On First Mentions of the Baha'i Faith: Google Blog Search's First Entry
Google Blog Search permits searches going back as far as the millenium, January 1st, 2000, the first searchable date.
I did a blog search for "Baha'i" looking for the first mention of the Faith available on this search engine and came up with "Seeking...finding" dated... January 1st, 2000. The blog is ficus religiosa, a blog apparently named after the tree, one of approximately 19 linked blogs by one blogger, æå. He has made only five entries on fiscus religiosa, one in March of this year, one in July 2004, and three on 01/01/00. Here is an excerpt from his second post "Regarding Ultimate Truth" .... -gw
+
Proclaim the Truth that all truth is relative.
+
It should be noted that, as Blogger permits the blogger to determine the date of posting, AEA's posting might not have actually appeared on 01/01/00. In fact, given AEA's apparent sense of humor, as a quick review of other blogs on his linknode will reveal, it is unlikely. Figuring all this out has been a fun puzzle, nevertheless. The blogger is A.E.Argiewicz, an artist, whose works can be seen at ArgieArt 2006. And here is what the Baha'i Writings have to say about the relativity of religious truth. -gw
+
The Promised Day Is Come
Author: Shoghi Effendi
Source: US Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1980 revised edition
Page: 124
Author: Shoghi Effendi
Source: US Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1980 revised edition
Page: 124
+
The fundamental principle enunciated by Bahá’u’lláh … is that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the nonessential aspects of their doctrines, and that their missions represent successive stages in the spiritual evolution of human society….
2 comments:
"...they differ only in nonessential aspects of their doctrines..."
Krishna taught that God is PANTHEISTIC (the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature. And -Belief in and worship of all gods. www.dictionary.com)
Buddha was an AGNOSTIC (One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. www.dictionary.com)
Jesus claimed to be God Himself incarnate and taught of a TRIUNE God (three in one; constituting a trinity in unity, as the Godhead. www.dictionary.com)
If God was the one who sent all of these men wouldn't these men then agree on Who God is. God cannot be both pantheistic and monotheistic. Why would God choose someone to be His prophet if they weren't sure if there was a God or not (as in the case of Buddha)? Wouldn't God choose someone who actually believed in Him?
The case for Who God is is not a "nonessential aspect" of these religions. In fact it is the biggest aspect of these religions. If these men did not agree on the biggest aspect, Who God is, then some questions need to be asked. There are large, very clear differences in world religions that cannot be ignored.
First let me say, this is a very articulate argument you have presented, Annie. It sounds like a lot of careful work went into it. It is a classic argument, one that will continue to be enunciated for many years to come, I’m sure, until all the world is one.
As you know, I have posted several times before on this subject. I will reiterate a few salient points here.
First of all, exactly what the founders of these three historical faiths, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity, taught is subject to question. The older the religion, the more question there is as to the accuracy of the texts associated with the founder of the religion.
We know these religions were “of God” for they have lasted. Each has had such an enormous impact on the world leading to great civilizations that spanned thousands of years. This is what might be termed an empirical proof of their validity.
These ideas, that Hinduism is polytheistic and Buddhists don’t believe in God, are common misconceptions made particularly in the West. The Baha’i position is that what seeming divisions among the world's great religions can be traced to humanity’s misunderstandings which are, at least in part, due to God’s Word having gone through an oral tradition before being written down. God unites, and man divides, perhaps not intentionally, but division and disunity that has periodically set in among humankind is a fundamental reason God has sent successive Manifestations to reunite and inspire humankind to even greater spiritual heights.
http://bahaiviews.blogspot.com/2006/06/on-teaching-krishna-and-one-god.html:
Hinduism is inclusive monotheism, not polytheism. Says Wikipedia: “Hinduism is perceived as polytheistic; rather it is a form of inclusive monotheism, where one God is perceived as having many forms. In contrast, a polytheist thinks that two gods are different, i.e., Zeus and Poseidon, for example. An inclusive monotheist…, on the other hand, thinks that Vishnu and Shiva are different aspects of the one and same God.” Would you call the Trinity a form of polytheism? No...
http://bahaiviews.blogspot.com/2006/07/on-buddhism-and-bahai-faith-god-of.html
This post addresses the concept of God in Buddhism.
Much love to you, as always,
George
Post a Comment