How to deal with "Every religion thinks it's the right one"

[Slaney]

Can you show me an area where the “Gospel” of Muhammad is different to the Gospel of Jesus please?



.

I already did, Jesus arose from the dead, mohammed is dead !

 

[Servant19]

Really, what makes you think that? If that isn’t good enough, you can read earlier Church documents or even the New Testament.

Hello dear friend. Are you saying that I can read about the equality of men and women, the abolition of slavery, the need for a universal auxiliary language and the negative impacts of drug and alcohol consumption on society in the Bible? Or documents from the early Church Fathers?

You asked for what the Revelation of Baha’u’llah brings that is new. I gave you a list, and if honesty before God is what we are here to discuss , it’s hard to find faults with these new aspects of religios life.

Just a cursory glance at society will make it plainly obvious that these principles of the Bahai Revelation are undoubtedly Divine in their source and how they will bring solace to human hearts. “Every tear will be wiped away…”

You must be thinking of a different personage than what is discussed in Wikipedia, " Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí (Persian: میرزا حسینعلی نوری‎), was the founder of the Bahá’í Faith. He claimed to be the prophetic fulfilment of Bábism, a 19th-century outgrowth of Shí‘ism,[1] but in a broader sense claimed to be a messenger from God referring to the fulfilment of the eschatological expectations of Islam, Christianity, and other major religions.[2]

Bahá’u’lláh taught that humanity is one single race and that the age has come for its unification in a global society. He taught that “there is only one God, that all of the world’s religions are from God, and that now is the time for humanity to recognize its oneness and unite.” [3] His claim to divine revelation resulted in persecution and imprisonment by the Persian and Ottoman authorities, and his eventual 24-year confinement in the prison city of `Akka, Palestine (present-day Israel), where he died. He wrote many religious works, most notably the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and the Kitáb-i-Íqán. "

Certainly nothing " divine " about him. And how could a mere human " beget " the Holy Spirit?
Father or Son - sounds awfully confused to me.

Well, it is likely to be as unbelievable as the claims you make about Baha’u’llah, so I’ll pass.
I have a Bahai’ friend and he is just as confused as you are. Nothing he says makes any sense either.

Linus2nd

Nothing Divine about Him? What are the criteria required for Divinity to be claimed and believed?

What were the criteria satisfied by Peter during Jesus’ life for Him to claimed that Jesus was the “Son of the Living God”?

Please also, may I remind you that I would learn about Catholicism from the Bible, the Catechism, early Church documents from Saints etc and Papal Encyclicals

NOT from Wikipedia…

I hope and pray you will find similar resourcefulness and intellectual honesty within your own self to search in the correct channels dear friend

God bless you!

.

 

[Servant19]

I already did, Jesus arose from the dead, mohammed is dead !

No my friend, Muhammad is very much alive, in heaven, where those who “descend from heaven, go up to heaven”…that placeless Place, where Jesus also resides.

Jesus is alive in heaven. Heaven is not a physical place, it is a spiritual existence. When Jesus ascended into the clouds, it is Catholic teaching that these clouds were not physical clouds…

Muhammad also resides there. It is clearly stated in the Quran, as it is also stated that the early martyrs of Islam (not the ones seen today) are also still alive in heaven.

So no contradiction there my friend

.

 

[Servant19]

Dear friend, Baha’u’llah REVEALED the Gospel to Jesus, revealed the Quran to Muhammad. (Read my signature below . )

That isn’t the way Wikipedia explains it. The story gets bigger and bigger, what fantisy is next.

Yes, that is pretty fantastic. I can see why the Shiites put him in prison. ( not that I approve of putting dimented people in prison, but I can see how he would up set them. )

Well, this is too much to swallow, how have you managed to do it?

I see. I can see why my friend is so confused.

