What if we accepted each others Religion?

[Vinayaka]

True. For practical reasons it’s impossible to list all the religions. There is truth everywhere. In science, in humanism in man made organisations which do a wonderful service to help people all over the world.

But Baha’is believe there is actually only one religion progressively revealed throughout the ages to meet the needs of each age. “This is the changeless faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future.” (Baha’u’llah)

To be recognised as a major religion or a part of ‘progressively revealed’ religion, Baha’is believe it must be inaugurated by a Manifestation of God.

In about the last 7,000 years of known history we believe that God progressively revealed His religion through certain Manifestations. The Ones we believe revealed His religion are Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab, Baha’u’llah and after about a thousand years another Manifestation will appear.

Each Manifestation gave laws and teachings for the people and age in which He appeared and covenanted with His followers that He would send them another Teacher in due time. So ideally Hindus would have accepted Buddhism, Jews - Christianity and Christians -Islam and there would only have been one religion. But because we have free will we are free to reject the subsequent Manifestation and most did leaving humanity fragmented and disunited.

As with Hinduism. I don’t know why but it’s also a definition used by the wider community which is misleading I agree and I at first didn’t realise that there were so many sects. Aren’t Vausnavism believers Hindu too? So are you saying the term ‘Hindu’ should not be used at all? The term is used online everywhere. When is it ever ok then to use the term ‘Hindu’.?

To understand this, would it be okay for us to use the new term 'Jerusalamism' or the more general 'Abrahamic' instead of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and the many other faiths under that umbrella?

We do use 'Abrahamic, and 'Dharmic' on these forums. With Hinduism, my objection is more as how it all got decided. Historically, the encyclopedias, textbooks, etc. almost always had Abrahamic authors, and that's why it happened. This has also caused a whole lot of other troubles within belief discussions, as words like 'God', 'religion' 'moral' and more, had Abrahamic origins. Language is largely an expression of a paradigm, and this creates a tremendous bias in terms of understanding the various paradigms on the planet. It would be like talking Australian slang, or Canadian slang, and using it outside of our own countries. Even in my closest neighbors, (US) I've gotten questioning looks from friends when I used a uniquely Canadian idiom.

 

[JustGeorge]

True. For practical reasons it’s impossible to list all the religions. There is truth everywhere. In science, in humanism in man made organisations which do a wonderful service to help people all over the world.

But Baha’is believe there is actually only one religion progressively revealed throughout the ages to meet the needs of each age. “This is the changeless faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future.” (Baha’u’llah)

To be recognised as a major religion or a part of ‘progressively revealed’ religion, Baha’is believe it must be inaugurated by a Manifestation of God.

In about the last 7,000 years of known history we believe that God progressively revealed His religion through certain Manifestations. The Ones we believe revealed His religion are Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab, Baha’u’llah and after about a thousand years another Manifestation will appear.

Would it be safe to say, then, that the Baha'is include only religions that honor any of those afore mentioned figures?

Each Manifestation gave laws and teachings for the people and age in which He appeared and covenanted with His followers that He would send them another Teacher in due time. So ideally Hindus would have accepted Buddhism, Jews - Christianity and Christians -Islam and there would only have been one religion. But because we have free will we are free to reject the subsequent Manifestation and most did leaving humanity fragmented and disunited.

As with Hinduism. I don’t know why but it’s also a definition used by the wider community which is misleading I agree and I at first didn’t realise that there were so many sects. Aren’t Vausnavism believers Hindu too? So are you saying the term ‘Hindu’ should not be used at all? The term is used online everywhere. When is it ever ok then to use the term ‘Hindu’.?

Vaishnaivas are Hindu in the same sense that Christians are Abrahamic. 'Hindu' and 'Abrahamic' are both very general umbrella terms.

The way the situation is currently treated would be similar to if the Baha'is acknowledged Muslims only from the Abrahamic faiths, and got quiet when questioned about Jews or Christians, shrugging and saying "close enough".

Putting forth the idea that all people falling under the Hindu umbrella are waiting on Kalki is simply inaccurate. Many branches don't(more don't than do) believe in this idea at all.

 

[CG Didymus]

But how can an interpreter interpret if there is nothing to interpret?

There was the Vedas and the Upanishads and the Mahabharata and so many more. Within the Mahabharata is the Bhagava'd Gita that has the story of Krisha and Arjuna. Somewhere in all these Hindu Scriptures Kalki is mentioned.

