Choosing Christianity (after a long research of other religions)

[hillard]

Which ever religion a person chooses it will be the true religion, I just hope that my religion is the true religion,
with so many religions in the world who can say? can they all be right or are they all wrong?

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings, E.C.!

The consistent teaching of Christianity for 2,000 years (give or take a few) has been that we only know where we end up after the body dies.

Fortunately, the Baha'i scriptures have clarified this! I quote:

"When they [men] are delivered through the light of faith from the darkness of these vices, and become illuminated with the radiance of the sun of reality, and ennobled with all the virtues, they esteem this the greatest reward, and they know it to be the true paradise. In the same way they consider that the spiritual punishment ... is to be subjected to the world of nature, to be veiled from God, to be brutal and ignorant, to fall into carnal lusts, to be absorbed in animal frailties, to be characterized with dark qualities ... these are the greatest punishments and tortures....

"...The rewards of the other world are the perfections and the peace obtained in the spiritual worlds after leaving this world ... the spiritual graces, the various spiritual gifts in the Kingdom of God, the gaining of the desires of the heart and the soul, and the meeting of God in the world of eternity. In the same way the punishments of the other world ... consist in being deprived of the special divine blessings and the absolute bounties, and falling into the lowest degrees of existence. He who is deprived of these divine favours, although he continues after death, is considered as dead by the people of truth.

"The wealth of the other world is nearness to God. Consequently it is certain that those who are near the Divine Court are allowed to intercede, and this intercession is approved by God....

"It is even possible that the condition of those who have died in sin and unbelief may become changed; that is to say, they may become the object of pardon through the bounty of God, not through His justice; for bounty is giving without desert, and justice is giving what is deserved. As we have the power to pray for these souls here, so likewise we shall possess the same power in the other world, which is the Kingdom of God.... Therefore in that world also they can make progress. As here they can receive light by their supplications, there also they can plead for forgiveness, and receive light through entreaties and supplications.

"Both before and after putting off this material form, there is progress in perfection, but not in state.... There is no other being higher than a perfect man. But man when he has reached this state can still make progress in perfections but not in state, because there is no state higher than that of a perfect man to which he can transfer himself. He only progresses in the state of humanity, for the human perfections are infinite. Thus however learned a man may be, we can imagine one more learned.

"Hence, as the perfections of humanity are endless, man can also make progress in perfections after leaving this world."
―Some Answered Questions, pp. 260-274 passim.

Best!

Bruce

 

[Eudaimonist]

A Catholic priest inquired to the head monk (Ch'an school in China, I believe) about why they worshipped statues of Buddha. The head monk then proceeded to smash the statue on the ground and the other monks continued as before.

Meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razeontherock]

Quite amusing actually, especially when Socrates questions Jesus on that if God was just, merciful and peaceful, why didn't he just pardon Satan instead of locking him away in a place of torment and pain.

This is disturbing that such an easy and obvious question to answer would be asked by someone who considers themselves enlightened. What do you find amusing about this?

 

[razeontherock]

"Eternal security" is actually heresy

Besides, only American Protestants believe that anyway.

You've said an awful lot of things about "protestantism," or "American Pr," that simply aren't so. Obviously you've posted what you experienced, but it's not at all representative of anything I've found. For example, in a Church that teaches the Bible, the idea at the beginning of this snip is easily refuted:

Christ Himself said that "those who only utter 'Lord Lord' may not be saved".

Why does a false idea need to be branded heresy? The connotative meaning is heinous and divisive. Why can't it just be referred to as error, bad thinking, wrong, etc?

Sorry, but the status of one's salvation, in a Christian view, can not be known until one has died and consequently judged.

This is presented like a dutiful EO, but is a bit much like following the Pope for my taste. What then are we to do with this passage, and others like it?

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life"
[/QUOTE]

How is this not clear? How does this not distinguish Christianity, apart from all other Faiths?

 

[razeontherock]

There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."
--(The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 114;
also Gleanings, CXI, pp. 217-8)

Amazing how you can get one part so right, and still come away with such a wrong conclusion:

And please note that Christ died--as has happened to multiple Divine Messengers--because of the perversity of humans: had people not been acting in an ungodly manner, none of then would have been killed!

As a Bah'ai, aren't you supposed to have at least a rudimentary understanding of the Bible? You don't! The Messiah needing to be put to a gruesome death is the oldest Prophecy, and repeated more often than anything else except Judgment Day.

 

[razeontherock]

if supposedly one's salvation is guaranteed than what would even be the point of God judging people after death?

You speak as if you're unaware of there being 2 separate Judgments. Surely not!

 

[peaceful soul]

You speak as if you're unaware of there being 2 separate Judgments. Surely not!

I was going to say that after I got a response from E.C.

 

[E.C.]

