• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How are these Great Beings explained?

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
If the world had all followed the path of ahimsa or love one another then there wouldn't be any need for a new religion.

But that hasn't been the case. So I personally believe that we do need Baha'u'llah as He has been able to bring together a community which is a cross section of humanity that basically doesn't have any of these conflicts between races, religions and nations that exist outside the Baha'i Communty. Anyone that can do that to me is as a Divine Physician.

I believe that YOU need Baha'i', yes. But why do you have to put 'WE' need Baha'i'. Just as Sayak explained in the previous post, this is why Hindus and other non-Baha'i human see Baha'i as being exclusivist. It's not because you think you need Baha'i, but it's because you think we ALL need Bahai. Hindus have practiced ahimsa for thousands of years before Baha'u'llah came along.

And this is the core of why your words are interpreted here as disrespectful You just told me that I need Baha'u'llah, when I don't believe in prophets at all. Telling another person what to believe is just rude.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
I believe that YOU need Baha'i', yes. But why do you have to put 'WE' need Baha'i'. Just as Sayak explained in the previous post, this is why Hindus and other non-Baha'i human see Baha'i as being exclusivist. It's not because you think you need Baha'i, but it's because you think we ALL need Bahai. Hindus have practiced ahimsa for thousands of years before Baha'u'llah came along.

And this is the core of why your words are interpreted here as disrespectful You just told me that I need Baha'u'llah, when I don't believe in prophets at all. Telling another person what to believe is just rude.


As I have said before. I have nothing but praise for ahimsa and Hindus.

Let me rephrase it then.

We Baha'is have discovered that in order to reconcile our previous antagonisms and prejudices of race, religion and nationality, turning to Baha'u'llah and His Teachings was the solution.

I hope this helps.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
As I have said before. I have nothing but praise for ahimsa and Hindus.

Let me rephrase it then.

We Baha'is have discovered that in order to reconcile our previous antagonisms and prejudices of race, religion and nationality, turning to Baha'u'llah and His Teachings was the solution.

I hope this helps.


For Bahai's yes that makes sense. Individual religious beliefs for those religions that hold them make sense to those people. You've probably had Christians tell you that you need Jesus. I certainly have even though It never made sense to me. Feels like a used car salesman saying, 'But you NEED this car."

Seems like you did understand this point ... for now at least. So the next step is to put it into practice by really not sharing unless asked. Certainly that's what I try to do, with regard to my faith. I hope that what came out about Saivism in this thread was in response to people asking me.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Whether or not unity in diversity is good or not depends on unity with respect to what and diversity with respect to what. What would your formulation be in this case?

By unity I mean getting along with each other. And unconditional acceptance of each other. To accept all people as human beings regardless of what they believe or don't believe.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
By unity I mean getting along with each other. And unconditional acceptance of each other. To accept all people as human beings regardless of what they believe or don't believe.


Perhaps our differing understandings has lead to more misunderstandings than necessary. Perhaps.

To be frank, I'm really not that tolerant of intolerance, or himsa. I think we need to draw the line on what we can tolerate. Love, yes, we can love the divinity within our fellow man, but if they're out to destroy us, commit genocide against us, destroy our culture, our livelihood, I think it's acceptable to draw a line. From what I've read, I think Baha'i's would agree with this.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
What is - being compassionate, tolerant and respectful of fellow humans, or abandoning religion? By way of encouragement, I also quote Abdu'l Baha:

"If religion be the cause of disunity, then irreligion is surely to be preferred."

I think that must be the most truthful word ever spoken by Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l Baha - and its right there in your own tag line.