I can't figure out what's what. Who wrote what. And when it was written. Which sect believed this, and which sect believed that.

Yet... Baha'is know exactly what happened. Krishna is a manifestation of God, not an incarnation of one of the Gods. He did not teach reincarnation. Reincarnation is a misinterpretation of what he said. But he did say he would return as the Kalki Avatar. How do they know? How much did Abdul Baha' say about all this? And, most importantly, which writings of his father is he interpreting to come to his conclusions? And, if it's only based on what his father told him and had never written down, why didn't Abdul Baha' say so? But then why didn't his father write it down?

For me, it is still too easily something that Abdul Baha' added in himself. Some religions, like Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism and Shintoism could be ignored or listed as sects of another religion, or not even religions at all... but just philosophical beliefs.

He had to deal with the larger religions like Hinduism and Buddhism. Like we've talked about before... to get Hinduism into the Baha'i progression of religions, there needed to be a manifestation/messenger, someone who could be a founder of the religion. Krishna was his guy. But Krishna is not "the guy". There were many people, many Avatars, many sages, many writings, many traditions that had many Gods.

But, for me, it all comes down to... can what the Baha'is say is true, really true? If they are making things up as they go with some things, how can they be trusted with what they say is true about other things? I trusted them fifty years ago, and I trusted born-again Christians after that. I tried to believe... but I couldn't. I need answers. Answers to deeper questions. Simplistic answers aren't good enough. Answers like, "We just have to take it on faith" Or, "The Bible says it." Or "That's what Baha'u'llah said." As if that makes whatever is said the absolute truth.

I can see why the Baha'i Faith is believable for some people. With peace and unity as their goal, how can that be bad? But I still think that the real goal is to convince the world that the Baha'i Faith is the only, real true religion. They believe they are the only religion that has the laws teachings that can unite all people and all religions into one big happy family. If I'm going to jump on board, I want to make darn sure what they say is true. Right now, it don't seem like it.

 

[Vinayaka]

There was the Vedas and the Upanishads and the Mahabharata and so many more. Within the Mahabharata is the Bhagava'd Gita that has the story of Krisha and Arjuna. Somewhere in all these Hindu Scriptures Kalki is mentioned.

I can't figure out what's what. Who wrote what. And when it was written. Which sect believed this, and which sect believed that.

Yet... Baha'is know exactly what happened. Krishna is a manifestation of God, not an incarnation of one of the Gods. He did not teach reincarnation. Reincarnation is a misinterpretation of what he said. But he did say he would return as the Kalki Avatar. How do they know? How much did Abdul Baha' say about all this? And, most importantly, which writings of his father is he interpreting to come to his conclusions? And, if it's only based on what his father told him and had never written down, why didn't Abdul Baha' say so? But then why didn't his father write it down?

For me, it is still too easily something that Abdul Baha' added in himself. Some religions, like Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism and Shintoism could be ignored or listed as sects of another religion, or not even religions at all... but just philosophical beliefs.

He had to deal with the larger religions like Hinduism and Buddhism. Like we've talked about before... to get Hinduism into the Baha'i progression of religions, there needed to be a manifestation/messenger, someone who could be a founder of the religion. Krishna was his guy. But Krishna is not "the guy". There were many people, many Avatars, many sages, many writings, many traditions that had many Gods.

But, for me, it all comes down to... can what the Baha'is say is true, really true? If they are making things up as they go with some things, how can they be trusted with what they say is true about other things? I trusted them fifty years ago, and I trusted born-again Christians after that. I tried to believe... but I couldn't. I need answers. Answers to deeper questions. Simplistic answers aren't good enough. Answers like, "We just have to take it on faith" Or, "The Bible says it." Or "That's what Baha'u'llah said." As if that makes whatever is said the absolute truth.

I can see why the Baha'i Faith is believable for some people. With peace and unity as their goal, how can that be bad? But I still think that the real goal is to convince the world that the Baha'i Faith is the only, real true religion. They believe they are the only religion that has the laws teachings that can unite all people and all religions into one big happy family. If I'm going to jump on board, I want to make darn sure what they say is true. Right now, it don't seem like it.

