h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A faith like this, with no absolute standard of truth to compare new things with, is all too easily hijacked by those who wish for a private army, or to be regarded as a prophet or even more. Please be careful, and don't fall into any pleasant-sounding traps.

(Note: I am not saying you should avoid the Baha'i faith. I am saying it will be an easy faith to distort, and asking you to be on your guard.)

I think I'm in agreement here.

If I've picked this up right, according to the Bahá'í faith all religions are the way to God and they're all right. It's like a way of keeping everyone happy.

I was once told that the Bahá'í take bits from *every* holy book rather than following the Bible, Koran or whatever. So what about the points where these religions differ?

The article said, "A Bahá'í will assert that the spiritual teachings of all of these messages, delivered by manifestations of God, follow the same thread, whereas the 'social teachings' of these sets of messages are particular to the people, place and time of their revelation."

So does this mean that you can say that, for example, where Jesus and Buddah say something similar, it's a "spitituial teaching", but where they say something contrary, it's a "social teaching" specific to the group and time and culture to which it was said?

Surely this leaves everything open to interpretation, and you could say that a give command from a given prophet was specific to the time, and so doesn't apply now?

Extremely well written,
thank you thank you thank you

I'm really unsure what one would need to be on gaurd about - fortunately Baha'u'llah personally wrote 180 tablets while He lived and all can be viewed directly in Haifa in Israel - His Son, Abdul'Baha was given the task of translating the central Writtings into English (so the translation issue is not open to debate) and succession has followed a direct path to the Universal House of Justice - who are a globally elected body by the Baha'is themselves by secret ballot with no campiagning.

Baha'u'llah directly outlawed all forms of fanatisicm, debating about religeon and/or participation in anarchy or any form of dis-unity or violence. He directly said - " religeon should be the cause of unity amongst mankind. If it causes dissention and dis-unity, it would be better not to have religeon". With such clear directives in place from (for Baha'is) an indisputable source, there is little room for "mis-interpretation".

As for the question of social vrs spiritual teachings - does it not make sense to you that as eons pass, human beings would need to be guided in different ways in their physical lives? Look at how much the world has changed over the last 6000 years. Moses told the people of Israel (before they reached the Promised Land) not to eat pork. Now for a bunch of people marching through the desert this is very sound advice - life-saving even as pork turns quickly and wild pigs carry worms and all nature of other pests. By the time of Mohammed, it was neighbouring tribes that were the most life-threatening, and so the people of Islam were "allowed" to protect their families as opposed to turning the other cheek.
On the other hand, all Spiritual teachings include the same central themes and values.

This is so logical to me that I am at a loss to understand why anyone would want to hold to the changes in social conditions as a reason to create separateness between people.

I hope this clarifies questions or concerns.

Keep passing Open Windows



Kosh

I think what I was meaning was in cases where social/cultural thigs contradict spiritual teachings. I know that the major world religions take their holy book to be absolute - you can't just take from it the bits you like or agree with and leave the rest. I do believe that a given holy book would have passage that would be understood most by someone living in the culture and time they were written. But these same passages must still have their relevence for today's society.

Take for example, there are passages in the Bible that state that women should be silent and should adhere to certain dress codes during meetings (see 1 Corinthians 11:4-15, 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:3-5). Some would say that these instructions must be taken literally, while others say they were written for a specific group for specific reasons and are of no relevence today.

There are big debates about such passages and what they mean for us today. Personally, I'd say that we must understand the cultural and historical significance before we can apply it to our lives. I do believe that today, we can still learn from such passages and that they're not just to be dismissed.

My main point, really, is that if something is your holy text, you have to be able to deal with where it may contradict or seem not to apply. If it's your holy book, the whole book should apply, rather than just selece passages.

I hear you - and then again, mankind evolves and changes.

Parents of a 2 year-old will set very different rules than a parent of a 18-year old.