Since there is absolutely, unquestionably no doubt that religion is indeed the cause of disunity, I am expecting the entire Baha'i community to follow Abdu'l Baha's preference and take up irreligion forthwith. I have already dispensed with religion and honestly find this no obstacle in being kind, compassionate or tolerant (though I admit I still need to work on my tolerance levels - especially in regard to religiously-motivated disingenuousness).
Not so! Religion is not the cause of disunity, unless it is abused. Consider Revelations of Moses, Jesus or Muhammad. After each one of them, many tribes became united with each other, to the point that, each one of the Revelations, created a new community, and each had their own golden time. But later on, false teachers and false religious leaders arose, who for the love of leadership created their own sects and denominations. Now, that is abusing religion...when Abdulbaha says, irreligion is better if religion be the cause of disunity, He is speaking of those who divide the Religions to sects. In fact, in Bahai Faith, no body was able to make such divisions, despite there has been attampts. Bahais see this as progressive Revelation, meaning, in Reality there is only One religion of God, but each of the Manifestations worked on it, in gradual steps, until it appeared in such wise that no one could possibly divided it, or make it the cause of disunity. In another word, Bahais see, different Scriptures, such as Bible, Quran, Bayan..., as different chapters as the Book of God, who still adds to its chapters, to improve His Religion for humanity, according to our capacity to know more.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
For Bahai's yes that makes sense. Individual religious beliefs for those religions that hold them make sense to those people. You've probably had Christians tell you that you need Jesus. I certainly have even though It never made sense to me. Feels like a used car salesman saying, 'But you NEED this car."

Seems like you did understand this point ... for now at least. So the next step is to put it into practice by really not sharing unless asked. Certainly that's what I try to do, with regard to my faith. I hope that what came out about Saivism in this thread was in response to people asking me.

I always consider it a privilege to associate with people of another Faith such as Hindus here and I consider it a blessing.

Often I get asked questions here that I want to answer as accurately as possible so often I draw on our Writings. Some object but allow me to explain why.

We are told that the best way of communicating our concepts to people is and avoid misinterpretation is

to prove our points by constant reference to the actual words of Bahá'u'lláh and the Master. This will save the Cause from being misinterpreted by individuals. It is what these divine Lights say that is truth and therefore they should be the authorities of our statements. (Shoghi Effendi)

About not sharing unless asked. I fully agree with you.

I don't think that apart from the initial post, I have posted unasked, more than 2 or 3 posts amongst over a thousand. Just about all my posts have been in 'response' to either statements, questions or criticisms.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
We are told that the best way of communicating our concepts to people is and avoid misinterpretation is

I don't think that apart from the initial post, I have posted unasked, more than 2 or 3 posts amongst over a thousand. Just about all my posts have been in 'response' to either statements, questions or criticisms.

Yes, you did open yourself a can of worms with that initial post. lol.

Perhaps you might need to reconsider what you are being told though. I find the constant referring to your prophet's words just to be an indicator that Bahai's can't think for themselves, and need someone else to do their thinking for them. Not sure how often you encounter someone like me, or what they would say, but personally I would consider that rather poor advice. Perhaps those same advisors didn't fully see the negative impact parroting has. It sounds robotic. It may be just me, but I really do prefer to see people as individuals, fully capable of thinking for themselves.

I think by the retention rate, and what people say who leave Bahai, it's an indicator that this strategy for convincing people simply isn't working very well. Sales people who have followed a particular script for many years ahve discovered that people simply aren't as gullible as they used to be, and in order to stay in business, have modified their techniques substantially.

But who am I to question the hierarchial order in Baha'i, or your proselytizing techniques?
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Perhaps our differing understandings has lead to more misunderstandings than necessary. Perhaps.

To be frank, I'm really not that tolerant of intolerance, or himsa. I think we need to draw the line on what we can tolerate. Love, yes, we can love the divinity within our fellow man, but if they're out to destroy us, commit genocide against us, destroy our culture, our livelihood, I think it's acceptable to draw a line. From what I've read, I think Baha'i's would agree with this.

Yes most definitely. We cannot allow ourselves or our culture to be destroyed. We totally agree on this.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Yes, you did open yourself a can of worms with that initial post. lol.

Perhaps you might need to reconsider what you are being told though. I find the constant referring to your prophet's words just to be an indicator that Bahai's can't think for themselves, and need someone else to do their thinking for them. Not sure how often you encounter someone like me, or what they would say, but personally I would consider that rather poor advice. Perhaps those same advisors didn't fully see the negative impact parroting has. It sounds robotic. It may be just me, but I really do prefer to see people as individuals, fully capable of thinking for themselves.

