-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
-
- Tags
- baha'i faith islam muhammad prophet
I think the west and particularly Europe has pretty much had enough of religion and especially the abrahmics.
So how did the council go from the gospels and teachings of the apostles to the trinity and Divinity of Christ?
Do you think that all of the prophets recognized by Christianity did this?
stvdv
Veteran Member
Hinduism: "God is bigger than the biggest and smaller than the smallest"
I understand we should limit the definition. I was not thinking of going for the FULL definition.
How about just this one: "Love" is an attribute of God [or "Truth", "Righteousnous", "Peace", "Non-Violence"]
Would there be anyone objecting to all of these [1 would be enough to be able to debate]
If people can not find 1 common ground for their different religions, I would be very disappointed
I might even be inclined to declare "God does not exist, if He did not manage 1 common ground"
Or would the reason be "Fear", "Arrogance" not to want to create a definition of "God"
If that be the case, would it not be making sense "Not to talk about God in the first place"
Or put it differently: If there is no common ground, maybe God wants us "NOT to talk about God", just put in practice the right values
Last edited:
stvdv
Veteran Member
That is very clear. If people are not open to find "common ground" then case closed. For me no need to talk about God then. Kind of non-sense.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Maybe tell that to those religions that proselytise
Aha, now it makes sense. Proselytize ... yes I am kind of allergic to those people also. Slowly deciding to never talk to them anymore
Not easy, because there are quite a bunch of them though.
For me "Humanism" would do as an attribute for GOD. Or "Common Sense" would be fine also.
But you might be right, the ones who are into proselytizing might be not willing to accept anything.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I have no doubt, whatsoever, that Muhammad believed he was chosen by God to recite His message, though it is a bit weird that such an august personality would need an intermediary to begin with. That said, I simply do not put Muhammad in the same class as Krsna, Buddha or the Christ. It's sorta like comparing a Volvo to a Lamborghini.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Even Krishna is like a Lamborghini if compared to Buddha or Jesus, from what I know.
Krishna being born as poorna avatar. Buddha/Jesus slowly moving into enlightenment.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Krsna is far and away my favorite avatar.
Buddha and Jesus are very cool too, but Muhammad just isn't in the same league.
Jedster
Flying through space
DittoKrsna is far and away my favorite avatar.
When I had a Guru, who was believed by his devotees to be THE incarnation of the present age, he was asked what his favourite past incarnation(of himself) is to which he answered " Krsna, because in that time all the devotees loved each other with the same love that they loved him".
Judging by how often we get threads pushing the Baha'i faith, I'd say it sure seems like it's a religion that proselytizes.Maybe tell that to those religions that proselytise
What do you think, @adrian009 ?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Likewise, they are often proselyting on behalf of Islam, which is just - weird...
To a degree.
Islaam, after all, imposes on itself the duty to both denounce Judaism and Christianity as corrupted doctrines and proclaim their original validity as genuine revelations from the God of Abraham.
It is an exquisitely self-contradictory stance, which has the practical advantage (so to speak) of keeping Muslims well distracted by what is ultimately an unsolvable dilemma and assures that no matter how a Muslim feels towards the earlier Abrahamic doctrines there will be solid ground to present his or her stance as true-to-Qur'an.
While more than a bit hypocritical, that situation allows them to switch hats at a moment's notice and to enjoy a wide variety of sentiments under the certainty that they are validated by God. In that sense it is confortable, albeit in a very unhealthy way.
Duty, pity, despisal, anger, pride, sadness, arrogance, you name it; almost the entire motivation of the emotional spectrum can be made to fit sort-of-properly in the attitude of Muslims towards Judaism and Christianity, with specific verses of the Qur'an readily available to sustain those attitudes. That usually spares Muslims from the stress of actually attempting to agree to some significant degree on how to feel about those faiths.
The Bahai Faith largely inherits that stance and attempts to widen it in order to deal with non-Abrahamic faiths as well. The results are decisively mixed and very interesting, but overall it is a definite step of progress from the religious stagnation that Islaam imposes on itself.
Still, the Bahais are very much direct inheritors of (Shia) Islaam, and they can't very well afford (yet?) to admit outright that Islaam is seriously misguided. That is why they are so ferociously Abrahamic and monotheistic, and why they put so much effort at preserving the public image of Islaam even as they do a herculean (and largely succesful) effort at healing from the worse of their own Muslim legacy.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Just to be clear, any information provided here comes from Jewish source texts not limited to the Tanach.
I don't see any Jewish sources claiming that Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Amram or Kehath were considered priests. I actually spent some time today discussing this with my Rabbi, because there are a number of sources that directly or indirectly touch on this subject that I needed ironed out. In a nutshell, it seems like the original job description of a priest was to consecrate himself to studying and disseminating G-d's Will. There are Jewish sources that have Shem, Abraham and the tribe of Levi doing this exclusively. This is also seen in a number of verses throughout the Tanach such as Lev. 10:11 and as you mentioned Eze. 44:23-24. This changed when the service that originally was meant to be performed by the firstborn of every family, was transferred to the tribe of Levi in Num. 3 as punishment for the Golden Calf, and split among the various Levite families. So from then on, Temple service become inextricably tied to the priesthood.
The first one is actually talking about requirements that the priests themselves have with regard to purity and impurity that comes up in their Temple service. They have a number of additional requirements in that regard above what the nation as a whole has. The second one though, is about the priests teaching the nation purity Laws, although there also, purity Laws mostly relate to Temple service.
This was discussed in a different response.
Well, I don't know what Christians would answer, but it seems to me that Christians don't recognize any messengers of G-d after the arrival of their Messiah, except as needed to convert Christians from their surroundings.Since not everyone is a Christian, they'll still need someone to spread the message to others and I guess those message spreaders would be called messengers. Although this isn't congruent with Judaism, Christianity believes itself to supersede Judaism doesn't accept any other Jewish texts besides the Tanach which they ret-con to conform to their beliefs (for instance Jer. 31:33 you quoted above which in it's literal translation doesn't say what Christians translations claim it does). Similarly, Islam believes itself to supersede Christianity and ret-cons their beliefs into Christianity (and Judaism) by claiming earlier texts were corrupted, which like Christianity's claim is un-falsifiable since there are no existing texts from the time of the relevant personality. Baha'i is only following on in this religious tradition of supersession and ret-conning earlier religions, although as you noted, their method does generally mean they have to ignore specific beliefs in favor of generalizations that have difficulty appearing similar in any but the most superficial ways.
I believe there is a great difference between a religion that adds something to another one (constructive), and a religion that demolishes the previous one (destructive).
The first wants to coexist. The second wants to replace.
That's what I mean by replacing.
Last edited:
Tumah
Veteran Member
I think it is very rare to find a religion that adds something to a previous religion without detracting anything from that previous religion. In theory, it might be possible, but I don't think such a thing exists. Maybe in some of the more liberal denominations that don't really go for the dogma. Or maybe something like a Buddhism/Shinto mix.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Maybe tell that to those religions that proselytise
I think I understand why they do it and why doing it on behalf of Islam
@adrian009: do you recognize this in Bahai's? And you know why it happens?
Yes it does and promotes Islam that for many Muslims regard as kuffar, a bit like the ahmadiyyas so it's a bit odd Imo.