Greetings, E.C.!



Fortunately, the Baha'i scriptures have clarified this! I quote:

<snip>

Best!

Bruce

Bruce, I have already gone through my days of spiritual anarchy and therefore have no interest in the Bahai Faith. I'm sorry, I do not mean to be rude.

You've said an awful lot of things about "protestantism," or "American Pr," that simply aren't so. Obviously you've posted what you experienced, but it's not at all representative of anything I've found. For example, in a Church that teaches the Bible, the idea at the beginning of this snip is easily refuted:

The fact that a Church would teach the Bible as opposed to Christ is wrong indeed. I have found many that taught the Bible without Christ sad to say, but they do exist.

Why does a false idea need to be branded heresy? The connotative meaning is heinous and divisive. Why can't it just be referred to as error, bad thinking, wrong, etc?

Because I am not going to sugar-coat something. If a certain theology is heretical or not than I will say "this is/is not heretical" and leave it at that if need be. Part of why the forces of evil have made so much headway the last century or two is because of sugar-coating. There are even some Christians today who say that "demons do not exist" and failing to acknowledge one's enemy is living in a state of delusion.

This is presented like a dutiful EO, but is a bit much like following the Pope for my taste. What then are we to do with this passage, and others like it?

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life"

How is this not clear? How does this not distinguish Christianity, apart from all other Faiths?

For one thing I am not arguing against Christianity, yet the fact remains that we will not know the state of our soul after death until we get there. That goes for all people Christian or not.

As for what truly distinguishes Christianity from other faiths that is simple: Jesus Christ. There have been all sorts of prophets sent by God, but only in Christianity will one find a person such as Christ who is both fully God and fully Man in one body.

You speak as if you're unaware of there being 2 separate Judgments. Surely not!

Final Judgment at the end of days is another story.

A friend of mine asked our priest what happens to the soul after death in a nutshell from an Orthodox standing and this is the gist of what he said, "The soul goes to a state of being which transcends time because God is outside of time and since Christ is the Alpha and Omega, or the Beginning and the End. That state of being is when the soul is judged." He said a few other things, but my recall lacks a bit at 9am. Keeping that in mind with the fact that there are two times, kairos and chronos, one could figure that there is only one judgment and that the judgment of one's soul is at the Final Judgment in God's Time aka kairos.

Either way, I personally find it frivolous to worry too much about life after death since with Christ we should have fear of it and since we'll know when we get there anyway.

 

[peaceful soul]

But perhaps they were? It's not as if they're completely opposed to each other. At least with Jesus and Buddha they'd probably at least tolerate each other, as opposed to Jesus and Socrates, if the link I could show was any indication. It's quite amusing, just look up Jesus meets Socrates and I think you'll find it

You sound just like a Baha'i by trying to harmonize contrasting ideologies. One can always find common ground in almost everything, but what is normally not addressed (on purpose) is the contradictions that create the differences. Those differences tell us that they are different and incompatible. If you read about Jesus in the Bible, you will see that He doesn't tolerate false gospels. All other gospels/ideologies are false ones from His perspective.

originally posted by ToHoldNothing

Differences don't always mean contradictions.

I said 'contradictions that make differences', which is different than what you are saying. My statement shows that the contradictions do exist and that they show differences. There is no maybe about it.

Contradictions are direct oppositional statements. Like a dog is a dog, and a dog is a cat. A "dog is a cat" contradicts "a dog is a dog".

While I agree with you, you don't see that such religions as Bahai' faith, which serves to harmonize itself with other scriptures by reinterpreting them, give the impression that a dog is a cat. Somehow it seeks to give the illusion that although there is a distinction between the dog and cat, the former religion(s) thought the dog was a cat and Baha'ullah had to come to correct the misunderstanding.

With Christianity, the difficulty arises as to what reflects a genuine teaching of Jesus Christ,

It is not an issue with those who have come to know Christ by being reborn spiritually under His promises of redemption through salvation given through Him; however, it may appear to you to be that way.

since well, he didn't write any of the books in the entire canon and probably not even the non canonical stuff. It's all secondary and then we have further distance by language.

That is a cop out if I have ever heard one! We do know what He taught. We also know what His Disciples taught. We also know that He ordered His disciples to go and teach His gospel to the other nations. It is no mystery to us.

Difference also doesn't equal incompatibility.

I didn't state that this wasn't true, but one must not try to make things mesh for the sake of the need to find conformity and compatibility. That was part of why I worded my statement as I did. What I did by stating things the way that I did was to point to the fact that Baha'i faith specifically tries to eliminate the problem of contradictions much like you have presented by

In fact, differences can actually enhance compatibility, though I would agree logically there tend to be basic requirements shared in common, even if the practice is different, the principles are virtually identical. But me and my girlfriend are not the same in personality or behavior, but we also do share similar interests. She might like shoujo manga more than I do, but that's not to say I completely distance myself from it. Similalrly, she might not like my overly analytical approach to religion, but she can appreciate it in some sense nonetheless, I'd imagine.

