Two approaches towards reforming Islam: the Bahai Faith and Ahmadiyya Islam.

[Vinayaka]

Ultimately, it is all a matter of deciding who to trust, to which extent, and optionally why.

In real life, how do we learn to trust others? I would say it is by their repeated trustworthy behaviour ... like if they promise to do something, they do it. That sort of thing. Trusting some historical figure that may or may not have existed, may or may not have been a reliable person, may or may not have spoken wisdom, now that's another matter entirely.

In most living traditions of SD, the teacher is alive today, and is the 'go to' source.

 

[Aupmanyav]

One can sincerely believe that there is divine endorsement or direct manifestation in some person or source, certainly.

Yes, people do sincerely believe (Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahais, Ahmadiyyas and others), but why should they believe in absence of evidence? That gives rise to dangerous cults.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, people do sincerely believe (Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahais, Ahmadiyyas and others), but why should they believe in absence of evidence? That gives rise to dangerous cults.

It seems to me that it is a matter of how sane one's expectations and degree of entitlement are.

We all should be honest about what inspires and motivates us - but it is necessary to respect other people's right to feel differently. We should not expect others to pay the burden of our beliefs.

 

[LuisDantas]

In real life, how do we learn to trust others? I would say it is by their repeated trustworthy behaviour ... like if they promise to do something, they do it. That sort of thing. Trusting some historical figure that may or may not have existed, may or may not have been a reliable person, may or may not have spoken wisdom, now that's another matter entirely.

In most living traditions of SD, the teacher is alive today, and is the 'go to' source.

That is why I have little patience for scripture obsession. Text is just text.

That said, it seems to me that people can and should judge the wisdom of the teachings they receive. I would hesitate to say that anyone is truly religious if they refuse to.

 

[Vinayaka]

That is why I have little patience for scripture obsession. Text is just text.

That said, it seems to me that people can and should judge the wisdom of the teachings they receive. I would hesitate to say that anyone is truly religious if they refuse to.

I've often pondered just how many people attend religious services for reasons other than belief. I can sure see many other reasons. One obvious example is loneliness. If you're alone, single, shy, widowed, etc., and not in a job where you work with people a lot, church probably suits you. My dear MIL was like that. She openly admitted to being a non-believer, yet she was the treasurer of her local moderate Christian church for many years. One of my brothers goes just to please his wife, and one daughter.
The Hindu temple I go to gets a lot of people for camaraderie, for food, and the chance to feel less nervous, a chance to use Tamil or other Indian language for a change, besides English. So it's just comfort more than belief. Of course there also people like me who go for belief alone.
Younger children go because it's what their parents do, not belief.
Maybe I'll start a new thread.

 

[Jim]

But what makes a practical difference is the trust.

Exactly.

 

[Jim]

I didn't write that question!!

Sorry! I’ve corrected it now.

 

[Jim]

@Jim , when you say that the Bahai Faith (and, I assume Christianity) aren't monotheistic, are you saying that they are monolatric instead? That they acknowledge the existence of several or many gods, but only approve of the worship of a single, specific one which they see as supreme above all?

No. I mean that the point of the scripture passages saying that there there are no other gods besides G_d, is not about how many of Him there are. He has no number. He is not one god, or three, or many, or even none. Those passages are not about G_d. They are about idolatry.

 

[Marcion]

One could probably argue that the divine-originated doctrine is more reliable and even eternally inerrant, I suppose. But since there is always a need to interpret and implement a doctrine and there will be no living avatar of God doing so for us all the time, that does not have much in the way of actual practical consequence.

Ultimately, it is all a matter of deciding who to trust, to which extent, and optionally why. One can sincerely believe that there is divine endorsement or direct manifestation in some person or source, certainly. But what makes a practical difference is the trust.

My guru gave a list of requirements of such a divine "manifestation". I don't have them at hand, but they are a very impressive set of requirements.
Of course people or founders from other traditions will possibly have their own sets of requirements.

 

[Jim]

In real life, how do we learn to trust others? I would say it is by their repeated trustworthy behaviour ... like if they promise to do something, they do it. That sort of thing. Trusting some historical figure that may or may not have existed, may or may not have been a reliable person, may or may not have spoken wisdom, now that's another matter entirely.

In most living traditions of SD, the teacher is alive today, and is the 'go to' source.

What about trusting a continually evolving imaginary person of your own design? Which is actually what every living person is.

 

[Vinayaka]

What about trusting a continually evolving imaginary person of your own design? Which is actually what every living person is.

I don't understand.

 

[Jim]

I don't understand.

