Why Baha’i? It Comes Down to Five Questions

[Trailblazer]

People ask me all the time why I believe in God. I tell them the evidence is the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. Then they ask me how I know that Baha’u’llah got a message from God. Then I tell them I have evidence. I also tell them that my belief is based upon logical reasoning, not emotion. I do not have any emotional attachment to Baha’u’llah, I just believe that he was who He claimed to be so I have a great reverence for Him, what He did on His mission and what He wrote.

I was just doing a web search for something and I found this website a Baha’i posted that explains what I have been trying to explain as to why I believe in God and why I am a Baha’i rather than the member of another religion.

If you are interested, I suggest you read the whole blog on the link below, but here is the summary:

Why Baha’i? It Comes Down to Five Questions

To sum up, we can articulate this theological chain of inference this way:

1. If the universe, then God.
2. If us, then a personal God.
3. If a personal God, then Messengers.
4. If Messengers, then Baha’u’llah.
5. If Baha’u’llah, then the Baha’i Faith.

Why am I a Baha’i? That is why.

Why Baha’i? It Comes Down to Five Questions

 

[paarsurrey]

People ask me all the time why I believe in God. I tell them the evidence is the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. Then they ask me how I know that Baha’u’llah got a message from God. Then I tell them I have evidence. I also tell them that my belief is based upon logical reasoning, not emotion. I do not have any emotional attachment to Baha’u’llah, I just believe that he was who He claimed to be so I have a great reverence for Him, what He did on His mission and what He wrote.

I was just doing a web search for something and I found this website a Baha’i posted that explains what I have been trying to explain as to why I believe in God and why I am a Baha’i rather than the member of another religion.

If you are interested, I suggest you read the whole blog on the link below, but here is the summary:

Why Baha’i? It Comes Down to Five Questions

To sum up, we can articulate this theological chain of inference this way:

1. If the universe, then God.
2. If us, then a personal God.
3. If a personal God, then Messengers.
4. If Messengers, then Baha’u’llah.
5. If Baha’u’llah, then the Baha’i Faith.

Why am I a Baha’i? That is why.

Why Baha’i? It Comes Down to Five Questions

"I tell them the evidence is the Revelation of Baha’u’llah"

Did Bahaullah claim in a straightforward manner in Kitab-i-Iqan that G-d has revealed him a message, please? If yes, then please quote from Kitab-i-Iqan such unequivocal words. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

"I tell them the evidence is the Revelation of Baha’u’llah"

Did Bahaullah claim in a straightforward manner in Kitab-i-Iqan that G-d has revealed him a message, please? If yes, then please quote from Kitab-i-Iqan such unequivocal words. Right, please?

Regards

I do not know if it is in the Kitab-i-Iqan but it is in Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh.

“Attract the hearts of men, through the call of Him, the one alone Beloved. Say: This is the Voice of God, if ye do but hearken. This is the Day Spring of the Revelation of God, did ye but know it. This is the Dawning-Place of the Cause of God, were ye to recognize it. This is the Source of the commandment of God, did ye but judge it fairly. This is the manifest and hidden Secret; would that ye might perceive it. O peoples of the world! Cast away, in My name that transcendeth all other names, the things ye possess, and immerse yourselves in this Ocean in whose depths lay hidden the pearls of wisdom and of utterance, an ocean that surgeth in My name, the All-Merciful. Thus instructeth you He with Whom is the Mother Book.

The Best-Beloved is come. In His right hand is the sealed Wine of His name. Happy is the man that turneth unto Him, and drinketh his fill, and exclaimeth: “Praise be to Thee, O Revealer of the signs of God!” By the righteousness of the Almighty! Every hidden thing hath been manifested through the power of truth. All the favors of God have been sent down, as a token of His grace. The waters of everlasting life have, in their fullness, been proffered unto men. Every single cup hath been borne round by the hand of the Well-Beloved. Draw near, and tarry not, though it be for one short moment.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 33-34

 

[Komori]

I will address a few points.

Carried to its logical conclusion, if one capacity of humans is to discipline their children out of love, then God too must have this capacity and to an even greater degree. Carefully applied, this line of logic gives motive and rich texture to humanity’s ongoing relationship with its Creator.

﴾وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ وَالنَّصَارَىٰ نَحْنُ أَبْنَاءُ اللَّهِ وَأَحِبَّاؤُهُ قُلْ فَلِمَ يُعَذِّبُكُم بِذُنُوبِكُم بَلْ أَنتُم بَشَرٌ مِّمَّنْ خَلَقَ﴿ "And the Jews and the Christians say, 'We are the children of God, and His beloved ones.' Say, 'Why then does He punish you for your sins?' Nay, but you are mortals of His creating" (Qur'an 5:18).