Logic says that any set of guidance given to mankind at 6000BC would be superceeded by a set of guidance from the same source 8000 years later.

trying to hold on to outmoded guidances on form alone is exactly what causes division and dis-unity. However if people feel it makes them inmportant to be different - they will unfortunately continue to be separatist.

I believe we should embrace all of the Words of God - from whatever the source - but be intelligent enough to understand them in their context.

KPOW



Kosh

you're so right that the culture in a given pklace is going to be different at different times. And I believe that the world faiths do have to respond to that.

At the same time though, I still don't get the idea that it's possible to "mix-up" all the religions. Hinduism has many deities, while Judaism, Islam and Christianity are mono-theistic; Islam and Judaism require certain cleansing rituals before prayer and meals; Jews are still waiting for the Messiah, while Christians believe he's already come.

Maybe I've missed something, but can such differences be explained merely by culture?

It is easier understood if you go back to the writtings of these various Manifestations yourself and take out the variable of interpretation - Hinduism for example sees "God" through many faces - they are understood to be the many aspects of the same being.

If one conciders for a moment that all of these "manifestations" / messengers "appeared" in their chosen location every 500 - 1000 years, all saying one central thing - a version of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - every single one of them the same central theme - there is a clear pattern to be seen. Each spoke of others to come, but in every single case - they are still waiting for the next one. The one exception is Zorroastrianism - Zorroaster being a messenger to Persia just over 500 years before Christ - whose Priests ended up (by folowing his prophesy of the "next one") to the birth of Christ - you may know them better as the 3 wise men, they were in fact Zorroastrain High Priests - or Magi as they were also called. Many Zorroastrians became Christains, which is why we hear so little of them today - but they followed the teachings of Zorroaster right through to the "next manifestation" - Christ.

It is in the old testament that the prophecy of Christ arrises - he was afterall born Jewish and his followers followed the teachings of the old testament through to Christ Himself. Christ is - as was foretold in the old testament - the Son of God that was prophesised - however He was not also the Glory of God (a coming that was also prophesised). While he fulfilled all the prophecies of the former, he fulfilled none of the latter. The Pharasies would have had to give up their power, way of life and their "traditions" to accept Him as even the Son of God, and they did not do this.

The Prophet - Mohammed - followed on from the teachings of Christ - the Quran itself contains both the old and new testament with addtional social and spiritual teachings appropriate to His time and place of manifestation.

In addition, according to all their Writtings, each of these manifestations followed a simular life-path. While they were all special beings from the beginning of their lives, they each had a moment - a "visitation" if you will, where they all agreed to surrender their lives to the Will of God. The writtings of the Buddah and Krishna are older, wrapped in years of oral tradition and are mostly given in parables, but the same moments are described by both of them too.

Now here we have a great big rock circling the planet - where 9 successive "messengers" (only clear records of these 9 survive today) - 500 to 1000 years apart - most with absolutely no human way to have knowledge of the others - "appear" in different parts of the world - with a central message for people to do unto others as they would have them do unto them - each expereincing a "visitation" moment where they "surrender their own will" and spend the rest of their days teaching love and fellowship and are ultimately pursecuted or put to death by the "ruling powers" of that area.

There is annother more tangible relationship between these messengers - From Abraham to King David through to Christ, Mohammed, the Bab and Baha'u'llah - these 4 messengers particularly are actually related by blood - fulfilling the promise to Abraham that God would make Him the Father of many nations. This was the Divine Covenant with Abraham.

If we are committed to finding division and difference, we can find them - but just as true is the ability to find the threads that run through all religeons of the world. When we look at all these "co-incidences" together, we cannot but see a patern - and clearly understand from there, that it may be possible that all religeons come from the same God, with the same purpose - to uplift mankind.

Keep passing open windows,



Kosh

You seem to have done some research into this.

I'm just curious though - if it's so "obvious" how come we still have all these seperate religions? I mean if it's all the same God and Budda, Mohammed and Christ are pretty much the same thing, surely God would've made this clear. And I'd like to think that if his purpose was to unity mankind and all that, he would've dome something to ensure that all his messengers could easily be associated with each other. If he wants to unite us uinder him, he surely would conduct himself in a way that wouldn't divide us.

