What happens to people that have never heard of Jesus? (Page 5)

Zanjan
Zanjan: That's not anything new - "light" is a very old symbol for "understanding", re-used by every Prophet since the first Egyptian Pharaohs carved it in stone. People always knew, from their own observations, the sun was a life-giver to everything on earth.

The ancients were close to nature and great observers of the heavens, understanding the moon didn't give light of its own, just reflected it from the sun, yet was essential to the workings of the world.

They may not have known that the moon governed the tides but they understood the reason for a period of rest. They understood the reliable pulse of the seasons. They were familiar with the parallels, recognizing that nature was another expression of the Will of God. Thus, all ancient religions were nature-based. Over eons, God helped them to lift their eyes up higher, to focus more on the spiritual than the natural.

Why is this theme repeated? Well, when the world goes dark and people fall asleep, they forget - as they begin to awaken, they need a reminder to orient them. Where am I? What time is it, what day is this? They require a sign, usually more than one.

Today, we have other helpers - science has proven that every substance was made out of photons and that multiple dimensions aren't separate from each other. It stands that the physical and spiritual planes operate together, governed by an order of universal laws. No law exists without intelligence.
(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: In short, if someone had never heard of Jesus Christ, the laws would still operate. Religion would continue to exist, people would continue to pray, God would still hear their prayers and visions would still occur.

The soul could still find guidance. Very soon, that person would hear of Jesus Christ through a successive Revelator, since They've all made mention of each other. The more one knows, the more one is enriched. Yet there's a difference between hearing and doing.
4 years ago Report
0
shadowline
shadowline: "They've all made mention of each other". May I ask if Buddha was a Revelator?
4 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Yes, He was. However, these scriptures were seriously tampered with over time - the manipulation was so bad, it caused a big split between followers that believed in God as deity and those that didn't.

The meddling is so obvious, crude and dishonest, one can hardly read without chuckling. However, truth has a way of bubbling to the surface, where it can be cross-referenced and verified in a continuous thread.

The ignorant and beguiling are unaware of the hidden safety measures...that is, the signs of an enlightened one and of divinity.

One easy example: no atheist has power of prophecy. This is bestowed by God, Himself, to one who worships Him......in matters of the future Plan of God (long term), this dispensation goes only to a Revelator.

In every version of Buddhist scripture, the Buddha speaks of a specific number of Promised Ones to appear in future (reference to spiritual cycles remaining in the old world order), particularly identifying the coming of the next Promised One, for which He gives a time and place -> 500 years after Him, to the West of India; He used a special name for Him - this is always a test to seekers.

THAT was Jesus, the Christ, exactly. There was no other contender even close to this period. The Holy Spirit of Buddha re-appeared in Christ; for that reason, many believe Jesus visited India to study under Buddha. Although there's no record of that, they believe this because some of Jesus's Words were identical in phrase to that of the Buddha.

Baha'u'llah has also identified Buddha and Jesus as Revelators - that is, as Manifestations of God.

This is how you know, right off the top, who the Buddha was. There are other signs and proofs but I wont get into them because each must find them on their own. Suffice to say, whenever a religion of God got old, the people caused it to descend into pagan forms. Not a single religion ever escaped this pattern. Despite this, their names and truths remained.

One can steal a religious concept and admit to a particular dynamic or principle of law, but application is key, and it can always be traced back to a source.
(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: The question for this topic should be "What happens to those who don't believe God's Words?"
4 years ago Report
0
Cenababy
Cenababy: Welp according to bible a lot!
4 years ago Report
0
shadowline
shadowline: I am not aware of anything, anywhere, in the teachings of Buddha, or in any Buddhist text, sacred or other, that comes even close to the concept of the Divine that was held and taught by the Hebrew prophets, or by Jesus. Buddhism has, in fact, no concept of the Divine at all, for all its undoubted derivation from Hinduism, nor is there any conception in Hinduism itself that would have formed any such influence (i.e. on Buddhism) - much less the fierce, ethical monotheism of Jesus and the prophets.

The attempt to make polytheistic Hinduism and non-theistic Buddhism into the same "revelation" as Judaism and Christianity is so far from useful as to be absurd. It simply flies in the face of the facts. And the argument that scriptures were "changed" where they don't say what someone's polemics insist they should is frankly as weak as water.

I have the impression that such exercises don't even represent the teachings of Baha'u'llah, whose mind was probably not even on religious traditions other than the monotheistic ones of the Middle East. I speak under correction there, but, as for changing things, I suspect that Baha'is have been doing that with their own prophet's original teachings pretty relentlessly.
4 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: You're right about Buddhist writings not describing the divine. First consider the mentality and stage of development of the people at the time and place. They were only interested in remedies for their troubles and health problems, not academics, scholarship, or ritual - Lord knows, the Hindus and Jews were already too regimented!

Scriptures answer the questions people put to the mysteries of life and order of society. If the questions aren't there, this indicates that giving an answer would bounce off them and only serve to open a can of worms.

