• 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
Sorry you have missundertood what is said.

This is most likely because you do not follow Prophecy.

They Told and Sung of this day, the day of the Message of Baha'u'llah. Not the detail of the Message, but to the Glory of this Time.

Regards Tony

Of course I did, according to you. You're a Baha'i', Tony. You support books written by Baha'i' authors, even if they have obvious contradictions. Doesn't mean I'm obliged to agree, so my point stands from this side. We're all allowed to have different opinions on what we read.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
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.

I don't believe we need unity to get along. What we need is a view that it's okay to have other opinions, and a total unwillingness to try to change anyone into our personal way. We need to get out of the intellect, and into the intuitive spiritual mind where that just happens naturally. We then look at people as people, not as 'this religion or that religion, this gender, that citizen' and all that labeling. Yes e can use labeling as a tool of categorising stuff, but simultaneously seeing the bigger picture.

So this idea of respect is the key. Respect for the right to be different, to think differently, practice another religion. With respect, ahimsa and communication flows naturally. It's an outcome. We don't need integration or blending one iota.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
The doctrine of the Trinity was a big decline. Splitting Faith over disagreements is also a decline.

This in AD622 God sent Muhammad, the chance was lost for Chrisianity to make right the wrong doctrine. Winter then set in for Christianity and the Spring of the New Day ushered in by Muhammad brought great progress once again.

Regards Tony
Yes, Tony, this is the Baha'i' view. Not fact.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
The name is Baha'u'llah.

Translated, "The Glory of God", or "Glory of the Lord".

Please consider the respect the name deserves.

His own person is proof enough.

That's not any kind of proof at all. It's a statement by an individual, and a name. It's somewhat common in Latin America to give a son the name of Jesus. Does that mean anything about the person's character?
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
That's not any kind of proof at all. It's a statement by an individual, and a name. It's somewhat common in Latin America to give a son the name of Jesus. Does that mean anything about the person's character?

He was His Name. As was Jesus the Christ.

Regards Tony
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Baha'u'llah's Tablet of the Banu Qurayza tells us two relevant things: he was reading a multi-volume erudite work of Islamic history in Arabic when he was about 12 years old, and he did not know about the events that led to the execution of the Banu Qurayza men until he read them there, and it came as an enormous shock to him. So on the one hand we have a precocity that goes beyond genius, and on the other hand dependence on sources for his knowledge of this world. This is confirmed later by his remark in the Iqan that he needed to consult a certain book.

One other factor to consider is telephathy. I've experienced this myself once as a child. There are quite a few stories in which Baha'u'llah and the Bab appear to know what is going on in someone's mind, which might be deduction, but I don't rule out the possibility that they grabbed current knowledge from the noosphere or from particular individuals, which is what I experienced.

Thank you for being here. It seems to me you will add a much more rational respectful approach to this thread.

What I don't understand in the above is why other Baha'i' members claimed Baha'u'llah didn't read much at all. Now you're saying he was an avid reader at age 12. So I ponder which it is.

As for telepathy, also termed clairaudience, I've experienced it many times. There are two reasons ... one is just familiarity. You're so used to discussing with that person that the mind looks ahead, and accurately predicts what is going to happen, because it's just seen it so many times. This happens with parents, close friends, but especially with spouses who share a lot. For example, on this thread, I can accurately predict that Tony will tell me I'm wrong, and never agree with anything I say. That's not telepathy, but just the subconscious mind working, much like expecting amber on a stale green light while driving.

The other, far less common reason is a mystic siddhi that happens to enlightened beings as a result of their inner attainments. In that case, the person could accurately see what a total stranger was thinking. Generally they wouldn't express it though. Only in 'down' times, when relaxed, forgetting they have it.
 
Last edited:

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
He was His Name. As was Jesus the Christ.

Yes, that is the Baha'i' view. Since you have been unable to view your own statements as belief rather than fact, I guess I'll have to add those words for you. This may help other Baha'i' notice the condescending nature of your approach, and not repeat it.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
In my sampradaya, the successor is chosen by spiritual attributes. Like many Hindu lineages, this is how it's been done, often uninterrupted for a few thousand years. It seems far more rational than the royalty method of choosing your own son, regardless of their attributes. Of course for us that was impossible, because the spiritual authority in most Hindu sampradayas has the pre-requisite of being a sannyasin. The Baha'i' chose to follow the royalty method of keeping it all in the family, which is common in Abrahamic faiths, perhaps other than Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
 

RoaringSilence

Active Member
In my sampradaya, the successor is chosen by spiritual attributes. Like many Hindu lineages, this is how it's been done, often uninterrupted for a few thousand years. It seems far more rational than the royalty method of choosing your own son, regardless of their attributes. Of course for us that was impossible, because the spiritual authority in most Hindu sampradayas has the pre-requisite of being a sannyasin. The Baha'i' chose to follow the royalty method of keeping it all in the family, which is common in Abrahamic faiths, perhaps other than Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
there is a documentary i watched on selecting monks who reincarnate , it was pretty much fool proof infact sometimes they even announce exactly when they will take rebirth with details of birth marks too , ill have to find it again if you're interested .

my point to bring this vid up was , prophecy of next prophet vs how its done in reincarnation ...which is more accurate , time tested , systematic and reliable.

another guru i personally know..who gave his time of death , and rebirth place time and village name... and that was within a 5 years span..he died at the precise time in samadhi he wasn't old was around 40-45 years old glowing skin prime health.. . That's how accurate and confident they are.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
He was His Name. As was Jesus the Christ.