I appreciate you attempt to explain, but ideologies don't work that way, or at least, that easily. If one ideology states that capitalism is the only viable system and another states that socialism is, we can possibly reconcile these two if both ideologies are somewhere between full capitalism and full socialism. But keep in mind that we couldn't determine that until we studied the two.

Focusing on similarities first and reflecting on differences as secondary is key to a dialogue that actually creates understanding and tolerance between the two or more parties involved.

That is fine if one wants to start a conversation that way, but my motive was not so. It was to show a difference that can't be reconciled by doing as you say. One could also start a conversation by discussing the differences and still create tolerance. Tolerance is not agreement, but allowing both sides to make points and still be civil. Tolerance is not to given in to another ideology for the sake of peace.

If Jesus doesn't tolerate false gospels, why did he use a parable that spoke of Samaritans as good? And what about the Syro-Phoenician woman?

Tolerate means to accept something as a principle but not necessarily to endorse it. You sound as if tolerate means to accept and apply.

He used those parables as teaching tools. Who said that they had to be true? I don't recall Jesus ever compromising what He taught; so, I fail to understand your point.

I admit at best these are reflections of race, but honestly, he only seems to define false gospel as anything that contradicts "his words". Which honestly are all over the radar.

What do you mean by 'all over the radar'? Jesus states that any gospel other than what He preached is a false gospel. I don't see what the problem is with understanding that.

Turn the other cheek, but he comes to bring a sword.

Do you honestly believe that? Jesus didn't say that He personally was going to bring a sword and start fighting or advocate fighting. The meaning is that His teachings will cause families to come into conflict with each other because some would accept His message and gain eternal life while others will spiritually die. The two sides would war with each other. I don't mean necessarily a physical confrontation, but at the least, a spiritual one where strife will occur. In other words, His teachings will cause disharmony instead of peace.

 

[durangodawood]

....The fact that a Church would teach the Bible as opposed to Christ is wrong indeed. I have found many that taught the Bible without Christ sad to say, but they do exist.....

How do you teach the Bible without Christ? Isnt he a central figure?
.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I said 'contradictions that make differences', which is different than what you are saying. My statement shows that the contradictions do exist and that they show differences. There is no maybe about it.

Contradictions by their nature show differences, but not every supposed contradiction is actually a contradiction.

While I agree with you, you don't see that such religions as Bahai' faith, which serves to harmonize itself with other scriptures by reinterpreting them, give the impression that a dog is a cat. Somehow it seeks to give the illusion that although there is a distinction between the dog and cat, the former religion(s) thought the dog was a cat and Baha'ullah had to come to correct the misunderstanding.

The dog and the cat idea was an analogy. With Baha'i, it's saying something not unlike Unitarian Universalism in a sense. All the religions of the world seek Truth in a more ultimate and universal sense. The fact that they differ is not the fault of Truth, but of the people searching and trying to distinguish themselves.

It is not an issue with those who have come to know Christ by being reborn spiritually under His promises of redemption through salvation given through Him; however, it may appear to you to be that way.



That is a cop out if I have ever heard one! We do know what He taught. We also know what His Disciples taught. We also know that He ordered His disciples to go and teach His gospel to the other nations. It is no mystery to us.

Only if you think you know Jesus on an equal level. But if you're less than God, which is supposed to be part of your metaphysics, however much you're created in God's image, any attempt to understand God is necessarily incomplete. And Jesus' disciples don't equal Jesus. Disciples are prone to misunderstandings as the Gospels note and they're not exactly perfect by any means. Some of them ran away, some denied Jesus three times, you know the drill.

I didn't state that this wasn't true, but one must not try to make things mesh for the sake of the need to find conformity and compatibility. That was part of why I worded my statement as I did. What I did by stating things the way that I did was to point to the fact that Baha'i faith specifically tries to eliminate the problem of contradictions much like you have presented by

It doesn't try to eliminate the contradictions so much as note that the contradictions don't negate the Truth all the religions are seeking out in the existential subjective sense of a religious quest.

I appreciate you attempt to explain, but ideologies don't work that way, or at least, that easily. If one ideology states that capitalism is the only viable system and another states that socialism is, we can possibly reconcile these two if both ideologies are somewhere between full capitalism and full socialism. But keep in mind that we couldn't determine that until we studied the two.

We're not talking economics or politics, we're talking faith and philosophy. Socialism and capitalism are not by necessity opposed, that would be capitalism and communism in the general sense: one says capital in itself is the key to economic advancement, the other decides to put capital in the hands of the state. The technical opposite of capitalism would be advancing economy purely through labor.

