How are these Great Beings explained?

[oldbadger]

The Universal House of Justice will have the mandate to decide upon a constitution of a Baha'i government or state whereas laws for elections of Bahá'í Administration have already been laid down by Shoghi Effendi.

With regard to the above, the written word is that (in a Bahai World) Bahais would vote for LHJs, NHJs and the UHJ.

I like the picture in your avatar. Is that a new Bahai Temple?

 

[siti]

Bahaullah's mother tongue was Persian. According to Bahai Researchers, there are about 17000 works found from Bahaullah. Some of them a Book, and some of them Tablets of a few page, or just a page.
Many of these Writings (about half of it I would think) are in Classical Arabic.) The Language that was not Bahaullah's mother tongue. According to history, He did not have training in Arabic, but He was well versed in Arabic. Just Another mystery!



Good question.
This is known, because, when Bahaullah's knowledge of details of Books and religious traditions, was not through human learning, such as studying, or going to school or having teacher or books, then the source of knowledge must be supper natural. Naturally people know details of what is written in books only if they have read them, or had a teacher, but if a person knows the details of books without human learning, that means he knew them through supper natural inspiration. Is there another option?




Anybody could say. But how many you know who have known details of books, without reading them before?

You seriously have to think about what you are saying here.

1. Baha'i's claim that the scriptural traditions are handed down imperfectly
2. Baha'u'llah is given divinely revealed knowledge of this imperfectly handed down tradition - but only the parts that were available in Persian and Arabic in the place where he lived
3. But he honestly had not read the books - he just knew what was in them
There is no mystery here - Baha'u'llah's understanding of religions (other than, perhaps, Islam which was his native religion - but even that was probably based on his reading of the Qur'an as much as his childhood inculcation) was based on what he had read about them - an incomplete knowledge which is betrayed by the Baha'i misinterpretations we have been reading in this thread. No mystery at all as far as I can see.

 

[Vinayaka]

Hi....
Female Bahais do have the vote, can sit upon local and national spiritual assemblies, which one day might be houses of justice.
But they are excluded from the Universal (World) House of Justice, and it looks as if they might be overlooked from some duties.... I remember reading that males would handle treasure trove claims or finds, or something like that.

But you.... and I.... shall be voteless!!

Yes, of course. But I don't want a vote. You?

 

[siti]

So relying on doctrines of belief today is at best a weak determinant of what these Great Beings really taught.

Indeed! So we are we really on safer ground by accepting the interpretations of a 19th century Persian noble who had apparently (according to the Baha'i tradition) never even read the books that purport to support these doctrines of belief? I'm sorry but the more I read about it, the more preposterous it appears to be.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, i am aware that there are many who claimed to be Prophets of God, or God's incarnations, who claim to have a new message from God, but only Those Religions which are Truly from God, can remain. The false religions vanish quickly, often

My false religion, it seems has been around some 7000 plus years. Paganism is making a return. The ones founded by Christian reformers like Luther are still here. Heck, even the one founded by Henry the 8th is still around after 500 years. You're making this too easy.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, and clearly, something gave, and I'm happy for you. That belief was one of the main intellectual reasons I knew I was Hindu. Back then the analogy was either drawing a circle around all of humanity, or drawing a box with clear barriers of inside and outside, the ole 'us versus them' mentality.

In life we need to be honest with ourselves and with others. During my studies and work I have been privileged to have met people from many different cultures and background. My experience is that there are many wonderful people from all Faiths, and that Christians do not distinguish themselves from anyone else. The intellectual position of the Christian conservative despite centuries of scholarship has become progressively more tenuous during these modern times.

Edited: And yet part of me understands that the switch from Christianity to Bahai is little more than switching of prophets. There is still the undeniable need for a prophet. That's why, as you have stated, Baha fits better into the Abrahamic family of faiths.

I still fundamentally believe in Jesus and the bible as a source of Divine inspiration. The Baha'i Faith encourages that belief. Although there is clearly a framework that the Baha'i have for viewing the world there is a mountain of room for individuality and diversity I hope you will have come to appreciate that diversity from the very different Baha'is you have met on RF. Being a Baha'i works for me, and I don't feel I need to be something I'm not. I'm also happy to see different faiths working well for others such as yourself. It simply confirms my belief that God has always been with the peoples of the Indian subcontinent.

