Bahai Forums

Go Back   Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Interfaith

Interfaith Interfaith discussion for different religious traditions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-10-2012, 10:02 AM   #81
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,893
Buddha has said to leave the boat at the shore when you have travelled to the other bank. The rules are not for Buddhas, they are for aspirants, for retaining peace in the monastery.

Virtue is that which arises from love, it has nothing to do with rules, ethics or morality. It has absolutely nothing to do with any law at all, because love does not know the difference between right and wrong, it is not founded in duality at all.

It is the mind which memorizes rules, but I would point out again that Buddha has killed a man. Knowing the intentions of this man, he has accepted the karma instead of allowing others to suffer at the hand of this man. Now, if Buddha was a Jew, he would have followed the commandment about not killing, even knowing many deaths would result from this...

This is the problem with rules, they do not fit with every situation.

Every rule has its exceptions.
 
Join Baha'i Forums


Welcome to Baha'i Forums, an open Baha'i Faith community! We welcome everyone and the community is free to join so register today and become part of the Baha'i Forums family!


Old 12-10-2012, 10:11 AM   #82
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,893
Pertinent quote from Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj:

"There is nothing to do. Just be. Do nothing. Be. No climbing mountains and sitting in caves. I do not even say: 'be yourself', since you do not know yourself. Just be. Having seen that you are neither the 'outer' world of perceivables, nor the 'inner' world of thinkables, that you are neither body nor mind -- just be."

Trying to act a certain way, trying to fulfill this view or that, trying to perfect your personality is not going to help. The one you're trying to perfect doesn't exist, it is just a thought. You must find out who is thinking it... then be that one.
 
Old 12-10-2012, 10:11 AM   #83
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunitik View Post
It is utterly disgusting to condone ownership of a living being.

I love all beings too much to condone that.

By staying quiet, I condone your words.

Lunitik, you really do make me laugh sometimes.

Who, in their right mind, has in this thread or would ever condone the ownership of a human being?

You live in fantasy my friend. I'm afraid that the only prison is the one that you've locked yourself in through the delusion that you are somehow 'enlightened' and have experienced the infinite or 'oneness' as you say.

As long as you are happy, then I'm content to let you be.

Only, I'll 'quote' this last piece of advice (just because I know how much you love people referring to other people ).

You once said to me:

Quote:
I have claimed experience of oneness...Yes, I have said I am a Buddha...I understand the very nature of reality
Your own words in a thread dated 07-02-2011.

I am sorry but you are not enlightened, nor a Buddha, because there is no such thing as an "enlightenment" that separates you from other human individuals. God's light shines upon everyone equally, as the Gospel of John explains:

Quote:
"...For That One was The Light of Truth, which enlightens every person that comes into the world..."

- John 1:9
Everybody has the Kingdom of God within them, everyone has God in their heart. No one is superior to anyone else and there are no "levels" of spiritual attainment. The height of spiritual awareness is to recognise that you are the least of everyone, to have genuine humility, to continually place others above yourself and to account yourself as "least", for "those who humble themselves will be exalted and those who exalt themselves will be humbled".

To regard yourself as "knowing the nature of reality" is complete delusion. I am sorry to be the one who has to say this but someone has too and I'm electing myself.

My last piece of advice to you from a mystic called Angelus Silesius. After this I am not going to answer your posts. You believe that your 'I' is extinguished and you no longer exist. Good, because I will grant you your wish and no longer act as if you are even making posts in this thread, given that I do not find myself spiritually nourished by them:


Quote:
"...Believing that you are so smart, and understand it all condemns you to ignore your ignorance---this is the meaning of the fall..."

- Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677), Catholic mystic & poet

The sign that you are not enlightened is the belief that you are enlightened. This seems to me to be the chief flaw in your thinking, and it is a pretty major one. I hope that you lose all of this and become a Secular Humanist or something else that is rational or scientific and can purify your mind of this New Age type of jargon. You are honestly better giving up religion and spirituality altogether if it does this too you. I hold in much higher regard a principled materialist, atheist who rejects every religion and trace of spirituality altogether and simply lives a good life with no airs or graces.

My word, I can really sympathise with Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.

Simply live without all of that nonsense in your head. I recommend pure science and atheism - no spirituality, no Buddhas, no oneness, no enlightenment, no Ishnara's and nothing else that you currently speak of - just this life, a material universe and nothing after. That would be an insight into true reality for you personally, I feel, giving you a fresh and rational basis upon which to evaluate life. That's what you need to get yourself free from this self-destructive mindset. Honestly, I worry about you. Atheism, humanism and science on its own is far preferrable to all this needless philosophizing about made-up, illusionary enlightenment experiences with a mythical 'oneness' and a selfhood that you clearly haven't abolished no matter what you might tell yourself. You are damaging yourself, if only you could see that.

I suggest that after purifying your mind through secularism, humanism, rationalism, atheism, materialism, mortalism (nothing after death) and science - perhaps taking a degree and forgetting about all these mythical enlightenment experiences altogether - you could then return to studying spiritual writings from an informed, analytical perspective, seeing that you would now be grounded in reality. Only if you wished.

Here is one last quote for you:

Quote:
"...Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong....That is why St. John of the Cross calls faith a night. With those who have received a Christian education, the lower parts of the soul become attached to these mysteries when they have no right at all to do so. That is why such people need a purification of which St. John of the Cross describes the stages. Atheism and incredulity constitute an equivalent of such a purification...Whenever one tries to suppress doubt, there is tyranny...There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God...At the bottom of the heart of every human being, from earliest infancy until the tomb, there is something that goes on indomitably expecting, in the teeth of all experience of crimes committed, suffered, and witnessed, that good and not evil will be done to him. It is this above all that is sacred in every human being...God is absent from the world, except in the existence in this world of those in whom his love is alive...Their compassion is the visible presence of God...An atheist may be simply one whose faith and love are concentrated on the impersonal aspects of God...I am absolutely sure that God exists, in the sense that my love is not an illusion. I am absolutely sure that God does not exist, in the sense that nothing corresponds to whatever I may think when I utter this name. But what I cannot think is not an illusion...In order to obey God, one must receive his commands. How did it happen that I received them in adolescence, while I was professing atheism? To believe that the desire for good is always fulfilled--that is faith, and whoever has it is not an atheist...Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace..."

- Simone Weil (1909 – 1943), Jewish Catholic mystic & philosopher

And:

Quote:
"...I have a right to the name of Christian. I assure you that when in speaking of my childhood and youth I use the words vocation, obedience, spirit of peverty, purity, acceptance, love of one's neighbor, and other expressions of the same kind, I am giving them the exact signification they have for me now. Yet I was brought up by my parents and my brother in a complete agnosticism, and I never made the slightest effort to depart from it; I never had the slightest desire to do so, quite rightly, I think. In spite of that, ever since my birth, so to speak, not one of my faults, not one of my imperfections really had the excuse of ignorance...You can take my word for it too that Greece, Egypt, ancient India, and ancient China, the beauty of the world, the pure and authentic reflections of this beauty in art and science, what I have seen of the inner recesses of human hearts where religious belief is unknown, all these things have done as much as the visibly Christian ones to deliver me into Christ's hands as his captive. I think I might even say more...I believe that one identical thought is to be found--expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality-- in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science..."

