How are these Great Beings explained?

[TransmutingSoul]

Of course your view is always the correct view. I realised that some 200 pages back.
One question ... Can you, Tony, go there, and have your voice heard? If so, then I will change my mind.

According to this Powers and Duties | The Universal House of Justice - An official website of the Bahá’í Faith they have powers. Do you have the same powers?

THEY are the body of the Universal House of Justice and not the individual.

THEY is not themselves. No individual has greater power, but yes each have a voice in that body.

This is the Constitution

The Constitution of the Universal House of Justice

This advice was given by Abdul'baha on consultation for local House of Justices (Currently Local Spiritual Assemblies)

The members thereof must take counsel together in such wise that no occasion for ill-feeling or discord may arise. This can be attained when every member expresseth with absolute freedom his own opinion and setteth forth his argument. Should anyone oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed. The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions. If after discussion, a decision be carried unanimously well and good; but if, the Lord forbid, differences of opinion should arise, a majority of voices must prevail.

I have read, that to date there has been only unanimous decisions given by the Universal House of Justice.

Yes if I put a case to the Universal House of Justice, they will consult as they must and give a decision. (Was that what you were asking?)

To which I have done and have had a reply to date, a reply that was not what I was hoping for, but Oh so full of wisdom I now appreciate.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

Just one more point on this...

Bahaullah going to Kurdistan was a bit later of His life.

This is incorrect - Baha'u'llah was in Kurdistan from April 1854 to March 1856 - he was in his mid thirties having been a follower of the Bab for almost a decade (he was 27 when he became a Babi) and it would be another 7 years after his return to Baghdad before he declared himself to be the "Manifestation". By the time he left for Kurdistan he had written only two of his known works. All the rest of his writings date to after his time in Kurdistan except a poem "Ode of the Dove" which he wrote whilst he was there.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes if I put a case to the Universal House of Justice, they will consult as they must and give a decision. (Was that what you were asking?)

No, I asked if you sit down with them and be part of that important decision making process for the entire Bahai community?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Tony. We are saying two separate things; and, that is okay. There is no war.

I would offer you still have not understood what has been said, Lets do it this way. This link gives what can be used to make a dish for the table.

Fruit and Vegetable A-Z Index - EDIS - Electronic Data Information Source - UF/IFAS Extension

That is what is offered is on the table to choose from, to make a dish or eat as they are

The world offers what we can currently work with. To change that list to make a new ingredient, a new unknown thing must be found or made through genetic modification, good gardening or grafting.

This is also reflected in spiritual thinking.

Regards Tony

You're taking this analogy too seriously.

To create unity among diversity.

1. We (you and I representing humanity) have to agree to the ingredients
2. We have to agree to how to make the food
3. We have to agree with how to cook the food
4. We have to agree as to how to present the food
5. We have to agree with how to serve the food

Then

Once's the food has been served, we do not expect (like you expect your children, for example) anyone to eat the food we prepared-there is no reservations to charity-but to give the food and we eat too.

As one. There is no hierarchy in charity. If you really want to make peace among humanity, instead of serving the food, have humanity help make the food with you.

For example, in class, if it's a small class, instead of lecturing them all the time (offering information), I engage them.

Engagement is an action.

If you can't go beyond the offering and experiences and things you do as a community if not individually (if you choose not to), then you will not build an intimate bond with humanity which in my opinion is needed to create any relationship for the goal a Bahai and Christian are trying to achieve. Without that relationship with humanity as one intimate body, both of your goals goals.

My interest is what made the twenty some odd years between 1850-1870 of when the bab was around compared to today.

What made that time period 1853 around when god spoke to the bab, he was still living the same time Jeanne Calment, a 122 year old woman, who google says lived from 1875–1997 was alive in our time period almost thirty years ago?

If Clament heard the same about Bahaullah when he was alive, would we believe people who say the same thing about today about a person and their god we don't believe in?

That's almost a hundred and twenty some odd years shy of my birth.

Where did god's "voice" go to where you don't trust man anymore if he were to speak for god?

