Baha'i groups discuss the Covenant of Baha'u'llah

[TransmutingSoul]

Can you name the "covenant" and how it was broken in Hinduism and Buddhism?

In these faiths the Covenant that is the most obvious is that of the promised return. The inference being that we must be prepared to accept a new Avatar.

We can consider rhe Promise that Krishna made many centuries ago to His beloved disciple, Arjuna, which is the same context of the major Covenant we find in the Bible, which was given like this:

“Whenever righteousness or goodness declines due to the rise of evil, then I come. For the protection of the good people and destruction of evil people, for re-establishing Dharma, I am born in every age and era.”

The connotation is that we are to embrace the new Avatar.

Acts 3:19-21 "Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago...."

Regards Tony

 

[bahamut19]

In these faiths the Covenant that is the most obvious is that of the promised return. The inference being that we must be prepared to accept a new Avatar.

We can consider rhe Promise that Krishna made many centuries ago to His beloved disciple, Arjuna, which is the same context of the major Covenant we find in the Bible, which was given like this:

“Whenever righteousness or goodness declines due to the rise of evil, then I come. For the protection of the good people and destruction of evil people, for re-establishing Dharma, I am born in every age and era.”

The connotation is that we are to embrace the new Avatar.

Acts 3:19-21 "Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago...."

Regards Tony

And this is the only Covenant Baha'u'llah discusses. God is fairly consistent with most things.

 

[trident765]

There is only One Baha'i Faith CG, it is called the Baha'i Faith and does not have Haifan in front if it.

That Baha'i Faith is the ONLY Faith Given by Baha'u'llah for this age, no other is given by Baha'u'llah but the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i Faith has a written and validated Covenant that appoints Abdul'baha, then Shoghi Effendi and confirns the position of the Universal House of Justice to guide the Baha'i's.

Why this conversation will go nowhere, is that the sickness of trying to divide the Baha'i Faith has zero foundations and the attempts to raise any proof to the contrary has to ignore completely the Covenant given by Baha'u'llah. There is absolutely no circumventing the Covenant.

I put the bold in to indicate why discussion on the Covenant being in error, is 100% pointless. It has more then been validated and has been operating since the passing of Baha’u’llah and then Abdul'baha and then Shoghi Effendi, it stood strong and those that tried to break it were cut from the tree.

Regards Tony
.

This post should be shown to anyone who has been misled into thinking that Bahais are any more tolerant than other religions like Christianity or Islam. Because whereas there are some Methodists who might call Episcopalians their brothers in Christ, this post shows the universal attitude of all Haifan Bahais towards members of other Bahai sects, which is that Haifan Bahais are unitedly hateful towards members of other Bahai sects, and not willing to tolerate them.

The crux of the difference between Haifan and Unitarian Bahais is this: Both Haifans and Unitarian Bahais agree that Baha'u'llah named both Abdul Baha and Mirza Muhammad Ali as his successors. But Haifans believe Abdul Baha had the authority to override Baha'u'llah's appointment of Mirza Muhammad Ali and replace him with a different successor, whereas Unitarian Bahais do not. For this difference, Haifans say that Unitarians are infected with a spiritual disease, have a "sickness of trying to divide the Baha'i Faith", and that they must be shunned and excommunicated. They say these things while touting their religion as one of unity and tolerance. Seriously?

 

[Trailblazer]

This post should be shown to anyone who has been misled into thinking that Bahais are any more tolerant than other religions like Christianity or Islam. Because whereas there are some Methodists who might call Episcopalians their brothers in Christ,

That is not a good analogy because Methodists who might call Episcopalians are both Protestants. How many Catholics and Protestants consider themselves brothers in Christ?

this post shows the universal attitude of all Haifan Bahais towards members of other Bahai sects, which is that Haifan Bahais are unitedly hateful towards members of other Bahai sects, and not willing to tolerate them.