I think by the retention rate, and what people say who leave Bahai, it's an indicator that this strategy for convincing people simply isn't working very well. Sales people who have followed a particular script for many years ahve discovered that people simply aren't as gullible as they used to be, and in order to stay in business, have modified their techniques substantially.

But who am I to question the hierarchial order in Baha'i, or your proselytizing techniques?

I appreciate what you say and it has plenty of merit. its not obligatory to quote and its true what you say about being robotic and parrot fashion. I know what I mean to say just often I can't find the right words but I'll just have to try harder.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Consider Revelations of Moses, Jesus or Muhammad. After each one of them, many tribes became united with each other
Not so! Consider the religion of Moses. It was established as a national religion by the conquest of Canaan. The various tribes - even of Israel itself were fractious and held together, for a few hundred years only, by the power of tyrannical "Judges" and "Kings". By the time the next "Manifestation" in the "Abrahamic" lineage came along, the Jews and the Samaritans had "no dealings" with each other. But that animosity can be traced back to before Moses to the time of Joseph (Genesis 37:3-4). Joseph's descendants (the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh) were allotted the land that by Jesus' day had come to be called Samaria. Neither Moses nor Jesus (nor any of the multitude of the priests and prophets in between) were able to resolve the rift between the Sons of Jacob that had existed from before the exile in Egypt - let alone between the wider human families of the middle east.

Ditto Christianity (e.g. Acts of the Apostles 15:1-5, Romans 16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 1 John 2:19)

Ditto Islam - the entire lifetime of the Prophet was marked by division between him and his own tribesmen. The fractiousness that marked his own lifetime became progressively more expansive as conquest and proselytizing expanded the territories in which Islam became a major religious influence.

It is really disingenuous I think to suggest that they brought unity. I don't believe any of them even expressed that intent. Jesus certainly didn't claim to be a "prophet of peace" (Matthew 10:34; Luke 12:51)

In fact, in Bahai Faith, no body was able to make such divisions
Not so! But admittedly, the splinter groups that have "fallen away" from the Baha'i movement have been small and short-lived.

in Reality there is only One religion of God, but each of the Manifestations worked on it, in gradual steps, until it appeared in such wise that no one could possibly divided it, or make it the cause of disunity.
Really! And when did this happen? I must have missed it.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
Just who gets to determine who is a false teacher?
The promised one of each Manifestation. For example, Moses promised about Messiah. When their Messiah came, in the person of Jesus, He judged among them. Jesus pointed that the Jewish Religious Leaders of His time were false, and were not following Moses in reality. That is in the Bible.
Also, when Jesus came He promised after Himself another One comes. So, when that Promised was fulfilled in the Person of Muhammad, He pointed out all those false teachings that had been added to Christianity. Likewise, Muhammad promised that after Him, the Mahdi will come and will judge. When their Mahdi came invested with sign and evidence in the Person of the Bab, He pointed the false beliefs that the Religious Leaders of Islam had invented and had added to Religion of Muhammad.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
Not so! Consider the religion of Moses. It was established as a national religion by the conquest of Canaan. The various tribes - even of Israel itself were fractious and held together, for a few hundred years only, by the power of tyrannical "Judges" and "Kings". By the time the next "Manifestation" in the "Abrahamic" lineage came along, the Jews and the Samaritans had "no dealings" with each other. But that animosity can be traced back to before Moses to the time of Joseph (Genesis 37:3-4). Joseph's descendants (the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh) were allotted the land that by Jesus' day had come to be called Samaria. Neither Moses nor Jesus (nor any of the multitude of the priests and prophets in between) were able to resolve the rift between the Sons of Jacob that had existed from before the exile in Egypt - let alone between the wider human families of the middle east.

Ditto Christianity (e.g. Acts of the Apostles 15:1-5, Romans 16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 1 John 2:19)

Ditto Islam - the entire lifetime of the Prophet was marked by division between him and his own tribesmen. The fractiousness that marked his own lifetime became progressively more expansive as conquest and proselytizing expanded the territories in which Islam became a major religious influence.

It is really disingenuous I think to suggest that they brought unity. I don't believe any of them even expressed that intent. Jesus certainly didn't claim to be a "prophet of peace" (Matthew 10:34; Luke 12:51)

Not so! But admittedly, the splinter groups that have "fallen away" from the Baha'i movement have been small and short-lived.