As a corollary, God could not contain negative traits of humans as those are clearly the absence of the good.

Nor could He contain positive traits, since these make Him similar to His creatures and constitute a subtle form of anthropomorphism (tashbih). He is rather above both positive and negative attributes, above both the good and the not-good, which are both His creations: ﴾وَإِن تُصِبْهُمْ حَسَنَةٌ يَقُولُوا هَٰذِهِ مِنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ وَإِن تُصِبْهُمْ سَيِّئَةٌ يَقُولُوا هَٰذِهِ مِنْ عِندِكَ قُلْ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ﴿ "And if good befalls them, they say, 'This is from God,' but if evil befalls them, they say, 'This is from thee.' Say, “All is from God" (Qur'an 4:78).

The power of His words [...] the testament of His life story [...] The effect He had on those around Him [...] Baha’u’llah fulfilled the messianic prophecies of every world religion [...] Finally, He was the one who articulated the very idea of progressive revelation.

1. They're nothing compared to the Qur'an.
2. The real story of Baha'u'llah's life is a lot less saintly than the hagiographical narrative parroted by Shoghi Effendi and later Baha'i authors. That's how it works. You remove all the negative aspects of their life, embellish some things here and here, stretch the truth whenever it's convenient. You can make anyone's life seem like the life of a prophet. For example, look at the official Scientology "biographies of L. Ron Hubbard.
3. All the cult leaders you named had a profound effect on the people they met. How do you think they gained followers?
4. Hardly.
5. He did not. Islam teaches the idea of progressive revelation, and so many movements in Islam such as the Isma'ilis recognized this and articulated it similarly to the Bab, the one from whom Baha'u'llah copied this idea.​

In seventeen decades, the Baha’i Faith has become the second-most geographically widespread religion in the world, with a dazzling array of ethnicities and former members of every world religion bolstering its ranks day by day.

Rashid Rida refuted this tired old argument way back in 1900 when Gulpaygani was first popularizing it. A religion doesn't need to be true to spread; it just needs good propaganda. And the Qur'an explicitly tells us not to follow the crowd: ﴾وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِي الْأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ﴿ "Wert thou to obey most of those on earth, they would lead thee astray from the way of God" (6:116).

Did Bahaullah claim in a straightforward manner in Kitab-i-Iqan that G-d has revealed him a message

No such unequivocal claim exists in the Iqan.

 

[Unguru]

I agree with the first three, kinda.

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree with the first three, kinda.

That's a good start.

 

[Unguru]

That's a good start.

Kinda just Sikh doctrine though.

 

[Trailblazer]

Kinda just Sikh doctrine though.

That is a good doctrine because it makes logical sense.

 

[tayla]

1. If the universe, then God.
2. If us, then a personal God.
3. If a personal God, then Messengers.
4. If Messengers, then Baha’u’llah.

Points 1 and 2 are OK. Points 3 and 4 are problematic. Point 4 is very problematic; there have been many messengers and their divinely revealed messages wildly contradict.

Point 3 is merely an assumption, disproven by point 4. You can't have messengers if their messages are untrustworthy. In my view, revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. If the universe, then God.
2. If us, then a personal God.
3. If a personal God, then Messengers.

You start with wrong premises, and end up with wrong conclusions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: ↑
1. If the universe, then God.
2. If us, then a personal God.
3. If a personal God, then Messengers.
4. If Messengers, then Baha’u’llah.

Points 1 and 2 are OK. Points 3 and 4 are problematic. Point 4 is very problematic; there have been many messengers and their divinely revealed messages wildly contradict.

Point 3 is merely an assumption, disproven by point 4. You can't have messengers if their messages are untrustworthy. In my view, revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge.

3 cannot be assumed, but if 1 and 2 are true, then what would 3 be if it was not Messengers?
Why would 3 be disproved by 4?
3 could be true even if 4 was false.

Why do you think that the messages of the Messengers are untrustworthy?
If you think that revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge, what would you consider trustworthy sources of truth and knowledge? Where else would God's truth and knowledge come from?

 

[Trailblazer]

You start with wrong premises, and end up with wrong conclusions.

What are the wrong premises? Why are they wrong?
What are the wrong conclusions? Why are they wrong?

In your opinion or belief, what are the right premises and conclusions?