THAT'S why Revelation is progressive. The people must be prepared and ready- too much too soon, they'd just swoon away and die........like being burnt to a crisp by the sun. That's Biblical.

Notice that neither Moses or Jesus talked about how to make a marriage work, the nature of the soul, or what souls do in the hereafter. They didnt describe an egalitarian society or international diplomacy either. There was no point teaching that which wouldn't arrive anytime soon.

As for the "concept of the divine", as you put it.......none of the ancient scriptures discussed that, other than to say God was INCONCEIVABLE and UNKNOWABLE.

If you're referring to the divinity of the Revelator, none of those scriptures went into detail about that either. Nobody asked WHAT Jesus or Moses was - they could see He was a man, who came from among men - that is, from a known family. They knew He was no ordinary Teacher. Jesus asked "Who do THEY say that I am? Who do YOU say that I am? He left it up to the people to decide, which was very wise.

None described the differences between the lesser and greater prophets. None discussed the difference between a sect and an independent religion. The people recognized a superior as a qualified Messenger of God; for the highest rank possible, They'd have to prove their mastery, virtue and knowledge exceeded that of all others.

However, ALL those religions contain a mighty long list of the attributes of God - those that we humans could develop - that's what was important - the divine virtues.

Don't confuse what followers of these religions believed then or now with those sacred texts. The ancients, in general, simply didn't live up to those teachings; neither do the moderns.

(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: "....as for changing things, I suspect that Baha'is have been doing that with their own prophet's original teachings pretty relentlessly. "

Do you think one should *always* judge the future by the past?

It's impossible for Baha'is to change any of Baha'u'llah's writings or teachings.

Newbies don't have a full grasp of the teachings; few of them have knowledge of religious world history either - it takes many years of study and lots of experience;however, their lack of acuity has no effect on the writings. Baha'i scriptures can't be corrupted - they were penned by the hands of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, and we have all of the originals preserved.

Only Baha'u'llah's son, Abdul-Baha, is the Interpreter of the Faith - Baha'u'llah gave him this sole designation and title. Interpretation is forbidden to all others.

When translating to other languages, a panel of at least 16 international accredited scholars must work together and agree 100% on the translation before it can go to the Universal House of Justice for another round of examination. No Baha'i is permitted to translate the writings on their own, and no Baha'i can publish a book on the Faith without examination and approval by Baha'i Insitutions.

Last, but not least, is the Power of the New Covenant - it's so explicit, so strong, that the Baha'i Faith can't split up into denominations - it's part and parcel of the New World Order.

All of the above are historical FIRSTS.
(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0
shadowline
shadowline: Of course they are historical firsts. Baha'ism is a recent phenomenon. It originated in a modern world and it reflects modern conventions, mindsets, and possibilities. Older faiths inherited the conditions of the societies they originated in.

If, however, any of Baha'u'llah's writings do specifically refer to any religion other than Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, I would be interested to see the reference.
4 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: No such thing as Baha'ism..........."isms" are for political factions and nationalistic ideologies. Baha'is are forbidden to participate in partisan politics - it's counter-intuitive to our mission, which is to help establish the unity of mankind.

"Older faiths inherited the conditions of the societies they originated in".

Yet they all managed to change those conditions and mindsets, given enough time. Their leaps and bounds were our baby steps. The children of today are far wiser and more knowledgeable then any of their wisest of men.

Baha'u'llah's reference is to the number of Revelations from God that remain on earth as a world heritage, naming each one - no need to teach them. Baha'u'llah is the 9th. Baha'is are enjoined to diligently study all those scriptures, in addition to our own.

In keeping with the attitude of all Revelators, you wont find any reference to fake, folk, pagan or tribal religions, which seems what you might be after.

As I mentioned previously, this topic isn't the place to be posting such quotes - perhaps you'd like to start your own topic along those lines, since I can see the potential to discuss more than just names.

(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0
shadowline
shadowline: "Ism" is just a convention. You don't have to worry about it attributing a meaning you don't like. Any objective writer on the subject will use "Baha'ism" without making it political, just as will be done with "Hinduism", or "Taoism" - common usage which needn't cause any ideological discomfiture. All you have to do is pick up a book to see that. If you don't like these formulations, you don't have to use use them. But you can't change the language. At least, not very quickly.
4 years ago Report
0
shadowline
shadowline: And as for references, I was thinking of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, not fake, folk, pagan, or tribal religions. It would make the point to simply cite where Baha'u'llah refers to them. I wouldn't call that extraneous or beside the point.
4 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: "It would make the point to simply cite where Baha'u'llah refers to them"

I'm capable of making the point. If you don't believe me, citing a page number wont change that. If you're after an extrapolation, I'm willing to offer one. I'll start with your words:


"Any objective writer on the subject will use "Baha'ism"

Like Christianism or Christianist? When a religion or a rule becomes a philosophy to the people instead of a way of life, maybe then - it would need to be very old. Traditions take time to pile up; at a certain point, those who honour them almost never practice them. Like "the Golden Rule", we all know those who profess but find other things to do.

