Baha'i and Messengers

[Vinayaka]

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

Yes, we know. All Baha'i are perfect law abiding citizens of this planet. How else could it be? (Nobody is accusing all Baha'i, but I trust my Indian fellow Hindus, as there's no real reason to distort that sort of stuff.) I've seen things like bait and switch right here on these forums. I consider it an unethical tactic, but some would see it as fair play.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Where in the universe is this S I you imagine?

It’s signs are everywhere. Every atom in existence reflects intelligence.

 

[Vinayaka]

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

Regards Tony

I have yet to see a single quote from a Baha'i from a non-Baha'i source on here. But sure.

 

[ppp]

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.

Science doesn't do proofs. Sciences does falsifiable models which are then tested on those conditions. You have not done any those things.

You have heard of the Higgs Boson, I assume. Via the Higgs field, it gives mass to fundamental particles. It was first proposed back in 1964. But it was not accepted science until it there was a practical experiment that could be executed to demonstrate the existence of that particle. That was in June of 2012. Until then it was mere proposed by the scientific community, not accepted.

If you are doing science then you would 1) have a falsifiable hypothesis that predicts a specific relevant outcome, as well as its failure conditions; and 2) a practical set of experiments that would allow anyone to demonstrate that your hypothesis is true. Even the people who think that you are dead wrong.

If you are not doing that, then you are not doing science.

 

[loverofhumanity]

A back-stabbing acceptance. After you so-called acceptance, you say that they are out-dated and corrupt. Allah save us from this kind of 'munafiq' acceptance. That means you accept when it suits you an reject when it does not.

1. No. Very, very Incorrect. We accept the Prophet and Holy Book of each religion (which has a Prophet and Holy Book) unconditional acceptance.

2. We accept the spiritual laws delineated by every Founder of the major religions.

The social laws are only for a particular age such as stoning and cutting off hands because at that time there were no police, courts, judges, prisons or rehabilitation centres so letting an offender go free would mean the appearance of things like serial murders and serial rapists. So laws were harsh but as humanity progressed we have now more humane laws.

3. So the social laws are only temporary and we Baha’is only accept social laws that are for this age.

As to the laws, doctrines and interpretations of the priests and clergy. These we do not accept as they are just the opinions of individuals and were not revealed by the original Founder and not part of the original teachings.

We accept all that is original and reject all that has been added that is not part of the initial message.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

God cannot put in a personal appearance because God is not a person. God is Spirit.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Science doesn't do proofs. Sciences does falsifiable models which are then tested on those conditions. You have not done any those things.

You have heard of the Higgs Boson, I assume. Via the Higgs field, it gives mass to fundamental particles. It was first proposed back in 1964. But it was not accepted science until it there was a practical experiment that could be executed to demonstrate the existence of that particle. That was in June of 2012. Until then it was mere proposed by the scientific community, not accepted.

If you are doing science then you would 1) have a falsifiable hypothesis that predicts a specific relevant outcome, as well as its failure conditions; and 2) a practical set of experiments that would allow anyone to demonstrate that your hypothesis is true. Even the people who think that you are dead wrong.

If you are not doing that, then you are not doing science.

It’s like you’re asking me to prove the sun exists when it’s so clear.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I have yet to see a single quote from a Baha'i from a non-Baha'i source on here. But sure.

I posted this the other day on this thread so that’s not being fair to me Vinayaka.

In fact, for those who see in the monotheistic religions only one of the stations in the evolution of the human race, it is not too far-fetched to believe that a new religion will develop within the next few hundred years, a religion which corresponds to the development of the human race; the most important feature of such a religion would be its universalistic character, corresponding to the unification of mankind which is taking place in this epoch; it would embrace the humanistic teachings common to all great religions of the East and of the West; its doctrines would not contradict the rational insight of mankind today, and its emphasis would be on the practice of life, rather than on doctrinal beliefs. Such a religion would create new rituals and artistic forms of expression, conducive to the spirit of reverence toward life and the solidarity of man. Religion can, of course, not be invented. It will come into existence with the appearance of a new great teacher, just as they have appeared in previous centuries when the time was ripe. In the meantime, those who believe in God should express their faith by living it; those who do not believe, by living the precepts of love and justice and—waiting. (Erich Fromm 1955)

 

[Vinayaka]

1. No. Very, very Incorrect. We accept the Prophet and Holy Book of each religion - unconditional acceptance.

2. We accept the spiritual laws delineated by every Founder of the major religions.

The social laws are only for a particular age such as stoning and cutting off hands because at that time there were no police, courts, judges, prisons or rehabilitation centres so letting an offender go free would mean the appearance of things like serial murders and serial rapists. So laws were harsh but as humanity progressed we have now more humane laws.

3. So the social laws are only temporary and we Baha’is only accept social laws that are for this age.

As to the laws, doctrines and interpretations of the priests and clergy. These we do not accept as they are just the opinions of individuals and were not revealed by the original Founder and not part of the original teachings.

We accept all that is original and reject all that has been added that is not part of the initial message.

Who exactly is the prophet and what exactly is the holy book of Hinduism?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What's weird is the previous cycle is named after Adam? As if Adam was a real person. But, then again, as usual, they don't believe the Bible story about Adam. But he was a convenient person to throw out there as the person that started the last cycle.

Could they tell me as to how long the period of Adam lasted?

