Baha'i faith influenced off an other relgion?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Hi, Bandit! :-)

You mentioned the fact that the great religions all differ, and Amy gave you the analogy of a single, constant wheel, but with different tires.

I think what will help here is to be aware that the Baha'i Faith makes a distinction between spritual teachings, which we view as constant and unchanging across religions (although sometimes expressed in different wordings), and social teachings, which are intentionally temporary and change from religion to religion!

Examples of spiritual teachings would include "you're here for a reason," "there is a God," "don't murder," etc..

Social teachings are laws such as prayer and fasting, marriage and divorce, administrative structure, and so on.

Only a new Divine Messenger is permitted to change social laws (meaning, of course, that God has changed them through the Messenger), but change them They do! (Good examples include Christ's expanding the law about adultery and abolishing the restrictions on the Sabbath, as recounted in the New Testament.)

Best, and do keep the questions coming! :-)

Bruce

Hi Bruce, a couple of things.

How do Baha'is distinguish between social and spiritual laws? Why would marriage laws be social while prohibition of murder is considered spiritual?

Also, Jesus did not change any laws, nor did he introduce any new 'laws.' He changed our way of viewing those laws, revealing that they are actually about love and compassion rather than rigid adherance.

peace,
lunamoth

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

How do Baha'is distinguish between social and spiritual laws? Why would marriage laws be social while prohibition of murder is considered spiritual?

Also, Jesus did not change any laws, nor did he introduce any new 'laws.' He changed our way of viewing those laws, revealing that they are actually about love and compassion rather than rigid adherance.

Hi!

I have to post briefly and run because I'm time-critical right now!

Marriage laws have clearly changed over the ages, e.g. whether or not divorce is permitted and the number of wives allowed. Hence, these are social laws.

The prohibition on murder, in contrast, is universal and IOV unchanging: spiritual law.

Jesus not only altered/amplified some teachings in the Sermon on the Mount (both spiritual and social laws, it seems), but implicitly abolished the Sabbath prohibitions through His supposed "violation" of them, as objected to by the Pharisees.

Gotta run.

Regards, and bye! :-)

Bruce

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Hi!

I have to post briefly and run because I'm time-critical right now!

Marriage laws have clearly changed over the ages, e.g. whether or not divorce is permitted and the number of wives allowed. Hence, these are social laws.

The prohibition on murder, in contrast, is universal and IOV unchanging: spiritual law.

Jesus not only altered/amplified some teachings in the Sermon on the Mount (both spiritual and social laws, it seems), but implicitly abolished the Sabbath prohibitions through His supposed "violation" of them, as objected to by the Pharisees.

Gotta run.

Regards, and bye! :-)

Bruce

Hi Bruce, thank you. So as not to derail this thread I wrote a post that relates to the above and put it here. I know you see it differently, so this is just if you are interested in my view.

peace,
lunamoth

[Postmaster]

Regarding some of my posts on the thread, I think the Baha'is are totally ignoring me on them. Maybe I should be a painter and paint what I discovered for future generations lol.. I'm not attacking I'm reasoning, which is also part of the Baha'i way?

[I, Brian]

I think they are answering you, Postmaster - it's smply that they didn't appear to be aware of Manachaeism, so they can't answer your question as you perhaps wanted.

[Postmaster]

As soon as something that is asked that is not covered by Baha'i framework of talk and scripture, its almost like some of them are lost.

[Postmaster]

Take a look Brian!

Mani viewed himself as the final successor in a long line of prophets, beginning with Adam and including Buddha, Zoroaster, and Jesus. He viewed earlier revelations of the true religion as being limited in effectiveness because they were local, taught in one language to one people. Moreover, later adherents lost sight of the original truth. Mani regarded himself as the carrier of a universal message destined to replace all other religions. Hoping to avoid corruption and to ensure doctrinal unity, he recorded his teachings in writing and gave those writings canonical status during his lifetime.

Mani sought to found a truly ecumenical and universal religion that would integrate into itself all the partial truths of previous revelations, especially those of Zoroaster, Buddha, and Jesus. However, beyond mere syncretism, it sought the proclamation of a truth that could be translated into diverse forms in accordance with the different cultures into which it spread. Thus, Manichaeism, depending on the context, resembles Iranian and Indian religions, Christianity, Buddhism, and Taoism.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

As soon as something that is asked that is not covered by Baha'i framework of talk and scripture, its almost like some of them are lost.

Well, you're asking for them to post a faith response to something outside of their faith.

As for the quote - it's all really very interesting, but you were asking for a Baha'i point of view as to how the Baha'i Faith views Manichaeism - and I think you have your answer.

If you really want to compare the two as religions, we really should have a topic on the comparative board, rather than this one.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Regarding some of my posts on the thread, I think the Baha'is are totally ignoring me on them. Maybe I should be a painter and paint what I discovered for future generations lol.. I'm not attacking I'm reasoning, which is also part of the Baha'i way?