Linus2nd

Do you genuinely think that Jesus needed to sit next to the Pharisees and study the Old Testament, Torah etc before He could speak His Revelation? Of course not! Jesus had pre-existent knowledge…

Why is this not too hard for you to swallow? Here is a human being who claims to have lived BEFORE He was born? I believe Him, and so do you. But I believe God “descends” this Spirit into a Human Temple from age to age. It’s really not hard to swallow at all…

These Divine Beings are not in need of education! They are animated by the Source of All Knowledge.

Baha’u’llah (and the Bab) clearly showed this during His childhood. The history is recent enough to be very reliable. He was sent home from school, He was teaching the teacher.

The Bab taught the head theology teacher of His school what the Quran means. No human being could educate these people. He, too was sent home and was told that there is nothing the school can teach Him.

Not hard for me to swallow at all. And no confusions here dear friend.

Why would Baha’is be confused?



.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Are you suggesting that, by being skeptical, I’m somehow taking the easy way out?

Considering that skepticism doesn’t actually get you anywhere and not an iota closer to the truth, it is overrated. In other words, yes.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Are you suggesting that, by being skeptical, I’m somehow taking the easy way out?

Good Morning Oreoracle: I am looking for some clarification on your position if I may. Your religious affiliation is listed as atheist, yet a number of times in this thread you have noted that you are a skeptic. In my opinion, agnostics are skeptical on the matter of God v. no God, and atheists have their minds made up. In other words, if you are a committed atheist, then I would offer that you do in fact have a belief system, and thereby you are not a skeptic. I am not challenging the particulars of your disbelief. I just hold that in truth, your disbelief is a belief. I just want to assure you and our fellow readers that if you are in fact an atheist, you do not in fact hold the enviable position of being an impartial, open minded inquirer.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why is this not too hard for you to swallow? Here is a human being who claims to have lived BEFORE He was born?

Jesus didn’t claim to live BEFORE he was born except as a corollary that eternity is prior, in a logical sense, to temporality.

He said, “Before Abraham ever was I Am.” If he was claiming mere pre-existence, he would have said, “Before Abraham ever was I was.” He didn’t phrase it that way. Why not?

Perhaps because he didn’t claim to live BEFORE he was born, but claimed explicitly that he exists eternally, not constrained by time. In other words, he IS God.

 

[Oreoracle]

Considering that skepticism doesn’t actually get you anywhere and not an iota closer to the truth, it is overrated. In other words, yes.

Skepticism is extremely important to the sciences. People could have laughed at Einstein’s work, insisting that Newtonian physics worked well enough and that we needn’t doubt any of it. And thanks to that same skepticism, we will improve Einstein’s work. Science improves because its skepticism is endless.

Admittedly skepticism doesn’t play a valuable role in religion, it seems. Since religion produces no tangible results, there’s really no way to tell if you’ve “gotten anywhere” with it or not.

Good Morning Oreoracle: I am looking for some clarification on your position if I may. Your religious affiliation is listed as atheist, yet a number of times in this thread you have noted that you are a skeptic. In my opinion, agnostics are skeptical on the matter of God v. no God, and atheists have their minds made up.

This is a common misconception. “Theist”, “agnostic”, and “atheist” are not positions along the same continuum. They are actually answers to entirely different questions. A theist believes in at least one god, whereas an atheist doesn’t. An agnostic believes one cannot have knowledge of gods (including knowledge of their non-existence), whereas a gnostic (for lack of a better word) believes one can. So consider the two questions below:

1. Do you believe that any gods exist?
2. Can we know anything about these gods for sure, including whether or not they exist?

Note that one need only lack belief to be an atheist, and one’s agnosticism (their negative answer to #2) doesn’t in any way address the first question. Someone can be an agnostic atheist or even an agnostic Christian. I am an agnostic atheist because I haven’t seen sufficient evidence for any gods and I think that gods are often defined in a way that makes their existence unverifiable even in principle. In other words, gods may exist, but there’s no way a human knows anything about them.