From the Atharva Veda: "Let us have concord with our own people and concord with people who are strangers to us. Asvins, create between us and the strangers a unity of hearts. May we unite in our midst, unite in our purposes, and not fight against the divine spirit within us."

This is very old stuff, and certainly wasn't something Krishna said. But it captures the spirit of Hinduism.

 

[Link]

Here is a list of things that Muslims were "duped by their scholars" per Bahai Faith:

(1) Angels as real entities that are not human.
(2) Jinn as real entities that are not human.
(3) Heaven/Paradise being a real reward for the life of this world (they say it's metaphor for faith in this world)
(4) Hell being a real punishment (metaphor for reality of disbelief is their claim)
(5) Resurrection day being a real thing (they say it's metaphor of Baha'allah)
(6) Messengers performing real miracles (they say they are metaphors)
(7) Final of Prophets is hyperbola and expression to mean Mohammad (s) is one with that final Nabi same way he it's as if he is Adam (a).
(8) The Quran is divided into unclear and clear verses, and over all is not a clear book but in need of interpretation by a Prophet (so how did it guide anyone before Baha'allah if the majority of hadiths don't contain his interpretation either but the opposite)

Maybe, the scholars are just more down to earth and following clear, while Bah'allah is far fetch and his interpretation way out there?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have also yet to see a Baha'i explain why they use the term "Hindu"

"Hinduism is relatively new, having been coined by British writers in the first decades of the 19th century, it refers to a rich cumulative tradition of texts and practices, some of which date to the 2nd millennium BCE or possibly earlier."

Thus, I personally use it in that context.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

The Buddha was just a human being. The three marks of existence, specifically anatta and anicca, are irreconcilable with the Bahai view of Buddhism. Falls at the first hurdle.

That is how the Buddha and Buddhism is viewed by many Buddhists from a Western background but not necessarily the view by many Buddhists from countries where Buddhism has been present for centuries. Will you take the same approach with Buddhists from Japan, Tibet and Nepal and insist on dismissing their beliefs as you have with the Baha'is? Which of the authentic texts that can be reasonably attributed to what Buddha actually taught will you use to prove your assertions?

Eihei Dogen, founder of Soto Zen, philosopher and poet - born in 1200 and died in 1253. Does he get mentioned in Bahai texts? Was he a messenger of a god? Or was he wrong? Or irrelevant? Or ignored? Or not heard of?

The absence of any mention of a particular figure in Baha'i texts does not rule in or out any of these. Many other Manifestations of God along with a constellation of other great spiritual teachers have existed yet are not mentioned in the Baha'i writings.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Here is a list of things that Muslims were "duped by their scholars" per Bahai Faith:

(1) Angels as real entities that are not human.
(2) Jinn as real entities that are not human.
(3) Heaven/Paradise being a real reward for the life of this world (they say it's metaphor for faith in this world)
(4) Hell being a real punishment (metaphor for reality of disbelief is their claim)
(5) Resurrection day being a real thing (they say it's metaphor of Baha'allah)
(6) Messengers performing real miracles (they say they are metaphors)
(7) Final of Prophets is hyperbola and expression to mean Mohammad (s) is one with that final Nabi same way he it's as if he is Adam (a).
(8) The Quran is divided into unclear and clear verses, and over all is not a clear book but in need of interpretation by a Prophet (so how did it guide anyone before Baha'allah if the majority of hadiths don't contain his interpretation either but the opposite)

Maybe, the scholars are just more down to earth and following clear, while Bah'allah is far fetch and his interpretation way out there?

I see your list does not reflect what Baha'u'llah offered and I the list is tainted by your negative perception of what Baha'u'llah offered.

I do not agree with your thoughts.

Regards Tony

 

[Link]

I see your list does not reflect what Baha'u'llah offered and I the list is tainted by your negative perception of what Baha'u'llah offered.

I do not agree with your thoughts.

Regards Tony

I'm going by what @InvestigateTruth has told me. If you wish to correct where he is wrong or I misunderstand from him, you are welcome to.

 

[Secret Chief]

Buddhists from Japan ... dismissing their beliefs

I do not dismiss the beliefs of other Buddhists, whether or not they are my path. FYI, my path originates from Japan (via China). What I dismiss, and seemingly others on this thread, are the twistings and misrepresentations of the Bahais.

I think I'm done here.