- Simone Weil (1909 – 1943), Jewish Catholic mystic & philosopher
Thank you for having a discussion with me Lunitik.

Last edited by Yeshua; 12-10-2012 at 11:35 AM.
 
Old 12-10-2012, 10:29 AM   #84
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua View Post
I am sorry but you are not enlightened, nor a Buddha, because there is no such thing as an "enlightenment" that separates you from other human individuals.
You are correct in your complaints, while at that time I was indeed enlightened, it was certainly an enlightened ego.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua View Post
Everybody has the Kingdom of God within them, everyone has God in their heart. No one is superior to anyone else and there are no "levels" of spiritual attainment. The height of spiritual awareness is to recognise that you are the least of everyone, to have genuine humility, to continually place others above yourself and to account yourself as "least", for "those who humble themselves will be exalted and those who exalt themselves will be humbled".
It is humorous that you highlight my own prior level, then say there are no levels. What is true humility though? It is not to realize you are the least of everyone at all, it is to realize there is no you in the first place. It was simply a play of consciousness, a composite of experiences we have labeled as us. Beyond this, it is also to recognize all others are similarly a composite play in consciousness. Here, you can translate consciousness as God if you please, but every atom is seen to contain the whole, there can be no comparison because there is only that one essence, all is simply an appearance in that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua View Post
To regard yourself as "knowing the nature of reality" is complete delusion. I am sorry to be the one who has to say this but someone has too and I'm electing myself.
It doesn't change this statement, except to say it is not any "me" that knows it. There is only a knowing, and certainly it continues expanding, more and more is being made clear all the time. Yet, you follow a man who says he was the Messiah, the Only Begotten Son of God. I would suggest Dharmakaya or Holy Spirit is the Only Begotten Son, but Jesus is just a man. Realizing oneness, Jesus became Christ, but you can also be a Christ. You can also be anointed with the divine. I would suggest, however, that he has ran with this egoistically, he had at that time only advanced as far as what you are deriding me for. It was not until he said "in your hands I place my spirit" that he has finally dropped the ego, yet we are told very little about the realization that followed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua View Post
The sign that you are not enlightened is the belief that you are enlightened.
Perfectly true, yet to know this, enlightenment has to be attained.

It is a returning to your true nature, a coming out of the story of "me", but that me is still there it is simply no more fed. Certainly, the one that says "I am enlightened" is not enlightened, these words are arising in the space of enlightenment which is there in all.
 
Old 12-10-2012, 11:51 AM   #85
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,106
Someone on another forum said this quite recently:

Quote:
Remember that Jesus had his moment of doubt on the cross, and Buddha died from food poisoning. That is to say, that even those considered enlightened are still subject to the same human weaknesses as everyone else. Another Buddhist saying is that, if you see the Buddha on the road, kill him. Why? Because, there is no-one who is not a Buddha, so anyone claiming to be the one and only enlightened being is lying and misleading you to think that there is anyone who is not already enlightened. Jesus meant something similar when he said we should become like children to enter the kingdom, a kingdom he later revealed in the gospel of Thomas you posted earlier to be within each of us and in the world we are already in.
 
Old 12-10-2012, 12:14 PM   #86
Senior Member
 
Zhang's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: USA
Posts: 297
I just can't take you seriously Lunatik.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatik
For me, the most dangerous thing is identification, ego, and it is irrelevant what that identification is.

I feel Rumi has had a glimpse of truth, but he is not enlightened, and it is exactly this identification which shows why: there is still something in him, of him, that clings to a text.
You just said that you hate identification, and yet you classify some teachers as enlightened beings and others as glimpsing enlightenment and others as unenlightened altogether.

Thanks for that! I'm glad to know where I fall on the Lunatik enlightenment scale. Maybe like a 4 or a 5?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua
The sign that you are not enlightened is the belief that you are enlightened. This seems to me to be the chief flaw in your thinking, and it is a pretty major one. I hope that you lose all of this and become a Secular Humanist or something else that is rational or scientific and can purify your mind of this New Age type of jargon
+1. His systemless classification of enlightened beings has become a system of its own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua
You live in fantasy my friend. I'm afraid that the only prison is the one that you've locked yourself in through the delusion that you are somehow 'enlightened' and have experienced the infinite or 'oneness' as you say.
+1 and +1 x pi to that whole post.

Last edited by Zhang; 12-10-2012 at 12:20 PM.
 
Old 12-10-2012, 12:25 PM   #87
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhang View Post
You just said that you hate identification, and yet you classify some teachers as enlightened beings and others as glimpsing enlightenment and others as unenlightened altogether.

Thanks for that! I'm glad to know where I fall on the Lunatik enlightenment scale. Maybe like a 4 or a 5?
If you do not realize you are not the one in the story, that nothing of the story can possibly touch what you actually are, you are not enlightened.

What Yeshua has said is perfectly true though, all are enlightened in actuality, none of us are within the story appearing as "my life". In each of us, there is something which pervades everything, that is utterly unchanging and simply witnessing everything as if it were on a screen.

Yet, if this is truly the case, what is the point of religion? It is only to know this, to come out of the story ourselves and know what we actually are.

It is all relative, there is something to do if you feel you are the one in the story, yet there is nothing to do because you aren't the one in the story. You cannot use enlightened statements to justify unenlightenment though, it is lack of enlightenment that causes all evil, as I go on saying. Lack of enlightenment is exactly seen through your identifications with things in the story. Yet, ultimately, the whole journey of enlightenment is itself only an appearance, we journey away from ourselves to return again.

In death, we all return to ourselves, so none of this really matters.

Yet, here we are on an internet forum discussing it.

Last edited by Lunitik; 12-10-2012 at 12:45 PM.
 
Old 12-11-2012, 06:07 AM   #88
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Rockville, MD, USA
Posts: 1,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunitik View Post
I have already touched on the fact that Baha'is believe and discuss among themselves a violent battle they feel will happen in the future to instigate the World Order of Baha'u'llah
I've been a Baha'i over 41 years and can assure you there is no such requirement in our scriptures: any such rumor is purely Kitab-i-Hearsay and as such has no real basis.

Baha'is are indeed willing to die for the Cause when necessary, but there is no explicit obligation to do so--nor do we rush to become martyrs.

And I must congratulate you on how thoroughly you manged to avoid mentioning the scriptural passages I've posted! I've rarely seen anything so well-ignored.

Bruce

Last edited by BruceDLimber; 12-11-2012 at 06:18 AM.
 
Old 12-12-2012, 06:11 PM   #89
Member
 
ewlabonte's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Athol MA USA
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua View Post
That is fine then Investigate, Christians simply disagree. We believe that the Torah in its entirety is no longer binding or necessary for salvation. Jesus explained what the essence of the Old Covenant was and that is an eternal facet of it which is why it is still Sacred Scripture, inspired and worthy as a teacher of humanity. However none of its laws or punishments are valid post-Jesus in Christian eyes. Only the moral teachings which are perrenial and match up with Christian values are valid still. The "spirit", not the "letter".

