while obviously it would concern me that you do not find 'Islam to be a "true religion of God"~

I am not in the least bit insulted, and I encourage and support you in your seeking the Truth as it resonates for you.

thank you for your thoughtful and honest answers~

Oh I should correct though (to be accurate) - it is actually 'Abdu'l-Baha who writes concerning the resurrection issue.

<<Especially teachings like saying the Buddha once taught the Oneness of God, but later his teachigns were all corrupted....I just find it suspicious that conveniently Baha'u'llah can say whatever he wants in terms of what has been corrupted. I believe what the Buddhists say about the buddha, that God was not emphasized as important to the Buddhist path. I think that while some things may be altered/lost, for the most part people are careful about preserving teachings of what they consider sacred. To say that all these other people corrupted/lost their teachings, oh, but only the ones are crucial to Baha'u'llah - that sounds suspicious to me. >>


Hmmm... Although I won't argue that the word of the Buddha hasn't been corrupted... the Baha'u'llah assumption or version of the Dhamma/Dharma is completely false. Any look of sub-continent history will read that the Buddha Gautama was involved in and carried on to start his own samana/rationalist movement that came about in the 6th Century (BCE) present day India. This is in contrast to the Brahmistic (or pre-Hinduism, as we see it today) view--which concentrated on the worship of deities and concerned itself with issues of cosmology. The issue with the Buddha's message... and others of the same "rationalist" sort of movements was that it was more about a way of life... and with the Buddha specifically the predominant question is how to exist in this life... and in many ways religions are seen as an extreme... etc. etc.... and extremes are what get you into trouble in this life in that they put forth ideas and dogma. Thus causing internal and external woes.

So, not to say the Buddha's message wasn't corrupted but the true corruption is that there are polytheistic Buddhists, monotheistic Buddhists, henotheistic Buddhists, and people portraying the Buddha's image (didn't start until the Greeks showed up on the border of what is now India) and worshiping the Buddha in a round-about way... All this diversity in Buddhism exists... when we are told in the texts that the Buddha was asked about these spiritual matters of where we came from and who made it all... and the Buddha said it wasn't a concern. So, the Baha'u'llah was right that the message of the Buddha was corrupted... but it was corrupted in the final form that Baha'u'llah claims is its original form--and this is incorrect. Having said that, the Buddha said there were something like 24,000 ways to Enlightenment.... if you think of the paths as religion, it is like saying it doesn't matter what your beliefs are, just live a life by the philosophy and in tolerance and the Middle Path... everything will be fine.

A:

I'm not trying to be a guru--"guru" implies that I have far too much religious thought in my ideas for my taste. I'm talking strictly historical, sociological, and psychological human behavior. Are you trying to make assumptions and lightly call names so you don't have to deal with what is being said here? :) After all you have told people your views--and I am telling you mine. Isn't the point to be open to conversation? Conversations are drive-by's or dive-bombs... they are an exchange of ideas. I get what you are saying... but I also get where you are in a stage and a state and it comes off as what you are accusing the Baha'u'llah of doing... molding things to suit his ideas. And to me this is the history of the religious.

You know me well enough that I am not offended by someone believing in Christ/messiah, the Baha'u'llah, Muhammad or any of that. My emphasis is go beyond the minor differences to find the human needs fulfilled in all of these beliefs. For, me I just worry that if leaping from one "messiah" to the next is a good thing. Because as I see it the writing is on the wall... with the Baha'u'llah and with Jesus Christ (for me your questions of the Baha'u'llah are questions I ask of Jesus-historical-Christ--not even Jesus-the-Messiah). It's a progression back into time. That's what's happening here. A search for truth going backwards. And this is what humans do when they get disgusted with the *now.* They try to hearken back to a time of romantic appeal... the Golden Cup of the Truth, but they always stop mid-point in the search--it's never a full search of the truth, as it were. Like Protestants breaking with the Roman Church for "corrupting the Word"--and then waring with the Roman Church, as if they really didn't get the Message at all (and what they offer is nothing of substance either--in Christ's peace or forgiveness of fellow humans--or even historical doctrine--because their are all Trinitarian anyway!).

My only point was that if Jesus Christ was fulfilling a Jewish prophecy of a Messiah descending from David's line... then okay: when/where did the idea of messiah-hood (if you will) come into the picture. It wasn't always there. So, there is really a context that is pre-1st Century Judaism. And Jesus was really in circles of Protestant Judaism... re-invigorated by another wave of Zoroastrian belief systems. Look at John the Baptist--that wasn't mainstream Jewish belief to baptize. So, as a child I would ask... what's going on here? The answers are more complicated that the religions tell us. The context is far more dubious and murky.

Many things have changed in Judaism. People see changes clearly in Christianity because the latter day re-writers are here to pronounce it loud and clear--but in this older tradition of Judaism (and in newer Islam for example due to the way Islam is set up)... the re-writings get buried. If you want to understand 1st Century Judaism... you have to go back further... into the exile periods of Egypt and Babylonia to understand where they got some of their ideas.


"It doesn't bother me if the idea of Messiahship was rooted in Zoroastrianism, that would simply cause me to open eyes in greater wonder at God's plans. Remember, I am used to the idea of an idea being reinterpreted in a different religion - I accepted that as a Baha'i."

It seems as a Baha'i you accepted the other religions only in the terms of Baha'i teachings on those religions. After all, that was your ultimate break with the Baha'i Faith. My issue is not that these things are rooted in other religions... my issue is what that means, not as a religious truth, but as a human condition and byproduct of an exchange--and how people buy into the adoption of these ideas and forget where they came from and act like they were always part of their faith's core teachings. If it really wasn't part of the core teachings... well... then why start nit-picking other ideas and acting like these foreign concepts are indigenous? Selective nit-picking is the issue, really. You wouldn't approach public health issues in this way--so why religious fancy and human ideas? And this discussion of the failures of the Baha'i Faith happens to be along those lines. When eventually, you should really find in Christianity the same thing you were rejecting in the Baha'i faith--and no I'm not playing guru or daddy figure--this is the way it is--just looking at things logically. "Where does the idea come from"--this is the same question you are asking the Baha'is... and now you say you don't want to do that for 1st Century Judaism/Christianity? What applies to one... applies to another. And when it doesn't--you have a religion and a religious bias. Hehehee.

"that would simply cause me to open eyes in greater wonder at God's plans."

It's all assumptions that God's plans were based on something other than a human construct. If people can change their faith at a culture exchange... then.... well... why? Why propose a messiah based Judaism as the answer... when the messiah concept wasn't always in Judaism? If God's plan was so pronounced it would have always been and will always be... the same. If God was such the micromanager then everyone would be in-line and rolled up like little ducklings on the way to the pond--it's a cop-out to blame free will--if your mom says don't--you don't--if you boss says "don't," you don't. If the Deity is so jealous as in the Hebrew bible, the Christian Gospels, and the Qur'an... or even "The Hidden Words"... then why doesn't everyone have access to the same exact texts, rules/ideals, and ideas? Does God need a management course or two? Or does religion become more pronounced in our lives because preachers are now taking psychology and management courses?