I am not a Haifan Baha'i, and I resent being referred to as such. I am just a Baha'i, a follower of Baha'u'llah and I am a member a religion called the Baha'i Faith. There are other Baha'i groups who believe in Baha'u'llah and go by another name but there are no sects of the Baha'i Faith.

This is not the universal attitude of all Baha'is that you call Haifan Bahais towards members of other Baha'i groups, as it is not the attitude of every Baha'i. Moreover, Baha'is who you refer to as Haifan Baha'is are not unitedly hateful towards members of other Baha'i groups, and unwilling to tolerate them.

How tolerant are you of those who you refer to as Haifan Baha'is?

The crux of the difference between Haifan and Unitarian Bahais is this: Both Haifans and Unitarian Bahais agree that Baha'u'llah named both Abdul Baha and Mirza Muhammad Ali as his successors. But Haifans believe Abdul Baha had the authority to override Baha'u'llah's appointment of Mirza Muhammad Ali and replace him with a different successor, whereas Unitarian Bahais do not.

Although it has been drummed into me all my life that I need to be firm in the Covenant, I am not going to weigh in on this since I do not know enough about it. It never really mattered to me and it doesn't matter much to me now. I value the writings of Abdu'l-Baha an d Shoghi Effendi because I believe they are true, not because they were appointed as successors to Baha'u'llah.

For this difference, Haifans say that Unitarians are infected with a spiritual disease, have a "sickness of trying to divide the Baha'i Faith", and that they must be shunned and excommunicated. They say these things while touting their religion as one of unity and tolerance. Seriously?

Sure, maybe most Baha'is who you refer to as Haifans say these things because that is what they have been taught so they believe it, but not all Baha'is think this way or say these things.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The crux of the difference between Haifan and Unitarian Bahais is this: Both Haifans and Unitarian Bahais agree that Baha'u'llah named both Abdul Baha and Mirza Muhammad Ali as his successors.

Firstly there is only the Baha'i Faith, your use of Haifan shows that someone has created a division to which is 100% against the Message given by Baha'u'llah.

I reply to this to point out an error in your statement, not to discuss it further with you, this is a spiritual sickness, as the Covenant is clear as the noonday sun on this matter.

The Baha'i do not agree that Mirza Muhammad Ali was a successor, as that was 100% dependent upon His own actions in adherence to the Covenant. Abdul'baha had the authority to determine if Mirza Muhammad Ali was suitable for the position.

The history of why Abdul'baha chose Shoghi Effendi as the person that had the required qualities is available for all to read.

The sorry tale of the machinations of Mirza Muhammad Ali were recorded by Abdul'baha.

"..Ye know well what the hands of the Center of Sedition, Mirza Muhammad Ali, and his associates have wrought. Among his doings, one of them is the corruption of the Sacred Text whereof ye are all aware, the Lord be praised, and know that it is evident, proven and confirmed by the testimony of his brother, Mirza Badi’u’llah, whose confession is written in his own handwriting, beareth his seal, is printed and spread abroad. This is but one of his misdeeds. … In short, according to the explicit Divine Text the least transgression shall make of this man a fallen creature, and what transgression is more grievous than attempting to destroy the Divine Edifice, breaking the Covenant, erring from the Testament, falsifying the Holy Text, sowing the seeds of doubt, calumniating ‘Abdu’l-Baha, advancing claims for which God hath sent down no warrant, kindling mischief and striving to shed the very blood of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, … Beware lest ye approach this man, for to approach him is worse than approaching fire!" (Abdu’l-Baha’s Will and Testament, 20)

Who would want to place fealty on to such a deceptive person as Mirza Muhammad Ali.

Regards Tony

 

[trident765]

I am not a Haifan Baha'i, and I resent being referred to as such. I am just a Baha'i, a follower of Baha'u'llah and I am a member a religion called the Baha'i Faith.