It ceased to be an effective law upon the coming of John the baptist and was rendered utterly obsolete by Jesus' inauguration of the New Covenant at the last supper and on the cross (as far as its laws and punishments but not morals or matters of faith are concerned ie anything to do with love of God, neighbour, doing to others as to oneself etc.).

Its societal or social teachings are thus completely abrogated in our eyes. They form no part of Christian social teaching which is all I am trying to say.
Out of curiousity, how is it that the Catholic Church interprets laws about homosexuality as moral laws and not just social teaching? It really has nothing to do with faith or the golden rule.
 
Old 12-12-2012, 06:30 PM   #90
dash
 
Fadl's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2011
From: Somewhere "in this immensity"
Posts: 1,542
I find this topic a bit paradoxical as a Baha'i, since I believe in the oneness of religion and that, essentially, there is actually only one religion at all.

I consider that, true Chrisitanity is Islam, in the sense that Islam means submission (to the will of God) and Christ (all Christ's) are the emissaries of that will and to truly be a muslim is to submit to whichever Christ is emissary to your day. Since Christ Jesus was everything he claimed, and to follow him and obey him is submission to God's will, then such a man is a muslim in the purest sense.

This is why I find a discussion about whether or not Christianity or Islam is more progressive a futile one. It is like saying "is God more progressive than God?". However, usually, what this question really means is, in this day and age, and in a modern context, which is more progressive, contemporary Islam or contemporary Christianity, in terms of advancement and in terms of embracing modernity in the age of globalization? This question is also dubious to me, because, in my opinion, it is loaded with false assumptions, and I also don't think contemporary Islam OR Christianity have very much to do with the religion of Muhamad and Jesus (which is one religion) and I don't think that the pacifism of "Christian nations" (which really means secular and western) or the turmoil of the "Islamic nations" (which really means those that were formerly Ottoman) has as much to do with faith as it does with economics and politics.


Cheers

Last edited by Fadl; 12-12-2012 at 06:32 PM.
 
Old 12-12-2012, 09:47 PM   #91
Tony Bristow-Stagg
 
tonyfish58's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Normanton Far North Queensland
Posts: 4,037
I do not have time to read the replies to this thread at this time but this would be in my opinion the best place to explore the enswer to this question

Mirza Abu'l-Fadl : The Brilliant Proof

Mirza Abu'l-Fadl : The Brilliant Proof [bahai : english : bahairesearch.com]

This book gives a very informative logical reply to this question from a very knowledgable source.

(Maybe start from page 18)

Regards Tony

Last edited by tonyfish58; 12-12-2012 at 09:50 PM. Reason: Added page 18
 
Old 12-13-2012, 08:22 PM   #92
Junior Member
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Earth
Posts: 12
It is bad Enough when the Master is Alive...what to say after He leaves...Man turns just about Every Precious Gift into something twisted and completely Untrue..it seems to me it is mans nature...mans nature certainly does Not appear to be to drop ego..wake up and Taste Truth..and Yes there Must be a Living Enlightened man in ones presence for the Understanding the communion..That is Completely Correct..religions built around Masters never come to any Holy end..they always become just another Tool for the Ego madness..that is not to say that a man cannot find Truth without a Living Enlightened Master..But..it Is to say..when the Master is Gone the Nonsense Increases a thousand fold..the poor Enlightened Master is no longer there to correct the disciple or to defend His own words or teachings..of course now the disciples can run Totally and Freely Amuck...
 
Old 12-13-2012, 08:28 PM   #93
Junior Member
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Earth
Posts: 12
Enlightened men have existed and have Sacrificed and had so much Compassion to Try and Help Humanity..in return what does the human race give these Dear men? oh so So much we give them in return for All they gave us..like we Start wars in the name of the religion we built around them..we hate on each other because we dont share the same Master worship..my prophet is the Real prophet and Only thru my guy can one be saved and all these Childish Division Games...who cares how many innocents are harmed or how much blood is spillled...we are a sick and twisted creature.lost in a web of egotistical lies and power trips...and to deny that is not even rational and most of us Do Deny it...This is what we humans give back to the Best of our race...our Enlightened Masters..this is how we say Thank You...build a religion around them and off we go...
 
Old 12-13-2012, 08:38 PM   #94
Junior Member
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Earth
Posts: 12
No there is no such thing as Enlightenment that separates the Enlightened from the Unenlightened..it is not the Enlightened one who imagines a barrier..its the Unenlightened who put up the imaginary walls..and the understanding is lost...thats a Truth..you can talk all day ..you can think all day..you can analyze ..you can form more and more concepts..but Truth bends to no man..its always amusing to see unenlightened folks judging and deciding who is enlightened and who is not..its tiresome to see Any folks so obsessed with a concept..sifting it this way and that way in their minds..i have an Idea..why not..Instead...Taste It!!
 
Old 12-13-2012, 08:52 PM   #95
Junior Member
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Earth
Posts: 12
i disagree with the Only One who Gets It...several ..even Many Enlightened Masters have claimed to be Enlightened ..its a word to describe a state of being and perfectly natural to state it...However...in society today..this word has become a sore spot for seekers..it hurts them..its like a goal they must reach and they feel all manner of negative feelings about it....the exploiting Enlightenment Salesmen gurus use the word and make the claim to milk money out of the weak and lost...and others are so lost they become delusional and convince themselves they are now Enlightened..there is so much Garbage and Lies associated with the word now...and most seekers find the word offensive..because the ego is so terribly Jealous..the ego wants to Live this Enlightenment so it can be a God..it has ideas about Enlightenment which are not Enlightenment at all..Enlightenment does not mean someone is a God..is Special..Knows Everything..is Suddenly Psychic..can bend spoons..can time travel....can do miracles..being Enlightened is Not This and Not That..it is Only Awake..The Witness is the Only Truth and the Witness Fully Awake Turns Upon Itself and there is no turning back then..but you cannot describe to a blind man what is this color blue ...The ego wants this Enlightenment..but its the same as a virgin thinking he knows of sex..a virgin knows Nothing of sex until he lives it....so now days..for an Enlightened man to be honest and frank about much of anything is most likely only going to open a can of worms...not to mention...seekers are Overly Obsessed with this concept of Enlightenment...which again..i find it Tiresome...but thats just me...

and anyone who bothers to read my posts i am posting for my own amusement..please take Notice..that the Only One Who Gets It...is Disturbing the other posters..they are Obviously Extremely Threatened and Feel Defensive ..they try in every way to discredit this Individual who Gets It..its the same ole song and dance...and the One who Gets It is just throwing pearls before swine...they Do Not Get It and because they Do Not Get It...they go on the Defensive and try their best to Deny the Truth that is being shared with them..they do Not want the Truth..or they would Have a Heart and Hear...its amusing to read all their posts..but it is also very sad...this is the state of man...

the ego is so greedy ..so closed ..so Utterly Retarded and Lost...it knows Nothing of Truth ..if it catches a whiff of Truth it Immediately Jumps into action..Defending its Precious Lies and Always Always doing its Best to Shoot the Messenger....they are so predictable like little robots...and i cannnot for the life of me understand why the One Who Gets It is Trying to Wake these little robots up...They are nothing more than a waste of that Individuals time..in the sense that None of them want the Truth...they may say they do...but its Clear they do Not...

