Another Interesting Curiosity of the Baha'i religion

[Vinayaka]

I would say that the Bahai religion is a sort of conciliation between the Abrahamic religions and the Dharmic religions, promoting harmony and connectivity between them, and is important in that context.

I dug deeper, and not what I found at all. Although that may have been an original intent, over time it has become antagonistic to both Abrahamics and Dharmics. A new party in the middle is just a new party in the middle. So rather than 2 opposing forces, there are 3 opposing forces.

 

[ajay0]

I dug deeper, and not what I found at all. Although that may have been an original intent, over time it has become antagonistic to both Abrahamics and Dharmics. A new party in the middle is just a new party in the middle. So rather than 2 opposing forces, there are 3 opposing forces.

Maybe so. But I do have a healthy respect for the Bahais and bahai religion. Imo, they seem to be a part of the cosmic design which we may not properly apprehend at present.

Bahais also seem to lack much of the vices of the other abrahamic religions, and I don't think they will be the cause for crusades or Jihad's in the future. They seem a lot more sane, progressive and healthier to me , though of course this is my own opinion.

 

[Vinayaka]

Maybe so. But I do have a healthy respect for the Bahais and bahai religion. Imo, they seem to be a part of the cosmic design which we may not properly apprehend at present.

Bahais also seem to lack much of the vices of the other abrahamic religions, and I don't think they will be the cause for crusades or Jihad's in the future. They seem a lot more sane, progressive and healthier to me , though of course this is my own opinion.

I used to think the same as you, but after 4 or 5 months of detailed discussions with members of the Bahai faith on these very forums, I definitely changed my mind. As far as crusades go, when any faith is in the minority or very small, we actually wouldn't know. It takes a position of some power before we are actually able to tell. Our faith, OTOH, being such a large majority, has a proven record of relative ahimsa.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I find that view problematic because these figures didn't have alike personalities. Krishna, Buddha, and arguably Jesus were for the most part peaceful and thought deeply about human relations on a global scale.

Moses and Muhammad by comparison appear not so peaceful and more tribalistic. Their personalities appear so radically different to figures like Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus- I find it hard to swallow any notion of their reflecting the same universal collective.

Thank you for your post, it is very significant and momentous that you have started this conversation and I am very happy you have done so.

This is answered in regards to the conditions of the people the Message was delivered to. Lets take the Message of Muhammad for the example. The Arabs Tribes were tribal and very brutal people, they had no regards at all for women. They would bury young girls alive. The males dominated and lived for the pleasures of this world.

A message of Love peace and unity given amongst these people, was met with fierce opposition. For years those that accepted Muhammad were horribly persecuted and killed, they again tried to obliterate any influence Muhammad had over the people.

There was a good movie made about this - It is worth a watch - It can be downloaded here - The Message : Moustapha Akkad : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

No one can play the part of Muhammad. This was confirmed by Baha'u'llah. No movies will be made where an actor attempts to play the part of a Messenger from God.

How can such a seeming divide between these figures, their teachings, and their personalities really be reconciled and explained as reflecting one same God?

Baha'u'llah has given you some thoughts to consider;

'Consider the past. How many, both high and low, have, at all times, yearningly awaited the advent of the Manifestations of God in the sanctified persons of His chosen Ones. How often have they expected His coming, how frequently have they prayed that the breeze of Divine mercy might blow, and the promised Beauty step forth from behind the veil of concealment, and be made manifest to all the world. And whensoever the portals of grace did open, and the clouds of divine bounty did rain upon mankind, and the light of the Unseen did shine above the horizon of celestial might, they all denied Him, and turned away from His face—the face of God Himself….Thus it is that Jesus, Himself, declared: “I go away and come again unto you.” Consider the sun. Were it to say now, “I am the sun of yesterday,” it would speak the truth. And should it, bearing the sequence of time in mind, claim to be other than that sun, it still would speak the truth. In like manner, if it be said that all the days are but one and the same, it is correct and true. And if it be said, with respect to their particular names and designations, that they differ, that again is true. For though they are the same, yet one doth recognize in each a separate designation, a specific attribute, a particular character. Conceive accordingly the distinction, variation, and unity characteristic of the various Manifestations of holiness, that thou mayest comprehend the allusions made by the Creator of all names and attributes to the mysteries of distinction and unity, and discover the answer to thy question as to why that everlasting Beauty should have, at sundry times, called Himself by different names and titles…."