It's just a descriptive term. Haifans resent being called Haifan Bahais, because the "Haifan" qualifier implies the existence of other kinds of Bahais, and Haifan Bahais want people to believe that there is only one kind of Bahai. I'm sorry to offend you and other Haifan Bahais, but I must use the "Haifan" qualifier because it is consistent with the reality that Haifan Baha'ism is just one interpretation among the many possible interpretations of the Bahai writings.

This is not the universal attitude of all Baha'is that you call Haifan Bahais towards members of other Baha'i groups, as it is not the attitude of every Baha'i. Moreover, Baha'is who you refer to as Haifan Baha'is are not unitedly hateful towards members of other Baha'i groups, and unwilling to tolerate them. How tolerant are you of those who you refer to as Haifan Baha'is?

Ok fair enough. In my opinion, the doctrinal assumptions of Haifan Baha'ism would lead one to be hateful of other Bahai groups. But I suppose that if in spite of this a Haifan Baha'i is not hateful of other Bahai groups, I would have nothing against this Haifan Bahai.

Although it has been drummed into me all my life that I need to be firm in the Covenant, I am not going to weigh in on this since I do not know enough about it. It never really mattered to me and it doesn't matter much to me now. I value the writings of Abdu'l-Baha an d Shoghi Effendi because I believe they are true, not because they were appointed as successors to Baha'u'llah.

I agree that Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi were insightful at times.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If this thread continues, I will post the history of Mirza Muhammad Ali and all of his transgressions. They are already available for all to read, I will just be making people aware of them and the stark contrast to the life of Abdul-Baha. Abdul-Baha being the Light, and Mirza Muhammad Ali the darkness.

It is an epic saga of good vs evil.

This is not about hate of any person, in fact naught but Love and good wishes upon all humanity, it is about identifying a fatal spiritual sickness, one Baha'u'llah warned against and gave the elixer to, the elixir being the Covenant

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

In these faiths the Covenant that is the most obvious is that of the promised return. The inference being that we must be prepared to accept a new Avatar.

We can consider rhe Promise that Krishna made many centuries ago to His beloved disciple, Arjuna, which is the same context of the major Covenant we find in the Bible, which was given like this:

“Whenever righteousness or goodness declines due to the rise of evil, then I come. For the protection of the good people and destruction of evil people, for re-establishing Dharma, I am born in every age and era.”

The connotation is that we are to embrace the new Avatar.

There is a list of 10 incarnations of Vishnu. Then I found a list that had 24. In both, after Krishna comes Buddha, and then one more incarnation to come in the end of the age, Kalki. Where's Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah?

But in the Baha'i Faith, where are the incarnations that came before Krishna? Again, too easy to make generalizations and find ways to make pieces of other religions fit into what Baha'is claim as true.

Also, where did Baha'u'llah say that Krishna or Buddha were manifestations? If he didn't, then why did they later get included in the list? But then why, as with all the other major religions, Baha'is don't agree with many of the beliefs of that religion... even if that belief is supported in the Scriptures of that religion? I already know the answer.

We've discussed this many times. I believe that the people, probably the religious leaders, made up the religion. Baha'is say that a manifestation gave the people the teachings. But then the religious leaders changed them and misinterpreted them. And naturally, there are no original teachings to compare with them to see if that claim is true. So, progressive revelation, true or not? It works for you, yeah. Does it work for me? No, it can too easily be all made up. But that's okay. That's why we're here.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's just a descriptive term. Haifans resent being called Haifan Bahais, because the "Haifan" qualifier implies the existence of other kinds of Bahais, and Haifan Bahais want people to believe that there is only one kind of Bahai. I'm sorry to offend you and other Haifan Bahais, but I must use the "Haifan" qualifier because it is consistent with the reality that Haifan Baha'ism is just one interpretation among the many possible interpretations of the Bahai writings.

There is only one religion called the Baha'i Faith. Members of the Baha'i Faith are called Baha'is which means “follower of Baha'u'llah”.