That is fine if one wants to start a conversation that way, but my motive was not so. It was to show a difference that can't be reconciled by doing as you say. One could also start a conversation by discussing the differences and still create tolerance. Tolerance is not agreement, but allowing both sides to make points and still be civil. Tolerance is not to given in to another ideology for the sake of peace.

Again, the term ideology is a category mistake here. We're not talking about political polarization, we're talking about the ways people seek out meaning and truth and their defense thereof. The exclusive claims of Jesus may not have been said by Jesus himself, but misunderstood or misrepresented by his disciples. And even if he said those exclusive claims, there are common ideas within Christianity alongside other major religions of the world.

Tolerate means to accept something as a principle but not necessarily to endorse it. You sound as if tolerate means to accept and apply.

I never advocated you endorse it. No one wants to force you to accept things as true that you don't agree with. I don't like many particularly evangelistic Christian groups that misrepresent Buddhism among other faiths, but I tolerate their existence, as pitiable and disappointing as they are.

He used those parables as teaching tools. Who said that they had to be true? I don't recall Jesus ever compromising what He taught; so, I fail to understand your point.

We're talking about stuff that he didn't write, so honestly we're to expect some degree of inconsistencies and problems of interpretation from each writer as they personally and individually understood Jesus.

What do you mean by 'all over the radar'? Jesus states that any gospel other than what He preached is a false gospel. I don't see what the problem is with understanding that.

The problem is twofold. One, we can't be certain Jesus said it, and two, we'd require the context in which he said such a thing even if we accepted by the accounts of others that he said it.

Do you honestly believe that? Jesus didn't say that He personally was going to bring a sword and start fighting or advocate fighting. The meaning is that His teachings will cause families to come into conflict with each other because some would accept His message and gain eternal life while others will spiritually die. The two sides would war with each other. I don't mean necessarily a physical confrontation, but at the least, a spiritual one where strife will occur. In other words, His teachings will cause disharmony instead of peace.

So God (assuming Jesus is God) is therefore the author of disharmony and confusion thereof? Hmm...translation error or contradiction? Or other varieties inbetween.

 

[E.C.]

How do you teach the Bible without Christ? Isnt he a central figure?
.

There are some Christian churches who are so bent on teaching things that happened in or about the Bible that they forget that Christianity is not about a long list of beliefs, rather it is about how we are with God and how we act with other people. An ex-Baptist I met once said that his Baptist church split over women wearing light makeup in church (or some other frivolous notion like that) because, in his words, "they forgot about loving one another as Christ said".

That's the sort of thing I was thinking about.

 

[Livindesert]

A Catholic priest inquired to the head monk (Ch'an school in China, I believe) about why they worshipped statues of Buddha. The head monk then proceeded to smash the statue on the ground and the other monks continued as before.

QFT That is what I like about Zen/Ch'an they don't waste any energy on the things that don't matter.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by ToHoldNothing

Contradictions by their nature show differences, but not every supposed contradiction is actually a contradiction.

While that is true, you still make it seem that they can be reconciled, which is what I am saying is not possible when studying two different sets of ideas. Let me word it differently then. Differences that are irreconcilable as well as contradictory.

The dog and the cat idea was an analogy. With Baha'i, it's saying something not unlike Unitarian Universalism in a sense. All the religions of the world seek Truth in a more ultimate and universal sense. The fact that they differ is not the fault of Truth, but of the people searching and trying to distinguish themselves.

I know that it was an analogy.

They differ because they speak of different things. They did not inherently come from the same source or have the same source material. Neither are they speaking of the same things in essence. This is the essence of what I was relaying in my rebuttal to what was being said. The similarities mean nothing but a superficial comparison.

Only if you think you know Jesus on an equal level. But if you're less than God, which is supposed to be part of your metaphysics, however much you're created in God's image, any attempt to understand God is necessarily incomplete.

It is a given that our understanding is incomplete, but we do understand what was given to us well enough to follow it and see that it is true.

And Jesus' disciples don't equal Jesus. Disciples are prone to misunderstandings

But it was Jesus who taught them through His Spirit after He ascended to heaven. He sent the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, to instruct them. Also consider that there were many disciples; so, it is more unlikely that all of them got it wrong and others couldn't correct them. We see throughout the book of Acts where Apostles, Church elders, and the community got together to discuss matters and made rulings by council and by the leading of the counsel of the Holy Spirit. These people were influenced and motivated by God's Spirit as they ministered.

as the Gospels note and they're not exactly perfect by any means. Some of them ran away, some denied Jesus three times, you know the drill.

That doesn't make the text imperfect though. It doesn't change what was said. Although Peter denied Jesus 3 times, He still knew what Jesus taught and carried out Jesus directives to him. Jesus didn't abandon him for what he did; for, He knew that he was going to deny him.

