How are these Great Beings explained?

[Vinayaka]

Is my statement fair now?

No your statement is not fair, because nobody agrees with Baha'i's version. I can't see how Baha'u'llah matches any of this. He's a guy who came along at the right time in Islamic history ... a time when some people who still had an inkling of leaning towards peace rather than violence still existed. The alternative he presented was a peaceful one. Disillusioned with Islam, they listened, because he offered up a saner alternative. But that's about where it ends. There have been tons of wise people, charismatic leaders who have done the very same thing as he did. To all the followers of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Satya Sai Bba, Shirdi Sai Baba. Meher Baba, various Islamic guys, etc. Each thinks their guy is the new prophet. Many view it as their personal fact, and will argue until they are blue in the face that their guy is the one and only true guy.

Do you see a pattern? Baha'i' are not unique in this.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Different paradigms, and the same question can be asked of all things religious. How do we 'know anything? In Hinduism God is closer than your breath.

How do you 'know' there is a God?
How do you 'know' Baha'u'llah was what he said he was?
How do 'you' know there is such a thing as soul? As heaven? As hell?

So this 'know' can only be on some deeper intuitive level. It's absolutely not logical, but neither can it be refuted by logic.

Havent we been given logic and reason to weigh the validity of our spiritual experiences and test their truth? If we just believe them blindly don't we will fall into error? Don't you see many fall into error by blind belief?

 

[loverofhumanity]

I would rarely say anyone is wrong on religious views. Just differing viewpoints, and leave it at that. To me, that stance makes far more sense. You like Toyota, I like Hyundai, big deal. Neither is wrong.

This trying to prove your view is more valid than the other person's gets so tedious. Not only that, it's impossible.

I like Hyundai too. As I said, for me I've learnt a lot from you especially about Hinduism so I come away with a huge profit for myself as I see it. Because although I shared knowledge about Baha'u'llah usually it was to explain my viewpoint as I knew none of you accepted Him but that you all respect other religions.

But to have learnt invaluable things about Hinduism, beautiful things like Ahimsa which I probably knew by a different name, is an asset to my life.

Still I want to get a full copy of the Vedas and either I have not found your answer yet or haven't found the link, Otherwise I've got to search and might end up buying the wrong one or a poor translation.

I believe we are here for learning so I'm happy to learn from others and I have and I'm grateful.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If you believe the truth of other religions, this woule not be an issue.

Not everyone who speaks to god needs a book about it. You can eat food without reading how good it tastes.

People have wars over religious books. Take out the books, no wars, more thinking for oneself snd self reflecting.

Cant hide behind a book.

I know you don't believe in God so that's a problem for how I want to present my viewpoint. But I'll try anyway.

If there was an infallible All Knowing God, wouldn't His advice for us as to how to solve our present problems be far better than anything our imperfect fallible minds could come up with?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Again, how is saying "you are wrong" judgemental?

I just don't express my self like that and I don't think most Baha'is would. My mother would never ever address anyone like that but say it another way or suggest in very kind words that there is another way of looking at things.

It's just a preference of words that's all. But feel,free to use it with me because I don't mind at all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Weirdly enough, I'm with loverofhumanity on this one

So this 'know' can only be on some deeper intuitive level. It's absolutely not logical, but neither can it be refuted by logic.

It has to be logical and make sense to a huge degree for you to consider your belief true and X belief false. Wouldn't your practice, culture, and guru shape the logic behind your beliefs and experiences even though they are your own (not dependent on a prophet)?

If your experiences are not based on logic, by what reason is it true to you in addition to your experiences?

Havent we been given logic and reason to weigh the validity of our spiritual experiences and test their truth? If we just believe them blindly don't we will fall into error? Don't you see many fall into error by blind belief?

