Atheists: If God existed…

[ArtieE]

The Messenger is not worthless, but what other people wrote in His name is not useful and it is not needed in this new age because it is outdated.

The Bab and Baha'u'llah are the only Manifestations of God who wrote their own scriptures and we have the original manuscripts which have been authenticated.

So basically you are telling us that all the people you call Messengers or Prophets or Manifestations of God didn't leave a single message worth anything today. Nothing they said or did is valid or useful today?

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't follow... You said: "The Bible was not written by a Manifestation of God, it was written by men who wrote whatever they felt like writing. They imagined there were many gods. I do not have time to entertain such fantasies." So the prophecies in the Bible, allegedly fulfilled by Bahá'u'lláh, were just written by people with a healthy imagination with no divine guidance?

I figured you would come back and ask.

The Bible is an enigma to me. I think that some of what the prophets wrote in the Old Testament must have come from God because what they predicted would happen when the Messiah came is very accurate. But that does not mean that everything in the Bible, OT or NT, is to be interpreted literally. Much of the Bible is symbolic and intended to convey spiritual truths, not literally what transpired, and we have to be able to decipher which is which.

Addressing a Muslim, Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible is God's greatest testimony to His creatures, but what exactly does that mean? I think it means that the men who wrote the Bible were "guided" by the Holy Spirit, but then we have to deal with transcription errors and translation issues so we cannot know exactly what was originally conveyed to those who wrote the Bible.

Below is one official Baha'i position on the Bible from letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet. A striking example is given in the account of the sacrifice which Abraham was called upon to make. The Guardian of the Faith confirms that the record in the Qur'an and the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, namely that it was Ishmael, and not Isaac as stated in the Old Testament, whom Abraham was to sacrifice, is to be upheld. In one of His Tablets 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to this discrepancy, and explains that, from a spiritual point of view, it is irrelevant which son was involved. The essential part of the story is that Abraham was willing to obey God's command to sacrifice His son. Thus, although the account in the Torah is inaccurate in detail, it is true in substance....

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible

 

[ArtieE]

I believe that Baha'u'llah received a Revelation from God through the Holy Spirit. He explained how that transpired, but I am not a Manifestation of God so I could never understand how they receive their revelations from God. Here are some passages where He explained what transpired when He received His revelations from God.

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow. The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not. Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely. This is but a leaf which the winds of the will of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Praised, have stirred.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

“God is My witness, O people! I was asleep on My couch, when lo, the Breeze of God wafting over Me roused Me from My slumber. His quickening Spirit revived Me, and My tongue was unloosed to voice His Call. Accuse Me not of having transgressed against God. Behold Me, not with your eyes but with Mine. Thus admonisheth you He Who is the Gracious, the All-Knowing. Think ye, O people, that I hold within My grasp the control of God’s ultimate Will and Purpose? Far be it from Me to advance such claim. To this I testify before God, the Almighty, the Exalted, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. Had the ultimate destiny of God’s Faith been in Mine hands, I would have never consented, even though for one moment, to manifest Myself unto you, nor would I have allowed one word to fall from My lips. Of this God Himself is, verily, a witness.” Gleanings, pp. 90-91

Has this Bahá'u'lláh ever written down something dictated by God word for word? Because I would imagine that an omnipotent God would have no trouble dictating any message he wants to anybody he wants...

 

[ArtieE]

Addressing a Muslim, Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible is God's greatest testimony to His creatures, but what exactly does that mean? I think it means that the men who wrote the Bible were "guided" by the Holy Spirit, but then we have to deal with transcription errors and translation issues so we cannot know exactly what was originally conveyed to those who wrote the Bible.

I think that an omnipotent god who can't manage to write down and convey exactly what he means himself but has to use middle-men isn't worth his salt...

 

[Moz]

An atheist on my forum said: “if God existed, then proof of his existence would be possible. The proof isn't there, and the best explanation for that lack of proof would be that neither is the god there.”