 

[Vinayaka]

Although there is clearly a framework that the Baha'i have for viewing the world there is a mountain of room for individuality and diversity I hope you will have come to appreciate that diversity from the very different Baha'is you have met on RF.

Yes I have most certainly come to notice, (if not appreciate perhaps) that diversity. What it enforces is that we are all individuals, based on part nature, part nurture. In Hinduism, the nature part would be the age of the soul, and the nurture part would be the differing experiences of this one lifetime.

Having worked in a predominant Christian culture, and with many colleagues from that faith, the same rainbow of diversity holds. I've had personal comments ranging from the rude, "You're going to hell", or "the truth hurts!" all the way to the encouraging, "Gosh, you're a heck of a better Christian than most of these people," All groups have their givers, their takers, their fools, and their wise.

You are a credit to your faith, and I mean that sincerely.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Indeed! So we are we really on safer ground by accepting the interpretations of a 19th century Persian noble who had apparently (according to the Baha'i tradition) never even read the books that purport to support these doctrines of belief? I'm sorry but the more I read about it, the more preposterous it appears to be.

It will be the work for future scholars of the Baha'i faith to determine to what extent Baha'u'llah had access to knowledge of cultures other than His own. He was exiled to Bagdad, Constantinople (Istanbul), Adrianople (Edirne), and eventually Akka (near Haifa, Israel). In regards to Buddhism and Hinduism He really didn't have a great deal to say.

Beyond education and cultural influences I presume its the innate knowledge of the Manifestations of God you find the most unbelievable. To properly discount that, you would need to demonstrate that Baha'u'llah's revelation is not Divinely inspired.

Good luck with that.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

1. Baha'i's claim that the scriptural traditions are handed down imperfectly

This statement you are making is too general, so it is not an accurate representation of what Bahai's believe.
Baha'is believe there has been misinterpretations and misunderstandings with regards to Recorded Traditions and verses of Holy Books, and that Bahaullah provided correct understanding of them. Even with regards to Bible, Bahais believe overall it is the Truth, with just some minor inaccuracies which are not significant.
Specifically, Bahaullah appeared among a People whose Religious beliefs were mostly Abrahamic, and in particular Islam. Thus, in order for Him to guide those people, He had to use the Recorded Traditions in the Islamic sources as well as Biblical Traditions. According to history, Bahaullah wrote His works in form of Tablets and Books to respond to questions, and to teach people, the Religious Truth, and that many Witnesses have said that Bahaullah wrote His works in front of them, without using other books to quote from. This is despite the fact that, He frequently quoted Recorded Traditions from His own memory and then explaining things.
It should be noted that, many of those who believed in Bahaullah, were Religious Scholars, who had spent many years in school to learn Religion, and in fact in the eye of those scholars, Bahaullah's knowledge was superior to them, and that Bahaullah provided deeper understanding of those verses of holy Books and Traditions. So, if those scholars who spent years to learn Religions saw their own knowledge subordinate to Bahaullah, then the fact that according to history, Bahaullah did not go to school to learn, and did not have the books to read from, and yet knowing them in details is a mystery. I am not sure how familiar you are with the Islamic recorded Traditions, but just to give you an Idea, there are literally a thousands books. Just imagin several time volume of the Bible or Quran. In Islamic Schools they study them. But Bahaullah had been able to quote from these books accurately right off from His mind.

3. But he honestly had not read the books - he just knew what was in them
There is no mystery here - Baha'u'llah's understanding of religions (other than, perhaps, Islam which was his native religion - but even that was probably based on his reading of the Qur'an as much as his childhood inculcation) was based on what he had read about them - an incomplete knowledge which is betrayed by the Baha'i misinterpretations we have been reading in this thread. No mystery at all as far as I can see.

If you read at least Book of Certitude you would get an idea, about the knowledge of Bahaullah with regards to Religious Traditions. It often takes a few months to read it, but according to history Bahaullah wrote it in 2 days.