It is the human ego and self-love that divides - not God. I think He's been quite clear - the old testament tells of the coming of Christ and the Glory of God, it even gives quite clear prophecies. Zorroaster foretells the coming of Christ which leads into the others. There are clear threads that can be seen if one is open to it - but the ego means that mankind wants to be better than the next guy. Everyone wants to believe their way is the only way. Take a completely "untainted" scholar and put that scholar in a room with all the most pure versions of the direct writtings of all the messengers and you can be sure they would see the connection. But nationalism and cultural prejudices divide us from what we do not understand and therefore cannot easily embrace.

150 years ago - the most recent "Messenger" - accepted by Baha'is across the world, told us clearly and in no uncertain terms that Progressive Revelation has always been God's way. He gives clear details of the meanings of various prophecies and fulfills very clear signs himself - as Baha'is believe. However if Progressive Revelation is true, then the works, writtings and messages of His most recent Messenger does just as you say should have been done - tells it clearly.

However if a person were to believe that their way was the only way, and if they wanted to belive they were among a unique "chosen" group - or if a person earned their living or defined themselves by upholding only one path, they would not be open to investigating any other truth - however clear God makes it. And remember - God does not violate Freedom of Choice - without it we are just robots - so He can only give us enough information to make a descision.

Just a different thought process

Keep passing open windows.



Kosh

I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced. You say God doesn't divide everything, but humans do, right? Then how come God hasn't given us some indication in the various holy books? In the Bible, I've never read anything to suggest that Buddah, Muhammed etc are part of the same story as Christ.

Well first of all Mohammed came after Christ so Christ wouldn't have said anything about him then. As to Buddah - what should he have siad? That 6000 years ago in part of the world you dont even know about yet . . . .

Abraham and other prophets foretold the coming of Moses, Christ and "the Glory of God". Zorroaster spoke of the coming of Christ and Mohammed. Christ spoke of his own "return" and the new testament also refers to the coming of the "Glory of God".

I really dont want to convince you of anything tho - the Independnat Investigation of truth is paramount to the growth of all things. there just may be something in all the "co-incidences" tho . . . maybe?

Keep passing open windows



Kosh

I get things like the various Old Testament predictions of Christ and events of his life on earth. Isaiah had a lot to say on the subject. And hundreds of years passed between. Also Christ said things about the end of the world (famines, wars, earthquakes etc) and 2000 years later we see these happening. So if the God who sent Christ also sent Buddah I'm not convinced when you say he wouldn't have mentioned it.

I've heard it said many times that with God there are no coincidences and I do believe that. I know that there are theological similarities between many of the religions. But are they really transferable?

You keep putting the words "Glory of God" in inverted commas as if where it's mentionned in the Bible or Koran or any other Holy Book that it always refers to the same thing. Think we have to be so careful with things like that.

The Glory of God is mentioned, in the old and new testament and in other religeous works too - in just those words which is why I separated them.

Also the world "ending as we know it" as the Bible referrs to - is mentioned in all the other teachings, just using different words. For Buddists it will be at the time of the coming of the 13th Buddah - other words are used in different faiths.

One thing that cannot be a maybe is the simularity of that one line that appears in every one of each Messenger's teachings - you would know it best as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That may seem simple - like yeah, that's obvious - but was it obvious at the time of Buddah and Krishna, Zorroaster or Moses? And yet they all said it. I'll have a look for the exact quotes, I have them somewhere. Its just amazing how simular that one theme is.

Keep passing open windows



Kosh

I know that there are the similar themes running through Islam and Christianity. But they have similar origins in Abraham and Islam hold Jesus to be a prophet.

But since one faith holds Jesus as Messiah, while the other holds him as a prophet, that can explain certain teachings, but can it really make them equal. Surely there's one heck of a difference between Messiah, Son of God, saviour of the world and prophet?

