The relationship between religions and the Baha'i Faith, and reasons to believe.

[37818]

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, the universal, then accept it and live up to it." – Buddha

Shuny,
While that quote attributed to Buddah might be viewed as valid advice. You might want to check its validity as to its source. http://fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-b...have-heard-it/

[shunyadragon]

Shuny,
While that quote attributed to Buddah might be viewed as valid advice. You might want to check its validity as to its source. http://fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-b...have-heard-it/

It is not truly a fake translation, but could be considered a poor translation. Thank you for your comments and reference on translation problems of ancient scripture. The alternate translation remains very good advise. In fact, I have no problem with the original I gave as an interpretive translation This alternate translation is a bit awkward in an attempt to be more literal, because of the difficulty of translation from ancient languages. I may look for a better translation that is readable.

Source: http://fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-believe-in-anything-simply-because-you-have-heard-it/

But on to the quote. In the original Kalama Sutta, we have:

“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

© Copyright Original Source

The objection in your reference to Buddha being referred to as a 'Hindu Prince' is of course a problem of a modern interpretation. Hindu refers to the many diverse religious beliefs throughout the history of India. I most often refer to these diverse religious beliefs through history as Vedic traditions and beliefs. It is true that whether Gautama Siddharta was a Prince or not is an open question, and of course, unknown.

ALL ancient scriptures suffer from translation problems including the Bible, of course there remains the question which translation of which Bible remains an open question also.

[element771]

Your interpretation of the parable is admirable, but I do not believe Christianity in general historically and even today defines the rest of the non-Christian world who believe differently as neighbors. The evidence in history as to who is considered as one's neighbor is very different picture of even tolerance of those who believe differently more than often is more than worn thin, and far too often violent. An interesting example here is how the Tweb administration considers my faith choice, and is decidedly intolerant of how members are allowed to describe one's own belief.

As far as the view of different different older religions considering those who believe differently as their neighbors I believe the Buddhist have the more compassionate view of who they consider their neighbor,

.

Thank you for the compliment. I think that the interpretation is admirable but it isn't because it is my interpretation... it is because that is what Jesus actually communicating through the parable.

Just because Christians don't do a great job practicing what Jesus preached in the parable, doesn't negate the meaning as it was intended. Therefore, there is no further need for progressive revelation on this matter. We just need Christians to actually practice the teachings of Jesus.

It seems that you argument is...If Christians don't live up to the teachings of Jesus, then the teachings aren't there or are wrong and need to be updated. This is logically invalid. You can't argue the need for additional revelation if the original revelation is there. What would additional revelation sounds like..."I know that I have said this before but this time I really mean it"?

[element771]

Hey element! Not sure what's been going on with you lately, but hope all is well. Not sure shunya is the right person to ask about the topic of the Baha'i faith. He's never struck many people here as knowledgeable about the subject: it's doctrines, practices and the like. Kinda makes it up as he goes along, and when backed into a corner will post webpages he's quickly googled without really comprehending the source. Even other Baha'i's have found his understanding of the faith rather lacking.

At any rate, you should start a thread in one of the Christian forums, and discuss your thoughts there. Hopefully some of us can be of help, or at least direct you to the right places.

What's up Adrift! Life gets in the way...pretty busy with the new gig so I haven't really visited TWEB in a while.

Thanks for the advice. While I was interested in Baha'i for a while, I realized that there isn't anything new under the sun. I was trying to understand Shuny's thoughts on the need for progressive revelation.

How are things?

[Adrift]

What's up Adrift! Life gets in the way...pretty busy with the new gig so I haven't really visited TWEB in a while.

Fair enough, and I understand how that can get.

Thanks for the advice. While I was interested in Baha'i for a while, I realized that there isn't anything new under the sun. I was trying to understand Shuny's thoughts on the need for progressive revelation.

Ah, okay.

How are things?

All's well here. Nothing major new. Thanks for asking though.

Always been a joy to read you on the forum. Stick around if you can.

[element771]

element771 from the introduction to another thread.

The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.
There have been similar threads in the old Tweb, but since the question has come up, because I consider the traditional arguments for God in traditional Christianity bad to the point of being logically outrageous, some have asked if this is how you view the arguments, Why do you believe in God.

