What if we accepted each others Religion?

[Link]

Punishable by death? My point is that although the Baha'is are being persecuted and there is no denying it, other groups have it far worse. LGBQT, atheists, the Rohingya, women in general, etc. But you're free to believe the Baha'i are the most persecuted people on the planet. Playing the victim card, is a huge competition, after all. Where exactly is this Baha'i refugee camp? It must be on the Iranian border somewhere.

The reality is the 10 countries that hold apostacy is punishable by death or atheism or whatever, it's stated in law, but not applied today. It's there in theory alone.

I think it should be allowed to leave your religion, but I'm just saying people do it and there are no consequences. In theory, the law would punish them but it's not applied.

 

[Vinayaka]

The reality is the 10 countries that hold apostacy is punishable by death or atheism or whatever, it's stated in law, but not applied today. It's there in theory alone.

I think it should be allowed to leave your religion, but I'm just saying people do it and there are no consequences. In theory, the law would punish them but it's not applied.

Yes, I know. But thanks anyway.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Perhaps, then, it would be helpful to drop those two from the list of previous manifestations, and that would stop the need for Buddhists and Hindus to correct the misconceptions. You've said before the Baha'u'llah says basically nothing about it. So just when did this expanded list start, and who started it?

If you're looking for the origins of a list of Manifestations of God within the Baha'i Faith, 'Abdu'l-Baha would be the clearest starting point. Baha'u'llah was asked about aspects of Hinduism at one point but I can't recall Krisha being mentioned as a Manifestation of God. Shoghi Effendi expanded on 'Abdu'l-Baha's list connecting the person of Baha’u’llah with the Kalki Avatar and Maitreya Buddha.

Therein lies the problem for Baha'is. What to do with this? It looks to me like the worst possible starting point for having a meaningful conversation with Buddhists and Hindus, building good relationships, strengthing communities, promoting unity or anything else Baha'is care about. To the contrary it looks like proselytizing and is bound to significantly aggravate some Hindus and Buddhists.

For those Baha'is, Hindus and Buddhists who want to debate one another about who is the Maitreya Buddha or Kalki Avatar, it is impossible to prove or disprove as best, or the cause of antipathy at worse.

 

[CG Didymus]

They each seem to challenge the beliefs of the previous religion and introduce new teachings.

The beliefs of the early Christians do challenge the beliefs of the Jews at the time. Part of those beliefs included being "saved". The belief was that people could not save themselves. They could never be good enough to pay the penalty for their sins. If a person wanted to gain eternal life and go to God's heavenly place, they had to accept the atoning death of Jesus on the cross. Without that, there was only one other place to go, hell.

And as you know some Christians believed that there was an "original" sin inherited from Adam. They also believed in Satan. Then, of course, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. All these beliefs were there early on in Christianity. When was there ever an earlier and more "original" type of Christian belief?

Yes, these beliefs did challenge Jewish beliefs, but were they correct? And then where Baha'is completely lose me is their support of the Christian belief in the "virgin" birth of Jesus. Talk about something that could easily by myth and superstition, yet Baha'is say it is true. As I've said several times now, it is based on one out of context verse in Isaiah. None of the other verses about this boy are used by Christians.

Add all these things up and why would a Jew believe them? Baha'is don't even believe most of them. Yes, new teachings were introduced. Some people accepted them, and some people rejected them. Christianity grew to be the largest religion in the world, but it was often times forced on people. Then came the reformation. One set of Christians not believing in the man-made beliefs and doctrines of the other, larger and dominant, group of Christians.

They went back and many of them tried to stay true to the only "original" teachings they had, the New Testament. But they still had a Satan and hell, the resurrection and ascension, and salvation through Jesus only, and most still kept the belief in the trinity. Those are still the same beliefs that Baha'is say are not true and were never true. Yet... that was what was "introduced" to the Jews and later to the world. A new religion with all sorts of wrong beliefs. Why should have people accepted this new religion and not rejected it?

If you want to reject all the myth and fictional stories about God and demons, heavens and hells... and get rid of all the wrong interpretation and man-made doctrines, then great. Only keep the things from each religion that teach about being selfless and doing good... the verses that say to love one another and to be kind. But do that to your religion too.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No Christian or Jew says this about the Quran.

All the Prophets I mean have been opposed. Did They not oppose Muhammad and Jesus?

 

[Secret Chief]

The religion is a historical artifact. So whether he existed, or not, the Baha'i have no standing in explaining what Buddhism is.

Correct.