I think you'll find a difference in interpretation - its more of a semantic difference than a real one - afterall the Islam call Mohammed "the seal of the prophets" (meaning that after Him, all people would have access to enlightenment individually) - but Mohammed himself was therefore termed a "Prophet" - along with Christ. So coming from within the Quran itself, equality is outlined.

We're talking about 9 different languages here and there is ample room for varied interpretation of a name or description - the fact that they have stayed so simular is more of a testament perhaps.

Each Manifestation did have their own "name" however, Moses was the Hand of God, Christ - the Son of God etc - but within that they can all still be Manifestations of God.

Stepping out of the semantics, if there was an individual that reached a point of ultimate sacrifice and gave their lives to spreading a new set of teaching that would assist people to enlightenment in that age through a God-focussed path (whatever the words used to describe God)- and was thereafter persecuted and eventually killed for it - no matter what one chooses to call him - it might be said that those were Manifestations of God and all had the same overall purpose.

Getting past the semantics would allow us to look at the truth of those peoples lives and works and I think its about time in the world that we try to look at points of unity, not focus all our efforts on trying to remain different and separate and in opposition.

We've tried it the other way. As Abdul'Baha says - "Lets give peace a try, if we find we dont like it, it will not be hard to start fighting again".





Kosh

I do absolutely agree that unity is by far the better option than any form of hostility. But there are some things that people will never agree to. It's when we try and force unity that problems arise. If I told you you *must* convert to Christianity, eat fish every day, shave your head or whatever, you'll probably tell me to go take a running jump.

Tolerance and respect for our differences has more of an influence and brings unity despite differences. God made us all different and we all have different experiences, preferences, traits etc.

I apologise if I haven't seemed very respectful towards you and your beilefs. I want to understand where you're coming from and find it hard as I know practically nothing about some of the things you refer to. The Ba'hai faith isn't one that people talk about much.

No problem, and its the aspect on concentrating on points of unity rather than difference is really the focus of the Baha'i Faith.

Baha'is specifically avoid all forms of fanacisism and proselisation. Perhaps a key difference is that we believe that unity is more important than being right - and are forbidden from arguing about religeon. The Independant Investigation of Truth is one of the fundamental principles and so no-one can ever br forced or cajoled into any belief. Baha'i children have no baptism or form that "commits them" - and cease to be regarded as Baha'is after 15 years old unless at that point they choose for themselves to become a Baha'i. Before that parents are encouraged to expose their children to the other Faiths and Writtings of all other religeons so they can make an informed choice for themselves - in fact if they choose not to become a Baha'i, the parents are forbidden from exerting any pressure or persuasion whatsoever.

Keep passing open windows,



Kosh

I agree that being open to all religoins, whether or not you aggree with their teachings, has to be a vital part of uniting people. Ignorance must have such a huge part to play in hostility. How can we get along if we don't know anything about each other?

Though it could be dangerous if focusing on unity leads to an avoidance of conflict to the extent that people forget or don't learn how to deal with the inevitable conflicts and irritations that occure in daily life. I don't just mean things like the current global-level stuff like what's happening in Iraq, but in marriages, friendships etc as well. Resolving small quarrels can lead to a greater unity through a gained mutual respect and understanding.

I hope your leaders are careful in this sort of respect in how they teach and lead you.

We have no Priests or "leaders" as such - the Faith's Administrative order is run through democratic private elections of individuals. Living our best life, following the teachings of Baha'u'llah and the other Primal Figures of the Faith is our own independant responsibility and in this day and age, the Writtings tell us that we are each responsible for our own souls.
Intervention is only required when the action of one openly threatens the well-being of others.

"unity is more important than being right" is a quote from the Baha'i writtings - obviously one has to hold to ones own integrity, but each person must decide if their ego is really worth the conflict that is caused by enoforcing their own opinion. Afterall, if someone has a different opinion, its their right why do people need to agree all the time - as long as each person is holding to their own integrity.


Kosh