha'u'llah.

It was harsh times 3,500 years ago and the moral standard was very different to what it is now. On reflection the military approach used, as bloody as it was, sent a clear message to the peoples who inhabited the land who was in charge, and the consequences of trying to retake their land. Its problematic when we judge people of the past by our moral standards. We often take this approach with Islam too.

Hope that helps and sorry to ramble on.

The thing that concerns me is the possibility or the probability that a people had concepts of a spiritual reality that was shaped by their perceptions and their worldly needs. The gods blessed them with victory in war and with food if they did good or sacrificed the right way to their deity. It seems like tribal peoples did this and even the religions of early civilizations. So how much do we add to religious "truth" things that we think our god wants? Of course, the Baha'i Faith is different in that Baha'u'llah had a hand in writing what Baha'is should believe.

Definitely with the Bible, who knows what the exact words were, or if they were embellished by the writer. I've been wondering about the meeting between Jesus and Nicodemus. No one else was there. How did John know what happened? It almost seems like the writer creates scenes to have Jesus say things, but did the scene really happen? And, did Jesus really say all those things?

To believe without question is a good thing for Christians, but it's a bad thing if that is not the exact, real truth.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The thing that concerns me is the possibility or the probability that a people had concepts of a spiritual reality that was shaped by their perceptions and their worldly needs. The gods blessed them with victory in war and with food if they did good or sacrificed the right way to their deity. It seems like tribal peoples did this and even the religions of early civilizations. So how much do we add to religious "truth" things that we think our god wants? Of course, the Baha'i Faith is different in that Baha'u'llah had a hand in writing what Baha'is should believe.

Definitely with the Bible, who knows what the exact words were, or if they were embellished by the writer. I've been wondering about the meeting between Jesus and Nicodemus. No one else was there. How did John know what happened? It almost seems like the writer creates scenes to have Jesus say things, but did the scene really happen? And, did Jesus really say all those things?

To believe without question is a good thing for Christians, but it's a bad thing if that is not the exact, real truth.

All very good questions and concerns. Independent investigation of reality is emphasised in the Baha'i writings:

…every individual member of humankind is exhorted and commanded to set aside superstitious beliefs, traditions and blind imitation of ancestral forms in religion and investigate reality for himself. Inasmuch as the fundamental reality is one, all religions and nations of the world will become one through investigation of reality. – Abdu’l-Baha

Baha’u’llah continually urges man to free himself from the superstitions and traditions of the past and become an investigator of reality, for it will then be seen that God has revealed his light many times in order to illumine mankind in the path of evolution, in various countries and through many different prophets, masters and sages. – Abdu’l-Baha

Of the Holy Bible, Abdu'l-Baha had this to say:

THIS book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is the Bible of Salvation, the Noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God.

Bahá'í Reference Library - ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in London, Pages 17-18

 

[loverofhumanity]

One problem with "all" religions and prophets/manifestations being equal is that it sure seems like some (if not all) religions are based on myth, and some religions being all together man-made fantasy. Do you believe in ancient Greek, Norse, Egyptian religions and their prophets and teachings? Even of the "major" religions, do you believe some of the things are "myth"? By just taking Judaism... Do you believe in the Creation story and the flood? Or is it myth?

Then you say the "Christian myth"? What is that? It is based on "bias"? So in your opinion, what did the gospel writers believe about Jesus? If the "truth" was something else, why did they write what they did if they knew it would be misinterpreted?

Jesus summed it all up when He said that there were many things He wanted to explain to His disciples but they had not the capacity to understand it then however in the future people would and He would send Someone to explain all truth.

That we believe is Baha'u'llah Who has come to separate myth from reality, truth from falsehood. Consult His Writings and you can be sure as to what is correct and what is simply fantasy.

To answer briefly. The creation and flood stories were symbolical not actual occurrences as well as the crossing of the Red Sea to throw in another one.

Any religion that doesnt teach only one God is not religion as the Prophets teach. The sacraments and rituals of all religions were never inaugurated by God but came about by man.

By the Christian myth I mean that they worship the personality of Jesus like an idol instead of the truth within Him. Instead of worshipping the light they worship the lamp so when God sent another Manifestation they rejected Him because of His outward difference to Jesus.