That, and why a thousand years logically?

I know what it says. That's how I know the number. You guys quoted it many times and I read it on the Bahais site and so forth. What's the logic of making the number so far in advance that you can't verify it to be a true revelation of the next prophet or wishful thinking (for lack of appropriate words)?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hopefully, my dates aren't too off. The Church is still standing so the context is still there. What's with the time gap for prophecy and revelations?

 

[CG Didymus]

Yup, that's what I'm here for. That and to study human behavior. I've rarely encountered this mindset in my life, and been able to carry on a conversation for long. I'm curious as to how it gets broken, mostly. The 'I'm right and you're wrong' seems to be as hardwired as something like hair colour. Still, there are those who do get out.

This is way back from page 567 or so. I read a couple of the recent pages and noticed you had to say, again, for one of the Baha'is not to act as if what they believe is fact. That is the problem.

It happens big time in Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity also. At the extreme end of a literal belief in the Bible makes it necessary for people to believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that things like the Flood and Jesus walking on water and rising from the dead as all factual occurrences.

So the Christians have their "facts" and then we have the Baha'is. Baha'is reject those Christian "facts" along with rejecting many beliefs of all the other religions. That one little thing has made this thread last for months and months.

Between Christians and Baha'is each thinks their Holy Writings are perfect and infallible. So what do Baha'is do? They poke holes in the Bible. The thing they use the most is to say that the Bible is symbolic. With that they can reinterpret anything in the Bible that happens to contradict their writings.

And what was it they said about reincarnation? Wasn't it that it's a misinterpretation or something? So essentially a Baha'i is saying all beliefs they don't agree with are wrong, but, somehow, they try a sugarcoat it. And that's what's the most exasperating for me. They can say something is untrue and true at the same time.

I wonder how genuine and truthful they can be with us or anyone who isn't a Baha'i. We all know that they believe our religious beliefs are flawed. They can't honestly say all religions are one, when they our religious beliefs are "wrong", and they try and change our beliefs. And if they say they are not trying to change our beliefs, then that is the second most exasperating thing... Are you listening Baha'is... You are not finding points of unity. You are presenting your faith as the truth and that everybody else is believing misconceptions and man made false traditions.

Thanks for keeping up with this and holding your ground.

 

[Vinayaka]

Thanks for keeping up with this and holding your ground.

Somehow, the more absurd it gets, (to me) the more irrational stuff I seem to dig up.

Yes with regard to reincarntaion, that's what they said ... The Hindus got it wrong.

 

[CG Didymus]

We understand the Bible refers to selfishness and the ego within us not any external force. We believe that is superstitious.

The New Testament has explanations and meanings which are clear but some things like Revelation it says only the Lion of Juda can unravel Whom we believe to be Baha’u’llah in His Book of Certitude.

The Baha’i Faith is not a faultless utopia. People will always be imperfect. But up till this point in history, humanity has only had infallible ‘guidance’ for the duration of a Manifestation’s Life after which religions split into sects and eventually lost touch with the spirit of the original message thus the need for constant renewal now and in the future also.

In this day however, which is termed “the day that shall not be followed by night” we have had infallible divine guidance uninterrupted from Baha’u’llah to Abdul-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and now the Universal House of Justice.

This infallible guidance can be followed or ignored nevertheless it is infallible. We’ve had well over 150 years of infallible guidance yet also two world wars. That simply means the guidance was ignored not wrong. It’s up to people to build a better world, that is, if they really want one.

Many of our institutions are learning and immature and they will never be infallible. Only the House of Justice is guaranteed that.

What we are saying is that the Teachings of Baha’u’llah are perfect and right for this age not that we are anything special or perfect. We are very imperfect. We are just saying that we believe if the world put into practice the teachings of Baha’u’llah then it would be a far better place.

"...Revelation it says only the Lion of Juda can unravel Whom we believe to be Baha’u’llah in His Book of Certitude."?​

Problem, the Lion of Judah is worthy, but the Lion is also the Lamb that was slain? And it's the Lamb that opens the book. So how do you explain that?