Note also that lacking belief isn’t the same thing as asserting that something isn’t the case. A famous example is Russell’s Teapot. There could be a teapot orbiting a distant planet as we speak. I cannot disprove that, but I see no reason to believe it. Thus I am an “atheist” with respect to the teapot (I don’t believe it’s there), but given the available information, I concede that no one can prove or disprove otherwise, so I refrain from making the claim that it doesn’t exist.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Note also that lacking belief isn’t the same thing as asserting that something isn’t the case. A famous example is Russell’s Teapot. There could be a teapot orbiting a distant planet as we speak. I cannot disprove that, but I see no reason to believe it. Thus I am an “atheist” with respect to the teapot (I don’t believe it’s there), but given the available information, I concede that no one can prove or disprove otherwise, so I refrain from making the claim that it doesn’t exist.

Good Morning Oreotacle: Thank you for the clarification on your position. Do you have a standing opinion on the nature of our existence?

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Peter_Plato]

Skepticism is extremely important to the sciences. People could have laughed at Einstein’s work, insisting that Newtonian physics worked well enough and that we needn’t doubt any of it. And thanks to that same skepticism, we will improve Einstein’s work. Science improves because its skepticism is endless.

Admittedly skepticism doesn’t play a valuable role in religion, it seems. Since religion produces no tangible results, there’s really no way to tell if you’ve “gotten anywhere” with it or not.

It isn’t skepticism that plays a valuable role. In itself, skepticism simply doubts the truth of any proposal. What is required in science is an alternative and plausible ground for doubting what is proposed. A proponent of an alternative position is skeptical about a standing position, not simply on the grounds of being skeptical but because they have an inchoate position that gives them a reason to be skeptical. It isn’t skepticism, in itself, that provides its own grounds, otherwise skepticism would get no where and be utterly useless. Which is why I say skepticism gets us no where. It is creative thinking and the courage to speculate and think intentionally that makes progress, not skepticism.

It is foolish to say religion produces no tangible results. Only a short-sighted thinker who hasn’t studied history beyond the modern progressivist myths would think that. Religion, is, at ground, a search for meaning and truth. In modern times we have been beguiled by the fools quest of making and possessing more things which have become the “tangible” means by which to assess the value of everything. Jesus said, “What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his very self?” All the tangibles in the world will never amount to any worth if you have lost the very means by which to see those “things” in perspective. Religion provides a proper perspective to those tangibles and the intangibles that are very easily missed without a focus. Some day you might see this. Obviously today is not that day. So be it.

 

[Oreoracle]

Good Morning Oreotacle: Thank you for the clarification on your position. Do you have a standing opinion on the nature of our existence?

I’m not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if I have an opinion as to why humans exist?

It isn’t skepticism that plays a valuable role. In itself, skepticism simply doubts the truth of any proposal. What is required in science is an alternative and plausible ground for doubting what is proposed.

Yes, and I am skeptical of claims about gods because they lack sufficient evidence. That is a plausible reason for doubt.

Jesus said, “What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his very self?” All the tangibles in the world will never amount to any worth if you have lost the very means by which to see those “things” in perspective.

I think you inadvertently made my point for me. A civilization with a dominant religion may become a utopia due to that religion but, according to Jesus, that would prove nothing. The wrong religion could make someone rich, healthy, intelligent, and magnanimous, yet still be wrong, and the correct religion could do the opposite. So the veracity of religion is not correlated with tangible results. Every religion believes it is correct independently of the physical state of the universe.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I’m not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if I have an opinion as to why humans exist?

Good Morning Oreoracle. I need some clarification as well. When you say why humans exist, do you mean what is the reason that humans exist? I am not certain that there has to be a reason or purpose. It could simply be that it (the universe or multiverse) simply “is.”
I also do not see humans as being something separate from the universe. My belief is that we are part of the universe, and I do not think on humans without thinking on the whole, which includes other animals on this planet, other life forms, plants, rocks, life on other planets and so on. We are just part of a vast organism, and I do not think that humans have some purpose apart from the rest of the mix.