Now, let me give you more information.
As i mentioned before, Bahaullah wrote about 17000 works. And also Abdulbaha wrote some 30 volumes. All of these in Bahai view are infallible Revelations. As you know, Bahai Faith has many enemies specially among the Shia Clergy in Persia. So, they have done so much efforts to find a mistake in all these Bahai Scriptures to refute it. Because all it takes is to prove there is a mistake in them, to prove it is not divinely revealed, as God does not make mistake. In many of these Books, Bahaullah or Abdulbaha from their memories quoted from history, recorded traditions or verses of holy Books. But I still have not seen that they have been able to prove any errors in them. That adds more mystery to this. Also, you may not be familiar with classical Arabic. In Persia, the Muslim Scholars spend many years in school trying to learn it. Bahaullah wrote in Arabic so rapidly and fluequently, without mistakes, and Khalil Gibran, an Arab Writer, after seeing Bahaullah's writings, said He has the most eloquent Arabic. Despite the fact that Bahaullah did not study Arabic according to history. I do not mean that you have to believe in Bahaullah. I am just providing historical information, and not just speculations. Now think about this, that Bahaullah had so many enemies, who tried and still try to refute Him, so, if they could find where His learning comes from, but to the best of my knowledge they could not. If you find some real information, which is not speculation, I like to learn. It is irrelevent if those Recorded Traditions which Bahaullah quoted from them are important or not. Neither it matters if Arabic is an important language or useless. What the point is here, still to have their knowledge, one must spend years to study and learn, and even then, people usually make mistake. But Not Bahaullah

 

[Vinayaka]

Many Hindu sages spoke from the heart or intuition without studying a thing. Some were even anti-book. My Guru's Guru's Guru was known for scolding in an insightful way at people about 'It' (divine knowledge) not being in books. Books are intellectual, other people's thoughts on paper. If there are truths in them, one cannot realise those truths any other way but from personal experience, or what is termed direct cognition. As for knowing facts and stuff, that would just be considered a show-off of a siddhi, and nothing special at all. Most simply wouldn't do it, as it's not actually helpful to bringing your fellow man on to the same realisations.

So this certainly isn't something new to Hindus. It's basic knowledge. Whether or not anything is actually divinely inspired in this way is always up for debate, just as an intuitive insight may be just the intellect reaching some conclusion, based on a need for attention, hidden desires, or some other false thing. The spiritual ego knows full well how to deceive it's own mind.

 

[Vinayaka]

This statement you are making is too general, so it is not an accurate representation of what Bahai's believe.

Most of us on this thread are quite clear now about the beliefs of the Bahai. Do you have any personal insights on it, or are you just going to continue large chunks of 'cut and paste' which really isn't debate at all?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

My false religion, it seems has been around some 7000 plus years. Paganism is making a return. The ones founded by Christian reformers like Luther are still here. Heck, even the one founded by Henry the 8th is still around after 500 years. You're making this too easy.

I knew you would say something like this.

Let me explain more....
First, speaking accurately, there are Religions and there are Sects (or denominations).
What I intend by Religion is when someone claims to have a new Revelation. For example Jesus established a New Religion by claiming He has a new Revelation from God, so in that sense He claimed He has a new Revelation which supersedes Religion of Moses. But sect or denominations are the branches or offshoots of the Religion. So, for example Catholism or Protestants are sects of Religions of Christ.
So, if the Religion may be likened to a Tree, the sects are branches of the Tree.
In like manner, Muhammad claimed to have a new Revelation which supersedes Christianity. He established Religion of Islam. Now Islam is like a Tree, and its sects are like branches of that Tree. For example Ahmadiyeh, Shia, Sunni..are different branches of the Tree of Islam. They do not claim to have a new Revelation that supersedes Quran.
So, Christ said Good Trees remain, He is talking about Religions, and of course its branches which are connected to it. So, if Islam was not a good Tree, He would have not remained.
In this sense, anyone who claims to have a New Revelation, if it is false, would not remain.
Those you referred to are Branches of Religions. So, for example, Hinduism, is a True Religion which has remained. It has many branches, which have remained by the virtue of its connection to the Main Tree. Even if sects may have some misinterpretation, they still remain, because they are branches of a good Tree.

 

[sayak83]

I knew you would say something like this.