The first posting reflects my Foundation Assumptions of why I believe.

Foundations of Belief

Assumptions that form the foundation of what one believes or does not believe. A great deal of debate takes place on beliefs and differences without understanding the underlying assumptions of why people believe. Some of my basic beliefs are included.

The first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to no a priori assumptions on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.

So I actually did this about a decade ago. I really wanted to investigate why I believed what I believed. I wiped the slate as clean as I could. This turned out to be fairly simple as I realized I didn't know very much about any theological belief system including my own.

The second assumption is truth as well as human knowledge is relative and cannot be assumed to be absolute in any way. This assumption is based on the evidence of the nature of human knowledge, and the claims of ‘Truth’ over the millennia.

Sure. The only thing I can be sure of is that I exist in some capacity.

The third assumption is that the physical existence we perceive through our senses is real, and our reason and logic, though fallible, is sufficiently reliable to trust in our relative knowledge of the objective knowledge of this physical existence. Math is a reliable construct of human logic as a tool to understand our physical existence. This assumption is based on the evidence of reliability of our senses, human reasoning and logic in understanding the nature of our physical existence over the millennia.

Still with you. We have to trust something, otherwise we spiral down a long rabbit hole. I agree that perception is the closest thing that I can know and trust.

The fourth assumption is our understanding of the subjective world beyond the objective physical nature of our existence is limited by our fallible nature, and human understanding of the subjective. Philosophy and logic are useful in exploring the subjective, and understanding our human nature, but remain human constructs of the subjective world of the mind only. This assumption is based on the diversity, and often conflicting and inconsistent subjective beliefs and logical arguments over the millennia.

Logic and philosophy are basically tools evolved to understand the nature of the world around us apart from the physical. Still with you.

The fifth assumption is science is the present knowledge we have of our physical existence which evolves with time, and is reliable. It has priority over the understanding of our physical existence over any religious belief including my own. Actually, the Baha'i Faith recognizes this necessary of considering science on the level of Revelation in its own right, and reveals Creation as it is created, and gives it precedence over the interpretation of the Baha'i writings concerning the nature of our physical existence. This relies on the first, second and third assumptions.

I am a scientist so my thoughts on this one are pretty self evident.

The sixth assumption is that IF God exists, God is universal and unknowable in the absolute sense. Doctrines and beliefs of individual religions cannot define the absolute nature of the Divine. The scriptures of the religions of the world reflect a human view of Revelation, and the relationship between humanity, Creation and the Source some call God(s). This is related to the first, second, third and fourth assumptions.

OK. Here is where we my start to drift apart. Yes, I agree with you that IF God exists that it(?) is universal and unknowable in the same way that I am unknowable to an ant. Something like God would be so far out of our sphere of thought and experience that we could not even conceive of understanding it(?).

However.... IF (and that is a big if) you think that the person of Jesus was actually the embodiment of God....things start to become much more manageable. Do I think that I completely understand God? Absolutely not. That being said...IF Jesus actually is who he claims to be, then we get a view of God that we can understand. It may not be the whole picture but it is something that we can at least comprehend.

[shunyadragon]

Thank you for the compliment. I think that the interpretation is admirable but it isn't because it is my interpretation... it is because that is what Jesus actually communicating through the parable.

Well the questionable part is the context of history, and how Christianity in scripture, Doctrine, and Dogma in reality defined the neighbor in respect to those who believe differently.

Just because Christians don't do a great job practicing what Jesus preached in the parable, doesn't negate the meaning as it was intended. Therefore, there is no further need for progressive revelation on this matter. We just need Christians to actually practice the teachings of Jesus.

This is not a matter of who among the believers are 'doing a great job' or not. It is a matter of the actual scripture as a whole, and in history, define the neighbor more universally. The reality is the Baha'i scripture defines this more 'universally' than either Judaism, Christianity, nor Islam, and the result is more than obvious in today's world regardless of whether fallible humans are doing a great job or not.