 

[Secret Chief]

My point was that we have no way of knowing for certain about the origins of Buddhism. The reality that most who identify with Buddhism on this forum see the question as irrelevant or don't care exemplifies the problem.

What is the problem?

 

[Link]

All the Prophets I mean have been opposed. Did They not oppose Muhammad and Jesus?

All true Prophets and fake Prophets have been opposed.

During Mohammad (s) time and region there was Musalma who was a fake Prophet. Musalma was rejected by Arabs as well (most, he had some followers), but he was not rejected for wrong reasons.

Mohammad (s) initially was rejected for wrong reasons however.

Since you and I don't believe in rejecting true Prophets (a), and want to know the true ones, repeating this is not really fruitful and brings nothing.

You also reject fake Prophets like the Maitreya who acknowledges Baha'allah. You reject other Mahdi claimants as well.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Punishable by death? My point is that although the Baha'is are being persecuted and there is no denying it, other groups have it far worse. LGBQT, atheists, the Rohingya, women in general, etc. But you're free to believe the Baha'i are the most persecuted people on the planet. Playing the victim card, is a huge competition, after all. Where exactly is this Baha'i refugee camp? It must be on the Iranian border somewhere.

None of this persecution of innocent people is acceptable no matter who they are. It’s a pity we do not have any organisation in this world that can free the oppressed.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The future to me is about humanity’s maturity and I believe as we grow spiritually away from a purely materialistic mindset, we will be more in a state of learning and wanting to know and accept each others religions than compete against each other which is largely the case now. We will want to learn and that will unite us. For now I think the best we can hope for is mutual tolerance. But real unity may take centuries .

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Therein lies the problem for Baha'is. What to do with this? It looks to me like the worst possible starting point for having a meaningful conversation with Buddhists and Hindus, building good relationships, strengthing communities, promoting unity or anything else Baha'is care about.

A quandary indeed. The issue being that a forum is not a private conversation. So in offering this to one person who may be interested, there are hundreds of persons that can read the reply and get in in the conversation and it snowballs from there.

That is where the wisdom on silence wins the day. We have to learn not to be drawn into negativity, a difficult lesson indeed.

In regards to this topic and silence, how can one give a vision that Baha'u'llah offered in this passage about the foundations of all faiths, in ALL the Worlds of God. Who would be ready to accept this oneness permeates this entire creation, all it planets and all the unknown worlds of God?

I put this to you, as you will see the majesty and power inherent in this passage, but what of all the others that can read it? Will some be interested, or will some just like to pick it to pieces!

Gleanings from the writings of Baha’u’llah – LI –

"O PEOPLE! I swear by the one true God! This is the Ocean out of which all seas have proceeded, and with which every one of them will ultimately be united. From Him all the Suns have been generated, and unto Him they will all return. Through His potency the Trees of Divine Revelation have yielded their fruits, every one of which hath been sent down in the form of a Prophet, bearing a Message to God’s creatures in each of the worlds whose number God, alone, in His all-encompassing Knowledge, can reckon. This He hath accomplished through the agency of but one Letter of His Word, revealed by His Pen—a Pen moved by His directing Finger—His Finger itself sustained by the power of God’s Truth."

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

What is the problem?

Debating questions that can neither be proved or disproved.

 

[Dawnofhope]

In regards to this topic and silence, how can one give a vision that Baha'u'llah offered in this passage about the foundations of all faiths, in ALL the Worlds of God. Who would be ready to accept this oneness permeates this entire creation, all it planets and all the unknown worlds of God?

IMHO find common ground in the first instance and develop the relationship. Don't waste energy on those whose main purpose is to trash and trolls other's beliefs.

 

[Secret Chief]

Debating questions that can neither be proved or disproved.

Not being too fussed about the origins is not a problem for a Buudhist. No Buddhist, Bahai or historian can categorically say for sure whether Siddy existed - I fail to see how this minor dismissal is a problem for Buddhists because what fundamentally matters to a Buddhist is whether or not one accepts the teachings, whatever or whoever is the source. Lots of the sutras of Mahayana are attributed to other people, rather than Siddy. But again, who wrote them doesn't ultimately matter, it is the words that matter. The "problem" of course lies with the Bahai story. Siddy had to exist because the Bahai story declares him to be a messenger of the abrahamic deity. Lose Siddy and you've lost the essence of the story.

 

[Secret Chief]

IMHO find common ground in the first instance and develop the relationship. Don't waste energy on those whose main purpose is to trash and trolls other's beliefs.

As well as trashing and trolling there's the misrepresentation and misappropriation. Please dear god yes let's have silence. No more trashing, trolling, misrepresentation or misappropriation. That is the Challenge I offer.