It doesn't try to eliminate the contradictions so much as note that the contradictions don't negate the Truth all the religions are seeking out in the existential subjective sense of a religious quest.

In the process of harmonizing/explaining the contradictions/differences, it does attempt to eliminate them by appealing to a newer prophet who knows the proper interpretation. The charge is always that the contemporaries didn't know what the prophet was saying and/or later the their followers distorted or forgot it; thus, the need for the new prophet.

You fail to see that all of them (religions) have a different starting and ending point and are based upon different foundations that are not compatible. You also assume that truth is singular, in that all of those religions are seeking the same god and spirits and same truths.

The Baha'i faith specifically targets earlier religions as a means to justify itself as a replacement for them. It is historically incorrect in its main claims about those other religions. No amount of harmonization can change the problems it makes for itself in the process.

We're not talking economics or politics, we're talking faith and philosophy. Socialism and capitalism are not by necessity opposed, that would be capitalism and communism in the general sense: one says capital in itself is the key to economic advancement, the other decides to put capital in the hands of the state. The technical opposite of capitalism would be advancing economy purely through labor.

We don't have to have polar opposites to have two different and incompatible things; however, polar opposites are easier to see as being contradictory and incompatible. That is what I am hoping that you are seeing. That is why similarities are no sign of likeness. The more similarities, the more in common two things have, but that does not determine other things such as their compatibility or incompatibility. Christianity and Bahai' faith are not reconcilable if we look at the facts from both. The common tactic of the Baha'i is to ignore the differences and inflate the similarities, thus creating a superficial comparison for the attempt at harmonization. From the foundation grows the ideology which all can't be harmonized. That is why we still can distinguish the two. They are not the same. That is part of the point of my interjections. Most of this other stuff we are discussing is not that relevant or deserving of discussion.

Again, the term ideology is a category mistake here. We're not talking about political polarization, we're talking about the ways people seek out meaning and truth and their defense thereof. The exclusive claims of Jesus may not have been said by Jesus himself, but misunderstood or misrepresented by his disciples. And even if he said those exclusive claims, there are common ideas within Christianity alongside other major religions of the world.

It is still an ideology whether religion, politics, or some other things. It is still a set of ideas and concepts formulated into some codex--ideology. I am speaking of the ideas that make the text and not just the text itself. Both go hand in hand.

I think that I have already dealt with the other part of your quote. We have the scriptures to tell us what we need to know. There were not mistakes in what we have and what was intended. The same approach you are using has to be used against the other religions that claim to have a tie to Christianity. By your standard, they should be found more lacking in their assertions than Christianity.

I never advocated you endorse it. No one wants to force you to accept things as true that you don't agree with. I don't like many particularly evangelistic Christian groups that misrepresent Buddhism among other faiths, but I tolerate their existence, as pitiable and disappointing as they are.

Well, you can certainly know how I feel then when Baha'is try to make that same maneuver and you trying to make comments about the Bible in this thread. You are helping to represent my initial point quite well.

We're talking about stuff that he didn't write, so honestly we're to expect some degree of inconsistencies and problems of interpretation from each writer as they personally and individually understood Jesus.

Jesus gave His Disciples the power and authority to speak for Him and sent them out to preach His gospel. That is very clear in all four gospels. The Holy Spirit directed them in what they should say and reminded them of Jesus' teachings while on earth. They would definitely know how to interpret His teachings since He impowered them to do so. Have you read those portions of the Bible where these things are evidenced?

They wrote what they were inspired to write. We don't believe that God makes errors in what He wants to relay to us. We also don't believe that the Disciples/Apostles made any mistakes in what they spoke and wrote to the Church. Misinterpretations happened outside of them and mainly to the non Christians in the early days. We don't see it as a problem since the scriptures were revealed to a community by oral traditions and then written texts, some of which are known as epistles. These writings were circulated among the churches early on while the Apostles were alive and teaching those very scriptures. The early Church knew what was taught and could sort out errors and falsities. Plus, we have many documents of the early Church to help us to settle key issues that may arise in interpretations. We do have some resort.

The problem is twofold. One, we can't be certain Jesus said it, and two, we'd require the context in which he said such a thing even if we accepted by the accounts of others that he said it.

We accept that what was written is what was said, along with the authority Jesus gave to His Disciples. We don't have to know Jesus' exact sayings in order to get a concept and teaching. The Apostles, some whom were with Him for at least 3 years prior would certainly know what He taught. Don't you think?

So God (assuming Jesus is God) is therefore the author of disharmony and confusion thereof? Hmm...translation error or contradiction? Or other varieties inbetween.