Blind belief isn't that bad. It just means one trusts their instincts over a physical means to verify one's faith whether through a prophet or sacred book. I agree, logic is involved. I disagree, though, that without logic belief is blind. Maybe people see logic differently?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If there was an infallible All Knowing God, wouldn't His advice for us as to how to solve our present problems be far better than anything our imperfect fallible minds could come up with?

If god talks to you directly, then you'd know the message he gives you is infallible without needing to depend on any books or prophets as intermediaries to speak for him.

If I never knew and met my biological mother I had the chance to meet her, I wouldn't say "I am limited; I can't see her" and rely on a stranger to tell me about her. I'd make the effort to see her myself. It is possible in many god-religions outside of the abrahamic view. Give them credit.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I just don't express my self like that and I don't think most Baha'is would. My mother would never ever address anyone like that but say it another way or suggest in very kind words that there is another way of looking at things.

It's just a preference of words that's all. But feel,free to use it with me because I don't mind at all.

I don't understand how it is judgemental for you not to use the word.

You said it was "how" someone says a phrase and the situation that depends on if it's insultive. The words "you are wrong" can be passive aggressive (Bahallah said X. "Let me give you quotes of what Bahaullah says" Y.) or just aggressive (blunt) Bahallah didn't say X, he said Y. Did you want to know why.

How does "you are wrong" said the right way judgemental?​

I know you don't say it and it's preference. I'm asking how the two go together. I don't say people are wrong. But I don't beat around the bush either.

 

[CG Didymus]

Now think about it. If God had said, 'Resurrection is not literal', 'reborn does not mean reincarnation', 'Jesus does not return literally, but someone else comes', then how would God tests and separates the Clean and unclean Hearts?

I think, you have a problem accepting, why should God test us? Or why He did not explicitly say, another Revelation comes, or why He kept it a secret with symbolic language. Right? What part of it does not make sense to you?

However notice that, in all the Books such as Quran, or Bible, God had already said that some of its verses are symbolic, and parables...

Did "God" say anything? People wrote the books. Were they mistaken? Did they hear a voice? Whose voice was it? Did they hear Jesus speak? Did they take notes? Did some of the gospel writers hear about what they wrote from others and never met or heard Jesus speak?

If they say Jesus then said to them a parable, that's obvious. But, when the writer is telling supposed events taking place, why is that a parable or symbolic? If the writer says that someone came to Jesus and said a friend of his was sick and needed him, and by the time Jesus got there, the man was dead, how is that symbolic? This writer is explaining things that allegedly happened. Was this writer accurate? Maybe so. Maybe not. Was this writer smart enough to be recording things as if they were actual events... but were really symbolic spiritual truths? We're not talking about God doing it or Jesus saying it. We're talking about a man who says he is reporting the things that Jesus said and did.

So no, I don't only have a "problem" accepting why God should test us, I have a problem why these writings are treated as if God wrote them. And, why after centuries of Christians believing in them as if true and real events, the Baha'is say "no" they were not real only symbolic? So let's look at how God tests his people. He, allegedly, tells Moses to stone those that break certain laws. Were the laws symbolic? How about the stones? Jesus tells people if they don't believe in him they will be sent to hell with the devil and his angels? How were Christian supposed to know he was only fooling?

No, I think stoning and the fear of hell were all planned. They were meant to get people to obey. What do the Baha'is do to get people to obey their rules? Take their voting rights away? Kick them out? Tell them they will be spiritually crippled in the next life? No, I don't believe it... it's all symbolic.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

God does not exist.

That is your belief though, which you are entitled to.

The return will will not happen.

Well, if you do not believe Jesus was indeed sent by the Father, then, surely you do not believe in His Return.

If you are christian, you cannot have Bahai views. There is no Bahaullah in christianity.

If by Christian, you mean, the majority of the people who today are adherents of Christian denominations, then i agree.
But if you mean, there is no Bahaullah in Bible, then that is your view. In Bahai View, the Bible promised of Return of Christ, and that is exactly fulfilled by Bahaullah.