 

[Vinayaka]

If you're looking for the origins of a list of Manifestations of God within the Baha'i Faith, 'Abdu'l-Baha would be the clearest starting point. Baha'u'llah was asked about aspects of Hinduism at one point but I can't recall Krisha being mentioned as a Manifestation of God. Shoghi Effendi expanded on 'Abdu'l-Baha's list connecting the person of Baha’u’llah with the Kalki Avatar and Maitreya Buddha.

Therein lies the problem for Baha'is. What to do with this? It looks to me like the worst possible starting point for having a meaningful conversation with Buddhists and Hindus, building good relationships, strengthing communities, promoting unity or anything else Baha'is care about. To the contrary it looks like proselytizing and is bound to significantly aggravate some Hindus and Buddhists.

For those Baha'is, Hindus and Buddhists who want to debate one another about who is the Maitreya Buddha or Kalki Avatar, it is impossible to prove or disprove as best, or the cause of antipathy at worse.

Thank you. That clarifies it. So the difference in Bahai's then, if I'm getting this right, is the infallibility of Abdu'l-Baha. Some folks seem to say that he is the sole authoritative interpreter. But with regard to Krishna, it sounds like there was nothing at all to interpret, so then it's not interpretation at all, but new teaching, originating with Abdu'l-Baha. Good to know. You are in a unique position on this, being so close to Buddhism.

Personally, my objection had and has more to do with the fine art of being selective with both faiths. Selective as to which narratives seem to fit the Baha'i narrative, and ignoring the rest of us. As you know, I don't believe in Kalki at all, so any argument I had on that was on behalf of fellow Hindus, not myself personally.

 

[CG Didymus]

Not being too fussed about the origins is not a problem for a Buudhist. No Buddhist, Bahai or historian can categorically say for sure whether Siddy existed - I fail to see how this minor dismissal is a problem for Buddhists because what fundamentally matters to a Buddhist is whether or not one accepts the teachings, whatever or whoever is the source. Lots of the sutras of Mahayana are attributed to other people, rather than Siddy. But again, who wrote them doesn't ultimately matter, it is the words that matter. The "problem" of course lies with the Bahai story. Siddy had to exist because the Bahai story declares him to be a messenger of the abrahamic deity. Lose Siddy and you've lost the essence of the story.

Two things...
"Lots of the sutras of Mahayana are attributed to other people, rather than Siddy. But again, who wrote them doesn't ultimately matter, it is the words that matter. "

"Siddy had to exist because the Bahai story declares him to be a messenger of the abrahamic deity. "

He not only had to have existed, but he has to have taught about the Abrahamic God. And, because he is a manifestation of this God, his teachings alone are the truth from that God.

Just knowing the very basics of the Buddha story, I don't see how it fits into the Baha'i interpretation. Yet, for Baha'is, it has to fit. That is what the argument is... are the Baha'i true and correct? If so, then the truth about what Buddhism is and what the Buddha taught are what the Baha'i Faith says he taught. And that means for hundreds of years, Buddhists have been believing and teaching the wrong things.

That's incredibly important... Because if the Baha'is are right, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Muslims and the others are partially wrong or maybe even completely wrong. That puts a lot of proving to do for the Baha'is, if they expect others to believe that... And they can't.

They can get liberal and nominal believers in the other religions to go along with them, but it's not like those people had a very deep commitment into their old beliefs. For them, the Baha'i Faith is no doubt a wonderful religion. They join and do what? Keep practicing and believing in their old religion? No, they believe and practice the teachings of the Baha'i Faith.

And it's great for most of them. Some do drop out, but many stay. So, what's the problem with that? Baha'is are told to go "teach" the Faith. Tell others the Promised One has come. And to tell the people that we are heading for disaster, and our only hope is to unite and work together... Then in the fine print it says... that to truly solve the problems of the world, we must believe and trust in the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. Nothing else is going to save us. No other messenger is coming... not for several hundred more years.

They say the Christ, Maitreya, Kalki, the Mahdi has already come. All in the same person, their prophet. Is it true? Is there proof? Is there even any reasonable evidence to believe them? They think so. But they've already told us what that evidence is. And some of us aren't all that impressed. And we doubt and question it. They don't have anything else to offer... except time will tell.

Since I first heard of them, fifty years ago, I think in some ways they've gone backwards. Back then there was talk of the "lessor" peace happening by the year two thousand. They believed the Baha'i Faith was going to finally become recognized as a major religion and come out of "obscurity". Baha'is were going out on what they called "mass teaching" projects to make more converts. In the 80's they put out their "Promise of Peace" statement and had a big peace conference in San Francisco. What happened?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What happened?