If God existed, would God provide proof of His existence? If you answer yes, please explain why you think that God would provide proof of His existence.

Is it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence? If you think it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence, why do you think God would choose not to provide proof of His existence?

I am not talking about evidence, I am talking about absolute proof, in which case God would be established as a fact, like a scientific fact everyone would agree upon.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

Hi.
I've been thinking a lot about this since i joined these debates recently.
Their is the inner voice or whatever that Paul was referring to at Rom1:20. That is loud and insistent in my "self".

But i think their is something more tangible to it all. History is my passion. The older the better and i have found something that when actually considered against the sweep of humanity seems to be unique and inexplicable without some divine influence.

In around 33ce a group of people emerged and expanded who for the next 300 years were absolutely committed to not killing. The group crossed borders, both national and imperial, linguistic groups, cultures and ethnicities. I have scoured all the early accounts for the generations that followed the Apostles and they are without exception free of christian violence. Even in the face of persecution as harsh as has ever been let loose.

I can find no other occurrence of this phenomenon anywhere i look. Not in the same manner, not spread so far geographically,culturally and ethnically. Not a single account of organised violence over 300 years, while under pressure and persecution. No militant christian "para militaries" or even "passive resistance" organisations just PEACE

It seems that when "Imperial Dignity" was conferred onto the faith by the Roman power structure that something was corrupted and teachings that led to violence were shoehorned in. Augustine looks like the fountainhead of that bloodthirsty thinking.

Even the early "buddhist's" who seem the best candidates are a very different thing in that they were in someway rarified people. The christian manifestation was every day life amongst and within the society not a withdrawl into the monastic.

To those who read this and think i'm just being simplistic, as it does seem on the surface, i would be interested in what they think caused this phenomenon. Something was going on.
Peace.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hi.
I've been thinking a lot about this since i joined these debates recently.
Their is the inner voice or whatever that Paul was referring to at Rom1:20. That is loud and insistent in my "self".

But i think their is something more tangible to it all. History is my passion. The older the better and i have found something that when actually considered against the sweep of humanity seems to be unique and inexplicable without some divine influence.

In around 33ce a group of people emerged and expanded who for the next 300 years were absolutely committed to not killing. The group crossed borders, both national and imperial, linguistic groups, cultures and ethnicities. I have scoured all the early accounts for the generations that followed the Apostles and they are without exception free of christian violence. Even in the face of persecution as harsh as has ever been let loose.

I can find no other occurrence of this phenomenon anywhere i look. Not in the same manner, not spread so far geographically,culturally and ethnically. Not a single account of organised violence over 300 years, while under pressure and persecution. No militant christian "para militaries" or even "passive resistance" organisations just PEACE

It seems that when "Imperial Dignity" was conferred onto the faith by the Roman power structure that something was corrupted and teachings that led to violence were shoehorned in. Augustine looks like the fountainhead of that bloodthirsty thinking.

Even the early "buddhist's" who seem the best candidates are a very different thing in that they were in someway rarified people. The christian manifestation was every day life amongst and within the society not a withdrawl into the monastic.

To those who read this and think i'm just being simplistic, as it does seem on the surface, i would be interested in what they think caused this phenomenon. Something was going on.
Peace.

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks for sharing. I have to admit that history was never my best subject in college and in fact I did not study it much because early on I was not getting the best grades. However, I find history very interesting and now I wish I had studied it more.

Also, I know basically nothing about biblical history, because I was not raised as a Christian and I was never a Christian later either, so I never even read the whole Bible. I have only read verses here and there.

From my perspective as a Baha'i, the Bible is the spiritual history of mankind. Below are some chapters from a little book you might be interested i reading:

The Heart of the Gospel is a book that was written by a Christian clergyman who resigned his orders after 40 years to become a Baha’i. It explains how the Bible fits into history.

I. The Bible as Universal History
II. History as Spiritual Evolution

 

[Moz]

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks for sharing. I have to admit that history was never my best subject in college and in fact I did not study it much because early on I was not getting the best grades. However, I find history very interesting and now I wish I had studied it more.

