P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed. I have met Him.
In fact I enjoy the most intimate union there is this side of heaven with Him.
What did Jesus bring to the world that was not already brought by Moses?
- Status
In fact I enjoy the most intimate union there is this side of heaven with Him.
S
Servant19
Guest
Thats wonderful. I would’ve said the same thing if asked that question.
Funny how God works
God bless you sister
P
PRmerger
Guest
He died because sins against an Infinite Good could only be atoned for by an infinite act of love.
This could only be done by Jesus.
That there is still sin is a great tragedy but does not remove the fact that Jesus atoned for it.
Once you unite yourself completely with the Body of Christ you will be able to partake in this Eucharistic act and sin will not win in you.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No. You, sadly, have no one flesh union with Him.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
It appears I am late to the party but Christ brought, life into a world that Moses could not have. Christ brought salvation for all mankind. Moses did not. He barely could obey God’s commands. 
E
eddie_too
Guest
i took the following from the website www.sectsofbahais.com.
“Like any other Faith where division amongst their followers is natural, Bahá’í Faith is no exception to it. How much the Bahá’í leaders may claim that there is no division amongst Bahá’ís the fact is that Bahá’í Faith does have different denominations, each calling themselves as the TRUE Faith . The fact is that in the small span of 160 years Bahá’í Faith has seen more divisions than any other religion.”
the site contains much historical information regarding the evolution of bahaism. it has a family tree, so to speak, of how and from whom the various sects of the bahai religion developed.
it seems that division among the followers of bahaullah developed immediately upon his death. as in most divisions, a large number of followers supported one claimant to succession over the other. that does not mean that the other disappeared. this same phenomenon occurred repeatedly throughout the history of bahai.
“Like any other Faith where division amongst their followers is natural, Bahá’í Faith is no exception to it. How much the Bahá’í leaders may claim that there is no division amongst Bahá’ís the fact is that Bahá’í Faith does have different denominations, each calling themselves as the TRUE Faith . The fact is that in the small span of 160 years Bahá’í Faith has seen more divisions than any other religion.”
the site contains much historical information regarding the evolution of bahaism. it has a family tree, so to speak, of how and from whom the various sects of the bahai religion developed.
it seems that division among the followers of bahaullah developed immediately upon his death. as in most divisions, a large number of followers supported one claimant to succession over the other. that does not mean that the other disappeared. this same phenomenon occurred repeatedly throughout the history of bahai.
E
Espero
Guest
E
eddie_too
Guest
aidanbradypop,
the bahai teach that Jesus’ life, death and resurrection and the eternal life they give are not enough for human beings. they also need the teachings of bahaullah.
why eternal life is not enough is one of the mysteries of the bahai religion.
it cannot be denied that bahaullah added thousands of pages of writing to the history of religion. however, the bahai have not been able to clearly explain what those thousands of pages add, in an essential sense (like explaining what a human being needs besides eternal life), to the gift of eternal life.
i understand that the bahai believe they need the writings of bahaullah to more fully understand reality. i do not know why the depth of a person’s understanding of reality adds to the promise of eternal life.
i simply do not believe that people who have greater understanding and insight into reality possess, because of that greater understanding and insight, something greater than eternal life.
the bahai teach that Jesus’ life, death and resurrection and the eternal life they give are not enough for human beings. they also need the teachings of bahaullah.
why eternal life is not enough is one of the mysteries of the bahai religion.
it cannot be denied that bahaullah added thousands of pages of writing to the history of religion. however, the bahai have not been able to clearly explain what those thousands of pages add, in an essential sense (like explaining what a human being needs besides eternal life), to the gift of eternal life.
i understand that the bahai believe they need the writings of bahaullah to more fully understand reality. i do not know why the depth of a person’s understanding of reality adds to the promise of eternal life.
i simply do not believe that people who have greater understanding and insight into reality possess, because of that greater understanding and insight, something greater than eternal life.
E
Espero
Guest
Those are indeed break offs, but they’re very minor and obscure. To be honest, I’ve never met one of these break offs in real life. Most will argue, and I tend to agree with them, that the Universal House of Justice does have a legitimate lineage to Baha’u’llah. (Please correct and forgive me if I misspeak out of ignorance)
S
Servant19
Guest
eddie, if you can tell me how many members each of those sects has in its membership roll, you can win the prize
Enemies of all religions do these sorts of things, but look a bit deeper and you see the decay.
Please feel free to look as deep as you wish within the Baha’i Faith
(d’oh sorry Martin)
Eddie, I’ll send you a PM…
S
Servant19
Guest
Espero, like fresh sweet scent roses of truth. What a truly blessed and fair minded soul you are
God bless you
S
Servant19
Guest
Espero, this is from Baha’u’llah’s Tablet to Salman.
L
Lochias
Guest
People can say many things and believe them to be true, but actual Truth is not affected by who believe and who doesn’t.
I’m sorry, but objectively speaking, there is no way you have as close a union with Christ as Catholics do in the presence of the Eucharist, as well as the fullness of Truth present in the Catholic Church.
S
Servant19
Guest
So you are a sinless being PR?
L
Lochias
Guest
That is not at all what she said, and you know that very well. Stop playing games, please.
S
Servant19
Guest
I totally agree with you about Truth. Truth is Truth, no matter what you or I say.
I ask, how you can speak objectively about Truth as a Catholic?