Let me explain more....
First, speaking accurately, there are Religions and there are Sects (or denominations).
What I intend by Religion is when someone claims to have a new Revelation. For example Jesus established a New Religion by claiming He has a new Revelation from God, so in that sense He claimed He has a new Revelation which supersedes Religion of Moses. But sect or denominations are the branches or offshoots of the Religion. So, for example Catholism or Protestants are sects of Religions of Christ.
So, if the Religion may be likened to a Tree, the sects are branches of the Tree.
In like manner, Muhammad claimed to have a new Revelation which supersedes Christianity. He established Religion of Islam. Now Islam is like a Tree, and its sects are like branches of that Tree. For example Ahmadiyeh, Shia, Sunni..are different branches of the Tree of Islam. They do not claim to have a new Revelation that supersedes Quran.
So, Christ said Good Trees remain, He is talking about Religions, and of course its branches which are connected to it. So, if Islam was not a good Tree, He would have not remained.
In this sense, anyone who claims to have a New Revelation, if it is false, would not remain.
Those you referred to are Branches of Religions. So, for example, Hinduism, is a True Religion which has remained. It has many branches, which have remained by the virtue of its connection to the Main Tree. Even if sects may have some misinterpretation, they still remain, because they are branches of a good Tree.

Does not work for either Hinduism, which claims continuous direct experience to its sages right down to today, Buddhists

This statement you are making is too general, so it is not an accurate representation of what Bahai's believe.
Baha'is believe there has been misinterpretations and misunderstandings with regards to Recorded Traditions and verses of Holy Books, and that Bahaullah provided correct understanding of them. Even with regards to Bible, Bahais believe overall it is the Truth, with just some minor inaccuracies which are not significant.
Specifically, Bahaullah appeared among a People whose Religious beliefs were mostly Abrahamic, and in particular Islam. Thus, in order for Him to guide those people, He had to use the Recorded Traditions in the Islamic sources as well as Biblical Traditions. According to history, Bahaullah wrote His works in form of Tablets and Books to respond to questions, and to teach people, the Religious Truth, and that many Witnesses have said that Bahaullah wrote His works in front of them, without using other books to quote from. This is despite the fact that, He frequently quoted Recorded Traditions from His own memory and then explaining things.
It should be noted that, many of those who believed in Bahaullah, were Religious Scholars, who had spent many years in school to learn Religion, and in fact in the eye of those scholars, Bahaullah's knowledge was superior to them, and that Bahaullah provided deeper understanding of those verses of holy Books and Traditions. So, if those scholars who spent years to learn Religions saw their own knowledge subordinate to Bahaullah, then the fact that according to history, Bahaullah did not go to school to learn, and did not have the books to read from, and yet knowing them in details is a mystery. I am not sure how familiar you are with the Islamic recorded Traditions, but just to give you an Idea, there are literally a thousands books. Just imagin several time volume of the Bible or Quran. In Islamic Schools they study them. But Bahaullah had been able to quote from these books accurately right off from His mind.




If you read at least Book of Certitude you would get an idea, about the knowledge of Bahaullah with regards to Religious Traditions. It often takes a few months to read it, but according to history Bahaullah wrote it in 2 days.

Now, let me give you more information.
As i mentioned before, Bahaullah wrote about 17000 works. And also Abdulbaha wrote some 30 volumes. All of these in Bahai view are infallible Revelations. As you know, Bahai Faith has many enemies specially among the Shia Clergy in Persia. So, they have done so much efforts to find a mistake in all these Bahai Scriptures to refute it. Because all it takes is to prove there is a mistake in them, to prove it is not divinely revealed, as God does not make mistake. In many of these Books, Bahaullah or Abdulbaha from their memories quoted from history, recorded traditions or verses of holy Books. But I still have not seen that they have been able to prove any errors in them. That adds more mystery to this. Also, you may not be familiar with classical Arabic. In Persia, the Muslim Scholars spend many years in school trying to learn it. Bahaullah wrote in Arabic so rapidly and fluequently, without mistakes, and Khalil Gibran, an Arab Writer, after seeing Bahaullah's writings, said He has the most eloquent Arabic. Despite the fact that Bahaullah did not study Arabic according to history. I do not mean that you have to believe in Bahaullah. I am just providing historical information, and not just speculations. Now think about this, that Bahaullah had so many enemies, who tried and still try to refute Him, so, if they could find where His learning comes from, but to the best of my knowledge they could not. If you find some real information, which is not speculation, I like to learn. It is irrelevent if those Recorded Traditions which Bahaullah quoted from them are important or not. Neither it matters if Arabic is an important language or useless. What the point is here, still to have their knowledge, one must spend years to study and learn, and even then, people usually make mistake. But Not Bahaullah

I am going to ask you what is specifically wrong with the theology, metaphysics, ethics and worldviews in
1) Rig Veda
2) Upanisads
3)Gita
4) Yoga sutra, Nyaya Sutra and other sutras of Hinduism

That makes it so urgently necessary for me to follow Bahia instead of Hinduism.?