Carry on...i very much Enjoy reading posts by the Only One Who Gets It...Fills me With Joy

Last edited by paramiti; 12-13-2012 at 09:21 PM.
 
Old 12-13-2012, 09:16 PM   #96
Member
 
ewlabonte's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Athol MA USA
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by paramiti View Post
i disagree with the Only One who Gets It...several ..even Many Enlightened Masters have claimed to be Enlightened ..its a word to describe a state of being and perfectly natural to state it...However...in society today..this word has become a sore spot for seekers..it hurts them..its like a goal they must reach and they feel all manner of negative feelings about it....the exploiting Enlightenment Salesmen gurus use the word and make the claim to milk money out of the weak and lost...and others are so lost they become delusional and convince themselves they are now Enlightened..there is so much Garbage and Lies associated with the word now...and most seekers find the word offensive..because the ego is so terribly Jealous..the ego wants to Live this Enlightenment so it can be a God..it has ideas about Enlightenment which are not Enlightenment at all..Enlightenment does not mean someone is a God..is Special..Knows Everything..is Suddenly Psychic..can bend spoons..can time travel....can do miracles..being Enlightened is Not This and Not That..it is Only Awake..The Witness is the Only Truth and the Witness Fully Awake Turns Upon Itself and there is no turning back then..but you cannot describe to a blind man what is this color blue ...The ego wants this Enlightenment..but its the same as a virgin thinking he knows of sex..a virgin knows Nothing of sex until he lives it....so now days..for an Enlightened man to be honest and frank about much of anything is most likely only going to open a can of worms...not to mention...seekers are Overly Obsessed with this concept of Enlightenment...which again..i find it Tiresome...but thats just me...

and anyone who bothers to read my posts i am posting for my own amusement..please take Notice..that the Only One Who Gets It...is Disturbing the other posters..they are Obviously Extremely Threatened and Feel Defensive ..they try in every way to discredit this Individual who Gets It..its the same ole song and dance...and the One who Gets It is just throwing pearls before swine...they Do Not Get It and because they Do Not Get It...they go on the Defensive and try their best to Deny the Truth that is being shared with them..they do Not want the Truth..or they would Have a Heart and Hear...its amusing to read all their posts..but it is also very sad...this is the state of man...

the ego is so greedy ..so closed ..so Utterly Retarded and Lost...it knows Nothing of Truth ..if it catches a whiff of Truth it Immediately Jumps into action..Defending its Precious Lies and Always Always doing its Best to Shoot the Messenger....they are so predictable like little robots...and i cannnot for the life of me understand why the One Who Gets It is Trying to Wake these little robots up...They are nothing more than a waste of that Individuals time..in the sense that None of them want the Truth...they may say they do...but its Clear they do Not...
It seems to me that you're all wound up with this struggle against your ego. Maybe you should practice being egotistical. I say that because egotistical people are usually unconscious of their egotism. If you are consciously egotistical you're bound to fail. Maybe you should just give yourself a little slack. You might get a different perspective on things.

Last edited by ewlabonte; 12-13-2012 at 09:23 PM.
 
Old 12-13-2012, 11:07 PM   #97
Junior Member
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Earth
Posts: 12
ewlabonte...i am only posting for my own amusement and to in a way say thank you to one individual who is Actually making a difference..at least in that they are taking responsibility..and they are Expressing quite well that Which Is Essential...you will have to find another playmate that either understands this mad world you live in..or who enjoys toying with you for their pleasure..i am not that person...
 
Old 12-14-2012, 02:59 AM   #98
Senior Member
 
Zhang's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: USA
Posts: 297
Amazing...a few years in the making of Lunatik's absurd "hey everyone i'm enlightened" phase and suddenly a devoted follower emerges. This is how things like the Kool-Aid suicide start, people.

Paramiti, I think you could have some real value to the discussion if you formulated your thoughts in a semi-coherent manner and not simply assembling the ramblings of a crazy old man outside a laundromat.

And please don't ask us to "taste" anything of yours again. -.-'

Yours as always,

-张
 
Old 12-14-2012, 06:33 AM   #99
Member
 
ewlabonte's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Athol MA USA
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by paramiti View Post
ewlabonte...i am only posting for my own amusement and to in a way say thank you to one individual who is Actually making a difference..at least in that they are taking responsibility..and they are Expressing quite well that Which Is Essential...you will have to find another playmate that either understands this mad world you live in..or who enjoys toying with you for their pleasure..i am not that person...
Alright. I was just making an observation. You seem a bit... obsessed. But I didn't mean anything insulting or hurtful by it. I'm sure you wanted to have your posts read. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted them. If you are, indeed, enlightened, I congratulate you. You must take great pride in it.
 
Old 12-14-2012, 07:11 AM   #100
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@Yeshua
Thanks for your kind words and encouragement, it means a great deal. Your hand any better?
 
Old 12-14-2012, 07:13 AM   #101
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@LordOfGoblins
Yeah I’m throwing out a few specific ones so far. But in my opinion Christianity is superior on all good counts. I understand that it said “taken together” AKA overall. A spouse can say that overall their spouse is good or better than their last one. If asked for details they should be able to say “well ____ does this and never does_____.”
This isn’t a comprehensive list but here are my thoughts of how we might BEGIN to break down “taken together.”

Prayer

Sin

Materialism

Polygamy

The founder’s life

War and peace

Relevance to today’s believer

No doubt there are others but here on the ones off the top of my head. With all due respect to Zhang and everyone else here I think Islam goes backwards. We stop being the children of God (New Testament) and become only servants in the Qur’an. The NT says that the rituals of the Torah were a shadow of things to come (the new covenant given through Christ). But then a big emphasis is placed on rituals again. The qualifications for NT leaders were that they were the husbands of ONE wife. Yes I’ve heard that because Muhammad was sinless he could treat that all equally but even IF that was true why not lead by example?
 
Old 12-14-2012, 07:15 AM   #102
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@Zhang

Great to have a Muslim here! Out of curiosity can you read Arabic and do you believe that only those who can read/understand it can truly read the Qur’an?

“The Bible and the Torah became corrupt and the Qur'an was sent to fix this. Thus with submission to God-alone, thus becoming a Muslim (submitter).”

When and how do you think this corruption occurred? Was it accidental or intentional? If intentional why not blot out/change big sins of David, Moses, Peter and so on?

“As for praying for the deceased, Islam doesn't play around with the monotheism deal. You can't pray to saints and deceased prophets for intercession on your behalf. They're dead. Jesus, Abraham, they are all dead. Only God is deserving of prayer in Islam and unlike Christianity you don't just get into heaven for believing. It requires the individual to put in their fair share, with some exceptions. But Allah is forgiving, merciful.”