You are trying very hard to misunderstand what I just said. I said that the sword is not a physical one but a spiritual one. It is the message of Christ concerning the kingdom of God that would separate the spiritually discerning from those that don't. In the process, this would create opposition among people, including families, friends, and parents. Dissension is a consequence of one's spiritual standing--not anything Jesus did or caused. Please, don't misrepresent what I said.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

While that is true, you still make it seem that they can be reconciled, which is what I am saying is not possible when studying two different sets of ideas. Let me word it differently then. Differences that are irreconcilable as well as contradictory.

You'd have to enumerate the supposed irreconcilable and contradictory teachings. Even if you did, it doesn't say anything about their absolute incompability or compatibility. Any statement about those is relative to one's approach to both belief and practice.

I know that it was an analogy.

They differ because they speak of different things. They did not inherently come from the same source or have the same source material. Neither are they speaking of the same things in essence. This is the essence of what I was relaying in my rebuttal to what was being said. The similarities mean nothing but a superficial comparison.

They don't speak of absolutely different things, they speak of the same thing in ways relevant to each culture and time. Dissimilarities only mean a superficial distinction, I can counter

It is a given that our understanding is incomplete, but we do understand what was given to us well enough to follow it and see that it is true.

You believe that it is true, you cannot say you see it as true beyond a subjective perception

But it was Jesus who taught them through His Spirit after He ascended to heaven. He sent the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, to instruct them. Also consider that there were many disciples; so, it is more unlikely that all of them got it wrong and others couldn't correct them. We see throughout the book of Acts where Apostles, Church elders, and the community got together to discuss matters and made rulings by council and by the leading of the counsel of the Holy Spirit. These people were influenced and motivated by God's Spirit as they ministered.

More subjectivity and qualifications based on a presumed standard that everyone thought would be taken seriously. It's little different except in degree from a village shaman passing judgment by getting possessed by spirits of ancestors or gods after being in a trance. You're basically boiling this down to warm fuzzy feelings that everyone somehow can agree upon in every aspect, which is only possible in dangerous hive mind thinking.

That doesn't make the text imperfect though. It doesn't change what was said. Although Peter denied Jesus 3 times, He still knew what Jesus taught and carried out Jesus directives to him. Jesus didn't abandon him for what he did; for, He knew that he was going to deny him.

It makes the text not perfectly trustworthy. Any text is necessarily imperfect, but trustworthiness is my concern alongside practicality.

In the process of harmonizing/explaining the contradictions/differences, it does attempt to eliminate them by appealing to a newer prophet who knows the proper interpretation. The charge is always that the contemporaries didn't know what the prophet was saying and/or later the their followers distorted or forgot it; thus, the need for the new prophet.

It's not that simple. They're all parts of a whole, it's not a ladder, it's a web.

You fail to see that all of them (religions) have a different starting and ending point and are based upon different foundations that are not compatible. You also assume that truth is singular, in that all of those religions are seeking the same god and spirits and same truths.

Truth is singular in a plurality. it exists in a fragmented sense because of how different people take different methods to approach a similar universal ultimate ideal of sorts, the Truth as unadulterated as possible.

The Baha'i faith specifically targets earlier religions as a means to justify
itself as a replacement for them. It is historically incorrect in its main claims about those other religions. No amount of harmonization can change the problems it makes for itself in the process.

From my understanding, they're not a replacement, but a complement to the religions as they continue to develop

We don't have to have polar opposites to have two different and incompatible things; however, polar opposites are easier to see as being contradictory and incompatible. That is what I am hoping that you are seeing. That is why similarities are no sign of likeness. The more similarities, the more in common two things have, but that does not determine other things such as their compatibility or incompatibility. Christianity and Bahai' faith are not reconcilable if we look at the facts from both. The common tactic of the Baha'i is to ignore the differences and inflate the similarities, thus creating a superficial comparison for the attempt at harmonization. From the foundation grows the ideology which all can't be harmonized. That is why we still can distinguish the two. They are not the same. That is part of the point of my interjections. Most of this other stuff we are discussing is not that relevant or deserving of discussion.

Reconciliation can be done with forgiveness. Perhaps you are just not willing to accept any likeness or kindred ideas within other religions because you want your own faith to feel special and unique to you in terms of not only your beliefs, but the historical and cultural rootedness of those beliefs apart from those other "heathen"/"pagan" religions

It is still an ideology whether religion, politics, or some other things. It is still a set of ideas and concepts formulated into some codex--ideology. I am speaking of the ideas that make the text and not just the text itself. Both go hand in hand.

One's ideology tends to be political in nature. A philosophical method for interpreting a text as an individual is not an ideology perse.

I think that I have already dealt with the other part of your quote. We have the scriptures to tell us what we need to know. There were not mistakes in what we have and what was intended. The same approach you are using has to be used against the other religions that claim to have a tie to Christianity. By your standard, they should be found more lacking in their assertions than Christianity.