"What we are saying is that the Teachings of Baha’u’llah are perfect and right for this age not that we are anything special or perfect. We are very imperfect. We are just saying that we believe if the world put into practice the teachings of Baha’u’llah then it would be a far better place."
​

Hmmm? So was Jesus' teachings perfect? And how long before they got all messed up... because of imperfect people?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Somehow, the more absurd it gets, (to me) the more irrational stuff I seem to dig up.

Yes with regard to reincarntaion, that's what they said ... The Hindus got it wrong.

One Bahai did mention that Bahai-religion didn't speak much of Hinduism and reincarnation. I didn't see much on it mostly Islam and Christianity to a greater extent. It could be personal opinions based on one's practice in faith if what he said is true.

I don't mind if someone has a differences in opinion but the larger the group, the less I don't mind it since group opinions affect more people than individual ones.

 

[siti]

To create unity among diversity.

1. We (you and I representing humanity) have to agree to the ingredients
2. We have to agree to how to make the food
3. We have to agree with how to cook the food
4. We have to agree as to how to present the food
5. We have to agree with how to serve the food

Hi Carlita - sorry to hijack this from your discussion with Tony, but I think this maybe gets to the heart of where we (you, me and others) differ with Baha'is. I'm not sure I quite agree with how you have written it - I think what you have written is more or less what Baha'i does - but it doesn't produce unity - it produces uniformity. I would suggest that to produce unity in diversity would have to agree that:

1. There is a great range of ingredients to select from - and as long as none of the ingredients are actually harmful none are inherently "better" or "purer" than others
2. There are different ways of making the food...etc...all of which are acceptable...

...the Baha'i religion does not accept this at all - I'm not sure that any of the mainstream religions really do either, but there is not the same claim of universal religious unity in most cases.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi Carlita - sorry to hijack this from your discussion with Tony, but I think this maybe gets to the heart of where we (you, me and others) differ with Baha'is. I'm not sure I quite agree with how you have written it - I think what you have written is more or less what Baha'i does - but it doesn't produce unity - it produces uniformity. I would suggest that to produce unity in diversity would have to agree that:

1. There is a great range of ingredients to select from - and as long as none of the ingredients are actually harmful none are inherently "better" or "purer" than others
2. There are different ways of making the food...etc...all of which are acceptable...

...the Baha'i religion does not accept this at all - I'm not sure that any of the mainstream religions really do either, but there is not the same claim of universal religious unity in most cases.

I should have put a clause in there. I know @Vinayaka keeps mentioning it helps for Bahai to put clauses such as "in my opinion" to differentiate fact and fact statements from statements of belief.

If Bahai belief were to make sense, everyone would have to agree to the same ingredients, cooking, presenting, and serving. Without that agreement, there is no unity among diversity.

In my opinion, there is no unity among diversity because that's an oxymoron in terms. I rather have diversity. I asked @Tony Bristow-Stagg many times why diversity is so wrong if he looked at it in my point of view and not his own. I asked him one question months ago and he finally said he chose not to answer it. So, I'm not bothered with the interruption.

Commercials.

On that note:

 

[siti]

In my opinion, there is no unity among diversity because that's an oxymoron in terms. I rather have diversity. I asked tony many times why diversity is so wrong

Right! I wasn't quite on your wavelength earlier - but I definitely agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with diversity - I guess the goal might be "harmony" rather than "unity" - but that is not going to come from an insistence on uniformity - just as a tasty dish is the result of the combination of different flavours, you can't have harmony if everyone is just playing the same note.

