Are Baha’u’llah’s prophecies coming true?

[KWED]

To truly Love we must experience hate.

Why?

 

[CG Didymus]

If god keeps creating a humanity that he keeps having to destroy and try again, perhaps god isn't very good at creating stuff?

Or it's just people making up stuff. Like maybe we should change the Santa Claus story? The purpose is to get kids to be good and obey us. But we promise them a reward. What if we tell them that Santa Claus only brings gifts to good kids and destroys all evil kids that don't believe in him. I think it would be more effective.

We could come up with stories how Santa came and found one boy refusing to eat his vegetables, and Santa took him away to a place of great torment doing choirs night and day and going to bed early with no dinner. And I'm sure it would work on some kids, until they grew up.

 

[CG Didymus]

I exactly replied to that.

From beginning He had a planned this way. He had planned it to create it in steps or stages.
It is not like God planed to have a perfect creation, and then now He failed and thus, He has to destroy it and make a better one No!
Humanity creation has different cycles.
The precious cycle was called Adamic cycle. In Bahai theology, we are now in a new humanity cycle which started with Bahaullah.
It is like constructing a building. This building has become old. Now, this old building cannot be renovated even. It has to be ruined and in place of it a better one be built.

That is how creation of God is through Revelations. The Revelations came according to capacity of humanity. And that's how Adamic cycle was. Now, we have come to a new human era, where humanity has a greater capacity to understand. Thus, God now creates a better creation according to this new capacity. The old building, it will fall on its own as it is now happening. This was the older world order, which is collapsing and evenentually completely destroyed, and instead a new one is replacing it.

As if this "Adamic" cycle is real. What were the different stages and what did humanity learn from them?

 

[CG Didymus]

To truly Love we must experience hate. We are thus born on the balance between Love and Hate. We are in a state that needs to be educated about Love, it must be brought from us by using free will. Love can not be forced. That is why Muhammad told us there is no compulsion is religion, there is no compulsion for us to pursue Love, which is the apex of all virtues, all virtues eminate from Love.

This matrix is a perfect construct for us to experience and practice Love.

Regards Tony

Can that be achieved in one lifetime? Considering some people die very young. And others live in anger their whole lives, it seems that some sort of reincarnation process would work and be needed. Each soul experiences different things in their many lives and eventually learns what love is.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So that sentence says that your god does not want humans to be misguided.


But this sentence seems to say that that he planned a creation where humans were misguided.

Or are you claiming that humans came out in a way that was counter to your god's plans?


Please reconcile these apparent contradictions.

Because God has given human, free will, He cannot force them. He only sends guidance to humanity whenever it is needed.
But His guidance is designed to be for a period of time. When that period is passed the older guidance is no longer sufficient or proper. It is like medication. A medication meant to be for a certain disease or condition, and it has a maximum date it can be used. When that time is passed, it has to be replaced. Religion of God is no different.
So, He provided His guidance as planned. Humanity as a whole did not follow it the way they should have.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then you are mistaken.
People's belief that Baha'u'llah communicated with a god is almost certainly false because firstly there is no evidence any kind of god even exists,

The Messengers of God are the evidence that God exists since they were sent by God and they revealed God.

and secondly there is nothing about his writings that could not be the product of a human brain without divine intervention.

That is just your personal opinion, certainly not a fact.
Of course, it is just the personal opinion/belief of the Baha'is that the Writings of Baha'u'llah were revealed by God.
Nobody can ever prove it or disprove it.

 

[Trailblazer]

If god keeps creating a humanity that he keeps having to destroy and try again, perhaps god isn't very good at creating stuff?

If God created a humanity and had to destroy it and try again that would be because humanity is not living according to what God created them for.

 

[ppp]

Because God has given human, free will, He cannot force them. He only sends guidance to humanity whenever it is needed.
But His guidance is designed to be for a period of time. When that period is passed the older guidance is no longer sufficient or proper. It is like medication. A medication meant to be for a certain disease or condition, and it has a maximum date it can be used. When that time is passed, it has to be replaced. Religion of God is no different.
So, He provided His guidance as planned. Humanity as a whole did not follow it the way they should have.

I do not know why you think that reconciles the two conflicting sentences. It seems to be again addressing something entirely different. In one sentence you said that God did not want the humans in this creation misguided. In the other sentence you said that God planned to have a misguided creation. Those two positions are in direct conflict. The first has God not wanting situation. X. The second has God planning to create situation. X. In other words, you are claiming that your god is intentionally creating a situation that he does not want to exist. And then he is destroying it because it came out the way he planned it, but not the way he wanted it. It. Which is an insane thing to do.