Christianity's lacking is not in its wholeness to me, but in parts that have no real effect of compulsion or motivation for me to act. I feel I should act because people suffer, not because I am commanded to by some unseen god transcending the universe, but also able to be immanent in some contradictory fashion.

Jesus gave His Disciples the power and authority to speak for Him and sent them out to preach His gospel. That is very clear in all four gospels. The Holy Spirit directed them in what they should say and reminded them of Jesus' teachings while on earth. They would definitely know how to interpret His teachings since He impowered them to do so. Have you read those portions of the Bible where these things are evidenced?

I could read them and it wouldn't mean I'd reach the same conclusion as you. But then we get into the occult/arcane notions in Christianity that you have to be initiated to truly understand any of the gobbledygook you speak to me as clear.

They wrote what they were inspired to write. We don't believe that God makes errors in what He wants to relay to us. We also don't believe that the Disciples/Apostles made any mistakes in what they spoke and wrote to the Church. Misinterpretations happened outside of them and mainly to the non Christians in the early days. We don't see it as a problem since the scriptures were revealed to a community by oral traditions and then written texts, some of which are known as epistles. These writings were circulated among the churches early on while the Apostles were alive and teaching those very scriptures. The early Church knew what was taught and could sort out errors and falsities. Plus, we have many documents of the early Church to help us to settle key issues that may arise in interpretations. We do have some resort.

Resort doesn't always require falling back on political or religious political authority. Sometimes it should fall on an authority that transcends individuals or groups and works on a more universal level.

We accept that what was written is what was said, along with the authority Jesus gave to His Disciples. We don't have to know Jesus' exact sayings in order to get a concept and teaching. The Apostles, some whom were with Him for at least 3 years prior would certainly know what He taught. Don't you think?

They would write what they beleived, but that doesn't mean they knew the message in its essence taught by Jesus, because he was always sage like and taught people differently according to their circumstances.

You are trying very hard to misunderstand what I just said. I said that the sword is not a physical one but a spiritual one. It is the message of Christ concerning the kingdom of God that would separate the spiritually discerning from those that don't. In the process, this would create opposition among people, including families, friends, and parents. Dissension is a consequence of one's spiritual standing--not anything Jesus did or caused. Please, don't misrepresent what I said.

I didn't misunderstand it, but you can't assume everyone will be able to make sense of your distinction between metaphor and literal speech. This gets into a whole other issue of pastoral teaching, etc.

 

[Livindesert]

From my understanding, they're not a replacement, but a complement to the religions as they continue to develop

We see ourselves as having the teachings for this age(850 more years). Where as other teachings we believe were developed for the time and place where they were spread.But ultimately we believe that all religions are one.

That being said we are also required to

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

Since we believe everyone should find truth for themselves which will of course result in differing points of view. We also don't believe in Hell but see heaven and hell as spiritual states.

 

[durangodawood]

There are some Christian churches who are so bent on teaching things that happened in or about the Bible that they forget that Christianity is not about a long list of beliefs, rather it is about how we are with God and how we act with other people. An ex-Baptist I met once said that his Baptist church split over women wearing light makeup in church (or some other frivolous notion like that) because, in his words, "they forgot about loving one another as Christ said".

That's the sort of thing I was thinking about.

Hmmm. So how does your church focus on that in ways that others might not? Whats an example?
.

 

[Booko]

While that is true, you still make it seem that they can be reconciled, which is what I am saying is not possible when studying two different sets of ideas. Let me word it differently then. Differences that are irreconcilable as well as contradictory.

Differences may be irreconcilable as well as contradictory. That does not mean the cause of the differences are not understandable or that the differences are relevant in a larger scheme of things or that the differences are always justifiable.

In the process of harmonizing/explaining the contradictions/differences, it does attempt to eliminate them by appealing to a newer prophet who knows the proper interpretation. The charge is always that the contemporaries didn't know what the prophet was saying and/or later the their followers distorted or forgot it; thus, the need for the new prophet.

Yes, just as Christ said the Law was moot and changed things. It's something prophets do. Since they speak for God, they have the right to do that.

Or are you still required to be circumcised? Is divorce allowed as it is under the wider conditions of the Law? What about polygamy?

Those things changed between Judaism and Chrsitianity. Everything you've accused us of doing, you've done yourselves, so I don't see the problem here. Of course, your focus isn't as wide as ours, but that makes sense in the context of the history of Christianity anyway.

If there's a problem here, it's that you choose not to believe that Baha'u'llah was a prophet. Well, that's what free will is for, right? I can't fault you for wanting to be very careful about not following false prophets. Christ did warn His followers about that, after all.

You fail to see that all of them (religions) have a different starting and ending point and are based upon different foundations that are not compatible.