So, my question is not about why humans exist. My question was more in regards to your thoughts on the nature of our existence. More specifically, I am interested in your thoughts on the matter of consciousness and its relationship with the temporal world. I don’t really think that ultimately there is another question.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Oreoracle]

Good Morning Oreoracle. I need some clarification as well. When you say why humans exist, do you mean what is the reason that humans exist? I am not certain that there has to be a reason or purpose. It could simply be that it (the universe or multiverse) simply “is.”

I agree. I wanted to know if that was what you were asking, because that’s exactly how I was going to answer.

More specifically, I am interested in your thoughts on the matter of consciousness and its relationship with the temporal world. I don’t really think that ultimately there is another question.

Hmm. Well, consciousness isn’t very well understood. I think this is in part due to the language we use to describe our subjective experiences. For instance, psychology uses somewhat mysterious terms like “mind” to describe things that neuroscience is learning to grapple with in a much more concrete fashion by replacing problems of the mind with problems of the brain. Perhaps there is a more concrete approach to consciousness as well.

Like you, I don’t regard any aspects of the human condition as being independent of the natural world. I would consider consciousness to likely be an emergent property from simpler faculties, faculties which we can see in more primitive forms in other species. I think that, through evolution, we probably adapted to have a very sophisticated set of cognitive abilities which eventually culminated in our consciousness

 

[Servant19]

Jesus didn’t claim to live BEFORE he was born except as a corollary that eternity is prior, in a logical sense, to temporality.

He said, “Before Abraham ever was I Am.” If he was claiming mere pre-existence, he would have said, “Before Abraham ever was I was.” He didn’t phrase it that way. Why not?

Perhaps because he didn’t claim to live BEFORE he was born, but claimed explicitly that he exists eternally, not constrained by time. In other words, he IS God.

Thankyou Peter

Can you offer an explanation, therefore, of this quote from the Bab, please?

“Before I chose the womb of my mother, I discoursed with Muhammad about the future of Islam”

Thankyou friend

.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hello Linus, thankyou again for your time and courteous dialogue

I did ask for Church teachings BEFORE Baha’u’llah’s Revelation. I actually believe Vatican II is a series of teachings taken straight out of Baha’u’llah’s revelation, not the other way around.

I think the Scriptures should be sufficient. The Ten Commandments, and the Sermon on the Mount covers about every thing.

In regards to Baha’u’llah’s station, I’m fully familiar with what “the Son” means, but Baha’u’llah sent the Son to humanity, He is Voice of Sinai and the begetter of the Holy Spirit. He is the Father, Jehovah, The Lord of Hosts.

I don’t question the worthiness of Baha’u’llah’s thought, I reject all his claims to any special relationship with God, or that God sent him or that he is the " begetter of the Holy Spirit or that " He is the Father, Jehovah, The Lord of Hosts. " There is no reason to place any credence in any of that. Men have come along throughout history claiming to be Divine or to have a special message from God, there are dozens and dozens of these people…

A thorough study of the Babs life (Baha’u’llah’s forerunner) will acquaint you with Baha’u’llah’s station, since the Bab writes about the magnificence of Baha’u’llah, although they never met, and the Babs life is miraculous, to say the very least.

.

No reason to believe any of that. Kipling might have written the same tale.

LInus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus2nd

Dear friend, Baha’u’llah REVEALED the Gospel to Jesus, revealed the Quran to Muhammad. (Read my signature below . )

I don’t see how that would be possible, since Jesus lived over 2,000 years ago!

He never needed to read a book. He revealed the Kitab-i-Iqan in 2 days and in it He quotes the Gospel and the Quran at will.

And how do you prove that? People can claim anything they want. That doesn’t prove anything.

He is animated by the Most Great Spirit, and He begets the Holy Spirit. Every inspiration and revelation from the beginning of time was from Him.

And how do you prove that?.

He didn’t need to read the Gospel .

Then he didn’t know the Gospel.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hello dear friend. Are you saying that I can read about the equality of men and women, the abolition of slavery, the need for a universal auxiliary language and the negative impacts of drug and alcohol consumption on society in the Bible? Or documents from the early Church Fathers?