The person that I’ve learned from experience to trust is the character in Baha’i lore and scriptures called “Bahá’u’lláh.” How much of that is fictional or mistranslated is irrelevant for my purposes. I have some theories about how that works, but that too is irrelevant. What matters is that it works.

 

[Vinayaka]

The person that I’ve learned from experience to trust is the character in Baha’i lore and scriptures called “Bahá’u’lláh.” How much of that is fictional or mistranslated is irrelevant for my purposes. I have some theories about how that works, but that too is irrelevant. What matters is that it works.

What exactly do you mean by 'it works'? What works, and how does it work? Does 'it' provide a particular function or service for you? What does 'it' do?

 

[Jim]

What exactly do you mean by 'it works'? What works, and how does it work? Does 'it' provide a particular function or service for you? What does 'it' do?

Learning to follow Bahá’u’lláh. I like what it does for me, and what I think it does for the world. If you have a friendly interest in what I’m saying, I’ll try to think of some examples, and some ideas about how it works.

 

[Vinayaka]

Learning to follow Bahá’u’lláh. I like what it does for me, and what I think it does for the world. If you have a friendly interest in what I’m saying, I’ll try to think of some examples, and some ideas about how it works.

Yes, I'd like examples. For example, my faith has practical methods to make life better, like calming techniques, methods to rid the mind of dross, arguments for not arguing, and a definite tangible mystic energy that just feels good. The practice is uplifting and incredibly practical.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Those passages are not about G_d. They are about Idolatry.

So many find the idea of a God comfortable though there is no evidence. If idolatry is comforting to some, why deny it to them?
Yeah, design your own God if you want to. It is completely within your rights.

 

[Marcion]

That is why I have little patience for scripture obsession. Text is just text.

Unless, like in tantra, most of the text talks about practice and supports effective practices.
Of course the text can never be more important than the practice itself and if it has no use in practice it is in fact quite useless spiritually.
Reading spiritual texts without putting the guidance into practice is indeed a waste of time.

 

[Jim]

Yes, I'd like examples. For example, my faith has practical methods to make life better, like calming techniques, methods to rid the mind of dross, arguments for not arguing, and a definite tangible mystic energy that just feels good. The practice is uplifting and incredibly practical.

Learning to follow Bahá’u’lláh gives me encouragement and support in learning to be the kind of person I want to be. It has always guided me faithfully through the maze of conflicting and ever-shifting ideas and interests in the society around me. It helps me value and appreciate people and what they’re doing, and learn from them, across the widest ideological divides. It transports to me to a wonderful magical world of never-ending delightful discoveries, whenever I want to go there.

What I think it’s doing for the world is helping to build the foundations of a worldwide civilization shining with peace, justice and prosperity; and at the same time helping to reduce and counteract the damage from natural disasters including the ones arising from human nature.

ETA:

“Harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding ... mystic crystal revelation, and the mind’s true liberation ...”

 

[Aupmanyav]

What I think it’s doing for the world is helping to build the foundations of a worldwide civilization shining with peace, justice and prosperity; and at the same time helping to reduce and counteract the damage from natural disasters including the ones arising from human nature.

I do not think they are doing anything of that sort. They are just another monotheist bunch seeking numbers which they don't have at the moment. I think they are even paying people to enhance their presence on internet. Well, that is my view and other people may have different views. I have no problem with that. But as they say in India 'Satyameva jayati, nanritam' (Truth alone wins, not falsehood).

"Satyameva jayate nānritaṃ, satyena panthā vitato devayānaḥ;
yenākramantirishyayo hyāptakāmā, yatra tat satyasya paramaṃ nidhānam."

(Truth alone triumphs; not falsehood, through truth the divine path is spread out;
by which the sages whose desires have been completely fulfilled, reach to where is that supreme treasure of Truth)
Satyameva Jayate - Wikipedia

 

[oldbadger]

The person that I’ve learned from experience to trust is the character in Baha’i lore and scriptures called “Bahá’u’lláh.” How much of that is fictional or mistranslated is irrelevant for my purposes. I have some theories about how that works, but that too is irrelevant. What matters is that it works.

I have enjoyed some of Bahauallah's writings, but when he writes that his Houses of Justice will be correct, even they decide that 'Up is down' (or was it 'left is right'?) then I project my imagination into some future Bahai World where the most dreadful decisions are made and all perceived as 'Holy'.

Living in any theocracy would scare me to hell, but most tghat I know of are 'straight' in as much as the law is fixed in verse or writings.

Bahai is a variable, twisting, turning World of up-is-down and Orwellian Double-Think ........ not a bad scenario for a Stephen King movie.

It's the only religion I know which I perceive to be historically, evangelically, legislatively, politically where every straight is in fact a twist. I can show this, but previous threads already did.

How are these Great Beings explained?