Really! And when did this happen? I must have missed it.
Here I quote Abdulbaha, regarding Revelation of Moses:

"Moses was for a long time a shepherd in the wilderness. To outward seeming He was a man Who had been reared in the bosom of tyranny, had become reputed among men as a murderer, had taken up the shepherd’s staff, and was fiercely hated and reviled by Pharaoh’s government and people. It was such a man Who freed a great people from the fetters of captivity and persuaded them to leave Egypt and settle in the Holy Land.
That people had sunk to the depths of degradation and were lifted up to the heights of glory.
They were captives and were set free. They were the most ignorant of peoples and became the most learned. By virtue of that which He established, they so progressed as to be singled out among all nations, and their fame spread to every land, to such a degree that when the inhabitants of neighbouring lands wanted to praise someone they would say, “Surely he must be an Israelite!”
Moses established laws and ordinances that conferred new life upon the people of Israel and led them to attain the highest degree of civilization at that time.
Such was their progress that the philosophers of Greece would come to seek knowledge from the learned men of Israel. Among them was Socrates, who came to Syria and acquired from the children of Israel the teachings of the oneness of God and the immortality of the spirit. He then returned to Greece and promulgated these teachings, whereupon the people of that land rose up in opposition to him, accused him of impiety, arraigned him before the court, and condemned him to death by poison.
Now, how could a man who was a stammerer, who had been brought up in the house of Pharaoh, who was known among men as a murderer, and who out of fear had long been a fugitive and a shepherd, establish in the world so mighty a Cause that the wisest philosophers of the earth would be incapable of producing a thousandth part thereof? This is clearly an extraordinary feat.
A man with a stammering tongue can hardly sustain an ordinary conversation, let alone accomplish what He did! No: Were He not assisted by a divine power, He would never have been able to carry out such a mighty task. These are arguments that none can deny. The materialistic thinkers, the Greek philosophers, and the great men of Rome who became renowned in the world were each versed in but one branch of learning. Thus Galen and Hippocrates were celebrated for their skill in medicine, Aristotle in logic and speculative reasoning, and Plato in ethics and divine philosophy. How can a mere shepherd lay the foundation for all these branches of learning? There is no doubt that He was assisted by an extraordinary power.
Observe how the people are subjected to tests and trials. Moses struck down an Egyptian to prevent an act of oppression, became known among men as a murderer—especially since the victim belonged to the ruling nation—and was obliged to flee, and it was after all this that He was raised up as a Prophet. Behold how, in spite of His disrepute, He was aided through an extraordinary power to establish such great institutions and mighty undertakings!"
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Here I quote Abdulbaha, regarding Revelation of Moses:

"Moses was for a long time a shepherd in the wilderness. To outward seeming He was a man Who had been reared in the bosom of tyranny, had become reputed among men as a murderer, had taken up the shepherd’s staff, and was fiercely hated and reviled by Pharaoh’s government and people. It was such a man Who freed a great people from the fetters of captivity and persuaded them to leave Egypt and settle in the Holy Land.
That people had sunk to the depths of degradation and were lifted up to the heights of glory.
They were captives and were set free. They were the most ignorant of peoples and became the most learned. By virtue of that which He established, they so progressed as to be singled out among all nations, and their fame spread to every land, to such a degree that when the inhabitants of neighbouring lands wanted to praise someone they would say, “Surely he must be an Israelite!”
Moses established laws and ordinances that conferred new life upon the people of Israel and led them to attain the highest degree of civilization at that time.
Such was their progress that the philosophers of Greece would come to seek knowledge from the
learned men of Israel. Among them was Socrates, who came to Syria and acquired from the children
of Israel the teachings of the oneness of God and the immortality of the spirit. He then returned to
Greece and promulgated these teachings, whereupon the people of that land rose up in opposition to him, accused him of impiety, arraigned him before the court, and condemned him to death by poison.
Now, how could a man who was a stammerer, who had been brought up in the house of Pharaoh, who was known among men as a murderer, and who out of fear had long been a fugitive and a shepherd, establish in the world so mighty a Cause that the wisest philosophers of the earth
would be incapable of producing a thousandth part thereof? This is clearly an extraordinary feat.
A man with a stammering tongue can hardly sustain an ordinary conversation, let alone
accomplish what He did! No: Were He not assisted by a divine power, He would never have been able to carry out such a mighty task. These are arguments that none can deny. The materialistic thinkers, the Greek philosophers, and the great men of Rome who became renowned in the world were each versed in but one branch of learning. Thus Galen and Hippocrates were celebrated for their skill in medicine, Aristotle in logic and speculative reasoning, and Plato in ethics and divine philosophy. How can a mere shepherd lay the foundation for all these branches of learning? There is no doubt that He was assisted by an extraordinary power.
Observe how the people are subjected to tests and trials. Moses struck down an Egyptian to
prevent an act of oppression, became known among men as a murderer—especially since the victim belonged to the ruling nation—and was obliged to flee, and it was after all this that He was raised up as a Prophet. Behold how, in spite of His disrepute, He was aided through an extraordinary power to establish such great institutions and mighty undertakings!"
The Idea that Greek classical thinkers learned from Moses and the Jews is historical nonsense. There is not a single piece of evidence for this.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
The Idea that Greek classical thinkers learned from Moses and the Jews is historical nonsense. There is not a single piece of evidence for this.
There is according to many historians who were Muslims and Christian. Most of them are eastern historians, who wrote long time ago. You can search on internet.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There is according to many historians who were Muslims and Christian. Most of them are eastern historians, who wrote long time ago. You can search on internet.
They were wrong. Which is why modern historians no longer claim any such thing. New evidence and analysis falsifies old assumptions. There is absolutely nothing in Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and other Greek thinkers that come from Jewish thought. Believing such things today is just like believing in the Flood or 6000 year old Earth.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
@arthra
@loverofhumanity
@adrian009
@InvestigateTruth

I have a couple of questions. Short answers please.

Do each of you believe that Bahaullah's interpretation of revealed religions overrides the interpretations from those who believe in the revealed religions themselves?

Who has the authority in Bahai faith to interpret revealed religious teachings: Bahaullah or the followers of that said faith?

Who defines the greater truth for revealed religions? Bahaullah or the followers of those said faith?

Are the followers of the said revealed religions have influence on Bahaullah's interpretations of their scriptures and beliefs? Why or why not?

Eh.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
@arthra
@loverofhumanity
@adrian009
@InvestigateTruth

I have a couple of questions. Short answers please.

Do each of you believe that Bahaullah's interpretation of revealed religions overrides the interpretations from those who believe in the revealed religions themselves?
.
Yes.

.
Who has the authority in Bahai faith to interpret revealed religious teachings: Bahaullah or the followers of that said faith?
.
Bahaullah wrote that after Him, Abdulbaha is the infallible interpreter of the verses of God. Abdulbaha wrote a great deal to interpret and explain verses.

In our time, no one has authority to provide an official interpretation. We only refer to what Abdulbaha wrote. That is sufficient.
It does not mean that ordinary Bahais and even non-Bahais are not allowed to express their own interpretations, however it would not be considered infallible and is not considered official Bahai interpretation. In another Words, the official and infallible interpretations are only those that were revealed in Bahai Scriptures.

.
Who defines the greater truth for revealed religions? Bahaullah or the followers of those said faith?
.
Bahaullah.


.
Are the followers of the said revealed religions have influence on Bahaullah's interpretations of their scriptures and beliefs? Why or why not?

Eh.
No, because Bahaullah wrote that only Abdulbaha will be given the infallibility to interpret the verses of God.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
They were wrong. Which is why modern historians no longer claim any such thing. New evidence and analysis falsifies old assumptions. There is absolutely nothing in Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and other Greek thinkers that come from Jewish thought. Believing such things today is just like believing in the Flood or 6000 year old Earth.
Historians agree that, the history before Alexander is very confusing, and in many cases it is not possible to know it accurately. With this regards, there is disagreement about the history of Greek Philosophers. I know that some of the Modern ones have this view you are saying. But there is disagreement, and it cannot be proved.
 
Top