This is a little to idealistic for the reality of the scripture as the concept of 'who is my neighbor.' The reality is the Baha'i Faith unquestionably defines the neighbor more universally than Judaism, Christianity nor Islam, and results are for me very obvious in history. If you propose that 'there is no further need for progressive revelation,' than the scripture of Judaism is likewise adequate to describe an idealistic belief as to who would be considered 'universally' as one's neighbor, but the reality is that in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam defines the 'neighbor' more narrowly whan taking the whole of scripture into consideration.

It seems that you argument is...If Christians don't live up to the teachings of Jesus, then the teachings aren't there or are wrong and need to be updated. This is logically invalid. You can't argue the need for additional revelation if the original revelation is there. What would additional revelation sounds like..."I know that I have said this before but this time I really mean it"?

No the highlighted above is not my argument. Of course this claim is logically invalid. I believe by the evidence, parables are inadequate to give definitive guidance as to who is one's neighbor. The guidance from the following Baha'i scripture is not open to to interprettion. Yes fallible humans may not 'do a great job.' but nonetheless it is more specific and universal.

Source: http://www.bahai.org/bahaullah/quotations

"Be generous in prosperity, and thankful in adversity. Be worthy of the trust of thy neighbor, and look upon him with a bright and friendly face. Be a treasure to the poor, an admonisher to the rich, an answerer to the cry of the needy, a preserver of the sanctity of thy pledge. Be fair in thy judgment, and guarded in thy speech. Be unjust to no man, and show all meekness to all men. Be as a lamp unto them that walk in darkness, a joy to the sorrowful, a sea for the thirsty, a haven for the distressed, an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression. Let integrity and uprightness distinguish all thine acts. Be a home for the stranger, a balm to the suffering, a tower of strength for the fugitive. Be eyes to the blind, and a guiding light unto the feet of the erring. Be an ornament to the countenance of truth, a crown to the brow of fidelity, a pillar of the temple of righteousness, a breath of life to the body of mankind, an ensign of the hosts of justice, a luminary above the horizon of virtue, a dew to the soil of the human heart, an ark on the ocean of knowledge, a sun in the heaven of bounty, a gem on the diadem of wisdom, a shining light in the firmament of thy generation, a fruit upon the tree of humility."

Baha'u'llah (Epistle to the Son of the Wolf)

"Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Daystar of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth."

Baha'u'llah (Epistle to the Son of the Wolf)

"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."
(Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, Lawh-i-Maqsúd)

"Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship."

(Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, Bishárát)

© Copyright Original Source

The problem of the lack of specific guidance, and the need for progressive Revelation extends to other problems that have divided religions, and caused violent conflict and contention includes the problem of the Harmony of Science and Religion, Slavery and the equal social and legal rights of women.

[shunyadragon]

OK. Here is where we my start to drift apart. Yes, I agree with you that IF God exists that it(?) is universal and unknowable in the same way that I am unknowable to an ant. Something like God would be so far out of our sphere of thought and experience that we could not even conceive of understanding it(?).

However.... IF (and that is a big if) you think that the person of Jesus was actually the embodiment of God....things start to become much more manageable. Do I think that I completely understand God? Absolutely not. That being said...IF Jesus actually is who he claims to be, then we get a view of God that we can understand. It may not be the whole picture but it is something that we can at least comprehend.

If we drift apart here, we drifted apart from the very beginning of my assumptions. You are considering some theological assumptions of Christianity, or some specific church(s?) of Christianity as necessary from a human perspective, such as Jesus Christ being the physical embodiment of God, and therefore Trinitarianism. This defacto excludes alternate theological understandings of the nature of God, Revelation and the relationship with humanity. This negates the possibility of a possible of a more universal relationship between God and humanity throughout history, different religions, and confirms your exclusive belief in Revelation as defined in Christian beliefs.

I disagree that what traditional Christianity Trinitarianism necessarily represents what Jesus Christ claimed to be. You have to selectively cite the gospels, believe in Paul as the authority to hold this position, and believe in the evolved scripture, and Christian Doctrine and Dogma after 50 AD.