I hadn’t considered that 9:113 meant dead people. I admit that I am no expert on Islamic doctrine (and I’m sure it varies) but what does “after it hath become clear that they are people of hell-fire” mean? Is it referring to the day of judgment? I know Muhammad will intercede for certain people that day but why mention “those who believe” if it doesn’t mean this life? Does the Qur’an teach that people go to heaven/hell right after death or are they waiting? If they are waiting what makes it “become clear that they are people of hell-fire”?

Do you mean that these verses are only referring to the Old and New Testaments?

2:106 Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things ?

16:101 And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.
If they apply to the Qur’an how if not replacing/overriding?
 
Old 12-14-2012, 07:19 AM   #103
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@Fadl

Yeah I understand how it would be paradoxical to a Baha’i. I’m a Christian that disagrees with that claim. I would say it seems a bit paradoxical to say on one hand that Islam is more progressive but then on the other keep hearing “You have to keep in the mind the savage culture and times.” It IS more progressive or it’s not. It is a different claim to say “Muhammad came to a savage people and had to bring them to some fundamentals before reaching the equal/superior teachings of Christianity.”
 
Old 12-14-2012, 08:57 AM   #104
Member
 
ewlabonte's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Athol MA USA
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
@Fadl

It IS more progressive or it’s not.
I disagree with you. For Jesus to make laws about what should be done to a thief or an adulterer would have been ridiculous. The Christians were under the legal authority of the Romans. His laws were simply about how one should treat others. Islam was a nation. Christianity existed within the Roman Empire and would not have any governmental authority for 400 years. And again, Muhammed was dealing with a savage people while Jesus was dealing with a civilized, albeit brutal empire.
 
Old 12-14-2012, 11:38 AM   #105
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 1,293
Some Further Questions,

When Baha'is talk about progressive revelation, this is what they mean:

"Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progres...%A1'%C3%AD)
 
Old 12-14-2012, 03:34 PM   #106
Member
 
ewlabonte's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Athol MA USA
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvestigateTruth View Post
Some Further Questions,

When Baha'is talk about progressive revelation, this is what they mean:

"Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progres...%A1'%C3%AD)
That's a good point, and I had to go back to the original post. Shoghi Effendi wasn't using the word "progressive" in the sense that people talk about when they say "progressive politics". He said that it was "a fuller Revelation", which was in line with the doctrine of "progressive revelation". The original post was confusing the concepts a bit.
 
Old 12-14-2012, 10:09 PM   #107
Tony Bristow-Stagg
 
tonyfish58's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Normanton Far North Queensland
Posts: 4,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
@LordOfGoblins
Yeah I’m throwing out a few specific ones so far. But in my opinion Christianity is superior on all good counts. I understand that it said “taken together” AKA overall. A spouse can say that overall their spouse is good or better than their last one. If asked for details they should be able to say “well ____ does this and never does_____.”
This isn’t a comprehensive list but here are my thoughts of how we might BEGIN to break down “taken together.”

Prayer

Sin

Materialism

Polygamy

The founder’s life

War and peace

Relevance to today’s believer

No doubt there are others but here on the ones off the top of my head. With all due respect to Zhang and everyone else here I think Islam goes backwards. We stop being the children of God (New Testament) and become only servants in the Qur’an. The NT says that the rituals of the Torah were a shadow of things to come (the new covenant given through Christ). But then a big emphasis is placed on rituals again. The qualifications for NT leaders were that they were the husbands of ONE wife. Yes I’ve heard that because Muhammad was sinless he could treat that all equally but even IF that was true why not lead by example?
Some Further Questions - If you are after a concrete reply to this issue then read this great work -

The Brilliant Proof: Table of Contents

You will find in it a logical explanation that it might indeed be a backward step for a follower of Islam to only accept Christ and not the other way around.

Regards Tony
 
Old 12-15-2012, 03:07 AM   #108
Member
 
ewlabonte's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Athol MA USA
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
@LordOfGoblins
Yeah I’m throwing out a few specific ones so far. But in my opinion Christianity is superior on all good counts. I understand that it said “taken together” AKA overall. A spouse can say that overall their spouse is good or better than their last one. If asked for details they should be able to say “well ____ does this and never does_____.”
This isn’t a comprehensive list but here are my thoughts of how we might BEGIN to break down “taken together.”


Polygamy
I was unaware that there was anything in the bible prohibiting polygamy. I would suggest that the reason that Christianity ended up not accepting it was because it was forbidden in Greek and Roman societies for cultural reasons, and it was into these societies that Christianity spread most extensively. The fact that ancient Roman society was "superior" to pre-Islamic Arabic society isn't under debate.

Last edited by ewlabonte; 12-15-2012 at 03:10 AM.
 
Old 12-15-2012, 05:17 AM   #109
Senior Member
 
arthra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: California
Posts: 4,303
SFQ wrote:

I think Islam goes backwards. We stop being the children of God (New Testament) and become only servants in the Qur’an.

My comment..

I think by now most who have read this thread know your attitude...

Attacking Islam is shall we say a common activity of many Christians that go back...what?...oh centuries. Attacking other religions is a kind of avocation. The Baha'i Faith has changed that.. We don't waste time and energy attacking Prophet Muhammad ... or the Buddha, Moses, Zoroaster, etc. We find what is spiritually exalting in past dispensations and applaud them.

Your "comprehensive" list above is a further projection of your own bias and prejudices which you wish to project here. For shame!

Last edited by arthra; 12-15-2012 at 05:25 AM.
 
Old 12-15-2012, 08:00 AM   #110
Member
 
ewlabonte's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Athol MA USA
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
@LordOfGoblins
Yeah I’m throwing out a few specific ones so far. But in my opinion Christianity is superior on all good counts. I understand that it said “taken together” AKA overall. A spouse can say that overall their spouse is good or better than their last one. If asked for details they should be able to say “well ____ does this and never does_____.”
This isn’t a comprehensive list but here are my thoughts of how we might BEGIN to break down “taken together.”

Prayer

Sin

Materialism

Polygamy

The founder’s life

War and peace

Relevance to today’s believer
You forgot one: fasting

Fasting is mentioned in the bible, but there is nothing said about how or when to do it. Traditional Catholic fasting involves not eating meat, or just eating a small meal with a couple snacks during the day. The Islamic fast is much more rigorous. No food or drink from sunrise to sunset during Ramadan. Now you can say that fasting isn't that important, but then that's just your Christian bias.
 
Old 12-15-2012, 08:55 AM   #111
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewlabonte View Post
I was unaware that there was anything in the bible prohibiting polygamy. I would suggest that the reason that Christianity ended up not accepting it was because it was forbidden in Greek and Roman societies for cultural reasons, and it was into these societies that Christianity spread most extensively. The fact that ancient Roman society was "superior" to pre-Islamic Arabic society isn't under debate.
My dear brother Ew

You have raised (as often you do) another excellent point, one that I have thought about myself ie the early church's opposition to polygamy.