Also, I know basically nothing about biblical history, because I was not raised as a Christian and I was never a Christian later either, so I never even read the whole Bible. I have only read verses here and there.

From my perspective as a Baha'i, the Bible is the spiritual history of mankind. Below are some chapters from a little book you might be interested i reading:

The Heart of the Gospel is a book that was written by a Christian clergyman who resigned his orders after 40 years to become a Baha’i. It explains how the Bible fits into history.

I. The Bible as Universal History
II. History as Spiritual Evolution

Hi. I have actually looked into the Baha'i.
Cheery pick the best did seem a good idea, once upon a time. It seems a bit like the Muslim thing.... they picked what they wanted from "The Book" and regarded what they don't like as human insertion or corruption. I think actually there is a similar motivation in Bahai, to consolidate previous knowledge into a more coherent belief system. The muslim's seem to be an answer to the trinitarian controveries in the levant of that time amongst a people on the periphery of two great Empires. Add a bit of Jew, a bit of Roman and a bit of Persian and mix. Bahai has a very similar feel to me. If i've wildly misunderstood something please tell me.

While i do like the personal stance on non violence that some Bahai's embrace it pales into insignificance against the non violence of 100's of 1000's, perhaps 1000 000 christians spaning nearly three centuries and a dozen polities who refrained from violence under some of the worst persecution in recorded history.

Don't you think that whatever inspired that singular event is worthy of investigation.
Peace.

 

[Trailblazer]

It seems a bit like the Muslim thing.... they picked what they wanted from "The Book" and regarded what they don't like as human insertion or corruption. I think actually there is a similar motivation in Bahai, to consolidate previous knowledge into a more coherent belief system.

The Baha'i Faith is a religion based upon a *new* Revelation of God. We believe that God spoke to Baha'u'llah, just as God spoke to Moses and Jesus and Muhammad. We also believe other Messengers have been sent by God throughout human history.

While i do like the personal stance on non violence that some Bahai's embrace it pales into insignificance against the non violence of 100's of 1000's, perhaps 1000 000 christians spaning nearly three centuries and a dozen polities who refrained from violence under some of the worst persecution in recorded history.

Baha'is do not believe that the great religions are in competition with each other but rather that religions are revealed throughout the ages and each religion is pertinent to the age in which it was revealed. So in every new age, religion is renewed to suit the needs of the times. That is called Progressive Revelation.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81

Don't you think that whatever inspired that singular event is worthy of investigation.
Peace.

Like I said, history is not a subject I am familiar with so I know little about religious history. Are you saying that Christians have always been nonviolent? That is not what my husband has told me, and he is familiar with history.

 

[Moz]

The Baha'i Faith is a religion based upon a *new* Revelation of God. We believe that God spoke to Baha'u'llah, just as God spoke to Moses and Jesus and Muhammad. We also believe other Messengers have been sent by God throughout human history.

Baha'is do not believe that the great religions are in competition with each other but rather that religions are revealed throughout the ages and each religion is pertinent to the age in which it was revealed. So in every new age, religion is renewed to suit the needs of the times. That is called Progressive Revelation.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81

Like I said, history is not a subject I am familiar with so I know little about religious history. Are you saying that Christians have always been nonviolent? That is not what my husband has told me, and he is familiar with history.

Hi

So in every new age, religion is renewed to suit the needs of the times. That is called Progressive Revelation.

I can understand how the view is that the christian message progresses the jewish teachings, they did.
I can not see anything in the revelations of the muslims though that advances or progresses anything from the christian message. What "needs of the times" did islam address for instance?

From my reading of the situation the islamic purpose seems to be merely provide a counterpoint to the trinity teaching and to properly organise the distribution of plunder more equitably in a tribal culture.
What is it that islam contributed that was needed revelation in the bahai opinion as it seems the immediate real world consequence of that particular revelation was horrific bloodshed by the followers of Allah. That seems to be in direct opposition to the bahai teachings. Sorry to have focused on islam in my examples but i know more about them than Bahai. And if Bahai accepts the islamic revelations as divine or important i'd like to know why and what.

Are you saying that Christians have always been nonviolent? That is not what my husband has told me, and he is familiar with history.

I have been at pains in both posts to clarifiy that i am referring to the first 300 years BEFORE Rome got involved. After the Roman "contamination" your husband is indeed spot on MUCH christian bloodshed right to our day.

BUT.... not a single recorded act of violence by a christian or christian group, from Britian to India to Africa to Persia for 300 years. NOT A SINGLE ONE. What's that 15 generations or so.
Peace.

 

[Trailblazer]

So in every new age, religion is renewed to suit the needs of the times. That is called Progressive Revelation.

I can understand how the view is that the christian message progresses the jewish teachings, they did.
I can not see anything in the revelations of the muslims though that advances or progresses anything from the christian message. What "needs of the times" did islam address for instance?

Maybe it would help for you to understand how Baha’is believe that mankind’s spiritual evolution progresses over time.

Jesus focused on a high standard of morality and discipline into man, as the fundamental unit in human society. Muhammad focused on nation building, and Baha’u’llah focused on world unity and the oneness of mankind. Each one of these was a necessary building block that enabled the next one to take place. Mankind’s spiritual evolution develops gradually, proceeding step by step, and that is why God reveals religious Truth in various stages over time, in keeping with Progressive Revelation.... For example:

“The Revelation associated with the Faith of Jesus Christ focused attention primarily on the redemption of the individual and the molding of his conduct, and stressed, as its central theme, the necessity of inculcating a high standard of morality and discipline into man, as the fundamental unit in human society. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find any reference to the unity of nations or the unification of mankind as a whole. When Jesus spoke to those around Him, He addressed them primarily as individuals rather than as component parts of one universal, indivisible entity.......

The Faith of Islám, the succeeding link in the chain of Divine Revelation, introduced, as Bahá’u’lláh Himself testifies, the conception of the nation as a unit and a vital stage in the organization of human society, and embodied it in its teaching. This indeed is what is meant by this brief yet highly significant and illuminating pronouncement of Bahá’u’lláh: “Of old [Islamic Dispensation] it hath been revealed: ‘Love of one’s country is an element of the Faith of God.’” This principle was established and stressed by the Apostle of God, inasmuch as the evolution of human society required it at that time. Nor could any stage above and beyond it have been envisaged, as world conditions preliminary to the establishment of a superior form of organization were as yet unobtainable. The conception of nationality, the attainment to the state of nationhood, may, therefore, be said to be the distinguishing characteristics of the MuHammadan Dispensation, in the course of which the nations and races of the world, and particularly in Europe and America, were unified and achieved political independence.....

“One of the great events,” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has, in His “Some Answered Questions,” affirmed, “which is to occur in the Day of the manifestation of that Incomparable Branch [Bahá’u’lláh] is the hoisting of the Standard of God among all nations. By this is meant that all nations and kindreds will be gathered together under the shadow of this Divine Banner, which is no other than the Lordly Branch itself, and will become a single nation. Religious and sectarian antagonism, the hostility of races and peoples, and differences among nations, will be eliminated. All men will adhere to one religion, will have one common faith, will be blended into one race, and become a single people. All will dwell in one common fatherland, which is the planet itself.”
The Promised Day Is Come, pp. 119-121

From my reading of the situation the islamic purpose seems to be merely provide a counterpoint to the trinity teaching and to properly organise the distribution of plunder more equitably in a tribal culture.
What is it that islam contributed that was needed revelation in the bahai opinion as it seems the immediate real world consequence of that particular revelation was horrific bloodshed by the followers of Allah. That seems to be in direct opposition to the bahai teachings. Sorry to have focused on islam in my examples but i know more about them than Bahai. And if Bahai accepts the islamic revelations as divine or important i'd like to know why and what.

Unfortunately, I do not know as much as I should about Islam or Muhammad, although my husband told me that Islam brought western civilization out of the dark ages as far as advances in science and establishing universities, and Islam helped the tribal cultures become more civilized.Sine you like history, here is an article you might like called Islamic Contributions to Civilization:
Islamic Contributions to Civilization

Here is an excerpt from an article that addressed the status of Muhammad in the Baha’i Faith.

“Yet the Baha’i writings were totally unambiguous about the station and status of Muhammad in world and religious history: he is considered the successor to Christ, the final prophet before the Day of Resurrection—now fulfilled with the advent of the twin revelations of the Bab and Baha’u’llah. Accordingly Muhammad’s revelation, considerably more lengthy and detailed than the sum total of Christ’s personal statements in the New Testament, would logically be consistent with all that Christ says regarding spirituality, and even more advanced in setting forth these principles and in establishing a social order and laws of personal and collective conduct.” http://bahaiteachings.org/accepting-muhammad-prophet-god

Are you saying that Christians have always been nonviolent? That is not what my husband has told me, and he is familiar with history.

I have been at pains in both posts to clarifiy that i am referring to the first 300 years BEFORE Rome got involved. After the Roman "contamination" your husband is indeed spot on MUCH christian bloodshed right to our day.

BUT.... not a single recorded act of violence by a christian or christian group, from Britian to India to Africa to Persia for 300 years. NOT A SINGLE ONE. What's that 15 generations or so.
Peace.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that.

 

[Moz]

Maybe it would help for you to understand how Baha’is believe that mankind’s spiritual evolution progresses over time.

Jesus focused on a high standard of morality and discipline into man, as the fundamental unit in human society. Muhammad focused on nation building, and Baha’u’llah focused on world unity and the oneness of mankind. Each one of these was a necessary building block that enabled the next one to take place. Mankind’s spiritual evolution develops gradually, proceeding step by step, and that is why God reveals religious Truth in various stages over time, in keeping with Progressive Revelation.... For example:

“The Revelation associated with the Faith of Jesus Christ focused attention primarily on the redemption of the individual and the molding of his conduct, and stressed, as its central theme, the necessity of inculcating a high standard of morality and discipline into man, as the fundamental unit in human society. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find any reference to the unity of nations or the unification of mankind as a whole. When Jesus spoke to those around Him, He addressed them primarily as individuals rather than as component parts of one universal, indivisible entity.......

The Faith of Islám, the succeeding link in the chain of Divine Revelation, introduced, as Bahá’u’lláh Himself testifies, the conception of the nation as a unit and a vital stage in the organization of human society, and embodied it in its teaching. This indeed is what is meant by this brief yet highly significant and illuminating pronouncement of Bahá’u’lláh: “Of old [Islamic Dispensation] it hath been revealed: ‘Love of one’s country is an element of the Faith of God.’” This principle was established and stressed by the Apostle of God, inasmuch as the evolution of human society required it at that time. Nor could any stage above and beyond it have been envisaged, as world conditions preliminary to the establishment of a superior form of organization were as yet unobtainable. The conception of nationality, the attainment to the state of nationhood, may, therefore, be said to be the distinguishing characteristics of the MuHammadan Dispensation, in the course of which the nations and races of the world, and particularly in Europe and America, were unified and achieved political independence.....

“One of the great events,” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has, in His “Some Answered Questions,” affirmed, “which is to occur in the Day of the manifestation of that Incomparable Branch [Bahá’u’lláh] is the hoisting of the Standard of God among all nations. By this is meant that all nations and kindreds will be gathered together under the shadow of this Divine Banner, which is no other than the Lordly Branch itself, and will become a single nation. Religious and sectarian antagonism, the hostility of races and peoples, and differences among nations, will be eliminated. All men will adhere to one religion, will have one common faith, will be blended into one race, and become a single people. All will dwell in one common fatherland, which is the planet itself.”
The Promised Day Is Come, pp. 119-121

Unfortunately, I do not know as much as I should about Islam or Muhammad, although my husband told me that Islam brought western civilization out of the dark ages as far as advances in science and establishing universities, and Islam helped the tribal cultures become more civilized.Sine you like history, here is an article you might like called Islamic Contributions to Civilization:
Islamic Contributions to Civilization

Here is an excerpt from an article that addressed the status of Muhammad in the Baha’i Faith.

“Yet the Baha’i writings were totally unambiguous about the station and status of Muhammad in world and religious history: he is considered the successor to Christ, the final prophet before the Day of Resurrection—now fulfilled with the advent of the twin revelations of the Bab and Baha’u’llah. Accordingly Muhammad’s revelation, considerably more lengthy and detailed than the sum total of Christ’s personal statements in the New Testament, would logically be consistent with all that Christ says regarding spirituality, and even more advanced in setting forth these principles and in establishing a social order and laws of personal and collective conduct.” http://bahaiteachings.org/accepting-muhammad-prophet-god

Okay, thanks for clarifying that.

Hi.

Thank you very much for such a clear and informative answer. Really. It addressed so much of what i asked i am impressed.
I'm not sure about the Islamic nation building aspect as they did devastate two functioning Empires to virtually re-establish the same Roman Imperial system under Islamic jurors prudence. But what you suggested is not without its own sophistication.

The initial Islamic bloodshed though... that bothers me and i can not see how any revelation progressing from Jesus teachings could inspire that in its immediate adherents, it could not be any continuation of Jesus message. Jesus followers were absolutely peaceful.... it seems Bahai are very non-violent as well, yet in the middle we get a warrior prophet. It does not seem to fit.
How can Jesus message of abstaining from violence and the prophets prolific use of violence be squared?
Who's example are we to follow, they seem diametrically opposed. Kill the enemy or be the one killed by the enemy, Jesus and Mohamed taught opposite things. No part of the World was Jesus teaching in John........ Islam's was rule the world

Not meaning to be facetious but you did mention other revelations, their is a cut off or standard yes... the Book of Mormon for instance. It claims to be an extension of christianity and probably,maybe, could be viewed from an angle that just fits the message of jesus better than the quaran does, what criteria would exclude a revelation if contradiction in teachings doesn't.
But i really will think on all this and do some research.
Peace.

 

[syo]

An atheist on my forum said: “if God existed, then proof of his existence would be possible. The proof isn't there, and the best explanation for that lack of proof would be that neither is the god there.”

It seems the atheists don't know what a god is and they want proof...

 

[Trailblazer]

It seems the atheists don't know what a god is and they want proof...

That is understandable.
The proof is there if they want it.

 

[ArtieE]

That is understandable.
The proof is there if they want it.

There is no proof. Otherwise everybody would know that god(s) exist instead of some just believing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thank you very much for such a clear and informative answer. Really. It addressed so much of what i asked i am impressed.
I'm not sure about the Islamic nation building aspect as they did devastate two functioning Empires to virtually re-establish the same Roman Imperial system under Islamic jurors prudence. But what you suggested is not without its own sophistication.

You are very welcome…

What I posted is just one angle on progressive revelation in the context of what the Messengers of God had as part of their missions -- from individual to nation to the world. There is a lot more to progressive revelation than that. Individuals progress spiritually over time and the world we live in changes over time, and that is why we need a new Messenger of God in every age.

The initial Islamic bloodshed though... that bothers me and i can not see how any revelation progressing from Jesus teachings could inspire that in its immediate adherents, it could not be any continuation of Jesus message.

I do not think that Islam was a continuation of Jesus message, although I think that Muhammad renewed some of the spiritual verities that Jesus taught and He validated the status of Jesus as a Messenger of God. From what I recall reading, Muslims believe that Jesus is the greatest Messenger of God that has ever existed besides Muhammad.

The message of Baha’u’llah was the continuation of Jesus’ message.

Jesus said that He had more to say and do in the future.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

John 16:12-13 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah was the return of the Spirit of Jesus, the second coming, who, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, came to say and do what Jesus did not say and do, because humanity was not ready for that 2000 years ago.