The myth is that Jesus is the only way exclusively, when many other Manifestations said the same before Him so it's like the sun saying I'm the only sun in the sky which is correct but then if it said I am the sun of Monday or the sun of Tuesday it would also be correct, so Buddha, Krishna, Muhammad and all the prophets were the different Days but the SAME sun shining.

 

[pearl]

By the Christian myth I mean that they worship the personality of Jesus like an idol instead of the truth within Him. Instead of worshipping the light they worship the lamp so when God sent another Manifestation they rejected Him because of His outward difference to Jesus.

I think it is more accurate to state that Christians venerate Jesus and that together, with him, Christians worship the one God, there is no Jesus worship in place of God.

We know the creation story is myth, anything before Exodus is considered pre-history. As for the crossing of the Red Sea, is it myth or embellishment, was it the Red Sea, the Sea of Reeds, a Wadi or lake?

I think the core belief of Christianity rests on what it believes that God did for Jesus, that he raised him from death to life.

However, one could easily get the impression that Jesus has become the One God from the gospel of John, unfortunately where the 'popular' image of Jesus is from. But I think we need to consider the circumstances of that particular community, they had been excommunicated from the Temple and cursed as heretics.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think it is more accurate to state that Christians venerate Jesus and that together, with him, Christians worship the one God, there is no Jesus worship in place of God.

We know the creation story is myth, anything before Exodus is considered pre-history. As for the crossing of the Red Sea, is it myth or embellishment, was it the Red Sea, the Sea of Reeds, a Wadi or lake?

I think the core belief of Christianity rests on what it believes that God did for Jesus, that he raised him from death to life.

However, one could easily get the impression that Jesus has become the One God from the gospel of John, unfortunately where the 'popular' image of Jesus is from. But I think we need to consider the circumstances of that particular community, they had been excommunicated from the Temple and cursed as heretics.

There are many veils that veil Christians from the truth. Worshipping Jesus is only one. Another veil is that they worship their priests and clergy and whatever they say and yet another veil preventing them from beholding the truth is ego, that they consider their beliefs superior to all others and lastly is literal interpretation of the Bible.

For example Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad, Zoroaster and other Prophets were Christ's equal in every way yet many Christians denounce these Prophets as either from Satan or as false Prophets despite their names nowhere recorded by name in the Bible as false.

Christ came to promote love and brotherhood not superiority and exclusiveness.

 

[pearl]

I think it is possible to remain faithful to one's religious belief while respecting the validity one holds for differing religious belief, without trying to invalidate the other. That is unnecessary and sheds light on neither. I also think it is a mistake for anyone to think they know more about another's religion than the followers of that religion.

God is prayed to, and worshiped in the name of Jesus. Priests and clergy are not worshiped, they are simply living a life of they have chosen, just as a teacher, nurse, doctor, plumber, etc.
I agree with you concerning the literalist interpretation. To get beyond that requires effort and much study and an open mind.

For example Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad, Zoroaster and other Prophets were Christ's equal in every way yet many Christians denounce these Prophets as either from Satan or as false Prophets despite their names nowhere recorded by name in the Bible as false.

Where would they be found in the Bible? As some people denounce Christianity, it easy to denounce something one is not familiar with.

Christ came to promote love and brotherhood not superiority and exclusiveness.

Exactly, something easily forgotten. Many things are done in the name of Christ, which he never intended.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think it is possible to remain faithful to one's religious belief while respecting the validity one holds for differing religious belief, without trying to invalidate the other. That is unnecessary and sheds light on neither. I also think it is a mistake for anyone to think they know more about another's religion than the followers of that religion.

God is prayed to, and worshiped in the name of Jesus. Priests and clergy are not worshiped, they are simply living a life of they have chosen, just as a teacher, nurse, doctor, plumber, etc.
I agree with you concerning the literalist interpretation. To get beyond that requires effort and much study and an open mind.



Where would they be found in the Bible? As some people denounce Christianity, it easy to denounce something one is not familiar with.



Exactly, something easily forgotten. Many things are done in the name of Christ, which he never intended.

We are on the same page on many things. I believe truth is not in only one religion but that God progressively sent Teachers to us. That is why historically you will find they came at separate intervals from each other usually when the previous religion was in decline.

i think we should all get to know each other's religion and even accept each other's Prophet and Holy Book.