Each of them exist in a different place in human history. The foundations of the nature of human existence at any particular place and time necessitate somewhat different foundations. Somewhat -- not everything. Certain things appear not to change, nor really should they. Some ethical principles seem to work no matter where we are in human history.

You also assume that truth is singular, in that all of those religions are seeking the same god and spirits and same truths.

It's not a mere assumption. There are universal truths that cross those religions. Those are "observable" not assumptions.

Possibly humans have just figured out certain things work well (that would be a viable naturalistic view) or perhaps Someone has been talking to more of humanity than a tiny slice of people lucky enough to have lived in the Levant at a certain point of time. Or there may be other options I haven't thought of.

Everyone gets to choose which options strikes them as more feasible in the scheme of things.

The Baha'i faith specifically targets earlier religions as a means to justify itself as a replacement for them.

Yes, just as Christianity "targets" Judaism as a means to justify itself as a replacement for it.

Not that I would use inflammatory language like that, but hey, if that's how you want to cast things, that's up to you. *shrug*

We don't have to have polar opposites to have two different and incompatible things; however, polar opposites are easier to see as being contradictory and incompatible.

Especially if one is first conditioned with the idea "there is only one truth and it's possible to jam it all into a slim volume."

I am not prepared to make that assumption, because the Bible itself proves it to be anything but viable. Or didn't you notice that God says some things to Adam, it gets refined with Noah, then Moses, and then Christ? That message changes down through time. The essentials are there, but the details of how to structure society change. What a surprise...human societies change and their needs change with them.

A command to circumcise and then not commanding it are incompatible.

Depending on how you frame the subject.

Christianity and Bahai' faith are not reconcilable if we look at the facts from both.

Time will tell if that is true. Just as time has shown us whether Christianity and Judaism are reconcilable.

The common tactic of the Baha'i is to ignore the differences and inflate the similarities, thus creating a superficial comparison for the attempt at harmonization.

No, actually our "tactic" is to take a fresh look at what's in religions and try to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

We're hardly alone in doing that. Even Christians do that within the context of their own religion. Frankly, I'm glad they do.

Or do you deny that manmade ideas have crept into Christianity from time to time? There are differences between denominations also. Is that because they are just inherently incompatible?

From the foundation grows the ideology which all can't be harmonized. That is why we still can distinguish the two. They are not the same.

Things can be compatible or related without being the "same." Just as 2nd grade and 5th grade are compatible and related, but are hardly the same.

Just as I teach the Bohr model of the atom to beginners in Chemistry, but when they turn up in grad school I wouldn't dream of being that imprecise.

I am speaking of the ideas that make the text and not just the text itself. Both go hand in hand.

Well, yes, reading is interpretation.

Well, you can certainly know how I feel then when Baha'is try to make that same maneuver and you trying to make comments about the Bible in this thread. You are helping to represent my initial point quite well.

I'm sorry if it bothers you to point out that what you're complaining about you do yourself, but that's life. My intent isn't to be bothersome to you. It's a matter of logic from my end of things.

They wrote what they were inspired to write. We don't believe that God makes errors in what He wants to relay to us. We also don't believe that the Disciples/Apostles made any mistakes in what they spoke and wrote to the Church.

fwiw, I don't believe that either.

The early Church knew what was taught and could sort out errors and falsities. Plus, we have many documents of the early Church to help us to settle key issues that may arise in interpretations. We do have some resort.

Clearly some things are not as cut and dried though, or there wouldn't have been the division over the Trinity that there was (among other things). Not that I have any objection to the decision ultimately made by the Church.

I'm not part of the cynical school that sees the early Church Fathers as being a bunch of political hacks out to exercise power or anything. I find it more reasonable to see them as people who studied, prayed, consulted and in all sincerity did what they thought was right. I could hardly complain about that.

The Apostles, some whom were with Him for at least 3 years prior would certainly know what He taught. Don't you think?

Certainly better than I would. However, I am compelled to point out that the Apostles were confused about whether Christ was the Messiah, except for St. Peter. It seems they didn't catch on to everything instantly anyway. I don't think that implies what they taught later was false though. The Holy Spirit does its work, after all.

 

[Booko]

We see ourselves as having the teachings for this age(850 more years). Where as other teachings we believe were developed for the time and place where they were spread.But ultimately we believe that all religions are one.

And after that time, we can expect the next Chapter in the Book. I can't envision what the state of humanity will be 850ish years from now. All that tells me is they'll likely need another refinement of social laws to suit the needs of that future time.

However, to view us as a "replacement" is a limited view. There is nothing in the Baha'i Faith that says people cannot find God via other religions. A true "replacement" would say everything else is too outmoded to be of any use.

I like ToHoldNothing's description of religions as more of a web than a ladder. It's an excellent visual.