Just because you make a claim and it's written down does not make it true than my writing down a beautiful poem and 2,000 years later people think the poem is actually about me when it's from my imagination. (This is to make a point. Nothing
more)

But the example you are giving is hypothetical.
Look, the Bible is not an ordinary Book like a poetry. It is a Book that claims to be inspired by God. Billions of people have believed in it during thousands of years. Now, Bahaullah comes and He matches the signs regarding return of Christ, described in the Bible. Bahaullah claims to be a Manifestations of God, and millions believe in Him, including many Muslim Scholars and Christians, with some of them Scholars.
This is not an ordinary case, like someone writing poetry and 2000 years someone thinks its her. Do you see the difference?

I read the bible. There is no hint of Bahaullah in scriptures. Bahai can believe whatever they want but again, these are beliefs.

Why can't you accept that you have beliefs?

It's alright. It won't harm anyone.

Look, Scriptures of the world talked about a Promised One. You think Bahaullah is not that One, you are entitled to your belief. But, a logical argument would be, quoting a verse from Bible or Islamic Traditions, and showing, Bahaullah cannot match those prophecies. I have already shown an example of that. There are too many of those signs that match Him. If it was only few signs that matched, while all others did not match, I would also think, it would be perhaps cherry picking or coincidence. But, when there are too many, and in fact, there is none that cannot match, then, if I still think it is coincidence, that would mean, I am in denial, yes?

 

[CG Didymus]

I think I will be out for good. Hitting one's head on a brick wall only hurts one's own head after awhile. Bottom line, is it's a very small faith with an aging demographic, and will most likely disappear in another 100 years like so many before it. Unless, of course it they really insult my dear Hinduism. Others can take up the battle for awhile.

Thanks for everything you've posted. It's been great to hear what you believe and think about all of this.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I will be blunt. You're blinded by your beliefs. That's alright since everyone has their own view and perspective of reality. To claim our beliefs are facts for everyone would be rude. To claim it fact as one's observations, experience, and logic is not.

That is your belief though, which you are entitled to.

I came to the conclusion based on evidence of the contrary. We can hold beliefs in gods, spirits, ancestors, prophets, and so forth. They are beliefs. Nothing wrong with that.

Well, if you do not believe Jesus was indeed sent by the Father, then, surely you do not believe in His Return.

Of course not.

If by Christian, you mean, the majority of the people who today are adherents of Christian denominations, then i agree.

Christian as in you took the sacraments of christ, use scripture as your only source of authenticity of truth, and only the prophets of the bible support god's plan etc. Bahaullah is not included.

But if you mean, there is no Bahaullah in Bible, then that is your view. In Bahai View, the Bible promised of Return of Christ, and that is exactly fulfilled by Bahaullah.

If you are christian, there is no bahai view. I'm not Bahai so I can't see it from that view. You're not christian so you can't see it as a christian. Step out of your shoes and try to see it as a christian. There is no other prophets in christianity but those in the bible. Jesus returns on Bahaullah. and so forth....

Look, the Bible is not an ordinary Book like a poetry. It is a Book that claims to be inspired by God. Billions of people have believed in it during thousands of years. Now, Bahaullah comes and He matches the signs regarding return of Christ, described in the Bible. Bahaullah claims to be a Manifestations of God, and millions believe in Him, including many Muslim Scholars and Christians, with some of them Scholars.

Poetry to me is like the bible to you. Art is my spirituality. I can't separate that.

With that said, hypotheticals help understand the context of one's point instead of hanging on to words and phrases. Poetry are inspired by their poets. Art is inspired by the artist. I get it. I just don't agree with you.

This is not an ordinary case, like someone writing poetry and 2000 years someone thinks its her. Do you see the difference?

No, I don't. Logically, it is the same thing. If I wrote something today and two thousand years later someone thinks it's inspired is just the same as sacred-book believers. The context is the same in both scenarios religious or not.