Also am I supposed to give up praying to Hindu idols through puja? Yes? No? Reasons. Can I continue to worship Kaali? Yes? No? Reasons. Just checking how much Hinduism Bahia can tolerate.

 

[loverofhumanity]

With regard to the above, the written word is that (in a Bahai World) Bahais would vote for LHJs, NHJs and the UHJ.

I like the picture in your avatar. Is that a new Bahai Temple?

Yes. That's a photo of the Universal House of Justice at nit.

 

[Vinayaka]

I knew you would say something like this.

Let me explain more....
First, speaking accurately, there are Religions and there are Sects (or denominations).
What I intend by Religion is when someone claims to have a new Revelation. For example Jesus established a New Religion by claiming He has a new Revelation from God, so in that sense He claimed He has a new Revelation which supersedes Religion of Moses. But sect or denominations are the branches or offshoots of the Religion. So, for example Catholism or Protestants are sects of Religions of Christ.
So, if the Religion may be likened to a Tree, the sects are branches of the Tree.
In like manner, Muhammad claimed to have a new Revelation which supersedes Christianity. He established Religion of Islam. Now Islam is like a Tree, and its sects are like branches of that Tree. For example Ahmadiyeh, Shia, Sunni..are different branches of the Tree of Islam. They do not claim to have a new Revelation that supersedes Quran.
So, Christ said Good Trees remain, He is talking about Religions, and of course its branches which are connected to it. So, if Islam was not a good Tree, He would have not remained.
In this sense, anyone who claims to have a New Revelation, if it is false, would not remain.
Those you referred to are Branches of Religions. So, for example, Hinduism, is a True Religion which has remained. It has many branches, which have remained by the virtue of its connection to the Main Tree. Even if sects may have some misinterpretation, they still remain, because they are branches of a good Tree.

Yes, thank you for explaining it in your own words rather than just cutting and pasting the words of someone else. It makes for better discussion. Obviously, not being a Bahai myself, I disagree with most of this simply because progressive manifestation is outside the Hindu paradigm. We simply don't see it that way ... at all. Yes, some branches might be closer, just as some Bahai individuals have a better feel for the differing paradigms.

Besides all that, in order to be a renowned mystic in my branch of Hinduism, one has to be brahmacarya, or celibate, which basically excludes any of the Abrahamic prophets from access to any the depth of inner knowledge we Hindus talk about.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes. That's a photo of the Universal House of Justice at nit.

Where's nit?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Does not work for either Hinduism, which claims continuous direct experience to its sages right down to today, Buddhists

It does work, because those sages do not claim to have a new Revelation in a sense that, they have new set of teachings or Laws that replaces previous Religious Laws. So, regardless if what they claim about their experience is true of false, they are still a sect of Hinduism, not another Main Religion.
But for instance Buddhism, is another Tree which was planted after Hinduism by Buddha. In that sense it supersedes Hinduism. So, if Tree of Buddhism was not planted by God, it would not have remained. This is how I view it, based on the analogy that Jesus said. The same analogy is repeated in Quran, and Bahai Scriptures.

I am going to ask you what is specifically wrong with the theology, metaphysics, ethics and worldviews in
1) Rig Veda
2) Upanisads
3)Gita
4) Yoga sutra, Nyaya Sutra and other sutras of Hinduism

That makes it so urgently necessary for me to follow Bahia instead of Hinduism.?

Also am I supposed to give up praying to Hindu idols through puja? Yes? No? Reasons. Can I continue to worship Kaali? Yes? No? Reasons. Just checking how much Hinduism Bahia can tolerate.

To become a Bahai means, one has accepted that Bahaullah is a Messenger of God. Once a person declairs that, then it is upto him, how much he can follow Bahaullah, or follow whatever else as well. No body in Bahai Faith would come and tell someone else, why you are doing these additional things. Of course some of those practices are not part of Bahai teachings. But the culture of the Bahai Faith is, every person is responsible for himself.

 

[siti]

all it takes is to prove there is a mistake in them, to prove it is not divinely revealed, as God does not make mistake.

I searched the Book of Certitude (for about three minutes) and found a mistake on page 7:

"Among the Prophets was Noah. For nine hundred and fifty years He prayerfully exhorted..."

- of course we all know that no human has lived for 950 years - this is a mistake from the Torah perpetuated in the Qur'an and subsequently by Baha'u'llah in the Book of Certitude. Presumably God is aware that no human has ever lived for 950 years...more to the point, this ultimately points back to the acceptance (I mentioned it earlier) of the Torah as a book of Truth. Clearly it is not - and Baha'u'llah, having declared the impossible age of Noah as if it were a fact in the Book of Certitude, then goes on, in the quote below, to denounce the record as among the "conflicting tales and traditions" that should be "entirely disregarded". So God not only made a mistake but also changed his mind. Isn't this the precise kind of inconsistency in the (copying of the revealed) scriptural record that made it necessary for a new Manifestation to arise?

"Furthermore, among existing historical records differences are to be found, and each of the various peoples of the world hath its own account of the age of the earth and of its history. Some trace their history as far back as eight thousand years, others as far as twelve thousand years. To any one that hath read the book of Juk it is clear and evident how much the accounts given by the various books have differed.

Please God thou wilt turn thine eyes towards the Most Great Revelation, and entirely disregard these conflicting tales and traditions."

("Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh", 2nd. ed.
(Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1982), pp. 174-175)

Neither it matters if Arabic is an important language or useless.

Not according to Baha'u'llah:

"There is no doubt about the sweetness of the Persian tongue, but it lacketh the breadth of Arabic.Many things cannot be adequately expressed in Persian, which is to say that the word bearing that meaning hath never been coined. On the other hand, Arabic possesseth numerous words for every thing, and no other language on earth can match Arabic for capacity and breadth."

Baha'u'llah, The Tablet to Mirza Abu'l-Fadl Concerning the Questions of Manakji Limji Hataria

Now - I have quoted Baha'u'llah's own words (consistently) to support my points. Perhaps you would now provide some actual evidence for your contentions that Baha'u'llah had no learned knowledge of either Arabic (which language he spoke authoritatively on) or the Torah, Qu'ran, Gospels or Hindu writings that he did comment on. Also, evidence of these "many witnesses" and "religious scholars" that claimed to have seen Baha'u'llah write the inspired message in front of their eyes. Just give us a list of names - I can look them up myself.

 

[Vinayaka]

It does work, because those sages do not claim to have a new Revelation in a sense that, they have new set of teachings or Laws that replaces previous Religious Laws.

A Hindu (or a couple of Hindus) are declaring that the Bahai ideas do not work for them. But you are telling us (the Hindus) that it does work. I interpret this to mean you think you know more about Hinduism than we do ourselves. I find that rather condescending in tone. Why not just say, "Well, if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you."

Again ... the dharmic paradigm cannot be neatly slid into the Abrahamic paradigm as a precursor to it. Zoroastrianism, yes, that does work. Our 'trees' to use your analogy, are extremely different trees. The nature of God, ritual, the nature of the soul, karma, reincarnation, and much much more. I have found that generally Bahais know very little about Sanatana dharma, but only some will admit such.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That is what I figured. I understood about all the war and everything, inner and outer peace, and all of that.

Though, if I took it personally, that would mean I have no peace because I am not in the Bahai community.

The community or society are made up of actual individual people. Individual Christians, Muslims, Hindu, and Buddhist (and others) have their faith with peace with others. Bahai are not the only ones.

You can't judge a person's peace and their displacement from Bahai on society's problems. Diversity means respecting people who have their own peace

inner peace and real peace

without being part of the Bahai community.

If that is impossible to do, then your faith is specifically a dominate faith. Nothing wrong with it in and of itself. Everyone has a right to believe what they choose.

We don't have peace now is Baha'u'llah is out of the equation​

I have to quote you directly. When I don't, it seems you go around the bush. This is my whole point.

We can.

You are just not giving other religions enough credit to do so without incorporating their teachings into the Bahai faith. It's completely disrespectful without their agreement in the matter. But if this is how you see it, there will be no agreement.

You are contributing to division just as every other person you say are. This post proves it. I don't know what else to say.

If these religions were sufficient for our age we would have world peace by now. We have billions of 'religious people' on this planet yet no world peace exists and we even wars and conflicts between them. How so?