 

[RoaringSilence]

what i don't understand is how can they claim that bahubali's words are are words of god , so does that mean quran is also words of god as claimed ?
how come god makes a thing like "surah like it" challenge which means that muslims believe that quran is the absolute words of god since no one can replicate the surahs of quran.

so god made a sura like it challenge for quran but not for bahubali? one of them is lieing ..becoz both can't be true.
anyhow someone did beat the surah like it challenge , the site was taken down but it has been done none the less.

how come anyone can so easily claim anything they want in this world in the name of god and keep on pushing the madness .

anytime someone in the desert gets a heatstroke starts a new religion with the strategy of exploiting the prophecy of the next coming and blaming the others to be wrong.

it makes me angry that people refuse to wake up to view the whole picture in its entirety , and they just keep making more noises .

how is starting a new religion helping unite ..first there were 5-6 religions fighting each other one correcting the other , now you add one more new religion which is doing the same thing , its fighting all of them to get converted in the name of unity. well that's the very same agenda for the previous ones.. they believe world will get united if all convert to islam or xtianity then there is unity ...
islam = peace if all surrender and convert and have sharia ..bahai = unity if all convert and let them rule the world. xtianity = unity if all convert to xtianity and let the kingdom of god rule.

so what's all the new thing god did .. theocracy is also an old plan nothing new about it..

what are the proofs that bahubali gave for being a manifestation?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Right! I wasn't quite on your wavelength earlier - but I definitely agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with diversity - I guess the goal might be "harmony" rather than "unity" - but that is not going to come from an insistence on uniformity - just as a tasty dish is the result of the combination of different flavours, you can't have harmony if everyone is just playing the same note.

The word harmony sounds a bit better, of course without the integration part.

I remember saying earlier that unity isn't a good word for what Baha'u'llah is describing. Baha'u'llah is literally trying to describe diversity working together to please god. The word unity in his quotes implies more working together rather than integration. The English definition of that word is opposite of what he is trying to offer people.

That's my first confusion. The second is that I think all the Bahai I talked with are converts, if I'm not mistaken? If so, that would be hard with getting the cultural definition of the word unity if Persian or whatever language Bahaullah spoke in isn't their native language since culture and language are intermingled. So basically, they are offering a Universalist concept, in English language, from an Eastern culture, to half of us westerners who, for me, no neir nothing about Bahai being part of the religions of abraham given our country is steeped in the three religions not four.

To make more sense, well, logically, if I were to change bahai views is to one have the same ingredients agreed by all religions or let religions be diverse, with diverse foundations, working towards an agreed goal.

One Bahai doesn't like the former. The rest find the latter a division without god.

So, I'm lost for words.

 

[siti]

To make more sense, well, logically, if I were to change bahai views is to one have the same ingredients agreed by all religions or let religions be diverse, with diverse foundations, working towards an agreed goal.

One Bahai doesn't like the former. The rest find the latter a division.

I think these two options encapsulate the only ones for religion (generally, not just Baha'i or any other faith) if it is to remain relevant in the shrinking world of human civilization. Well, I suppose there is one more alternative and that is that one or other religion becomes so dominant by force as to become a de facto global religion but I'm guessing not many (other than Christians and Muslims) would advocate this one.

So the question then is what ingredients are agreed on by all religions? Are there any at all? Can't be too many I wouldn't have thought. [EDIT: that's a real problem for Baha'is because if we can't even think of one universally agreed religious idea then religion is a cause of disunity and we'd be better off without it - to paraphrase Baha'u'llah). The only thing I could really think of was the Golden Rule - but we hardly need religion to cement that into the rational human psyche do we?]

And, if it is (I mean let's hypothesize) agreed to leave religious diversity in place, what should be the agreed goal(s)? [EDIT: unless we make it so vacuously general - like "to enhance the human condition" or "promote human prosperity" I doubt we could possibly agree on what the goal should be - and even if we did (either over-generalize it or have multiple disparate goals) there would probably be as much dissension about the means as there would be about the ends.]

On second thoughts, its probably just a hopeless cause - and yet I continue to hope not. (But I think I ought to adjourn further discussion on what I think religion might (or ought to) be like in the future to a different thread - I've already sidetracked significantly in this one).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think these two options encapsulate the only ones for religion (generally, not just Baha'i or any other faith) if it is to remain relevant in the shrinking world of human civilization. Well, I suppose there is one more alternative and that is that one or other religion becomes so dominant by force as to become a de facto global religion but I'm guessing not many (other than Christians and Muslims) would advocate this one.