Look, Scriptures of the world talked about a Promised One. You think Bahaullah is not that One, you are entitled to your belief. But, a logical argument would be, quoting a verse from Bible or Islamic Traditions, and showing, Bahaullah cannot match those prophecies. I have already shown an example of that. There are too many of those signs that match Him. If it was only few signs that matched, while all others did not match, I would also think, it would be perhaps cherry picking or coincidence. But, when there are too many, and in fact, there is none that cannot match, then, if I still think it is coincidence, that would mean, I am in denial, yes?

The Bible does not have Bahaullah as the promised one. It's pretty simple and direct book. You can make vague conclusions and any person can be the promised one.

Coincidences are not bad. Life is full of coincidences. We can attribute these things to a spiritual source, a god, a book, or not. A lot of religions are built on coincidences and synchronicities. Call it anything, but at the core, that's what it is.

It's not bad. It just means you see the sacredness in the coincidences and decide to call it something else. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Weirdly enough, I'm with loverofhumanity on this one



It has to be logical and make sense to a huge degree for you to consider your belief true and X belief false. Wouldn't your practice, culture, and guru shape the logic behind your beliefs and experiences even though they are your own (not dependent on a prophet)?

If your experiences are not based on logic, by what reason is it true to you in addition to your experiences?



Blind belief isn't that bad. It just means one trusts their instincts over a physical means to verify one's faith whether through a prophet or sacred book. I agree, logic is involved. I disagree, though, that without logic belief is blind. Maybe people see logic differently?

Yes we need to be logical and use reason to establish or test the truth as well as gut feeling. Sometimes gut feeling is wrong and sometimes our logic and reason are wrong so we need both like science and religion need each other.

In my original post I mentioned that the Great Teachers seemed to have a unique spiritual power to transform civilisation which was not posessesed by the average human. Refer to history to verify this.

Then I asked if Baha'u'llah could not have been the latest of these Messengers. Instead of really addressing that topic we got into all sorts of diversions but the topic has not really been addressed.

The current trends in the world all indicate a move towards the teachings of Baha'u'llah as I have stated. But to refute this argument you need to show me how that is not true and I need to show you how it is true and I can because I can show you His Teachings on things being seen as cutting edge ideas today that originally have no other source but His Teachings.

But instead of addressing this issue the response is 'I don't like quotes' and such. How am I to prove that Baha'u'llah did have His Fingers on the pulse of mankind and did prescribe the correct remedy without showing you His Prescription?

What is being said to us is 'don't show me the proof I don't want to know as I already know it's not true' , yet none of you have read even one Bahá'í book which is essential to be able to debate. To debate on a topic both sides must be knowledgable about the topic but you are admitting you don't need to be conversant on the topic, have never studied it and that your personal opinion is sufficient. Unacceptable. You need to know what it is your trying to say is false and to do that you must know a lot about Bahaullah and Bahá'í not just gut feeling.

For instance, interfaith. Let's go into it properly. Who promoted it. When did it begin as a concept? What did Baha'u'llah say? When did He say it? Did Vivkenanda get his ideas from Baha'u'llah or did Baha'u'llah teach them first? Was the Parliament of World Religions established before or after Baha'u'llah's call for religious unity? How far back does the call for religious unity go? This is what we should be examining in this debate not whether we believe in Prophets or not or whether Baha'u'llah has the right to interpret or not but whether His Life and Teachings actually have and are revolutionalising the world. Is He a new Teacher or not?Then we can determine if a He is an actual new Teacher with this great spiritual power or not.

Another one, when did the call for universal human rights begin? Why was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights established after Baha'u'llah had come and proclaimed the oneness of all people and not a thousand years ago? Why is human rights so important now and not then? Why is the status of women such a gigantic issue today? Why not a thousand years ago? Has the issue of women been promoted by any other religion other than Bahá'í in the Holy Books? So this issue of women has only come to the forefront recently and it just so happens to be a principle of the Baha'i Faith?. Is it mere coincidence? Why would there be even prophecies concerning women in the Baha'i Writings that say that women will establish peace? The thing is I believe we have not delved into these things and it's just been useless banter whereas we can debate and explore these things intelligently and not get caught up in political correctness and all learn a lot.