This link is to that full passage - Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 17-27

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I dug deeper, and not what I found at all. Although that may have been an original intent, over time it has become antagonistic to both Abrahamics and Dharmics. A new party in the middle is just a new party in the middle. So rather than 2 opposing forces, there are 3 opposing forces.

It was said that a person will find what they are looking for. What is it our heart wants, is what it will find.

"O SON OF SPIRIT! My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting." Hidden Words Baha'u'llah.

I hope you are well and happy. Still very hot in Normanton and not much rain in town for our wet season. We had floods though as places far away had big rains and rivers flow to this area.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I acknowledged the things I admire about the Baha'i religion in my OP. At the very beginning, matter of fact.

I just think that this is a problematic aspect of their theology that requires some hard explaining. I don't see the Buddha as being like Muhammad or Moses, because he never would have killed anyone.

Jesus never killed anyone according to the gospels, and didn't allow his disciples to fight the Jewish authorities for him. This is in stark contrast to Moses and Muhammad having battles and commanding their followers, is it not?

If all had listened to all Gods Messengers there would be no Killing. There is also Justice and it is God that gives us guidance in each age as to what just response is needed.

Baha'u'llah has said it is better to be killed then kill and a Baha'i will live to this within the given guidelines. I wonder how many other Faiths will live to this guidance?

But at the same time we have a portion of Humanity that still have no desire but to kill. Justice dictates that these people need to be suppressed. Thus Baha'u'llah the bringer of the most great peace has given the Guidelines as to how the world is to address this issue of the suppression of bloodthirsty tyrants.

"Another proposal frequently and powerfully advocated by Bahá’u’lláh was that a Universal League of Nations should be formed for the maintenance of international peace. In a letter to Queen Victoria, written while He was still a prisoner in the barracks of ‘Akká, He said:—

O Rulers of the earth! Be reconciled among yourselves, that ye may need no more armaments save in a measure to safeguard your territories and dominions. …

Be united, O Kings of the earth, for thereby will the tempest of discord be stilled amongst you, and your people find rest. … Should any one among you take up arms against another, rise ye all against him, for this is naught but manifest justice.

In 1875, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá gave a forecast of the establishment of a Universal League of Nations, which is especially interesting at the present time in view of the strenuous attempts now being made to establish such a league. He wrote:—

True civilization will unfurl its banner in the midmost heart of the world whenever a certain number of its distinguished and high-minded sovereigns—the shining exemplars of devotion and determination—shall, for the good and happiness of all mankind, arise, with firm resolve and clear vision, to establish the Cause of Universal Peace. They must make the Cause of Peace the object of general consultation, and seek by every means in their power to establish a Union of the nations of the world. They must conclude a binding treaty and establish a covenant, the provisions of which shall be sound, inviolable and definite. They must proclaim it to all the world and obtain for it the sanction of all the human race. This supreme and noble undertaking—the real source of the peace and well-being of all the world—should be regarded as sacred by all that dwell on earth. All the forces of humanity must be mobilized to ensure the stability and permanence of this Most Great Covenant. In this all-embracing Pact the limits and frontiers of each and every nation should be clearly fixed, the principles underlying the relations of governments towards one another definitely laid down, and all international agreements and obligations ascertained. In like manner, the size of the armaments of every government should be strictly limited, for if the preparations for war and the military forces of any nation should be allowed to increase, they will arouse the suspicion of others. The fundamental principle underlying this solemn Pact should be so fixed that if any government later violate any one of its provisions, all the governments on earth should arise to reduce it to utter submission, nay the human race as a whole should resolve, with every power at its disposal, to destroy that government. Should this greatest of all remedies be applied to the sick body of the world, it will assuredly recover from its ills and will remain eternally safe and secure.—The Secret of Divine Civilization, pp. 64–65.