Regards Tony

Jesus name does not make him christ nor does the title lord, high priest, or god.

Many people are named Jesús with no confusion as to who is Jesus and who is Jane's son. The Buddha is title Lord. Aaron the High Priest. Brahma being god in English translation.

Christ's and Bahaullah's existence is not proof of his divinity. The Buddha's existence does not prove that he was enlightened. It was his life, how he got there, and what he taught for us to practice is the proof-and the proof of enlightenment is not in history, as in abrahamic faiths, but in the present.

The Buddha's name is still Gautama Siddhartha. The title we give him does not change his character. It's our practice that does.

So, Bahaullah being "glory to god" does not make him any more like christ who is "anointed by god". They are just names people put on them when these two people were at the height of their ministry (however termed).

What you're actually doing is believing in these people based on their names as if their names connect them in character. Kind of like if someone else's name was Carlita and because our names are spelled the same, and we are both "good people", we are some how related to each other.

Once you take away their names and see their character and especially their teachings and the people's practices, then both people would be totally different from each other regardless their goal to bring people to god. Jesus would appreciate it if you recognize that difference since he says he is the only way to god. No one else.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Yes, that is the Baha'i' view. Since you have been unable to view your own statements as belief rather than fact, I guess I'll have to add those words for you. This may help other Baha'i' notice the condescending nature of your approach, and not repeat it.

Add what please you Vinayaka, I will only wish you well and happy.

In the end if one is given the choice of life or Faith, a belief is weak if one does not hold it to be the Truth and water it down.

I put hands up for lack of wisdom.

Many gave their lives for all the Great Beings and thus their Lives for God. I stay firm for them, not me. To reject or insult any Messenger of God is to insult and reject all those that have sacrificed thier lives for God and Faith, so we can have this conversation today.

Consider the thoughts of the peoples that put them to death.

I wish you strong Faith a great life and may you find what you are looking for. Kind Regards Tony.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
What you're actually doing is believing in these people based on their names as if their names connect them in character.

They did indeed.

Jesus of Nazareth the giver of the 'New Testament' was indeed the Christ, annointed of God.

Mirza Husayn-‘Ali, given the name Baha, was indeed Bahá’u’lláh (The Glory of God)

There names were their person, their character, their lives and their Word to us.

With that I leave this topic with you, I need say no more.

Have a great life Carlita, stay well and stay happy. Regards Tony
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I remember you acknowledge finally earlier that I was talking about your conversation skills when it comes to being online. A lot of times, our points are misinterpreted-all people's points-are misinterpreted because of how we express our points. For example, I can't remember the name at the moment, thought I shared a specific point with Bahai by how I phrased my words. I explained that for Bahai to make sense, at least to me, I would have to see it in this way even though I see it totally different. I had to put a clause to make conversations and my position much more clear without sounding as if I'm stating a fact everyone else must agree with or not.

@Vinayaka mentioned about putting "in my opinion" or like words or rephrase how you express your words because sometimes we do not know if you are stating a fact or your personal opinion. It also comes across rude regardless of your intentions.
They did indeed.
... in my opinion.

Jesus of Nazareth the giver of the 'New Testament' was indeed the Christ, annointed of God.

I did not say he was not (so this is your opinion?). I just said the Bab being "glory to god", Christ being "anointed one", and The Buddha being "enlightened" does not mean they are connected to each other by name.
They would need to be connected by practice and experience. They are not.

Their characteristics are differentiated positively by their lifestyle and teachings not by how they are called. Unless names are more important than one's character?​

Think about it. If your name is Carlita just as mine, does that mean I am you and you are me?

Mirza Husayn-‘Ali, given the name Baha, was indeed Bahá’u’lláh (The Glory of God)

Yes, this is Bahai belief. I know this....

There names were their person, their character, their lives and their Word to us.

Yes, Christians, Bahai, Muslims, etc believe this. In my opinion, it does not make sense. I am not my name just because my name is a combination of my father's name and his relations to me. The physical name means nothing in and of itself.

If you want to relate to someone, you relate to them by their character-their life, their teachings, etc-not their name.

That's like my coming up to my girlfriend (if I had one) and she asks, "what do you love about me?" and I tell her after ten years of dating, "oh, your name."

"My name?"

"Yes, it's beautiful. It totally discribes who you are as a person."

"So, if I had a different name opposite of what I have now, you would not love me."

"Actually, no. Because your name defines you. So any other name isn't worthy of your character."

See the difference. You don't have to agree but do you see this from my point of view?

With that I leave this topic with you, I need say no more.

If you don't care to understand me, just say so.

I can take belittlement but I hate it when I am trying to get my point accross and hoping you and others understand and I am cut off.

It is a HUGE pet peeve because of medical issues. It reminds me of talking with Deaf people. If you spoke to them and said "never mind" because they didn't catch what you said, that is completely rude. That is saying you don't want to give them the chance to ask for clarification because you made your statement and if they didn't hear it, then that's their fault.

It is completely rude to them culturally.

In America, it is rude period.
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
You know what I found interesting. I remember Jehovah Witnesses, I think, have a rule about speaking or debates or something or other. There was a time many of them didn't talk because of it. Probably a holiday of some sort.

I notice in regards to speech, Bahaullah says actions are better than words. