Baha'i and Messengers

[F1fan]

I do not have facts that prove what the future holds.

You have no facts for any of your claims.

Only God knows what the future holds.

So if God knows what will happen in the future then humans have no free choices.

I believe that people will become more spiritual because the Revelation of Baha'u'llah will eventually be known to everyone and everyone will believe in God in the future, but nobody knows how how that will go or how long it will take.

You might be wrong.

[quoter]There is no plan except the plans that the Universal House of Justices sets forth. [/quote]
And who is that?

Oddly, I saw a website of the Baha'i that says there's a plan. So you are wrong about that.

According to the dictates of the UHJ the Baha'is will keep working towards world unity. Baha'is not only work with other Baha'is, they work with those of other religions in interfaith councils. Nobody can predict how that will go as it is contingent upon many variables.

Good for them. I doesn't seem like much will change any time soon.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Imagine, turning to deceit, bribery, outright lies, and more over a religious belief. It seems so contrary to any love for humanity.

Luckily this is against Baha'i Law, to which every Baha'i will endeavour to implement in their lives.

RegardsTony

 

[Trailblazer]

And who is that?

The UHJ is the Universal House of Justice

Oddly, I saw a website of the Baha'i that says there's a plan. So you are wrong about that.

You might be right about that. I do not keep up with what the Baha'is are doing.

Good for them. I doesn't seem like much will change any time soon.

I don't expect to change any time soon either.

 

[CG Didymus]

Now he asks for sources, now that he is a committed believer.

The article he is talking about says that Baha'is had to change their terminology so the rural Indian people could better understand the Baha'i concepts. I never thought that the author would be making up something like that. But who knows? Like even here with us, the word, messengers, is used most of the time instead of "manifestations" of God. Heck, in Christianity angels are messengers.

 

[lukethethird]

The article he is talking about says that Baha'is had to change their terminology so the rural Indian people could better understand the Baha'i concepts. I never thought that the author would be making up something like that. But who knows? Like even here with us, the word, messengers, is used most of the time instead of "manifestations" of God. Heck, in Christianity angels are messengers.

I didn't think the author was making it up either.

In earliest Christianity, the epistle writers, through visions and reading their ancient scriptures, claimed Christ was their messenger from God, and that was before the gospel writers wrote about Jesus residing on earth.

 

[Sheldon]

No, it is the other way around....
One can only believe God exists is one sees the evidence for God.
Makes sense

Though equally circular. Evidence that cannot be demonstrated, and relies on subjective opinion only, is not evidence worthy of the name.

 

[CG Didymus]

In that game, anything goes. I have stories. When the end game is being saved from hell, or brought over to the 'justice' side, why not? It's a sad statement on the narrow-mindedness of humanity. But I believe those days are slowly ending. It's not as easy as it used to be, with education reaching far and wide, and Hinduism standing up. The number of states with anti-conversion (actually meaning anti-coercion) laws is increasing annually.

Imagine, turning to deceit, bribery, outright lies, and more over a religious belief. It seems so contrary to any love for humanity.

Have a great day.

Speaking of stories. I read up a little on when Krishna was thought to have lived and when Vaishnavism got started. This relates to Baha'is and appointing a manifestation to each religion. But what gets called "Hinduism" didn't start with Krishna or Vaishnavism. So, any ideas of when Vaishnavism took hold? This is from wikipedia...

The ancient emergence of Vaishnavism is unclear, and broadly hypothesized as a fusion of Vedic deities with various regional non-Vedic religions. It has 1st millennium BCE Vedic roots in the Vedic deity Bhaga, who gave rise to Bhagavatism, and in the Vedic water deity Nara c.q. Narayana. Non-Vedic roots are found in a merger of several popular non-Vedic theistic traditions such as the cult of Vāsudeva-Krishna and Gopala-Krishna., which developed in the 7th to 4th century BCE. In the early centuries CE, the tradition was finalized as Vaishnavism, when it developed the avatar doctrine, wherein the aligned deities are revered as distinct incarnations of supreme Vedic God Vishnu. Rama, Krishna, Narayana, Kalki, Hari, Vithoba, Venkateswara, Shrinathji, and Jagannath are among the names of popular avatars all seen as different aspects of the same supreme being.​

Anyway, it doesn't sound like the "manifestation", Krishna, "revealed" the religion. If what this says is correct, it sounds more like the beliefs were formulated put together. But it says that the of Vaishnavism wasn't finalized until the early centuries CE?

I personally don't mind if people put together a religion based on their beliefs, but it makes the claims of the Baha'is of Krishna being a manifestation and the "revealer" of a new religion from God and their belief about "progressive" revelation a little shaky.

 

[Sheldon]

Luckily this is against Baha'i Law, to which every Baha'i will endeavour to implement in their lives.

RegardsTony

They all say that of course, but it never lasts. If indeed it was ever true, the whole concept of claiming to know what a deity wants, reeks of wanting to exert power and influence over others. With the imagined promise of life eternal the dangling carrot at the end the stick.

If a deity exists, and wants anything from me, then I will hear it from the deity, and never from any self proclaimed intermediary, no matter how many fawning followers they've duped. Or much "love" and "piety" they claim to have "in the bank".

All humans should have the same rights as each other, regardless of what they believe, or do not believe.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You know that verse where it says here's a Christ and there's a Christ but don't believe them, because when Jesus comes it will be obvious. Then the wars and rumors of wars. There's still wars, so is it already the end? But not now, 150 years ago was it the end?

Like I've said in the past, I'd rather have the Baha'is be right then a literal Christianity, but there's just too much that doesn't fit and hasn't been fulfilled.

Hi CG.

How do we know that verse is not referring to the different sects of Christianity who all are saying ‘here is Christ’. Wasn’t this a warning not to believe in the different sects all claiming to have the real Christ? The 40,000 odd conflicting sects?

Also, note that the verse uses the Name ‘Christ’. And the verse clearly instructs people not to listen to those claiming they have ‘Christ’.

Why? Revelation 3:12 offers the answer spoken by Christ Himself

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name

So, when Christ returns, we are told not to follow those calling Christ, Christ because He will have a New Name according to the Book of Revelation.

Baha’is are not saying “here is Christ” but “here is Baha’u’llah “

 

[Vinayaka]

Luckily this is against Baha'i Law, to which every Baha'i will endeavour to implement in their lives.

RegardsTony

Apparently not, as is evidenced.

Speaking of stories. I read up a little on when Krishna was thought to have lived and when Vaishnavism got started. This relates to Baha'is and appointing a manifestation to each religion. But what gets called "Hinduism" didn't start with Krishna or Vaishnavism. So, any ideas of when Vaishnavism took hold? This is from wikipedia...

The ancient emergence of Vaishnavism is unclear, and broadly hypothesized as a fusion of Vedic deities with various regional non-Vedic religions. It has 1st millennium BCE Vedic roots in the Vedic deity Bhaga, who gave rise to Bhagavatism, and in the Vedic water deity Nara c.q. Narayana. Non-Vedic roots are found in a merger of several popular non-Vedic theistic traditions such as the cult of Vāsudeva-Krishna and Gopala-Krishna., which developed in the 7th to 4th century BCE. In the early centuries CE, the tradition was finalized as Vaishnavism, when it developed the avatar doctrine, wherein the aligned deities are revered as distinct incarnations of supreme Vedic God Vishnu. Rama, Krishna, Narayana, Kalki, Hari, Vithoba, Venkateswara, Shrinathji, and Jagannath are among the names of popular avatars all seen as different aspects of the same supreme being.​

Anyway, it doesn't sound like the "manifestation", Krishna, "revealed" the religion. If what this says is correct, it sounds more like the beliefs were formulated put together. But it says that the of Vaishnavism wasn't finalized until the early centuries CE?

I personally don't mind if people put together a religion based on their beliefs, but it makes the claims of the Baha'is of Krishna being a manifestation and the "revealer" of a new religion from God and their belief about "progressive" revelation a little shaky.

I have no idea, as I have little interest in history, even of my own religion. Today is what counts, and the fact of the matter is Vaishnavism is alive and well, (as are other Hindu sects), and it's adherents remain secure in the safety of their beloved Krishna. Nobody, most especially, Christians or Bahai's have anything to add to that.

 

[ppp]

I did not see him claiming that anything was better than what Jesus taught.

Sure he did. He spoke out against slavery. Explicitly and plainly. Jesus did not.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Though equally circular. Evidence that cannot be demonstrated, and relies on subjective opinion only, is not evidence worthy of the name.

Evidence is all around us and most definitely not subjective. Every atom in existence, nature, the laws of physics, the stars and universes, the complexity and intricacy of the human body are all scientific realities. These are all proof and evidence of a Supreme Intelligence in the universe.

