|12-01-2015, 05:45 PM||#1|
Joined: Jul 2011
From: n ireland
Zoaster taught that there's two Gods, a God of good and a God of evil. Abraham taught that there's only one God. Jesus taught that He is the Son of God. Mohammad taught that God has no son.Are all correct?
|12-02-2015, 01:59 AM||#2|
Joined: Jul 2014
From: Blue Planet
I believe that these are all one dear Aidan if we can look more deeply. for example nowadays Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God but is it the thing Jesus had really meant to say on those days or had it have a deeper meaning? Muslims believe that Islam is the last religion of God and they bring evidences from Quran but is it really the thing Mohammad had wished to say? I believe that when the dispensation of a religion is finished, the teachings sank into obscurity and people start to misunderstand them more and more. but all religions are from ONE GOD; God never changes His mind. maybe when the dispensation of Baha'i is finished, say 3000 years from now, Baha'is of that time say that Baha'ullah has meant to say that He (Baha'ullah) is God and then to support their ideas they will refer to holy scriptures of Baha'i but now we know that that is not true
|12-02-2015, 03:07 AM||#3|
Joined: Nov 2015
I thought that Zoroaster taught that were was but one God, but that God had an evil counterpart (subtle) ?
And in fact, there are two leading forces in this world : Good, and Evil.
That's coherent IMO.
Also, a God is someone that is to be worshipped. Zoroaster never commanded to worship Angra Manyu, the Unholy One.
A proof of Zoroaster's compliance with the Biblical Alliance is the Sacred Fire symbol. Around the same era, the Hebrews developped the monotheitic experience as well as the Persians. The ancient symbol of Judaism was not the David Star, but the Burning Bush. And the ancient symbol of Zoroastrianism is the Sacred Fire. Ancient Judaisma and Ancient Zoroastrianism are two faces of the same medal.
|12-02-2015, 11:28 AM||#4|
Joined: Jul 2014
|12-02-2015, 11:32 AM||#5|
Joined: Mar 2013
with the teachings of Zoroaster we run into the same lack of authenticated texts, as with Krsna, Buddha, Abraham, and so forth.
What we do know is that Zoroastrianism developed within the same Indo-European polytheism that also was related to the Vedic religion, and so this dualism does seem to influence the practical application of the religion ( for instance consider Mithra is an angel in Zoroastrianism, but a god in the Hindu faith, and was a cult-deity in the Roman Empire).
In Vedism/Vedanta this dualism or dwaita continues to be an active philosophy, though there are also practitioners of nondualism and limited-dualism. I do not think Baha'i thought actually works with either of those as it just leaves the study of God (though not anything that reflects God) as incomprehensible. I digress, but what I mean by this is that local color rubbed off on the practice of Zoroastrianism, and that tends to have happened to many religions, not just cultural trappings but actual changes in belief based on incorporating new or preexisting theology.
My thoughts: the easiest answer is not the most satisfying, often. The Religion of God was developed within areas where polytheism was so strong that people were willing to sacrifice their own children. If someone was willing to believe that putting their screaming tortured infant in the burning lap of Moloch was a good idea, they certainly weren't going to do an about face and say "nevermind, god is unknowable." Perhaps the a few discerning literate freethinkers would, but this was by and large an extremely illiterate world, ruled more by tradition, fear, and superstition.
"Every cycle and dispensation has its own distinctive character, its allotted measure of Grace. The realities of things are manifested in a degree proportionate to their stations, ranks, receptivity and capacity. For instance, regard the human reality, its spiritual perfections, the properties and virtues of the soul: their appearance and manifestation, their propagation and growth depend in degree upon the stage of development reached in the course of this earthly life, which ranges from the condition of the primal germ to the highest stations of mature development. The same principle is to be found in the whole of existence, seen and unseen."
Tablet of the Universe