Bahá’ís see grave deficiencies in the structure of the League of Nations which falls short of the type of institution which Bahá’u’lláh described as essential to the establishment of world peace. On December 17, 1919, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá declared:—

At present Universal Peace is a matter of great importance, but unity of conscience is essential, so that the foundation of this matter may become secure, its establishment firm and its edifice strong. … Although the League of Nations has been brought into existence, yet it is incapable of establishing Universal Peace. But the Supreme Tribunal which His Holiness Bahá’u’lláh has described will fulfill this sacred task with the utmost might and power" Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 166-168

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The only thing I find problematic is all their "ye, thou, thine and shalt"

Ha ha. There was a reason that the King James English was used for the translation of Arabic and Persian into English. It was chosen by Shoghi Effendi. That is another story.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes, arguably in self-defense. I know what you're referring to, but I don't see Krishna as a warmonger. Most Hindus don't approach Krishna like he's a warmonger, I wouldn't think. They talk about the Lord's universal love and such.

Self Defense was Moses and Muhammad's path as well.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Okay, I can try to explain this and clarify it.

What I meant by problem is the usual problem with a certain kind of universalism. That by saying all religions with conflicting claims are equally true- one is in fact saying they're all false. Since they conflict. Equally true is then what, in such a case?

Baha'u'llah has explained this in detail. I will not say much on this as yet. There are the unchangeable aspects of Gods Law and Covenant, this is what all Faiths share. A good example of this is the Golden Rule. Golden Rule - Wikipedia

Then there are the aspects that change. Laws of the age including prayer, fasting etc.

What we are to do is put aside our conflicting ideas we have built by our own understandings of Scriptures and search for the Common Truths we all share and build our understandings on these fresh foundations.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't know about that. Your post brings me to an interesting point I considered making a thread about the other day. The fact that much of the unity between ideologies and cultures in the 20th century, where it was sought in place of conflict- took place within ecumenical efforts.

I was actually going to start a thread asking: what if religion turns out to be the force that unifies humanity?

This is Baha'i Prophecy

"Baha’u’llah said that first, the nations of the world would arm themselves with infernal engines of war, and when fully armed would attack each other like bloodthirsty beasts. As a result, there would be enormous bloodshed throughout the world. Then the wise from all nations would gather together to investigate the cause of such bloodshed. They would come to the conclusion that prejudices were the cause, a major form being religious prejudice. They would therefore try to eliminate religion so as to eliminate prejudice. Later they would realize that man cannot live without religion. Then they would study the teachings of all religions to see which of the religions conformed to the prevailing conditions of the time. It is then that the Cause of God would become universal." The Revelation of Baha’u’llah Vol. 4, p. 56

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I would say that the Bahai religion is a sort of conciliation between the Abrahamic religions and the Dharmic religions, promoting harmony and connectivity between them, and is important in that context.

You have hit on a great Truth. Baha'u'llah has called for us to find Moderation, the required balance.

The Laws He has given are the balance between all Faiths. Some will find they are far in access to what they previously had and some will find they are far short of what they previously had. The middle ground has been given.

Another subject in its own right. Regards Tony

 

[RoaringSilence]

bahai agenda is sharia in a mini skirt , to make sharia marketable. World powers want world governance . But the people of the world want "self governance. Law and religion when mixed together make a tragedy. Law and state should always be religion and dogma free.

Step #1 make yourself sound people savvy to get approval for theocracy .
Step#2 Change the laws after you are established and make them go back to origins i.e sharia.
Step#3 Enjoy the new found slaves and rule the world.
Open door for the Ottoman Empire

 

[Axe Elf]

How can such a seeming divide between these figures, their teachings, and their personalities really be reconciled and explained as reflecting one same God?