Since Baha'i means follower of Baha'u'llah, I acknowledge that there are other kinds of Baha'is who do not belong to the Baha'i Faith.
I am much more interested in WHY they do not want to belong to the Baha'i Faith than the fact that they don't want to. I suspect I know some of the reasons but it is always best to get these reasons from the source.

Yes, there are many possible interpretations of the Baha'i writings. That is true for all religious scriptures, especially the Bible, and that is why Christians do not agree on what all the Bible verses mean.

Words do not fly of the page and interpret themselves, they need to be read by people and interpreted to derive a meaning. Some verses are very straightforward, but all verses are not straightforward.

Ok fair enough. In my opinion, the doctrinal assumptions of Haifan Baha'ism would lead one to be hateful of other Bahai groups. But I suppose that if in spite of this a Haifan Baha'i is not hateful of other Bahai groups, I would have nothing against this Haifan Bahai.

I agree that the doctrinal assumptions of Baha'is who belong to the Baha'i Faith might lead one to be hateful of other Baha'i groups
I try not to hate anyone as that goes against what Baha'u'llah taught. Aside from that, somewhere Baha'u'llah said that if two people argue they are both wrong. The way most Baha'is deal with that is not to have discussions with any Baha'i who is not in the inner circle, but I am not like the other Baha'is. I question everything as I want to know the truth, whatever it is.

I agree that Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi were insightful at times.

So I guess you are saying that everything that wrote or said is not true? I do not believe that either one of them was infallible, but I do not discount what they wrote simply based upon my own personal desires. I have to have a good reason to think they were wrong in order to think that.

 

[Trailblazer]

If this thread continues, I will post the history of Mirza Muhammad Ali and all of his transgressions.

Please do. And if it is not too much trouble, please post the Will and Testament of Baha'u'llah again.

 

[trident765]

If this thread continues, I will post the history of Mirza Muhammad Ali and all of his transgressions. They are already available for all to read, I will just be making people aware of them and the stark contrast to the life of Abdul-Baha. Abdul-Baha being the Light, and Mirza Muhammad Ali the darkness.

It is an epic saga of good vs evil.

Here is Mirza Muhammad Ali's side of the story:

https://historyofbahaifaith.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/a-lost-history-of-bahai-faith.pdf

 

[CG Didymus]

I will post the history of Mirza Muhammad Ali and all of his transgressions.

In this article there's a list of Baha'u'llah's wives and their children and who got ex-communicated. Is this accurate?

Below is the Detail of the Family Members of Baha’u’llah. Interesting to note that many members of Bahaullah’s family were Ex-Communicated by Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi.

 

[trident765]

There is only one religion called the Baha'i Faith. Members of the Baha'i Faith are called Baha'is which means “follower of Baha'u'llah”.

Since Baha'i means follower of Baha'u'llah, I acknowledge that there are other kinds of Baha'is who do not belong to the Baha'i Faith.
I am much more interested in WHY they do not want to belong to the Baha'i Faith than the fact that they don't want to. I suspect I know some of the reasons but it is always best to get these reasons from the source.

This is the line of reasoning that led me to start rejecting Haifan Baha'ism:

The Institute Process was a failure -> The UHJ was working against the Baha'i community's interests by continuing to promote the Institute Process and give the Baha'i community false hope about its success -> Therefore the UHJ was clearly not infallible -> Therefore Abdul Baha was not infallible since he is the one who claimed the UHJ is infallible

Then I read "A Lost History of the Baha'i Faith", and it all came crashing down. I realized that Mirza Muhammad Ali, who I had been told all my life that he was an evil villain, was actually the good guy. So I consider myself a Unitarian Baha'i now.

I agree that the doctrinal assumptions of Baha'is who belong to the Baha'i Faith might lead one to be hateful of other Baha'i groups
I try not to hate anyone as that goes against what Baha'u'llah taught. Aside from that, somewhere Baha'u'llah said that if two people argue they are both wrong.