For example. I accept the Buddha and His Teachings. But not the interpretations of Buddhists or monks or follow the man made doctrines. With Muhammad, I accept Him as a Prophet sent by God and the Holy Quran as the Word of God but not the guidance or interpretations of Mullas. Can you see where I'm coming from?

We can accept each other's Prophet, Teacher easily as they all taught truth and discard the man made dogma which is taught by the leaders, priests and monks and was never part of the original Message.

We can be united easily if we discard the man made dogma and only accept the original Message of each Teacher which was love, peace, harmony, unity justice and truth and the like.

 

[pearl]

We can be united easily if we discard the man made dogma and only accept the original Message of each Teacher which was love, peace, harmony, unity justice and truth and the like.

But isn't the core message framed by dogma and handed down through the generations? A dogma is a statement of a peoples belief system. It becomes problematic when one peoples dogma is understood as absolute among others. For a dogma to remain true it must be open to development as to the 'sign of the times'.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But isn't the core message framed by dogma and handed down through the generations? A dogma is a statement of a peoples belief system. It becomes problematic when one peoples dogma is understood as absolute among others. For a dogma to remain true it must be open to development as to the 'sign of the times'.

Your right. Dogma becomes or has become infallible truth and so no room has been left for development of understanding. People are entrenched in their dogmas so they cannot be open to possibilities they may have got it wrong or it may be understood in a different way.

This is blocking the path to unity and peace.

For instance Muslims say that Muhammad is the last Prophet. But it doesn't say in the Quran He is the last Prophet forever. He could be the last Prophet of the Adamic Cycle. Or the last Prophet before the Fulfilment which would of course be another Messenger. So by clinging to only one dogmatic understanding they have been killing Bahá'í's for over 170 years because we believe other Prophets came namely the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

If we could just be not so rigid about dogma then we could find a path to peace and we will eventually as our minds start to learn to use reason more, but traditions and dogmas are entrenched and die hard.

Thanks for your insight into this problem and I enjoy your comments. Keep well.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

To accept that Christianity is the only way to a God-ordained "salvation" must be seen -- in the reality in which we live -- as a colossal failure by God Himself. For God to be omniscient, to wish for salvation for all, and to fail to get the same message to all can only be understood as a contradiction -- and therefore totally human and having nothing to do with God at all.

 

[pearl]

To accept that Christianity is the only way to a God-ordained "salvation"

Not all Christians believe this.

 

[loverofhumanity]

To accept that Christianity is the only way to a God-ordained "salvation" must be seen -- in the reality in which we live -- as a colossal failure by God Himself. For God to be omniscient, to wish for salvation for all, and to fail to get the same message to all can only be understood as a contradiction -- and therefore totally human and having nothing to do with God at all.

To me personally the Message of Christ was perfect. It simply said to love one another amongst other beautiful humanitarian teachings.

The problem to me lies with people not adhering to these beautiful teachings and allowing themselves to be corrupted.

 

[Muffled]

All the Prophets are the first and last, the beginning and the end. If you study all the Holy Books you will find they all said similar things. Krishna even said He was the first, last and Middle thousands of years before Christ or the Gospels appeared.

We are dealing with pure semantics here.

The reality is there is only one sun in the sky. Regardless of how many names we give the days of the week there is still only one sun.

Only one God I fully agree. But Christ was not greater than the other Prophets. That is a Christian myth based on bias not the gospels but on personal egotistical desires for supremacy and superiority promoted by the clergy so Christians would be blinded to the truth of other religions, become prejudiced towards them and not join them.

All religions are antagonistic because the clergy have taught them 'they are the only truth' and completely whitewashing the truth in all the other Faiths.

I believe Krishna was a false prophet because he did not always speak the truth.

I believe the Sun is the most relevant star in our sky but certainly not the only one.

I believe God qualifies as greater than His prophets.

I believe that is fantasy on your part. Protestants go by the Bible which stands as the truth of God about the matter.

I believe it is a natural tendency but not all clergy teach that and not all religious people believe it. I was never taught it and do not believe it now. However before Jesus turned me around I thought being Baptist was the only worthwhile thing to be. I wasn't taught that but I think it was natural like rooting for the home team.