 

[Vinayaka]

"Hinduism is relatively new, having been coined by British writers in the first decades of the 19th century, it refers to a rich cumulative tradition of texts and practices, some of which date to the 2nd millennium BCE or possibly earlier."

Thus, I personally use it in that context.

Regards Tony

That's just the name. Sanatana Dharma is at least 6000 years old. Vaishnavism, the only part accepted by your faith, is much younger. But as you know, the non-Vaishnavas got it all wrong anyway, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Vinayaka]

The absence of any mention of a particular figure in Baha'i texts does not rule in or out any of these. Many other Manifestations of God along with a constellation of other great spiritual teachers have existed yet are not mentioned in the Baha'i writings.

See post 1100.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I do not dismiss the beliefs of other Buddhists, whether or not they are my path. FYI, my path originates from Japam (via China). What I dismiss, and seemingly others on this thread, are the twistings and misrepresentations of the Bahais.

I think I'm done here.

Sorry you feel that way. Out of interest, what branch of Japanese/Chinese Buddhism do you follow?

 

[Secret Chief]

Sorry you feel that way. Out of interest, what branch of Japanese/Chinese Buddhism do you follow?

Soto Zen / Caodong.

 

[JustGeorge]

"Hinduism is relatively new, having been coined by British writers in the first decades of the 19th century, it refers to a rich cumulative tradition of texts and practices, some of which date to the 2nd millennium BCE or possibly earlier."

Thus, I personally use it in that context.

Regards Tony

But the way its being used by the Baha'is(generally speaking) is incorrect.

Its okay to be incorrect, but when corrected, I'd think there'd be discussions about change.

When its implied "Hindus are waiting for Kalki" that would be as incorrect as saying "Christians revere Mohammed". There may be a few Hindus out there that believe in the Kalki story(I don't even think all Vaishnaivas follow it), and there might be a few universalist Christians who respect the stories of Islam, but they'd overall be a minority and we'd be doing adherents of a the larger faith a disservice by pretending they represented the whole.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That's just the name. Sanatana Dharma is at least 6000 years old. Vaishnavism, the only part accepted by your faith, is much younger. But as you know, the non-Vaishnavas got it all wrong anyway, so it doesn't matter.

I understand that Vinayaka. You are still using Hinduism, un fact, many times in this discussion.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm going by what @InvestigateTruth has told me. If you wish to correct where he is wrong or I misunderstand from him, you are welcome to.

The issue is, your summary does not explain the detailed explanations and reasoning behind the comments. So you summary is not telling the whole truth.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But the way its being used by the Baha'is(generally speaking) is incorrect.

Its okay to be incorrect, but when corrected, I'd think there'd be discussions about change.

When its implied "Hindus are waiting for Kalki" that would be as incorrect as saying "Christians revere Mohammed". There may be a few Hindus out there that believe in the Kalki story(I don't even think all Vaishnaivas follow it), and there might be a few universalist Christians who respect the stories of Islam, but they'd overall be a minority and we'd be doing adherents of a the larger faith a disservice by pretending they represented the whole.

Good explanation, I will consider that in the future.

Regards Tony

 

[Link]

The issue is, your summary does not explain the detailed explanations and reasoning behind the comments. So you summary is not telling the whole truth.

Regards Tony

Sure, I give that. But the details are even more embarrassing in my view for the Bahai Faith especially give how clear and how many verses clarify these subjects in the Quran.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Would it be safe to say, then, that the Baha'is include only religions that honor any of those afore mentioned figures?

Vaishnaivas are Hindu in the same sense that Christians are Abrahamic. 'Hindu' and 'Abrahamic' are both very general umbrella terms.

The way the situation is currently treated would be similar to if the Baha'is acknowledged Muslims only from the Abrahamic faiths, and got quiet when questioned about Jews or Christians, shrugging and saying "close enough".

Putting forth the idea that all people falling under the Hindu umbrella are waiting on Kalki is simply inaccurate. Many branches don't(more don't than do) believe in this idea at all.

Oh, let’s be serious….
How could the one true god, or the genuine messenger of that one true god, who was in fact the same messengers as before, possibly know that!
After all they were in fact the same messengers as before….just rebooted with a new message for the present age since the people of the previous ages couldn’t have possibly understood it and as result were only given an incomplete message…..
I mean, come on…let’s be serious!

Sorry, I just couldn’t keep a straight face on that one!