Religion is a system of education; if its only students are monks and priests, the point is to preserve a record of history. While we appreciate that, it's a car without wheels.

History helps us to differentiate between a Prophet of God and a wise man - what we do with that info is our choice. Thus, a collection of old wisdom can morph into an official state religion, as did Toaism, or sit on the corner shelf, like Confucianism, as a book of insightful quotes.

We hold these truths to be self-evident but how shall they be executed?? One may hold Marxist views but it's not likely they could employ them. What is knowledge if it isn't consistently being increased?

The emblem of genuine religion is an organization that creates or had once created, an enduring, positive change in the world of mankind, raising its intellect and expanding hearts.

Seems to me, any accurate writer would use the name they call themselves. It's helpful to understand what the Title means when translated to one's own language.

Baha'u'llah means "Glory of God"

Thus, Baha'i means "Follower of the Glory".
(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: I think you'll find one consistency - that none of the parked religions could move forward unless a newer religion towed it along. Imagine what would happen if a newer religion towed ALL of them along at once!
4 years ago Report
0
shadowline
shadowline: To make the simplest and most obvious observation, "Christianism" and "Christianist" do not happen to be English terms. "Hinduism" and "Buddhism" ARE English terms, and so is "Baha'ism". Just pick up a book and you will see it. It's not an earth shaking issue, but, you might as well know how the language you are using works. If you want to use the term "Baha'i Faith" to refer to your religion, though, go ahead. You won't be breaking any rules.

I have not noticed that Hinduism, the oldest still existing religion in the world, has ever needed anything to "tow it along". It seems to have carried on in its traditional way perfectly well for about four thousand years. So have Buddhism, Taoism, and Shinto, for a somewhat shorter time. I still wonder whether Baha'u'llah had ever even heard of them. But I don't think I will lose any sleep over the matter.
4 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: I've already explained why "Bahaism" isn't a proper term in any language. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on adopting a label then attaching it to MY religion. Do you do that with races too?

No one knows how the Hindu Faith was practiced among the people, themselves, thousands of years ago. It should have been much simpler. People change and adapt to new times, for better or worse. Culture and language transform with every move into new lands, and with each new technology, disease, art, war and children's stories. Nothing remains the same.

It's not likely you know what your own forefathers believed.

A new religion of God has no traditions, and doesn't develop any until many generations later. Strong attachment to those traditions will hold people back from their own development. As such, their religion wont go to new places or make any favourable impression on others unless another religion takes it there.

You might want to give that bullet train a wee bit more contemplation.
(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Perhaps I may have miscommunicated something to you, since you seem to have the idea Baha'u'llah made a concise list of every Prophet's name in one sentence or paragraph. All wrapped up in a pretty bow. Nope, that would be too easy.

He wrote over a hundred volumes of Revelation - the names are sprinkled throughout, depending on what He was addressing. The same is true for Abdul-Baha's massive writings (His son), which are also part of scripture.

However, I can offer a short cut - Baha'u'llah's Family Tree.......Here:

http://www.uhj.net/genealogy/genealogy-of-christ.html

The genealogy goes back to Adam. You'll see He's a descendant of all the Revelators. Naturally, you'll decide how important that was to Him and is to you.

(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Why did the guy write so much? Couldn't he have put all that needed to be said in one handy, little booklet?
(Edited by ghostgeek)
4 years ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Keeping things simple is the way to get the message across, not piling up words that nobody reads.
4 years ago Report
1
Zanjan
Zanjan: What, like on Wireclub?

Things had already been plenty simple for thousands of years. The Old World Order moved at a snail's pace because people were slow learners and weren't able to digest much in one go. (the old scriptures say so) Also, life was harsh; they spent long hours in hard labour and just didn't have the time or strength to do more than skim the surface.

Nevertheless, if you repeat something enough, the mind deadens and the spirit goes to sleep. Ergo, the old maxim: 'Even a potato will cease to flourish if planted and re-planted in the same worn out soil'.

Wanna wake em up? Hit them with something new. If its gotta stay fresh for at least a thousand years, it better be a lot of new things. If it's going to launch a New World Order, not only does it have to pick up the pace, its gotta turn on the afterburners.

If you can't read 100 books, plus another 300, then you need to switch to audio books.Unfortunately, you can't do highlights. I remember a 17 year old babysitter who once said to me "I've never read a book and I'm proud of it!" No doubt, she still babysat for a living 40 years later.

(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: The joy of the soul is in seeking knowledge; that never gets old.
4 years ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: One book should have been more than enough.
4 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: They still think so. I mean, what we call epistles, letters, sermons or essays, they called a book. Maybe you meant "dispensation" - they say THAT is more than enough.

Then again, some people are mighty choosy.

Recalling the Apsotle Paul's travels, he visited one town in Turkey (forget which) where he spoke to the church there. They told him they had all they need, they were wealthy and had everything they could possibly want. They didn't need whatever he was offering.
(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: How much does one need to know to get to heaven? "Be good and don't spoil it for others." It doesn't take a book to lay it out.
4 years ago Report
0