Polygamy, as far as I am aware, was not actually illegal in the early Roman Empire, it was simply strongly discouraged because Romans and Greeks themselves did not marry more than one spouse, and Rome believed that its monogamy was superior to most other culture's polygamous practices. It is only in the late Roman Empire when polygamy is officially outlawed and by then, Christianity was either the fastest growing religion or the state religion. As an example, Justinian's Institutes, the codification of Roman Law compiled under the Christian Emperor Saint Justinian that forms the basis of modern law systems in Europe (and from where we get the dictum, "innocent until proven guilty"):


From Title X. "Of Marriage", section 7:


Quote:
"...A woman cannot have two husbands at the same time: and if she is still your wife's mother, that is, if her daughter is still married to you, you cannot marry her because you cannot have two wives at the same time...."

- Saint Justinian the Great (c. 482-565) Institutes, Christian ruler of Eastern Roman Empire

Here are some more excerpts from the Code of Justinian:


Quote:
5.5.2: "It is allowed to no one who is under Roman authority to be able to have two wives openly, since even in the Praetor's Edict men of this sort have been branded with legal infamy (infamia). The appropriate judge will not allow this matter to go unpunished."

9.9.18: "Without a doubt legal infamy attends the man who had two wives at the same time, for in this matter it is not the effect of the law -- since our citizens are forbidden to contract mulitple marriages -- but the intention that is considered. Moreover, the accusation of stuprum also will be formally brought by a legally authorized accuser against the man who asked for your hand in marriage, pretending that he was unmarried, when he had left another materfamilias in the province."

As to the punishment for polygamy, the above codes state that the transgressor was labeled with infamia, which would result in a loss of political and public rights..."

Does this necessarily mean that Christianity "adopted" Roman monogamy?

If that were the case then why did the Christians not adopt the Roman understanding of marriage as a purely social institition? The Christians saw it as a bond of love between two people. Roman law permitted married men to have intercourse with slaves - that was the norm - and to indulge in pederasty (sex with young boys), not to mention legal concubinage, whereas Christians decried this. The Christian conception of monogamy came not from Roman Law but from our own teachings that were in complete agreement with Roman Law in that respect, although not with Roman understanding of sex in general. The Early Church opposed completely key facets of Roman Law and society: abortion, infanticide, the Emperor cult, worship of idols (which as you know a good number of Christians received the death penalty for refusing), the bloodbath of the Roman gladiatorial games; Christians also refused to serve in the Roman Army. In the Bible, Rome is depicted in the Book of Revelation as the "Great whore"; soaking wet with the blood of Christian martyrs, the very power of the Antichrist on earth.

Given all this, there is not a lot of similarity between Christian teachings and Roman social mores; and the Christians were not exactly happy bed-buddies with the Roman Empire.

The Early Church clearly endorsed monogamy and Jesus' statements about marriage speak of one man and one woman becoming one flesh, not one man and three or four women. We also have Paul's statements in his Letters to the effect that one should only be married once, and that the wife gives her conjugal rights and has control over the husband's body and vice-versa. How could these teachings ever be seen in a polygamous light? They clearly teach one woman having power over one man's body and vice-versa. Also Jesus never wrote anything or delivered a scripture. He gave teachings to his Apostles and these were passed down partly in written forum and partly from Christian elder to Christian elder, that is Sacred Tradition, and the Tradition was clearly against polygamy as was Roman society.

The Church Fathers unaninmously opposed polygamy and not one of them ever supported it in the slightest. One can find no Father who had a favourable view of polygamy, nor one who permitted it, and the canons expressly imposed penalties for it.

In Roman marriages, after a period of 12 months, the husband assumed Manus (that is ownership) over his wife, as he would over any other of his moveable property. Marriages were often arranged between families for social benefit. Divorce was also incredibly easy, straightforward and common. The Early Christians, alternatively, taught that marriage was an equal bond of love between a man and a woman that reflected the love between Christ and his Church. Saint Paul tells us that in a Christian marriage the wife owns the husband's body and he owns her body; that is a mutual ownership that completely runs counter to Roman understandings of marriage, and indeed Roman Law which stipulated the ownership only of the husband over the wife:


Quote:
"...For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife..."

- Corinthians 7:4

The Early Church also restricted divorce, which again went counter to Roman Law and society in which it was common.

In this respect I think that it is very unlikely, indeed quite unimaginable, that the Early Christians would have adopted monogamy from the Romans.

Rather for once Christian and Roman morality agreed, although not absolutely as can be seen from Roman acceptance of concubines and its radically different understanding of the marriage institution.

Christianity emerged, it also must be stated, in Judea were the Romans (at that time, although not in the third century if I remember correctly) tolerated Jewish polygamy. So the Christians had no reason to embrace Roman monogamy

The Early Christians could easily have opposed Roman monogamy just like they opposed Roman idol-worship, abortion, infanticide, the gladiatorial games etc. Being a movement that began as a Jewish offshoot and which regarded the Tanakh (Old Testament) as divinely revealed, they could easily have joined their fellow Jews in allowing polygamy.

But they didn't

Last edited by Yeshua; 12-15-2012 at 09:00 AM.
 
Old 12-15-2012, 10:48 AM   #112
Member
 
ewlabonte's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Athol MA USA
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua View Post
My dear brother Ew

You have raised (as often you do) another excellent point, one that I have thought about myself ie the early church's opposition to polygamy.

Polygamy, as far as I am aware, was not actually illegal in the early Roman Empire, it was simply strongly discouraged because Romans and Greeks themselves did not marry more than one spouse, and Rome believed that its monogamy was superior to most other culture's polygamous practices. It is only in the late Roman Empire when polygamy is officially outlawed and by then, Christianity was either the fastest growing religion or the state religion. As an example, Justinian's Institutes, the codification of Roman Law compiled under the Christian Emperor Saint Justinian that forms the basis of modern law systems in Europe (and from where we get the dictum, "innocent until proven guilty"):


From Title X. "Of Marriage", section 7:





Here are some more excerpts from the Code of Justinian:





Does this necessarily mean that Christianity "adopted" Roman monogamy?

If that were the case then why did the Christians not adopt the Roman understanding of marriage as a purely social institition? The Christians saw it as a bond of love between two people. Roman law permitted married men to have intercourse with slaves - that was the norm - and to indulge in pederasty (sex with young boys), not to mention legal concubinage, whereas Christians decried this. The Christian conception of monogamy came not from Roman Law but from our own teachings that were in complete agreement with Roman Law in that respect, although not with Roman understanding of sex in general. The Early Church opposed completely key facets of Roman Law and society: abortion, infanticide, the Emperor cult, worship of idols (which as you know a good number of Christians received the death penalty for refusing), the bloodbath of the Roman gladiatorial games; Christians also refused to serve in the Roman Army. In the Bible, Rome is depicted in the Book of Revelation as the "Great whore"; soaking wet with the blood of Christian martyrs, the very power of the Antichrist on earth.

Given all this, there is not a lot of similarity between Christian teachings and Roman social mores; and the Christians were not exactly happy bed-buddies with the Roman Empire.