 

[Aupmanyav]

“Concerning your question relative to the duration of the Bahá’í Dispensation.

The following excerpt from a Tablet of Baha'u'llah is not an official translation so it is not in the Baha'i Reference Library.

1. That is what Shoghi's apologistics and not Bahaollah's writing.
2. If it is not official then why are you quoting it here?
You have no respect for truth.

 

[Vinayaka]

I posted this the other day on this thread so that’s not being fair to me Vinayaka.

In fact, for those who see in the monotheistic religions only one of the stations in the evolution of the human race, it is not too far-fetched to believe that a new religion will develop within the next few hundred years, a religion which corresponds to the development of the human race; the most important feature of such a religion would be its universalistic character, corresponding to the unification of mankind which is taking place in this epoch; it would embrace the humanistic teachings common to all great religions of the East and of the West; its doctrines would not contradict the rational insight of mankind today, and its emphasis would be on the practice of life, rather than on doctrinal beliefs. Such a religion would create new rituals and artistic forms of expression, conducive to the spirit of reverence toward life and the solidarity of man. Religion can, of course, not be invented. It will come into existence with the appearance of a new great teacher, just as they have appeared in previous centuries when the time was ripe. In the meantime, those who believe in God should express their faith by living it; those who do not believe, by living the precepts of love and justice and—waiting. (Erich Fromm 1955)

As you probably know, I only pop in and out of this discussion on rare occasions now, I see there are many taking up the challenge these days. Most certainly this quote is confirmation bias at its best, if not directly from a Baha'i source. Personally, I certainly don't believe some great world teacher will come along. If it takes some great teacher to demonstrate to people what is common sense to the vast majority of mankind, then indeed we're in trouble.

Editted ... I presume you found Fromm's quote here: Erich Fromm, the Sane Society and the Baha’i Faith

 

[CG Didymus]

Apparently not, as is evidenced.


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.

Yeah, it doesn't matter to me if a couple thousand years ago people did make myths about their Gods and prophets. It's just strange to me how Baha'is say the stories are fictional, but the person was real, and his message was real, but the true message was lost. But they, the Baha'is, know what the true message was. It concerns me that they try to be everything to every religion. As in the fulfillment of them all.

 

[ppp]

It’s like you’re asking me to prove the sun exists when it’s so clear.

Not at all. And if I were that would be easy to do.
Now you might call it a fusion furnace, and I might call it a shining chariot of gold flying across the sky, but we would both agree that there was something there that is blinding us and making us warm.

If I were color blind and you could see colors, you could demonstrate to me that colors exist, even though I cannot perceive them, That is what I am asking you to do.

 

[F1fan]

God cannot ...

So you as a mortal are in a position to say what God can and cannot do.

...put in a personal appearance because God is not a person. God is Spirit.

Well sorry, God can create the whole universe, which has billions of galaxies, from no existing material, but it can't create a material form to embody to make a personal appearance?

That is suspicious.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Hindism and Buddhism are hard to make fit in with the Abrahamic religions. But it would be nice if there was only one loving God that was kind enough to send special people now and again to teach how to live. But by the looks of things, that is very difficult for me to believe.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yeah, it doesn't matter to me if a couple thousand years ago people did make myths about their Gods and prophets. It's just strange to me how Baha'is say the stories are fictional, but the person was real, and his message was real, but the true message was lost. But they, the Baha'is, know what the true message was. It concerns me that they try to be everything to every religion. As in the fulfillment of them all.

Frankly, it's insulting. I'd far rather go to the source that someone's ridiculously poor interpretation of it. Initially, maybe 4 years ago, that's how I got dragged into this foray, lol.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We accept the Prophet and Holy Book of each religion - unconditional acceptance.

Complete BS and a lie.
1. Do you accept that Lord Vishnu, an important member of the numerous Hindu divinity (male and female), appeared on earth as Rama and Krishna?
2. Do you accept when Buddha says there is no soul (Anatta)?
3. Do you accept that Jesus is son of God?
4. Do you accept that Mohammad's message is the last that God will ever send?

 

[CG Didymus]

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

All the guy was saying that they had to use terms that were familiar to the rural Indians to teach them about the Baha'i Faith. If the Baha'is only used Shia Islamic terms, I don't think Christians would have related well to the Baha'i Faith. And there was a problem mentioned in the article with Baha'is using Islamic terms.

 

[F1fan]

Not at all. And if I were that would be easy to do.
Now you might call it a fusion furnace, and I might call it a shining chariot of gold flying across the sky, but we would both agree that there was something there that is blinding us and making us warm.

If I were color blind and you could see colors, you could demonstrate to me that colors exist, even though I cannot perceive them, That is what I am asking you to do.

Right.

It's as if certain theists has some sort of extra sensory perception that allows them to sense a supernatural or divine, and we atheists just don't have this ability.

Oddly, it's the opposite. Humans evolved with an innate, evolved train to believe in social/tribal concepts, and religion is the result. It's estimated about 85% of humans are "wired for God". This leaves the rest of us 15% as non-believers. So a large majority have a prevalence to adopt a religious framework and pass them on to others. There is a minority who isn't convinced and questions these popular frameworks of belief. Theists are notorious for not being able to explain how their beliefs can be reached rationally and objectively. This is not the problem of non-believers, it is the problem for believers.