This sounds to me more like something Abdul Baha would say, but I am not sure.

So I guess you are saying that everything that wrote or said is not true? I do not believe that either one of them was infallible, but I do not discount what they wrote simply based upon my own personal desires. I have to have a good reason to think they were wrong in order to think that.

Both Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi were very much on the mark for some things. I particularly resonate with Shoghi Effendi's essay "Signs of Moral Downfall". But when they write things that seem wrong, I do not hesitate to reject it. Maybe they were wiser than me, but the internet gives me access to information that they did not have. Only Baha'u'llah seems consistently right about things enough that I would go out of my way to conform to what he says.

 

[Vinayaka]

There is a list of 10 incarnations of Vishnu. Then I found a list that had 24. In both, after Krishna comes Buddha, and then one more incarnation to come in the end of the age, Kalki. Where's Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah?

But in the Baha'i Faith, where are the incarnations that came before Krishna? Again, too easy to make generalizations and find ways to make pieces of other religions fit into what Baha'is claim as true.

Also, where did Baha'u'llah say that Krishna or Buddha were manifestations? If he didn't, then why did they later get included in the list? But then why, as with all the other major religions, Baha'is don't agree with many of the beliefs of that religion... even if that belief is supported in the Scriptures of that religion? I already know the answer.

We've discussed this many times. I believe that the people, probably the religious leaders, made up the religion. Baha'is say that a manifestation gave the people the teachings. But then the religious leaders changed them and misinterpreted them. And naturally, there are no original teachings to compare with them to see if that claim is true. So, progressive revelation, true or not? It works for you, yeah. Does it work for me? No, it can too easily be all made up. But that's okay. That's why we're here.

And of course, once again, I have to point out that Krishna is God, and only in just one sect of Hinduism.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is the line of reasoning that led me to start rejecting Haifan Baha'ism:

The Institute Process was a failure -> The UHJ was working against the Baha'i community's interests by continuing to promote the Institute Process and give the Baha'i community false hope about its success -> Therefore the UHJ was clearly not infallible -> Therefore Abdul Baha was not infallible since he is the one who claimed the UHJ is infallible

So you were once a member of the Baha'i Faith under the UHJ and you dropped out?
By the Institute Process do you mean Ruhi classes? I never got involved in those and I have not been an active member of the Baha'i community for over 20 years. Not only have I not been interested in what Baha'is are doing in their community activities, Baha'u'llah instructed us to teach the Faith above all else, and since Baha'is don't do that in the community I don't have much interest in what they are doing. Moreover, I don't see the point of community building when the Baha'i communities are so stagnant.

To be fair, I have been out of the loop for so long that I don't really know what the Baha'is are doing or why. A few months ago I started attending Feasts which are in person and on Zoom, partly because I wanted to know what the Baha'is are doing, but it seems as if they aren't doing anything much different than they did 20 years ago. Another reason I started attending Feasts is because my husband of 37 years passed on last year and I felt a need to be connected to people since I am very isolated.

Then I read "A Lost History of the Baha'i Faith", and it all came crashing down. I realized that Mirza Muhammad Ali, who I had been told all my life that he was an evil villain, was actually the good guy. So I consider myself a Unitarian Baha'i now.

Is there any way to know which version of the historical accounts are correct, any way to verify these accounts? I don't think so, so I guess it is all a matter of which history one is willing to believe.

This sounds to me more like something Abdul Baha would say, but I am not sure.

It was my late husband who used to always tell me that Baha'u'llah said that if two people argue they are both wrong. I found the quote once and it was from Baha'u'llah, so maybe I will find it again. @Truthseeker is my good friend and he knows what is in all the Writings so maybe he knows where it is.