If I intentionally create a German chocolate cake, I don't then destroy the German chocolate cake for not being a lemon poppy seed cake. It's not the German chocolate cakes fault that it is not lemon poppy seed cake. It's mine.
It is either my fault for intentionally creating the wrong thing, or It is my fault for incompetently creating the wrong thing. Blaming the cake would be silly.
In this analogy, I am God, and the cake is humanity.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

He did not have a "formal education" (ie. didn't attend recognised schools), but as a member of the privileged aristocracy and the son of a government official it is ridiculous to claim he had no education whatsoever. He is also known to have been "well read". Formal education is not the only route to education and knowledge.
Genuinely surprised you weren't aware of this basic stuff.

According to history of Persia, in those days, there were two classes of people in terms of education.
Baha'u'llah was born in a noble man. When Bahaullah was a child, as it was costom for noble class, He was given some elementry education such as basic reading, poetry, and swordsmanship.
The other class in Persia were called Ulama (clergymen), which were those who sent to specific Religious schools specifically to learn Islam.

So, according to history Baha'u'llah did not have education in Religion.
Please find and quote any historical evidence that says otherwise.

 

[ppp]

he Messengers of God are the evidence that God exists since they were sent by God and they revealed God.

That is just your personal opinion. Certainly not a fact.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I do not know why you think that reconciles the two conflicting sentences. It seems to be again addressing something entirely different. In one sentence you said that God did not want the humans in this creation misguided. In the other sentence you said that God planned to have a misguided creation. Those two positions are in direct conflict. The first has God not wanting situation. X. The second has God planning to create situation. X. In other words, you are claiming that your god is intentionally creating a situation that he does not want to exist. And then he is destroying it because it came out the way he planned it, but not the way he wanted it. It. Which is an insane thing to do.

If I intentionally create a German chocolate cake, I don't then destroy the German chocolate cake for not being a lemon poppy seed cake. It's not the German chocolate cakes fault that it is not lemon poppy seed cake. It's mine.
It is either my fault for intentionally creating the wrong thing, or It is my fault for incompetently creating the wrong thing. Blaming the cake would be silly.
In this analogy, I am God, and the cake is humanity.

I never said that God planned to have a misguided creation though, did I?

 

[ppp]

I never said that God planned to have a misguided creation though, did I?

I think so. But maybe not.

From beginning He had a planned this way. He had planned it to create it in steps or stages.
It is not like God planed to have a perfect creation, and then now He failed and thus, He has to destroy it and make a better one No!

If God is omnipotent and omniscient and perfect, I don't see any other way to interpret that. Anything that God creates must necessarily come out exactly as he intended to create it. If something comes out contrary to his intent then he must either be not perfect or not omnipotent. Or there is something omnipotent working against him. I do not see any other logical option.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I think so. But maybe not.

If God is omnipotent and omniscient and perfect, I don't see any other way to interpret that. Anything that God creates must necessarily come out exactly as he intended to create it. If something comes out contrary to his intent then he must either be not perfect or not omnipotent. Or there is something omnipotent working against him. I do not see any other logical option.

I pretty much agree with you on this.

It might be like a plant seed. A seed shell is destroyed but a tree, which is a new creation comes out of a seed.

So the Body of mankind may go through some sufferings and calamities and part of it is destroyed, but the result or the outcome of it is a better creation. So, it seems to me, based on Bahai Writings, God planned it that way.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not that the skeptic believes this. It's that Bahai's say they can make that distinction. The skeptic keeps asking the Baha'i why he thinks he can recognize a deity in the words offered as evidence of one. I haven't seen an answer to that yet, but I'll be asking for one in just a moment.

It is not only the Words of Baha'u'llah that were offered as evidence.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and if those are insufficient (For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other), He told us to look at His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with 106 the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

You would be a prime example of somebody who says that the words of messengers are evidence of a God.

But I am not saying that (see above). The Words are only 'part' of the evidence, and not the most important part.

Perhaps you can answer the gentleman's question for him - how you know or why do you believe that a person claiming to have a message from a deity is not simply some person with an opinion?

This person would have to meet some criteria in order to be considered a Messenger of God.

Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my criteria which are based upon who I believe were Messengers of God, who met all these criteria. My criteria narrow the playing field and it will eliminate most claimants, since they will fail to meet all the criteria.

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

How do you know that I'm not a messenger of God? Maybe there are several posting here. Please explain to the gentleman how you know that none of us are messengers of God.

Do any of you meet ALL the criteria listed above?

According to you, God has no duty to you or me or anybody else to make the source of the message clear. He'd like know your test. So would I. I don't see where you have any criteria for making such a judgment regarding whether the source of a statement is human or divine.

See the above list of criteria and what Baha'u'llah wrote about how to establish the truth of His claims. It makes it a lot easier when you know what you should be looking for. Words alone do not prove anything, it is the Words in combination with the other evidence that helps us to see that the Words came from a Messenger of God.

Same question: How do you know? What are your criteria for calling one set of writings human and another divine?