So the question then is what ingredients are agreed on by all religions? Are there any at all? Can't be too many I wouldn't have thought. [EDIT: that's a real problem for Baha'is because if we can't even think of one universally agreed religious idea then religion is a cause of disunity and we'd be better off without it - to paraphrase Baha'u'llah). The only thing I could really think of was the Golden Rule - but we hardly need religion to cement that into the rational human psyche do we?]

And, if it is (I mean let's hypothesize) agreed to leave religious diversity in place, what should be the agreed goal(s)? [EDIT: unless we make it so vacuously general - like "to enhance the human condition" or "promote human prosperity" I doubt we could possibly agree on what the goal should be - and even if we did (either over-generalize it or have multiple disparate goals) there would probably be as much dissension about the means as there would be about the ends.]

On second thoughts, its probably just a hopeless cause - and yet I continue to hope not. (But I think I ought to adjourn further discussion on what I think religion might (or ought to) be like in the future to a different thread - I've already sidetracked significantly in this one).

Well.... if we can get over the god or no god or different god or symbolic god or literal god division, we may have a starting point? No?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Brings out the change of tone in this thread that has long been due.

Harmonious Speech

 

[siti]

Well.... if we can get over the god or no god or different god or symbolic god or literal god division, we may have a starting point? No?

Well yes. So do you think it would be possible to have a meaningful religion that didn't care whether God was real/imaginary or symbolic/literal or none/one/many? Does a religion necessarily have to take a stance on the God question?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well yes. So do you think it would be possible to have a meaningful religion that didn't care whether God was real/imaginary or symbolic/literal or none/one/many? Does a religion necessarily have to take a stance on the God question?

I would like to say no but then that isolates those who believe in god. If I said yes, it does the opposite. God(s) however defined is so interweaved in people's lives that if I haven't experienced the "community wave" of that experience, I'd probably can easily answer the question. I experience what people call god in every house of worship I've been in. Those who do not believe in god and do not have a system of morals however defined I have honestly seen more depression or negative view of the world by how they talk with me and react. Others like my co-worker use their religion unknowingly to block off or departmentalize friendships based on who believes in god and who doesn't.

So, to find a common denominator to separate people from god or have people think of others apart from their god is near impossible.

On the other hand, I don't know what part of the world that doesn't have a god-like dominance. So, people who do not believe in god are isolated here in the states whether by not speaking of their morals or being in areas to where christians don't bother them because they are "different."

Religion X probably have to have a sense of community while letting people be free to find faith on their own. It would most likely need someone or something to be a guide while keeping that guide as a teacher rather than a leader so others won't feel guilty if they choose not to follow the teacher to experience the results through community involvement or just being in the same environment.

There would probably need more openness in what is sacred and where one can go that is sacred without feeling their values or belittled by being in the "wrong area." For example, letting a Pagan go in a Christian DIR without feeling threatened to compare in context and case in point.

The religion would probably have to have something written for people who learn by what they read while at the same time not having experiences unexplained or "can't be explained" just because they rather read a book than practice it first hand without it.

Hmm. While some people want right and wrong view and others do not, I see a sense of morality in both sides in the common thread of respect and disrespect which is the same as what is right behavior and speech and what is not. So, having that at a passive level would not promote and require prystalizating but not keep people isolated to where they can't share their faith with others.

Also, since people get hung up over names such as religion, let people call find their own identity while others find identity and names by their teacher or guru. It makes sense for example, I received a Buddhist name so if someone asked me at the temple, I give them that name rather than my American name. While others may not feel comfortable with that.

A respect for cultural values is a must. If people really want to have a hybrid religion, I would say that is a part of being in a community where everyone is comfortable with that first. Unity integration is one of a few characteristics that I can't see happening in a religion that values people's choice in what they practice, how, and with whom.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Thanks for keeping up with this and holding your ground.

To what Baha'u'llah has offered, all creation is His. We are all here for the short ride.

What Baha'u'llah offers shows the Truth in all Faiths, far different from a Fundamantal view of trying to prove that One Faith is the only path and all other Messages are wrong.

Regards Tony