Maybe there were other people before Baha'u'llah who promoted women's equality. Maybe there was a human rights charter long before Baha'u'llah's call for human rights. Let's put it on the table and discuss it. Has there ever been a call for religions to unite in human history? Let's ask everyone and so on. We want facts not just 'no you're wrong'.

I want intelligent debate not confrontation and argument about who is right and who is wrong. Let's look at the facts and see what we can come up with and explore the issue and the truth will come out.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don't understand how it is judgemental for you not to use the word.

You said it was "how" someone says a phrase and the situation that depends on if it's insultive. The words "you are wrong" can be passive aggressive (Bahallah said X. "Let me give you quotes of what Bahaullah says" Y.) or just aggressive (blunt) Bahallah didn't say X, he said Y. Did you want to know why.

How does "you are wrong" said the right way judgemental?​

I know you don't say it and it's preference. I'm asking how the two go together. I don't say people are wrong. But I don't beat around the bush either.

I'm not saying it's wrong just my personal preference to use more eloquent language. I just prefer to be more artistic than direct and blunt. We each have our own diverse way of expressing ourselves. Your art is you and my art is me. No wrong or right just different expressions of our individuality.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If god talks to you directly, then you'd know the message he gives you is infallible without needing to depend on any books or prophets as intermediaries to speak for him.

If I never knew and met my biological mother I had the chance to meet her, I wouldn't say "I am limited; I can't see her" and rely on a stranger to tell me about her. I'd make the effort to see her myself. It is possible in many god-religions outside of the abrahamic view. Give them credit.

How would you know it's God and not your ego talking to you?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes we need to be logical and use reason to establish or test the truth as well as gut feeling. Sometimes gut feeling is wrong and sometimes our logic and reason are wrong so we need both like science and religion need each other.

In my original post I mentioned that the Great Teachers seemed to have a unique spiritual power to transform civilisation which was not posessesed by the average human. Refer to history to verify this.

Then I asked if Baha'u'llah could not have been the latest of these Messengers. Instead of really addressing that topic we got into all sorts of diversions but the topic has not really been addressed.

The current trends in the world all indicate a move towards the teachings of Baha'u'llah as I have stated. But to refute this argument you need to show me how that is not true and I need to show you how it is true and I can because I can show you His Teachings on things being seen as cutting edge ideas today that originally have no other source but His Teachings.

But instead of addressing this issue the response is 'I don't like quotes' and such. How am I to prove that Baha'u'llah did have His Fingers on the pulse of mankind and did prescribe the correct remedy without showing you His Prescription?

What is being said to us is 'don't show me the proof I don't want to know as I already know it's not true' , yet none of you have read even one Bahá'í book which is essential to be able to debate. To debate on a topic both sides must be knowledgable about the topic but you are admitting you don't need to be conversant on the topic, have never studied it and that your personal opinion is sufficient. Unacceptable. You need to know what it is your trying to say is false and to do that you must know a lot about Bahaullah and Bahá'í not just gut feeling.

For instance, interfaith. Let's go into it properly. Who promoted it. When did it begin as a concept? What did Baha'u'llah say? When did He say it? Did Vivkenanda get his ideas from Baha'u'llah or did Baha'u'llah teach them first? Was the Parliament of World Religions established before or after Baha'u'llah's call for religious unity? How far back does the call for religious unity go? This is what we should be examining in this debate not whether we believe in Prophets or not or whether Baha'u'llah has the right to interpret or not but whether His Life and Teachings actually have and are revolutionalising the world. Is He a new Teacher or not?Then we can determine if a He is an actual new Teacher with this great spiritual power or not.