Both Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi were very much on the mark for some things. I particularly resonate with Shoghi Effendi's essay "Signs of Moral Downfall". But when they write things that seem wrong, I do not hesitate to reject it. Maybe they were wiser than me, but the internet gives me access to information that they did not have. Only Baha'u'llah seems consistently right about things enough that I would go out of my way to conform to what he says.

I am the same way about Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. I disagree with some things Abdu'l-Baha said but not with anything that Shoghi Effendi said. I have not read Shoghi Effendi's essay "Signs of Moral Downfall" but I do believe humanity is suffering from a moral downfall.

I do not question anything Baha'u'llah wrote since I believe He was infallible, although I have a hard time believing certain things He wrote. That might sound contradictory but it isn't. For example I cannot believe that God is All-Loving given what I see as evidence to the contrary, but I am not saying that Baha'u'llah was wrong. If God is All-Loving but that has to mean something different from what I consider loving.

 

[bahamut19]

It was my late husband who used to always tell me that Baha'u'llah said that if two people argue they are both wrong. I found the quote once and it was from Baha'u'llah, so maybe I will find it again. @Truthseeker is my good friend and he knows what is in all the Writings so maybe he knows where it is.

A Compilation of Baha’u’llah’s Writings - Suriy-i-Haykal (Surah of the Temple)

bahaitranslationproject.netlify.app

150) Say, We have determined the proclamation with clear evidence; do not argue with anyone, and he who desires to proclaim sincerely for the face of his Lord, the Holy Spirit will support him and inspire him with what illuminates the breast of the world, and how the breasts of the seekers. O people of Bahá, subjugate the cities of hearts with the swords of wisdom and eloquence. Indeed, those who argue with the passions of their souls, they are in a manifest veil. Say, the sword of wisdom is hotter than fire and sharper than a sword of iron if you are among those who know. If you bring it forth with my name and authority, then open with it the cities of the hearts of those who have fortified themselves in the fortress of passion; thus, your Lord, the Most Exalted, commands you when He was seated under the swords of the polytheists.

A Compilation of Baha’u’llah’s Writings - Suriy-i-Ghusn (Tablet of the Branch)

bahaitranslationproject.netlify.app

12 Say, O people, do not spread corruption on the earth and do not argue with people, for this was not the way of those who took shelter in the shadow of their Lord, who were on the path of truth and trust. And if you find someone thirsty, give them a drink from the cup of Kawthar and Tasneem. And if you find someone with receptive ears, recite to them the verses of Allah, the Almighty, the Mighty, the Merciful.

I feel that the reason why arguing is not allowed by God is because of the feelings behind arguing, which is often anger or a sense of superiority. I hope I have not made anyone angry in what I have presented here so far. Two people mutually sharing perspectives, even if they differ, is not arguing as long as it is done in good faith and kindness. I think what trident and I have tried to portray is Unitarian Baha'is, while not believing in the Covenant the Baha'is who believe in the infallibility of Abdul-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the UHJ, still have a common bond in the revelation of Baha'u'llah. This really should be the emphasis of any Baha'i community. Unitarian Baha'is would never shun you, and would hope there is no talk of anyone in Baha'u'llah's family as being evil, nor anyone being evil. We are all equally human and created out of the love of God. The Covenant side does use language such as evil, poison, and shun in reaction to people who believe in Baha'u'llah, and these are words of conflict and contention.

Unity isn't about everyone thinking alike and feeling alike. The idea of unity in religion is based on the foundation of the oneness of God. Within this thread there have been discussions about Baha'i perspectives on faiths which were not common in Persia or the Ottoman Empire in that time. Baha'u'llah didn't need to list every Manifestation. God being one means all of creation comes from God. God can have millions of names, and the Manifestations can each have unique names, and express the millions of qualities of God in their own way according to the needs and understanding of the people. God didn't create everything the same. Earth doesn't have the same qualities as the Sun, yet they seem to work in unity with each other. Hydrogen is not the same as Oxygen, yet when united they are able to work as water. Christians and Hindus may have different perspectives about things such as reincarnation and resurrection, but united they may discover a better word to describe the phenomena of being born again. Unity has never been born from sameness. God created each of us with unique fingerprints, unique irises, and other unique attributes. We were never designed to be the same as the anyone else. Yet, we were designed to be united while being born different. This is what oneness is about. Every unique thing is part of the greater One. We can either pretend and say we believe in unity and Oneness while acting differently, or we can act in belief and focus on this Oneness.