The same way that a rope, a tree trunk, a wall, a fan, a snake and a spear all reflect the same elephant to the blind men who have only limited experiences of it.

 

[wizanda]

How can such a seeming divide between these figures, their teachings, and their personalities really be reconciled and explained as reflecting one same God?

Easy as people don't pay attention to all the context, and are not realizing that Moses started the Snare and Curse, that Yeshua then laid... with Muhammad stating what had been previously revealed has now been confirmed.

Moses and Muhammad both strive for a more righteous society in a time of barbarism, and then created changes that lead to the later teachers.

Most Hindus don't approach Krishna like he's a warmonger

If we pay attention to the whole Bhagavad Gita, it says those who don't practice Bhakti are to be eventually removed by fire, matching the same as we find in much of global eschatology...

Religious traditions often miss the negative concepts, and instead appeal to the ears of their followers.

Thus Yeshua sets the whole of mankind up if we understand its contexts in the Tanakh, and Buddha dismissed much of Hinduism's mistakes; the problem is people's lack of realizing religious contexts are normally far more expansive, than just what is on the page.

I think personally there are some significant issues with their theology.

I agree there are issues for nearly the same reasons, that Bahais trying to encompass everything as one; when we have to deal with things in their original contexts properly, and not what people want to believe about them.

In my opinion.

 

[David T]

As much as I admire Baha'is in some senses for believing in world unity and peace- I think personally there are some significant issues with their theology.

The religion teaches that every world religion was revealed to a time and place, so might seem different. I find that a somewhat curious and problematic position. Especially relating to any kind of truth value.

I was thinking about another just now...

Baha'is believe that Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Krishna, and the like were all Messengers of God that reflected the one same reality.

I find that view problematic because these figures didn't have alike personalities. Krishna, Buddha, and arguably Jesus were for the most part peaceful and thought deeply about human relations on a global scale.

Moses and Muhammad by comparison appear not so peaceful and more tribalistic. Their personalities appear so radically different to figures like Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus- I find it hard to swallow any notion of their reflecting the same universal collective.

The Buddha and Jesus both taught ways to treat your enemies that conflict very deeply with some of the things Moses and Muhammad said are permissible.

We even see in the gospels that Jesus took some issue with Moses, because he said: the law says such a thing, but I tell you something different. Love your enemies, and so on...

How can such a seeming divide between these figures, their teachings, and their personalities really be reconciled and explained as reflecting one same God?

Well we could talk about two existential philosophers Nietzsche and Kierkegaard two radically and.opposing.individuals labelled identically. Neurology exists on.spectrum so no need to bother discussing the topic of.differences.

In.regards to the idea of place and time I think that's extremely consistent with the image below. Each branch is related to place and time, but there still is but one tree. We are really just leaves on.the tree most of the time only barely aware of our own branch let alone the tree, the dirt the earth the sky or much of anything really. Nope lost In books or more modern the internet!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Krishna wasn't all that peaceful, either, since he was encouraging Arjuna to go to war. But, yeah - Baha'i is a mess. It just comes off as a ridiculous cult with an overblown ego and theocratic ambitions.

 

[Deeje]

That is a nice thing to consider yes. I'm just not sure it harmonizes some of the incompatibilities. I don't deny the Baha'i religion has nice things about it.

It is a difficult thing to try to be "all things to all people" but, of necessity, there has to be compromise in that scenario. Would God give conflicting messages to people through different messengers, at different times in history? I can't see why he would.

The God of the Bible does not compromise. There is truth and there is falsehood. There is true religion and false religion....we have to decide which, and for what reasons. It isn't enough to want peace in the world if God is offended in a process that he has not sanctioned or orchestrated, IMV.