Another one, when did the call for universal human rights begin? Why was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights established after Baha'u'llah had come and proclaimed the oneness of all people and not a thousand years ago? Why is human rights so important now and not then? Why is the status of women such a gigantic issue today? Why not a thousand years ago? Has the issue of women been promoted by any other religion other than Bahá'í in the Holy Books? So this issue of women has only come to the forefront recently and it just so happens to be a principle of the Baha'i Faith?. Is it mere coincidence? Why would there be even prophecies concerning women in the Baha'i Writings that say that women will establish peace? The thing is I believe we have not delved into these things and it's just been useless banter whereas we can debate and explore these things intelligently and not get caught up in political correctness and all learn a lot.

Maybe there were other people before Baha'u'llah who promoted women's equality. Maybe there was a human rights charter long before Baha'u'llah's call for human rights. Let's put it on the table and discuss it. Has there ever been a call for religions to unite in human history? Let's ask everyone and so on. We want facts not just 'no you're wrong'.

I want intelligent debate not confrontation and argument about who is right and who is wrong. Let's look at the facts and see what we can come up with and explore the issue and the truth will come out.

I will come back to read this. I'm at work. Bahai is not the only one who makes "last prophet" claims. I can show this in history, the sacred books, even in Buddhism which has "last prophets" (not called that) in different sects and so forth.

All the quotes you showed is not proof what you say is fact, it just prove that your belief exists and what people wrote about it. Having something written down does not make it true. Prophecies can't be proven because they haven't been fulfilled yet to have evidence they have been fulfilled.

to be continued...

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You can make vague conclusions and any person can be the promised one.
.

First, there is nothing vague in Biblical Prophecies.
They are symbolic or Figurative, and the symbols have certain meanings. In most cases, the meaning of the symbols can be known from other verses, so, it is not like symbols or parable are just nonsense. They are meaningful.

When you say ' You can make vague conclusions and any person can be the promised one', this is again a hypothetical statement. Look, there is no one else that can Match all the Prophecies. Just find another Person, and show how it matches 2 or 3 of the signs of the Return of Christ, to prove your point. Just try.....

 

[InvestigateTruth]

....Prophecies can't be proven because they haven't been fulfilled yet to have evidence they have been fulfilled.

to be continued...

Yes, for a fact, there are historical evidence.

Here is another one:
Comparing Biblical/Religious Prophecies with History

 

[InvestigateTruth]

If they say Jesus then said to them a parable, that's obvious. But, when the writer is telling supposed events taking place, why is that a parable or symbolic? If the writer says that someone came to Jesus and said a friend of his was sick and needed him, and by the time Jesus got there, the man was dead, how is that symbolic?
.

The Holy Books contain verses that are figurative or symbolic. You would know its symbolic, when literal interpretations would be unrealistic, or contradicts science. We also know that, symbols have meanings. For example Light is Symbol of Knowledge and guidance. Now, let me give you an example, and ask you, what you think it means.

As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work.
While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes."Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means "Sent"). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.
John 9:4-6


Do you think, when the Author of these verses was writing them, did he mean it literally, or you think, the Author is conveying a hidden message, which has some figurative meaning?

 

[loverofhumanity]

I will come back to read this. I'm at work. Bahai is not the only one who makes "last prophet" claims. I can show this in history, the sacred books, even in Buddhism which has "last prophets" (not called that) in different sects and so forth.

All the quotes you showed is not proof what you say is fact, it just prove that your belief exists and what people wrote about it. Having something written down does not make it true. Prophecies can't be proven because they haven't been fulfilled yet to have evidence they have been fulfilled.

to be continued...

Thanks. Who said anything about last Prophets? That is a Muslim belief not ours. We believe Manifestations will always appear so last Prophet has nothing to do with our beliefs.

Please have rest, eat well and 'live long and prosper'.