 

[ppp]

Every atom in existence, nature, the laws of physics, the stars and universes, the complexity and intricacy of the human body are all scientific realities. These are all proof and evidence of a Supreme Intelligence in the universe.

Those things are evidence of anything that a person can imagine being the cause of the universe. You would need evidence that specifically demonstrates a god. And the specific god that you think it is.

 

[lukethethird]

Evidence is all around us and most definitely not subjective. Every atom in existence, nature, the laws of physics, the stars and universes, the complexity and intricacy of the human body are all scientific realities. These are all proof and evidence of a Supreme Intelligence in the universe.

Where in the universe is this S I you imagine?

 

[F1fan]

Speaking of stories. I read up a little on when Krishna was thought to have lived and when Vaishnavism got started. This relates to Baha'is and appointing a manifestation to each religion. But what gets called "Hinduism" didn't start with Krishna or Vaishnavism. So, any ideas of when Vaishnavism took hold? This is from wikipedia...

The ancient emergence of Vaishnavism is unclear, and broadly hypothesized as a fusion of Vedic deities with various regional non-Vedic religions. It has 1st millennium BCE Vedic roots in the Vedic deity Bhaga, who gave rise to Bhagavatism, and in the Vedic water deity Nara c.q. Narayana. Non-Vedic roots are found in a merger of several popular non-Vedic theistic traditions such as the cult of Vāsudeva-Krishna and Gopala-Krishna., which developed in the 7th to 4th century BCE. In the early centuries CE, the tradition was finalized as Vaishnavism, when it developed the avatar doctrine, wherein the aligned deities are revered as distinct incarnations of supreme Vedic God Vishnu. Rama, Krishna, Narayana, Kalki, Hari, Vithoba, Venkateswara, Shrinathji, and Jagannath are among the names of popular avatars all seen as different aspects of the same supreme being.​

Anyway, it doesn't sound like the "manifestation", Krishna, "revealed" the religion. If what this says is correct, it sounds more like the beliefs were formulated put together. But it says that the of Vaishnavism wasn't finalized until the early centuries CE?

I personally don't mind if people put together a religion based on their beliefs, but it makes the claims of the Baha'is of Krishna being a manifestation and the "revealer" of a new religion from God and their belief about "progressive" revelation a little shaky.

If the Baha'i's claimed their revelations come from Messengers of God, then it is a case of a Messenger being wrong.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Apparently not, as is evidenced.

Accusations are always easy to make and fabricated to support an intent and I have no idea as to what context this document was given in, but to search the Author online.

So on the basis of one document all are accused without knowing the other many sides of the story, and the full context of the remarks that were made?

Such has become the justice of this world.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

There are sources out there they don't like. Ex-Baha'is and "Covenant" breakers are for sure not to be trusted.

So called 'independent investigation' means Baha'i sources only.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Those things are evidence of anything that a person can imagine being the cause of the universe. You would need evidence that specifically demonstrates a god. And the specific god that you think it is.

No. They are scientific proofs of the existence of God because scientific laws are fixed and programmed to function in a certain manner and cannot choose to deviate from their assigned function. That function was assigned by an Intelligence capable of programming scientific laws and fixing their functions.

Same with the human body. It is an extremely complex and intricate science that is held together by the programming of its various elements and organs by a Supreme Intelligence. The organs are not conscious but function according to how they were programmed by an Intelligence.

A Supreme Intelligence controlling the universe makes perfect scientific sense. Because all these functions whether it be nature, the universe or the human body have no will of their own but follow a fixed set of rules programmed by a Higher Intelligence.

The concept of a Higher Intelligence is in accordance with science and reason.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So called 'independent investigation' means Baha'i sources only.

No it does not mean that, but it does mean also considering the content with justice in mind.

Regards Tony

 

[F1fan]

They all say that of course, but it never lasts. If indeed it was ever true, the whole concept of claiming to know what a deity wants, reeks of wanting to exert power and influence over others. With the imagined promise of life eternal the dangling carrot at the end the stick.

If a deity exists, and wants anything from me, then I will hear it from the deity, and never from any self proclaimed intermediary, no matter how many fawning followers they've duped. Or much "love" and "piety" they claim to have "in the bank".

All humans should have the same rights as each other, regardless of what they believe, or do not believe.

It is these middlemen to God that I worry about. We never see actual Gods coming forth with personal appearances and revelations, only mortals who claim to have special news from the absent God. This is one major reason I push back on any mortal that claims to have special knowledge, and offers no test in reality.