Of course all the above can easily be gleaned from reading the Old and New Testaments, except for the need of a universal language. If you remember your Old Testament, God intentionally mixed up the languages of men because a common language encouraged them to do evil.

You asked for what the Revelation of Baha’u’llah brings that is new. I gave you a list, and if honesty before God is what we are here to discuss , it’s hard to find faults with these new aspects of religios life.

As I said, they are all covered by the teaching of the Scriptures except the bit about the need for a universal language. The latter is no revelation. Baha’ u’ llah’ might have thought it was a good idea, that doesn’t mean it was a Divine Revelation. Besides, we know that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

Just a cursory glance at society will make it plainly obvious that these principles of the Bahai Revelation are undoubtedly Divine in their source and how they will bring solace to human hearts. “Every tear will be wiped away…”

Nonesense, there is nothing special about his teaching and " Every tear will be wiped away…" is taken from the New Testament.

Nothing Divine about Him? What are the criteria required for Divinity to be claimed and believed?

For 3,000 years a Messiah was promised to the Jews and their prophets wrote down the signs by which he could be recognized. Jesus came and fulfilled all the Old Testament prohpesies. And he proved his Divinity by casting out demons, curing the ill and the maimed, raising the dead, and rising from the dead himself, and by ascending into heaven before 500 witnesses and by the verbal approval of his Father in heaven on three separate occassions and by the rapid spread of his Church and by the many Saints who have lived his life in this world since, to this very moment. Where are the Mother Teresas of Islam?

What were the criteria satisfied by Peter during Jesus’ life for Him to claimed that Jesus was the “Son of the Living God”?

They are all covered in the New Testament, especially the Gospels. Haven’t you read the Scriptures?

Please also, may I remind you that I would learn about Catholicism from the Bible, the Catechism, early Church documents from Saints etc and Papal Encyclicals

Do so by all means.

NOT from Wikipedia…

If you are qualified, you can correct any errors in Wikipedia .

I hope and pray you will find similar resourcefulness and intellectual honesty within your own self to search in the correct channels dear friend

I see no compelling reason why I should. I have seen nohing in any of the branches of Islam worthy of study, certainly nothing worthy of imitation.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Do you genuinely think that Jesus needed to sit next to the Pharisees and study the Old Testament, Torah etc before He could speak His Revelation? Of course not! Jesus had pre-existent knowledge…[/QUOE]

Of course not, he did it for our benefit and theirs. And I’m glad you recognise that he possessed infused knowledge of his Father’s wisdom and knowledge - in so far as his Father chose to inform him. That does not mean that either Muhammad, or Bab or Baha’u’llah’ or any one else possessed the same infused knowledge…

Why is this not too hard for you to swallow? Here is a human being who claims to have lived BEFORE He was born? I believe Him, and so do you.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . “Before I chose the womb of my mother, I discoursed with Muhammad about the future of Islam” . . .

This makes no sense.
Hopefully it lost much in the translation.
“I chose the womb of my mother” - seriously? She, a human vessel I suppose.
“I discoursed with Muhammad about the future of Islam” - Trying to get some credibility, I’m sure this would really anger a lot of Muslims. Mohammed doesn’t mention him does he.

 

[Servant19]

Dear Aloysium and Linus, friends.

I feel that the efforts and perspectives that I have presented have been completely misunderstood, maybe my English is poor, I’m not sure.

The concepts presented have been avoided, slammed as nonsense without any basis, or simply dodged and diverted.

As an example, I did not see one reference quoted from Catholic teaching indicating an abolition to slavery (aspects of which were endorsed by a Pope in the past). This is just ONE example.
Aloysium, you say the quote from the Bab makes no sense as if the “Abraham was, I am” quote attributed to Jesus is sooooo dissimilar. Again, maybe it’s the language dear friend
All I ask is some honesty

If you wish to construct a brick wall to dialogue with, let me know, and at least I know that conversation and mutual learning is not on the Catholic agenda for some of it’s adherents.

If my English is poor, please advise what it is you cannot understand?

Otherwise, I will happily leave you to revel in your own certainties

God bless you both.