 

[tayla]

1. If the universe, then God.
2. If us, then a personal God.
3. If a personal God, then Messengers.
4. If Messengers, then Baha’u’llah.

3 cannot be assumed, but if 1 and 2 are true, then what would 3 be if it was not Messengers?

3 is that we have conscious communion with the consciousness of God. Also that we are living in a moment by moment world of God's design and creation and should, therefore, enjoy the moment and enjoy God's presence moment by moment.

The only knowledge about any of this that is trustworthy is based first on science, and secondarily by philosophy (but science is itself based on philosophy). Thus, instead of false messengers for 3, we have our rational mind operating on sense data. That's as good as it gets. The only messengers we should trust are those who perform repeatable scientific experiments.

 

[tayla]

1. If the universe, then God.
2. If us, then a personal God.
3. If a personal God, then Messengers.
4. If Messengers, then Baha’u’llah.

Why would 3 be disproved by 4?
3 could be true even if 4 was false.

Because you can't arbitrarily choose a particular messengers as THE messenger.

And when comparing the various messengers, there is no single trustworthy message. Therefore, there is no reason to select any particular messenger as the true messenger unless there is scientific reason to do so. There isn't.

 

[tayla]

1. If the universe, then God.
2. If us, then a personal God.
3. If a personal God, then Messengers.
4. If Messengers, then Baha’u’llah.

Why do you think that the messages of the Messengers are untrustworthy?

Because they are provably false. Name any message and I can demonstrate this.

 

[tayla]

If you think that revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge, what would you consider trustworthy sources of truth and knowledge? Where else would God's truth and knowledge come from?

Firstly, from science, which is the only thing that generates provable truth and knowledge. But, of necessity, this is limited to physical phenomena. (Also, science is based on philosophy: on epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics.)

Secondly, from philosophy. There are a few reasons to propose the existence of a spiritual ream having souls and of God:

1. Consciousness. There is no natural law called consciousness. There is no quantum field called consciousness. Therefore, consciousness (and its contents) reside outside the physical realm.
2. The fact of the appearance of design and purpose (teleonomy) and of actual purposeful design (teleology); these strongly imply actual designer(s). Or at a minimum, a universe designed such that purpose occurs in the operation of the natural laws.
3. The fact that everyone, even atheists, consider goodness and beauty as superior to badness and ugliness; this implies a God who is good and beautiful.

I should note: in using the term "God", I do not mean the kind of God of Christianity. I mean a God having attributes and characteristics deducible from philosophy as I have outlined above.

If philosophy can be trusted to form the basis of science, then it should be trusted in its own right.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said:
3 cannot be assumed, but if 1 and 2 are true, then what would 3 be if it was not Messengers?

3 is that we have conscious communion with the consciousness of God. Also that we are living in a moment by moment world of God's design and creation and should, therefore, enjoy the moment and enjoy God's presence moment by moment.

But not everyone can do what you stated above...
If we are believers we should try to do these things, but how does that help all of humanity?
The reason there are Messengers is because they help humanity progress as a whole and they bring messages that are designed to address the problems in the world, not just individuals' relationships with God.

The only knowledge about any of this that is trustworthy is based first on science, and secondarily by philosophy (but science is itself based on philosophy). Thus, instead of false messengers for 3, we have our rational mind operating on sense data. That's as good as it gets. The only messengers we should trust are those who perform repeatable scientific experiments.

But who is to say who has a rational mind? How is that reliable?
What about people who are not rational?
Just because a person think they are rational that does not make them rational.
So you think the only reason that a Messenger should be believed if if He proved Himself to people by experiments?
Why couldn't we prove it to ourselves that the Messenger is telling the truth, by doing the necessary investigation of His claim?

 

[tayla]

But not everyone can do what you stated above...

Everyone can live mindful of each moment, enjoying the fact of consciousness and its contents. Not everyone can believe a particular religion.

 

[tayla]

but how does that help all of humanity?

How does it help all of humanity to preach things provably false?

 

[Trailblazer]

Because you can't arbitrarily choose a particular messengers as THE messenger.

Not arbitrarily, but why not choose one if you have investigated Him thoroughly and you can confirm to yourself that he is the one?

And when comparing the various messengers, there is no single trustworthy message. Therefore, there is no reason to select any particular messenger as the true messenger unless there is scientific reason to do so. There isn't.

How do you know that if you have not looked at all the Messengers?
There is no need to look at all of them because some can be eliminated right out the door.
By their fruits you shall know them is what Jesus said...
But you need to know what you are looking for, you need criteria...
How could science ever prove that a Messenger is actually from God?