I believe the Baha'i view that the nature of Jesus Christ is the spiritual embodiment of God, is more in line with the Jewish scripture understanding of the nature of Revelation and God's relationship with humanity. This view also reflects a more universal view of the beliefs of all religions. IF the reality is Jesus Christ is the only embodiment of God, and the only way of salvation, than you are on the right track, but I seriously doubt it is the case based on the evidence of history, and the evolved mythology of Christianity through Hellenist/Roman eyes.

[shunyadragon]

What's up Adrift! Life gets in the way...pretty busy with the new gig so I haven't really visited TWEB in a while.

Thanks for the advice. While I was interested in Baha'i for a while, I realized that there isn't anything new under the sun. I was trying to understand Shuny's thoughts on the need for progressive revelation.

How are things?

Of course this makes Adrift happy and feel your safe and secure in the one true fold now.

The highlighted above neglects many problems with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam concerning their scripture and beliefs which fail to address the conflicts in the modern world.

One of the real problems that divides Christianity is the problem of the science of evolution and the history of our physical existence. The elephant in the room is that most of the church fathers and the authors of the gospels and letters believe in a literal Genesis, and remains the basis for beliefs such as the 'Fall' and 'Original Sin,' and the justified belief by fundamentalists to reject science, which results in 40 to 50% Christians in the USA rejecting the science of evolution and the history of our universe. There many other issues under the sun Christianity fails to deal with in the modern world.

[element771]

Well the questionable part is the context of history, and how Christianity in scripture, Doctrine, and Dogma in reality defined the neighbor in respect to those who believe differently.

This is not a matter of who among the believers are 'doing a great job' or not. It is a matter of the actual scripture as a whole, and in history, define the neighbor more universally. The reality is the Baha'i scripture defines this more 'universally' than either Judaism, Christianity, nor Islam, and the result is more than obvious in today's world regardless of whether fallible humans are doing a great job or not.

If fallible humans are not a part of the equation, why does the context of history matter? It seems to me that Jesus defining someone that the Jews had no contact with as your neighbor, it is pretty evident that everyone is. The good Samaritan was considered the lowest of the low in the context of history according to the Jewish beliefs at the time. Jesus' parable demonstrates that every is your neighbor, even those who the Jews thought were unclean, etc.

How about this one? If Jesus commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves and also commands us to love our enemies, then even someone who we consider our enemy is, in reality, our neighbor.

This is a little to idealistic for the reality of the scripture as the concept of 'who is my neighbor.' The reality is the Baha'i Faith unquestionably defines the neighbor more universally than Judaism, Christianity nor Islam, and results are for me very obvious in history. If you propose that 'there is no further need for progressive revelation,' than the scripture of Judaism is likewise adequate to describe an idealistic belief as to who would be considered 'universally' as one's neighbor, but the reality is that in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam defines the 'neighbor' more narrowly whan taking the whole of scripture into consideration.

I never said that there isn't a need for progressive revelation at all. I believe that there isn't further need for progressive revelation because Jesus, as the embodiment of God, is the final revelation.

[element771]

Of course this makes Adrift happy and feel your safe and secure in the one true fold now.

The highlighted above neglects many problems with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam concerning their scripture and beliefs which fail to address the conflicts in the modern world.

One of the real problems that divides Christianity is the problem of the science of evolution and the history of our physical existence. The elephant in the room is that most of the church fathers and the authors of the gospels and letters believe in a literal Genesis, and remains the basis for beliefs such as the 'Fall' and 'Original Sin,' and the justified belief by fundamentalists to reject science, which results in 40 to 50% Christians in the USA rejecting the science of evolution and the history of our universe. There many other issues under the sun Christianity fails to deal with in the modern world.

Can you provide evidence that most of the church fathers believe in a literal Genesis?

I can point to several that did not including Paul in his letter to the Galatians.

Galations 4 22-26:

For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

[shunyadragon]

Can you provide evidence that most of the church fathers believe in a literal Genesis?

I can point to several that did not including Paul in his letter to the Galatians.

Galations 4 22-26:

I do not believe this reference rejects a literal Genesis. I will address Paul's view of Genesis more, but it is clear Paul believed in a literal Adam.

Romans 5:12-15 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because wall sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.


Yes, I devoted a thread to this. I brought the thread to the top for you to review.