The Early Church clearly endorsed monogamy and Jesus' statements about marriage speak of one man and one woman becoming one flesh, not one man and three or four women. We also have Paul's statements in his Letters to the effect that one should only be married once, and that the wife gives her conjugal rights and has control over the husband's body and vice-versa. How could these teachings ever be seen in a polygamous light? They clearly teach one woman having power over one man's body and vice-versa. Also Jesus never wrote anything or delivered a scripture. He gave teachings to his Apostles and these were passed down partly in written forum and partly from Christian elder to Christian elder, that is Sacred Tradition, and the Tradition was clearly against polygamy as was Roman society.

The Church Fathers unaninmously opposed polygamy and not one of them ever supported it in the slightest. One can find no Father who had a favourable view of polygamy, nor one who permitted it, and the canons expressly imposed penalties for it.

In Roman marriages, after a period of 12 months, the husband assumed Manus (that is ownership) over his wife, as he would over any other of his moveable property. Marriages were often arranged between families for social benefit. Divorce was also incredibly easy, straightforward and common. The Early Christians, alternatively, taught that marriage was an equal bond of love between a man and a woman that reflected the love between Christ and his Church. Saint Paul tells us that in a Christian marriage the wife owns the husband's body and he owns her body; that is a mutual ownership that completely runs counter to Roman understandings of marriage, and indeed Roman Law which stipulated the ownership only of the husband over the wife:





The Early Church also restricted divorce, which again went counter to Roman Law and society in which it was common.

In this respect I think that it is very unlikely, indeed quite unimaginable, that the Early Christians would have adopted monogamy from the Romans.

Rather for once Christian and Roman morality agreed, although not absolutely as can be seen from Roman acceptance of concubines and its radically different understanding of the marriage institution.

Christianity emerged, it also must be stated, in Judea were the Romans (at that time, although not in the third century if I remember correctly) tolerated Jewish polygamy. So the Christians had no reason to embrace Roman monogamy

The Early Christians could easily have opposed Roman monogamy just like they opposed Roman idol-worship, abortion, infanticide, the gladiatorial games etc. Being a movement that began as a Jewish offshoot and which regarded the Tanakh (Old Testament) as divinely revealed, they could easily have joined their fellow Jews in allowing polygamy.

But they didn't
Good answer, I'll have to investigate further.
 
Old 12-15-2012, 10:58 AM   #113
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@ewlabonte

“For Jesus to make laws about what should be done to a thief or an adulterer would have been ridiculous. The Christians were under the legal authority of the Romans.”

Jesus does touch upon theft and adultery in the gospels but yes it’s not in a strictly law/government type basis. Even if the Roman Empire wasn’t there he was largely addressing Jews who had the laws of Moses grained into them.

But it would be simply inaccurate to say that Christianity NEEDS an organized government to work/thrive.

Steve Saint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(I recommend watching the movie adaption “End of the spear” if you’ve never seen it. Also if you think this a mere exception I'll be happy to cite more references for you. Ideally how many would be convincing?)


Jesus wanted his message to be preached beyond the Roman Empire. That message included MUCH more than how we are to treat others.
Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Ewlabonte I think you’re playing with words here my friend. I can understand and respect the special divisions in the Olympics like wheel chair basketball. You could say that those men/women are extraordinarily talented and could beat a number of people with full use of their legs. But it would be inaccurate to say they were superior to the players in the NBA, that they would win if put in competition. (Yes Islam and Christianity DO conflict on a number of key issues)

If you want to say that given the fact that Muhammad was dealing with a savage Arab people without a stable (and in many ways good) government like the Roman Empire okay he did what he had to do. Worked with what he had. (I don't agree but can understand that position) But that is not merely what is claimed in the Baha’i writings.

“The Qur'án is not only more authoritative than any previous religious gospel, but it contains also much more ordinances, teachings and precepts, which taken together constitute a fuller Revelation of God's purpose and law to mankind than Christianity, Judaism or any other previous Dispensation”

The claim is not that Muhammad did “more with less” but that the Qur’an’s teaching brought a fuller revelation of God’s purpose AND law to mankind than any previous religion.
 
Old 12-15-2012, 12:47 PM   #114
Member
 
ewlabonte's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Athol MA USA
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
@ewlabonte

“For Jesus to make laws about what should be done to a thief or an adulterer would have been ridiculous. The Christians were under the legal authority of the Romans.”

Jesus does touch upon theft and adultery in the gospels but yes it’s not in a strictly law/government type basis. Even if the Roman Empire wasn’t there he was largely addressing Jews who had the laws of Moses grained into them.

But it would be simply inaccurate to say that Christianity NEEDS an organized government to work/thrive.

Steve Saint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(I recommend watching the movie adaption “End of the spear” if you’ve never seen it. Also if you think this a mere exception I'll be happy to cite more references for you. Ideally how many would be convincing?)


Jesus wanted his message to be preached beyond the Roman Empire. That message included MUCH more than how we are to treat others.
Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
The "uttermost part of the earth" that it reached, until the advent of the British Empire, was the extent of the Roman Empire. Before it could extend any further, Islam had arisen and taken over half of the Christian world. So Luke (the author of Acts) was wrong.

It's not a matter of whether Christianity "needs an organized government to work/thrive" but what kind of law was Christ creating. Was it a law for governments to follow, or laws for Christians to follow. I think it's obvious that it was the latter. Muhammed, however, was creating a set of laws for an Islamic nation. That's a different kettle of fish altogether. And, btw, for most of the history of Christiandom, the penalty for theft in the Chrisitan world, was death. I think the cutting off of hands was a bit more humane.
 
Old 12-15-2012, 01:39 PM   #115
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@ewlabonte

"And, btw, for most of the history of Christiandom, the penalty for theft in the Chrisitan world, was death. I think the cutting off of hands was a bit more humane. "

I would appreciate some references on that. Even if that is the case it is not in the New Testament.

"It's not a matter of whether Christianity "needs an organized government to work/thrive" but what kind of law was Christ creating. Was it a law for governments to follow, or laws for Christians to follow. I think it's obvious that it was the latter. Muhammed, however, was creating a set of laws for an Islamic nation."

I don't think you can just separate the religion from the government like that. The passage I quoted at the beginning of this thread makes it clear the it is the Baha'is placing Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the same category to say that Islam is a fuller revelation of God's purpose to man. The passage compares them as religions (not making the distinction of whether one was geared toward building a nation). Christ's teachings compared to Muhammad's were vastly different even outside the realms of governments and law. Christ answered back causing many verbal opponent's to marvel while as Muhammad had/condoned several opposing poets killed (see earlier post to arthra)

"The "uttermost part of the earth" that it reached, until the advent of the British Empire, was the extent of the Roman Empire. Before it could extend any further, Islam had arisen and taken over half of the Christian world. So Luke (the author of Acts) was wrong. "

You're entitled to your opinion my friend. But seeing as the world is a very big place it makes sense that this command was to all Christians in general. Besides no follower of any religion worth following does so perfectly (save Christ). Also consider:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
 
Old 12-15-2012, 01:43 PM   #116
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewlabonte View Post
The "uttermost part of the earth" that it reached, until the advent of the British Empire, was the extent of the Roman Empire. Before it could extend any further, Islam had arisen and taken over half of the Christian world. So Luke (the author of Acts) was wrong.