I would have to agree with you a little bit, Postmaster. The topic isn't very interesting to me and a couple of us have tried to answer your questions the best we can. There is no Baha'i stand on this religious sect, so we can't tell you what Baha'u'llah told us about it and it seems that none of the Baha'is that have chose to stay on this board are interested in the topic enough to get into a discussion with you about it.

Thank you for recognizing that using logic and rationality, the gift we believe that God gave man that seperated us from the animals, is a trait of the Baha'i members here. Anybody can use these gifts, as you suggest you are doing, but still the topic to me is more of a Physical Geography or Anthropological subject than a comparative religion subject. Finding similarities between two groups separated by a thousand years probably wouldn't be very difficult, but it also wouldn't be particularly significant.

Sorry if you wanted more discourse on this subject, but it doesn't seem forthcoming.

warmly,

Mick

[Postmaster]

Personally I think there is a blood line, Baha'u'llah royal heritage is ancient if im not mistaken. There is a connection with the theology even so and I think it would be significant. Baha'u'llah claimed in his books as he lay on the sofa winds of knowledge from the divine blew upon him.. However some theology of Manichaeism is the same to Baha’i. Call me a cynic and all due respect to Baha'u'llah your prophet. But reason is getting the better of me.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Personally I think there is a blood line, Baha'u'llah royal heritage is ancient if im not mistaken. There is a connection with the theology even so and I think it would be significant. Baha'u'llah claimed in his books as he lay on the sofa winds of knowledge from the divine blew upon him.. However some theology of Manichaeism is the same to Baha’i. Call me a cynic and all due respect to Baha'u'llah your prophet. But reason is getting the better of me.

Reason? Come on now. I have to ask you why is this important to you? Do you have an agenda that will eventually surface? The history is written by many, not just Baha'i historians. There doesn't seem to be any reference by anybody to Manichaeism in the history of Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah did not invent the message He has shared with the world, no more than Christ did, or Moses did, or Muhammed did. It was imbued to Him by God, Allah, Yaweh, etc.

The word "reason" means a rational motive for a belief or action. Simply because you think it, doesn't make it rational. Statements that begin with "I think...", "I feel..." and/or "I believe" are probably one of the most common indicators that whoever is making the statement has their mind closed and have already made a decision on what little information they possess.

Most of the religions of God, and I am not suggesting that Manichaeism is a religion of God that was founded by a Manifestation, (from what I read in Wikipedia, it would seem to be just another Christian sect) have very significant similarities, as they should. If the message of God is progressive, as our rational mind should agree with, and it is, then each Messenger would build on the message of the past by reiterating the previous message and adding the newest additions so that society can advance.

If there is an agenda here, Postmaster, please come forth with it. If there isn't an agenda, then I must warn you, you sound like a broken record, that keeps repeating some insignificant statement over and over and over. I hope I have cleared this up for you. Please don't respond with the same statement you've been making. What's the point? If that is your stand, then so be it.

Mick

[BruceDLimber]

Postmaster, I also don't know what you're complaining about!

I--and I think other Baha'is, too--have already pointed out to you that the Baha'i Faith:

1. does not appear to address Manicheism,
2. has no teachings about it that I've ever seen (in 34 years as a Baha'i), and also that
3. the Baha'i Faith does have an explicit short list of Divine Messengers since Gautama Buddha, and Mani is not on that list! Thus, so far as I understand this, there is no chance that Mani, too, was such a Messenger. In addition, we see certain other religious groups as essesntially derivative of already-existing great religions, so that Sikhism and Taoism (for example) similarly don't qualify as separate independant religions on their own. Manicheism apparently also fits this description, as Brian indicated.

So like Brian, I too don't know what more you want us to say.

We're well aware that the spiritual teachings of the great religions are all extremely similar, so it's no particular surprise that Mani--or anybody else--might echo these same concepts.

Finally, as always, we're most happy to answer any sincere question about the Baha'i Faith!

But like it or not, in the case of this particular question, we've already said essentially all we can say about it. . . .

Peace,

Bruce

[BruceDLimber]

And speaking of Baha'u'llah's heritage, He was descended from Abraham by two of His three wives: Sarah and Keturah!

I've also heard it asserted that He was a descendant of ancient Persian kings, but have no personal knowledge of this.

(And the Bab, for the record, was descended from Abraham's third wife, Hagar, through Muhammad.)

Regards,

Bruce

[Mick]

If you are really interested in the genealogy of Baha'u'llah go to

http://www.misfitscentral.net/Files%...or_friends.htm

This is a PDF file that you can open or download. We have installed it on our own website on a page we reserve for sharing large files. This one isn't particularly large, but it is a convenient place to land it.

Mick

[I, Brian]

Postmaster, it would be great to respect the idea of discussion here - at the moment it seems like you're simply finger pointing.