E
eddie_too
Guest
Roman Catholics mean specific concepts when they use the words, among many, salvation, sin, grace, atonement, redemption, divinity, Triune God, revelation, inspired writing, Church, original sin, paradise (Garden of Eden), resurrection, ascension, Holy Spirit, Incarnate Word, baptism, heaven, hell, etc., etc., etc.
it is not possible to carry on a fruitful discussion unless those discussing agree on the meannings of the words they are using.
it could be that a fruitful discussion might ensue if it were limited to a definition of terms, remaining in discussion until a term is agreed upon. then going to the next term upon which there is disagreement and discuss that term until agreement is reached.
i would note that the RC definition of these words, terms, concepts have developed and been refined over the last two millenium through writing, discussion and practice among tens of thousands of RCs.
my suggestion, pick a term used by both parties to the discussion and discuss that single word (concept) until both parties agree on its meaning for the purposes of using in future discussions.
i realize of course that thousands of sincere, holy and knowledgeable people have been doing this for generations. in the case of the RCC, for nearly 50 generations (if we define a generation to be 40 years in length. if agreeing upon a definition of terms were easy, the hundreds of thousands of pages written by tens of thousands of RC intellectuals and saints would not have been written. and, these hundreds of thousands of pages, are, essentially, discussions of terms.
the most obvious example of how far apart in meaning bahai and RCs are when using the same simple words would be in the respective definition of the word Father in its relationship to divinity.
for example, to the bahai, the word father, when applied to a discussion of divinity, seems to be defined as one of the, if not the greatest, manifestations of the Creator of all things. to the mormons, the word means a physical human being who achieved godhood. to the catholics, the word father, in the context of divinity, means the First Person of the Most Holy Trinity of which there is nothing greater.
now we can all agree to disagree on the correct meaning of the word Father, but if we disagree, using that word to discuss spiritual reality serves little to no purpose.
so, can we start by identifying the words that hold the same meaning to all of us.
i hope that does not come down to the words the, and, and a.
it is not possible to carry on a fruitful discussion unless those discussing agree on the meannings of the words they are using.
it could be that a fruitful discussion might ensue if it were limited to a definition of terms, remaining in discussion until a term is agreed upon. then going to the next term upon which there is disagreement and discuss that term until agreement is reached.
i would note that the RC definition of these words, terms, concepts have developed and been refined over the last two millenium through writing, discussion and practice among tens of thousands of RCs.
my suggestion, pick a term used by both parties to the discussion and discuss that single word (concept) until both parties agree on its meaning for the purposes of using in future discussions.
i realize of course that thousands of sincere, holy and knowledgeable people have been doing this for generations. in the case of the RCC, for nearly 50 generations (if we define a generation to be 40 years in length. if agreeing upon a definition of terms were easy, the hundreds of thousands of pages written by tens of thousands of RC intellectuals and saints would not have been written. and, these hundreds of thousands of pages, are, essentially, discussions of terms.
the most obvious example of how far apart in meaning bahai and RCs are when using the same simple words would be in the respective definition of the word Father in its relationship to divinity.
for example, to the bahai, the word father, when applied to a discussion of divinity, seems to be defined as one of the, if not the greatest, manifestations of the Creator of all things. to the mormons, the word means a physical human being who achieved godhood. to the catholics, the word father, in the context of divinity, means the First Person of the Most Holy Trinity of which there is nothing greater.
now we can all agree to disagree on the correct meaning of the word Father, but if we disagree, using that word to discuss spiritual reality serves little to no purpose.
so, can we start by identifying the words that hold the same meaning to all of us.
i hope that does not come down to the words the, and, and a.
E
eddie_too
Guest
an addendum,
it may well be that we share common concepts but label them with different words.
identifying these shared concepts would be very fruitful.
for example, a great many human beings agree that there is something greater than oneself. most of them label that which is greater than themselves, God, Allah, Yahweh, or something similar.
far fewer human beings agree with the attributes of that which is greater than themselves.
another example, a great many people believe that this world was created by a being greater than themselves. but for some, creator is an attribute of God.
it is puzzling and a bit disconcerning to know that while most of humanity agree that there is a God, at the same time, there is much disagreement among humanity on the attributes of that God.
to a RC, the history of mankind is intimately involved in learning more and more about the nature of Perfect Being (Perfect Being is a more precise designation than the word God by itself because it connotes more).
this RC concept of increased self-revelation by our Creator is in agreement with the bahai concept of vaying degrees of manifestation of the Creator in various human beings throughout history. the agreement certainly ends when the RC says the self-revelation culminates in Jesus Christ and the bahai teach that the self-revelation never ends.
it may well be that we share common concepts but label them with different words.
identifying these shared concepts would be very fruitful.
for example, a great many human beings agree that there is something greater than oneself. most of them label that which is greater than themselves, God, Allah, Yahweh, or something similar.
far fewer human beings agree with the attributes of that which is greater than themselves.
another example, a great many people believe that this world was created by a being greater than themselves. but for some, creator is an attribute of God.
it is puzzling and a bit disconcerning to know that while most of humanity agree that there is a God, at the same time, there is much disagreement among humanity on the attributes of that God.
to a RC, the history of mankind is intimately involved in learning more and more about the nature of Perfect Being (Perfect Being is a more precise designation than the word God by itself because it connotes more).
this RC concept of increased self-revelation by our Creator is in agreement with the bahai concept of vaying degrees of manifestation of the Creator in various human beings throughout history. the agreement certainly ends when the RC says the self-revelation culminates in Jesus Christ and the bahai teach that the self-revelation never ends.
L
Lochias
Guest
Very good.I totally agree with you about Truth. Truth is Truth, no matter what you or I say.
Reason, logic, history, tradition, Scripture and theology all agree. No other explanation other than the Catholic one makes 100% sense.
meltzerboy
New member
However, it makes 100% sense only to some Catholics (including also Catholic converts), but not to all Catholics. And to most non-Catholics, that percentage is considerably less, based also on reason, logic, history, tradition, Scripture, and theology.
- Status