What I meant by 'preached' isn't necessarily a clergy but teachings of the faith. You do recognize that there is actually something about the Baha'i faith that is to be 'taught' do you not?

There is a cannon to it; a system of beliefs, faith, and teachings. That is what I was talking about. Or do you just want to assume?

While admittedly I don't know a lot about the Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism is something I have studied.

And, Buddhism is a truly subtle idea that it can be adapted almost as a 'tool'; it's more of a philosophy than a religion because it doesn't attempt to instill upon other cultures a set cannon of ideas. However, that doesn't mean you can make what ever you want of it.

"Theistic-Buddhism" is a contradiction. There are theistic-like figures in some regional schools of Buddhism in Asia, but none of them belong to the concept of a creator-God. None. The closest you get to a god in Buddhism are figures who allegedly broke free from cyclic existence and permanence. The Buddha himself was paraphrased in saying that some of the descriptions of such almost deity-like figures are more poetic expressions of complex concepts than anything in an attempt to describe them to an ignorant people: after all, Buddhism is one of the world's oldest major religions.

If I were to consult someone on Buddhism, I would consult someone from the Buddhist religion (or, in my opinion, "philosophy"), and not get a biased opinion from a Baha'i. Perhaps you go to that one source for your outlook on the world's religions, but I tend to want to get multiple sources.

I have, and will continue to read books on Buddhism from Buddhists, if I desire to get an accurate description of the religion.

Haha, from the looks of it it's perhaps an independent investigation within the confines of Baha'i ideology!

I too, emphasize independent investigation. But perhaps the difference between you and I is that I don't rely on the unseen and faith in a cannon. Buddhism or even a UU church seems to be a better place for independent investigation.

There's an old Buddhist saying, "If you meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill him!"

No, I was not given such a link. Perhaps you could supply me with it.

I never assumed such a thing about how you became Baha'i. I do know, however, that you're not being very open minded or open to unbiased personal investigation to any other idea than the concept that the great Bahá'u'lláh is the redeemer and prophet of the world's major religions and that he will inevitably create an age of unity and spread his magical pixie dust in the new age of peace through all the world's religions! Ahhh *blushes*

Now you are making assumptions about what I think.

Ah, okay. But could it be perhaps because every time religion is on the table for debate, it inevitably ends up in bitter argument and confrontation? After all, that phenomena doesn't really support your dogmatic truth of Bahá'u'lláh bring unity through religion does it? But, I guess I'm assuming now.

Ditto.

Like I said, the major commonality I personally recognize in many of the world's major religions (not all though), is their story of their savior (Jesus, Horus [Egypt], Attis [Greece], etc.,etc.) following the parallel literary story that has old astrology and pagan myth at it's source. Not god. Well, unless you consider the sun to be god.

But, even with this common link and the common link of the gold rule, there is way more to contradict than to unite.

Mechanism as cause (in the context of things manifest only through their material causes and conditions, correct?) isn't an unfounded presupposition because it's based on real observation and empiricism; in other words, what we know to be scientifically true. But even this being so doesn't connote self-cause, I never said that; it could perhaps connote infinity also.

The idea that things are manifest from the invisible and intangible spiritual realm, however, is a completely unfounded presupposition with so many assumptions and contradictions that would make William of Ockham have a coronary (see Occam's razor).

Your latter argument is tired. I accounted for that in my thesis above (that God's own self-containing existence would be unbound by the same laws as our existence). However, it's still a totality of things existing. Unless of course you're making the assertion that God can at once both exist and not exist at the same time simply because the theory of God is so beyond our logic and reason (even though, ironically, it was a theory developed by that very human logic and reason); which is one of the largest leaps of unmitigated illogical and unreasonable faith that assuming it's truth (let alone committing it fully) would count as a mental delusion.

I'd rather not believe there is an invisible pink unicorn three times the size of the universe living inside my pinky (while at the same time not existing and the creator of existence!); why? Because it's bloody retarded that's why. Our real and scientific understanding dictates the impossibility (or very high improbability, rather) of such an existence.