People find it hard ro change and commit to the good of all humanity, especially if one has given over to materialistic pursuit.

This is all foretold CG, maybe some Baha'is were just not well read at that time. Luckily I read early that quite a few things had to unfold before the Lesser Peace, and very few of those had obviously unfolded prior to the end of the 1900's.

My understanding is that even after the Lesser Peace, there will be a time when the leaders will try to do away with religion, that most likely has already started. During that time, the Baha'i Faith will come under attack from many of the divines of many religions, this is what will bring it out of obscurity, fierce opposition. Those that had not heard of it, will be preached to about how evil it is, and then they get to make their choice.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you. That clarifies it. So the difference in Bahai's then, if I'm getting this right, is the infallibility of Abdu'l-Baha. Some folks seem to say that he is the sole authoritative interpreter. But with regard to Krishna, it sounds like there was nothing at all to interpret, so then it's not interpretation at all, but new teaching, originating with Abdu'l-Baha. Good to know. You are in a unique position on this, being so close to Buddhism.

Personally, my objection had and has more to do with the fine art of being selective with both faiths. Selective as to which narratives seem to fit the Baha'i narrative, and ignoring the rest of us. As you know, I don't believe in Kalki at all, so any argument I had on that was on behalf of fellow Hindus, not myself personally.

Both 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Efendi were both leaders of the Baha'i Faith and authorised interpreters of the writings. The current head of the Faith, the Universal House of Justice can not interpret the writings though they can clarify and elucidate. There is an argument in regards whether the scope of authoritative interpretation should be extended to matters of history and other religions. I personally avoid using the word infallible.

I'm certainly close to Buddhism through family and ties to Japan. Over the years the phrase Maitreya Buddha has never arisen and I would presume it would be as meaningless to my family as Kalki Avatar is to you. I regards Buddhism and Hinduism as religions with Divine origins. I'm comfortable praying in Buddhist and Shinto Temples and shrines as I am anywhere else.

 

[Vinayaka]

Two things...
"Lots of the sutras of Mahayana are attributed to other people, rather than Siddy. But again, who wrote them doesn't ultimately matter, it is the words that matter. "

"Siddy had to exist because the Bahai story declares him to be a messenger of the abrahamic deity. "

He not only had to have existed, but he has to have taught about the Abrahamic God. And, because he is a manifestation of this God, his teachings alone are the truth from that God.

Just knowing the very basics of the Buddha story, I don't see how it fits into the Baha'i interpretation. Yet, for Baha'is, it has to fit. That is what the argument is... are the Baha'i true and correct? If so, then the truth about what Buddhism is and what the Buddha taught are what the Baha'i Faith says he taught. And that means for hundreds of years, Buddhists have been believing and teaching the wrong things.

That's incredibly important... Because if the Baha'is are right, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Muslims and the others are partially wrong or maybe even completely wrong. That puts a lot of proving to do for the Baha'is, if they expect others to believe that... And they can't.

They can get liberal and nominal believers in the other religions to go along with them, but it's not like those people had a very deep commitment into their old beliefs. For them, the Baha'i Faith is no doubt a wonderful religion. They join and do what? Keep practicing and believing in their old religion? No, they believe and practice the teachings of the Baha'i Faith.

And it's great for most of them. Some do drop out, but many stay. So, what's the problem with that? Baha'is are told to go "teach" the Faith. Tell others the Promised One has come. And to tell the people that we are heading for disaster, and our only hope is to unite and work together... Then in the fine print it says... that to truly solve the problems of the world, we must believe and trust in the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. Nothing else is going to save us. No other messenger is coming... not for several hundred more years.

They say the Christ, Maitreya, Kalki, the Mahdi has already come. All in the same person, their prophet. Is it true? Is there proof? Is there even any reasonable evidence to believe them? They think so. But they've already told us what that evidence is. And some of us aren't all that impressed. And we doubt and question it. They don't have anything else to offer... except time will tell.

Since I first heard of them, fifty years ago, I think in some ways they've gone backwards. Back then there was talk of the "lessor" peace happening by the year two thousand. They believed the Baha'i Faith was going to finally become recognized as a major religion and come out of "obscurity". Baha'is were going out on what they called "mass teaching" projects to make more converts. In the 80's they put out their "Promise of Peace" statement and had a big peace conference in San Francisco. What happened?

There are plenty of remnants of the 60s, but the Baha'i faith certainly isn't a major player in that.