 

[CG Didymus]

And of course, once again, I have to point out that Krishna is God, and only in just one sect of Hinduism.

It's all interesting to me but oh so complicated. Baha'is needed a Divine messenger from Hinduism, so they picked Krishna. But they didn't need that person to be an incarnation of one of the Gods, and they didn't need him to be teaching reincarnation. So, those things they explain away. They also had no use for any of the previous incarnations of Vishnu. And they didn't have any use for any of the other sects of Hinduism. And, actually, I don't know if they have any use for any of the various Hindu Scriptures.

All they needed was a man to make into one of the many manifestations sent by the Abrahamic God... But nothing else. Yes, it's all very interesting to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's all interesting to me but oh so complicated. Baha'is needed a Divine messenger from Hinduism, so they picked Krishna. But they didn't need that person to be an incarnation of one of the Gods, and they didn't need him to be teaching reincarnation. So, those things they explain away. They also had no use for any of the previous incarnations of Vishnu. And they didn't have any use for any of the other sects of Hinduism. And, actually, I don't know if they have any use for any of the various Hindu Scriptures.

All they needed was a man to make into one of the many manifestations sent by the Abrahamic God... But nothing else. Yes, it's all very interesting to me

You say that Baha'is need certain things but we don't. All of the older religions have been corrupted by man and we don't have any accurate history of the Manifestations of God or the religions that were established in their name. Baha'is don't need to explain away what is not accurate.
Baha'is do not need any of the things you say we need. We only need Baha'u'llah, who is the founder of our Faith.

Although Baha'is did not need any of the past Manifestations, God sent them to bring a message and complete a mission.
Who all these Manifestations were and what they did is all conjecture and it cannot be known unless Baha'u'llah wrote about them.

Why do you continue to talk about these older religions? The have no bearing on the Baha'i Faith. I never hear any Baha'is talk about them because they are not part of the Baha'i Faith. Moreover, Baha'u'llah instructed us to turn towards Baha'u'llah and what He revealed in the first sentence of the following passage.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder.” Gleanings, p. 171-172​

​

“Our purpose is to show that should the loved ones of God sanctify their hearts and their ears from the vain sayings that were uttered aforetime, and turn with their inmost souls to Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation, and to whatsoever things He hath manifested, such behavior would be regarded as highly meritorious in the sight of God….” Gleanings, p. 172​

To a Baha'i, What happened in the older religions does not matter anymore because the past has no bearing on the present age or the future. It is ancient history. Nor do we have any original scriptures written by a Manifestation of God, all we have is what men wrote about them decades or even hundreds of years later. How can this be accurately representing a revelation from God? It can't and it doesn't. One only needs to use logic to figure this out.

If you want to spend the rest of your life talking about the older religions and trying to make them all fit with the Baha'i Faith you can but they will never fit since they were never intended to fit.

Obviously, you never grasped the concept of progressive revelation, probably because you over-analyze it and try to make it fit with your conception of it, which is not what it is. The concept is really quite simple and all the extraneous details you talk about really don't matter.