It's not a matter of whether Christianity "needs an organized government to work/thrive" but what kind of law was Christ creating. Was it a law for governments to follow, or laws for Christians to follow. I think it's obvious that it was the latter. Muhammed, however, was creating a set of laws for an Islamic nation. That's a different kettle of fish altogether. And, btw, for most of the history of Christiandom, the penalty for theft in the Chrisitan world, was death. I think the cutting off of hands was a bit more humane.

My dear brother Ew

Death? Theft was severely punished in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe, as in the Islamic East, however death (for example by hanging) was not the standard punishment for theft, although death for theft was a common punishment in the Roman Empire.

During the Medieval period in Europe law was based on a combination of the Roman and Germanic legal systems, and this hybrid system treated theft as a crime punishable by a fine.

Punishments varied from country to country but that was the general punishment. In some countries I think there is recorded when a secular court dealt with a severe case they issued a draconian punishment such as amputating a hand or ear however:

Quote:
In the Middle Ages, fines were the most common punishment for theft, and one that was not considered dishonorable...The thievery code in the Dalarna law called for a fine of three marks for pilfering one öre (a mark was worth eight öre). The fine applied whether or not legal action was taken. The fine for stealing a half mark was 40 marks....
Quote:
The most common crimes in the medieval towns were fights and thefts... The task of the Court was to solve a conflict between two parties; a person who was accused of doing wrong and another who had been affected by that wrongdoing. The aim of the punishment was to make the accused make up to those they had harmed. The most common punishment was a fine. When the fine was paid, the crime was forgiven and everything went back to normal in town. The aim of the punishment was also to avoid revenge.

However, if a person committed crimes repeatedly, or committed really severe crimes, the punishments were very hard indeed. A thief could lose a few fingers; a murderer could be sentenced to death.
Alternatively one could appeal to an ecclesiastical trial rather than the secular one. The Church trials were as legitimate as the civil ones in that very religious society where the demarcation line between church and state was far less defined than it is in our post-enlightenment world. The punishments given by the ecclesiastical courts were intended to save the soul of the guilty and so they included time to repent, confess, and make restitution to the victim - meaning that where theft was concerned they were even less harsh than the normal secular courts.

Can you please tell me what European legal system you derived the death penalty for theft from?

I would like to know since it is a revelation for me. Not that death was never a punishment for theft (it was in some countries at certain times for very severe cases) but the suggestion that it was the standard punishment would be a revelation to me.

I would say though that amputation for theft was not harsh by the standards of Muhammad's time. Indeed Christian countries based on Roman Law and Germanic custom imposed the cutting off of ears and in extreme cases death for theft, however it should be noted that these legal systems were not based upon church teaching which had no legal system and actually were more harsh than the Torah law of the OT. The scriptural punishment for theft requires the thief to pay the victim at least double the value of the goods stolen.

Quote:
Exodus 22: 7: If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.
8: If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.
9: For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

Exodus 22: 1: If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep
So I would say that the ancient Jews were actually more advanced than later Christians and Muslims when it comes to dealing with theft. The Old Testament penalty for stealing was not death, but to repay what one has stolen plus an additional penalty to the person that they stole from.

It should be noted though that secular, civil legal systems in medieval Christians countries have no bearing on the Christian faith since we have no divinely revealed legal system and if these legal systems are more barbaric than the Jewish Torah then those societies have a clear problem and it would be interesting to find out how they justified any punishment worse than a fine theologically speaking, because the Jewish Law was inspired by God for that period in history, and therefore a harsher punishment for a crime than the Jewish Torah is rather ludicrous from a faith point of view and if anything demonstrates how unfaithful Christian societies were to Christian morality.

Last edited by Yeshua; 12-15-2012 at 02:19 PM.
 
Old 12-15-2012, 01:45 PM   #117
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@InvestigateTruth

“When Baha'is talk about progressive revelation, this is what they mean:

"Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance."

If the truth is progressive why do we go from sons and daughters of God to servants (children of Adam only) in the Qur’an? Why go back to so much ritual that Paul says was merely a foreshadowing of what they now had?
 
Old 12-15-2012, 01:54 PM   #118
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@tonyfish58

Well what do you know it's in my Ocean program! I'll check it out, thanks.
 
Old 12-15-2012, 02:19 PM   #119
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@arthra

arthra wrote:

“I think by now most who have read this thread know your attitude...

Attacking Islam is shall we say a common activity of many Christians that go back...what?...oh centuries. Attacking other religions is a kind of avocation. The Baha'i Faith has changed that.. We don't waste time and energy attacking Prophet Muhammad ... or the Buddha, Moses, Zoroaster, etc. We find what is spiritually exalting in past dispensations and applaud them.

Your "comprehensive" list above is a further projection of your own bias and prejudices which you wish to project here. For shame!”

My comment:

My friend arthra, please pay closer attention to what I say, I think that’s one reason there are negative vibes between us at times. I said this ISN’T, IS NOT a comprehensive list but a BEGINNING.

“This isn’t a comprehensive list but here are my thoughts of how we might BEGIN to break down “taken together.”

Is what I said.

EVERYONE is biased to some degree my friend, I think that can clearly be seen in our previous discussions about the resurrection where over and over you cried “maybe, maybe, what if, maybe” with little to no historical or logical backing your bias is evident.
I “attack” that which I think false if appropriate and important. If I and many other Christians are right it is certainly worth my/your time to fight for the truth (I don’t wish anyone to suffer an eternity separated from God) and this is a forum on an appropriate thread. I also “attack” Mormonism, Jehovah’s witness doctrine, atheism and more. Just like there are many ways to die physically there are many ways to go astray spiritually in my opinion. Believing what I believe would you think me good or bad in intention in debating this issue?

I also have a section in my research on Islam entitled “good points” things I like/appreciate, for example I like the verse “God is closer to man than his jugular vein”. I wish to chase after the truth and if you’re right then (in the end) the Baha’I Faith should be able to explain all rational criticism and you have nothing to worry about. But I would appreciate a more pleasant line of conversation with you in the future if you can manage it. Final thought: Is there anything comparative to 1 Corinthians 13 in the Qur’an? If so I did not find it. It repeats many other biblical stories and concepts why not something so profound as that?
 
Old 12-15-2012, 04:49 PM   #120
Senior Member
 
Sen McGlinn's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: New Zealand mainly
Posts: 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
Is there anything comparative to 1 Corinthians 13 in the Qur’an? If so I did not find it. It repeats many other biblical stories and concepts why not something so profound as that?
1 Corinthians 13 raises the question of how this "love" is shown. The Qur'an replies:

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing.
(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 2 - The Cow)
 
Reply

  Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Interfaith

Tags
christianity, islam, progressive



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook @bahaiforums RSS


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2006 - 2018 Bahai Forums. All rights reserved.