In the Bible he has informed us of his intentions to rectify everything that is wrong...HIS way. We have the option to fit in with that process or work in opposition to it.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, arguably in self-defense. I know what you're referring to, but I don't see Krishna as a warmonger. Most Hindus don't approach Krishna like he's a warmonger, I wouldn't think. They talk about the Lord's universal love and such.

I don't know if it was self defence necessarily.
Sure it was part of it. But the tale is more about one's duty. Arjuna had to prove his worth as a man. And as a warrior or be labelled a coward and bring disgrace to his family name. At least that's how my family's version seems to go.
Krishna seems to relish the strategy of battle. Warmonger? His battles were play to him so perhaps one can make that argument.
But Krishna is usually approached as a lover, jokester or even as a mischievous child. Which is more to do with cultural attitudes I would think.
I don't know enough about Mohammad to make an assessment one way or the other. But at least Moses was fighting against slavery of his people at one point.
Sometimes battle is a necessary evil as it were.

And there are more facets to a being than just niceties and flower power. Even in passive religions like Hinduism there are foibles that have to be solved among the Gods in much of the folklore. Greed, arrogance and jealously don't seem to be below the Gods. Indra is constantly being taught some sort of lesson, Narayana seems to exist only to spread Aunty gossip for his own amusement and even Ganesh had an ego that was reluctantly taken down a peg by his father's rather harsh act of discipline.

If one wants to say there is one God which is expressed differently to different peoples then it stands to reason it won't always be sunshine and lollipops all the time. Sometimes a people needs a harsher version. Maybe they need a bit of war to try to get some progress.

Of course I don't know enough about the Baha'i faith to say if they're right or noble or whatever.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It is a difficult thing to try to be "all things to all people" but, of necessity, there has to be compromise in that scenario. Would God give conflicting messages to people through different messengers, at different times in history? I can't see why he would.

The God of the Bible does not compromise. There is truth and there is falsehood. There is true religion and false religion....we have to decide which, and for what reasons. It isn't enough to want peace in the world if God is offended in a process that he has not sanctioned or orchestrated, IMV.

In the Bible he has informed us of his intentions to rectify everything that is wrong...HIS way. We have the option to fit in with that process or work in opposition to it.

What we have to determine is what is True and False about the said Religion.

Is it the Message given, or the interpretation of those that claim to follow the Message?

Regards Tony

 

[Deeje]

What we have to determine is what is True and False about the said Religion.

Is it the Message given, or the interpretation of those that claim to follow the Message?

It appears to me that Baha'i teaches that man will remedy his own problems in this world. The Bible says that men will never fix what he broke. Yet you claim to believe the Bible.

It says that Jesus came to "break up the works of the devil". Those works began in Eden and will culminate in the "great day of God the Almighty".....an accounting with our Maker and in standing before the judge that he appointed. It says that our future depends on the outcome of that judgment.

I do not see Baha'i mentioning the Kingdom of God. Jesus' whole ministry was in teaching about that kingdom. Most religions have no knowledge of the kingdom and even Christendom, who purport to follow Christ, have no real idea of what it is and what it will accomplish.....so to me, an understanding of the role of the kingdom is paramount if one claims Jesus as their Lord. (Matthew 24:14)

And yes, interpretation is very important.....God will give understanding to those who are doing his will, but he will allow others to be deluded because they do not love the truth.

The apostle Paul spoke about an apostasy from true Christianity that began even while the apostles were still alive.....they were the only restraint, but once they passed away, nothing would stop it.

He wrote.....
"7 True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way. 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence. 9 But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders 10 and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. 11 That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thessalonians 2:7-12)

No one will be deluded except those who want to be. God does not stop the deception, nor does he prevent the delusion because he allows people to make their own choices based on what is in their own heart. So when the crunch comes, many will come to realise that they have put their trust in the wrong place and in the wrong people....but too late. That is the picture painted by the Bible's message. (Matthew 24:37-39)

I believe that our personal future is in our own hands.....the future of the world is in God's.