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]​

​

This teaching is an interaction of simpler teachings and their implications. The basic concept relates closely to Bahá'í views on God's essential unity, and the nature of prophets, termed Manifestations of God. It also ties into Bahá'í views of the purpose and nature of religion, laws, belief, culture and history. Hence revelation is seen as both progressive and continuous, and therefore never ceases.[3]​

​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

 

[Trailblazer]

A Compilation of Baha’u’llah’s Writings - Suriy-i-Haykal (Surah of the Temple)
150) Say, We have determined the proclamation with clear evidence; do not argue with anyone, and he who desires to proclaim sincerely for the face of his Lord, the Holy Spirit will support him and inspire him with what illuminates the breast of the world, and how the breasts of the seekers. O people of Bahá, subjugate the cities of hearts with the swords of wisdom and eloquence. Indeed, those who argue with the passions of their souls, they are in a manifest veil. Say, the sword of wisdom is hotter than fire and sharper than a sword of iron if you are among those who know. If you bring it forth with my name and authority, then open with it the cities of the hearts of those who have fortified themselves in the fortress of passion; thus, your Lord, the Most Exalted, commands you when He was seated under the swords of the polytheists.

A Compilation of Baha’u’llah’s Writings - Suriy-i-Ghusn (Tablet of the Branch)
12 Say, O people, do not spread corruption on the earth and do not argue with people, for this was not the way of those who took shelter in the shadow of their Lord, who were on the path of truth and trust. And if you find someone thirsty, give them a drink from the cup of Kawthar and Tasneem. And if you find someone with receptive ears, recite to them the verses of Allah, the Almighty, the Mighty, the Merciful.

Thanks for providing those passages. I saved them and named them so I could find them again.
I used to argue with people on this forum but not anymore. A time came when I realized that was just my ego trying to prove I was right. That was a long time ago.

Certain people try to argue with me in an attempt to prove me wrong so they can think they are right, but I do not even respond. I give them an optimistic rating and move on.

I feel that the reason why arguing is not allowed by God is because of the feelings behind arguing, which is often anger or a sense of superiority.

Yes, I believe that is what it usually is, anger and a sense of suprriority, and I have seen this over and over again. Then there are other people who just enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. Count me out. I like discussions but I don't like to argue.

I hope I have not made anyone angry in what I have presented here so far. Two people mutually sharing perspectives, even if they differ, is not arguing as long as it is done in good faith and kindness. I think what trident and I have tried to portray is Unitarian Baha'is, while not believing in the Covenant the Baha'is who believe in the infallibility of Abdul-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the UHJ, still have a common bond in the revelation of Baha'u'llah.

I cannot speak for other Baha'is, only for myself. You two have not made me angry as I can recognize that your sharing is done in good faith and kindness. I do not care what the other Baha'is think, I think we have a common bond in the revelation of Baha'u'llah. I used to disagree with my late husband about certain things that are in the Writings, but we always had a common bond since we both believed in Baha'u'llah.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is "An Epistle to the Bahá'í World" by Mirza Badi'u'llah. It is the sworn statement from the half-brother of `Abdu'l-Bahá. It is about Badi'u'llah's exit from, return to, and then exit again from the Bahá'í Faith. Translated from the Persian in 1907

It is important as Abdul'baha quotes this document in His Will and Testament.

Bahá'í Library Online

Baha'i articles, books, translations, and historical materials

bahai-library.com

"This epistle was written by him to set forth the reasons for his "return" and to inform the sincere seekers after the Truth concerning the attitude, the conduct and the actions of Mirza Mohammed Ali. The original Persian manuscript of the author, with his seal upon it, is preserved in Egypt, where the booklet has been printed and published throughout the Orient.

Ameen Ullah Fareed, M.D. Chicago, Illinois, August 27, 1907".

I will not put in any quotes, if people are interested they can read the document themsleves, one place in the document that Abdul-Baha quotes starts on page 12.

".......Now this servant (Mirza Badi'u'llah)
will forget all he has heard from other souls concerning the matter and will only write that which he has seen with his own eyes and heard [page 12] from their own tongues (i.e. of Mohammed Ali and his followers). thus may the truth of the matter be clear to all......"

That is the truth that Abdul-Baha faced.

Regards Tony