That is very easy to answer. The Bible is a collection of writings of human authors who were 'allegedly' divinely inspired whereas the Writings of Baha'u'llah were written by Baha'u'llah, who was a Manifestation of God in His own pen. (A Manifestation of God is a Messenger of God.)

It is important to point out that a Manifestation of God is not a mere human. If He was there would be no reason to believe He knew anything more than a mere human could know about God.

According to Baha'i beliefs a Manifestation of God is not an ordinary man. Manifestations of God possess two stations: one is the physical station pertaining to the world of matter, and the other is the spiritual station, born of the substance of God. In other words, one station is that of a human being, and one, of the Divine Reality. It is because they possess both a human and a divine station that they can act as *mediators* between God and man.

The Manifestations of God are another order of creation above an ordinary man. Their souls had pre-existence in the spiritual world before their bodies were born in this world, whereas the souls of all humans come into being at the moment of conception. The spiritual world is where They get their special powers from God. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly and through Them God communicates to humanity.

Jesus and Moses were Manifestations of God but they did not write any of the biblical scriptures. So how can we know that these scriptures 'accurately represent' what Moses or Jesus actually said? We know that Jesus did not write the New Testament nor did any of the apostles. Tradition credits Moses as the author of the Old Testament, but modern scholarship shows this is not the case.

Did all the disciples write a book in the Bible?

Originally Answered: Which of the 12 Apostles wrote the New Testament books? The answer is none of the 12 apostles wrote books in the New Testament. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are anonymously written with the books being named by the church, and none of authors claimed to have been one of the apostles.
Which of the original 12 apostles wrote books that are in the Bible?

Did Moses write the book of Genesis?

Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars, especially from the 19th century onward, see them as being written hundreds of years after Moses is supposed to have lived, in the 6th and 5th centuries BC.
Book of Genesis - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

Not for an omnipotent and omniscient god, by definition.
If god needs to practice doing stuff to get it right, he clearly isn't god.
QED.

God does not need to practice getting things right because God always gets things right the first time, since God is infallible. It was all good until humans messed it up, so logically speaking it is humans who need to practice doing things right.

So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Bible Gateway Genesis 1 :: NIV

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you asking how Bahaullah knew stuff that millions of people already knew?
Jeez, that's a tough one. Guess it could only have been by magic.

Millions of people did not know what Baha'u'llah knew. All they knew were stories that men wrote that are in the Bible, that is hardly knowledge.

 

[ppp]

I pretty much agree with you on this.

It might be like a plant seed. A seed shell is destroyed but a tree, which is a new creation comes out of a seed.

So the Body of mankind may go through some sufferings and calamities and part of it is destroyed, but the result or the outcome of it is a better creation. So, it seems to me, based on Bahai Writings, God planned it that way.

Which is one of the reasons that I hold the various depictions of the Abrahamic God in such low esteem. He falls well beneath my minimum moral standards. He is not worthy of me or the people I love or the people I'm indifferent towards or the people I hate. He is a moral monster. And I say monster with all connotations of the word.

 

[Tiberius]

If looking at it that way, even before Jesus there were unities among groups. A family and marriage is a form of unity. Even today, there is unity among ISIS. There is unity among Russians and BlaRus.

But are we talking about any kind of unity?
I was talking about unity among all Christians. They became divided. And some fought with other Christians.
Baha'u'llah created a way, that all Bahais are in unity. I mean they are not sects or denominations. This is the very first time in history that a Religion was not divided into sects.

That's hilarious.

Baháʼí–Bábí split - Wikipedia

Is that how you get around it? By claiming that any different sect is a completely different religion altogether, so it doesn't count as a different sect?

 

[ppp]

God does not need to practice getting things right because God always gets things right the first time, since God is infallible. It was all good until humans messed it up, so logically speaking it is humans who need to practice doing things right.

If humans can mess up God's plans then God isn't infallible. And he certainly didn't do the plans right.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Which is one of the reasons that I hold the various depictions of the Abrahamic God in such low esteem. He falls well beneath my minimum moral standards. He is not worthy of me or the people I love or the people I'm indifferent towards or the people I hate. He is a moral monster. And I say monster with all connotations of the word.

But either way, if you think of any other God, in this creation, we see some species are more beautiful than others. Some animals are more powerful than others.
I means, for example a fly, versus Peacock.
Is it fait that peacocks are so beautiful while Flys who sit on feces are so ugly?
Or is it fair some people are tall and good looking than others. Some people are smarter than others?
If you consider any God, at the end this is His creation which seems to be unfair.
But, either way, all species are needed and serve a purpose. In the world of humanity, there are righteous people and misguided ones to different degrees. All of them came to existence according to the will of God. Everyone of them serves a purpose in this world. As the seed shell example, a shell still is needed for a time. But once a tree comes out of it, the seed is destroyed, but still that seed was a creation itself. Thus humanity also may loose some part of it, but it will turn to a better creation.

I can understand that many may not like it. But I don't see why this cannot be the way of a True God?