Baha'u'llah came to unite humanity into one fold, in fulfillment of John 10:16.
Baha'u'llah came to reveal truths that humanity was not ready to hear 2000 years ago, in fulfillment of John 16:12-13.

Jesus followers were absolutely peaceful.... it seems Bahai are very non-violent as well, yet in the middle we get a warrior prophet. It does not seem to fit.
How can Jesus message of abstaining from violence and the prophets prolific use of violence be squared?

It is good to ask these questions, but unfortunately I do have the answers… Well, I guess the answer I would have is that maybe Muhammad came to prepare the way for Baha'u'llah, as nation building prepared the way for when Baha'u'llah would come to unite the world. How could the world be united if nations were not first established all over the world?

Who's example are we to follow, they seem diametrically opposed. Kill the enemy or be the one killed by the enemy, Jesus and Mohamed taught opposite things. No part of the World was Jesus teaching in John........ Islam's was rule the world.

Well as a Baha’i I believe we are to follow the example Baha'u'llah set forth, which is similar to what Jesus taught. Love is of the utmost importance but another thing that Baha'u'llah stressed was justice.

2: O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 3-4

64: O OPPRESSORS ON EARTH! Withdraw your hands from tyranny, for I have pledged Myself not to forgive any man’s injustice. This is My covenant which I have irrevocably decreed in the preserved tablet and sealed with My seal.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 44

I do not believe that Jesus put that much emphasis on justice, but rather only taught that we are to love God and one another; correct me if I am wrong because I was not raised as a Christian so I do not know the Bible very well.

Not meaning to be facetious but you did mention other revelations, their is a cut off or standard yes... the Book of Mormon for instance. It claims to be an extension of christianity and probably,maybe, could be viewed from an angle that just fits the message of jesus better than the quaran does, what criteria would exclude a revelation if contradiction in teachings doesn't.
But i really will think on all this and do some research.

I do not believe that Mormonism is based upon a revelation from God to Joseph Smith because I do not believe Joseph Smith was a Messenger of God (Prophet). Baha’is believe he was a “seer” but that does not mean he got a revelation from God. I view the Mormon Faith as a sect of Christianity because it is based upon Jesus Christ, and Mormons worship Jesus, who got a revelation from God. They simply believe that they got some additional information from Joseph Smith.

I hope that makes some sense.

 

[ArtieE]

I have evidence that is proof to me. YMMV.

Irrational statement. Evidence isn't proof.

 

[ArtieE]

Well as a Baha’i I believe we are to follow the example Baha'u'llah set forth, which is similar to what Jesus taught.

Pardon me, but we have no idea what Jesus taught because he never wrote anything down himself. Remember post number 449?

Me: But we don't have any actual spiritual teachings. We have no idea what your Messengers of God actually taught, only what others claimed they taught.
You: That is true for all of the Messengers that came before the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Me: No new messages were revealed. No messenger actually left a message that we know of.
You: None other than the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Irrational statement. Evidence isn't proof.

It is proof to me. YMMV.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: Well as a Baha’i I believe we are to follow the example Baha'u'llah set forth, which is similar to what Jesus taught.

Pardon me, but we have no idea what Jesus taught because he never wrote anything down himself. Remember post number 449?

Me: But we don't have any actual spiritual teachings. We have no idea what your Messengers of God actually taught, only what others claimed they taught.
You: That is true for all of the Messengers that came before the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Me: No new messages were revealed. No messenger actually left a message that we know of.
You: None other than the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

We have what others claimed they taught, and that is good enough for me, in the case of Jesus, since that is all we have, and it is an important message.

Moreover, Baha'u'llah validated that Jesus was who He claimed to be and that is as Good as Gold.

 

[ArtieE]

We have what others claimed they taught, and that is good enough for me, in the case of Jesus, since that is all we have, and it is an important message.

It's good enough for you when it comes to Jesus but not good enough when it comes to Krishna, even though the message of reincarnation seems pretty important too?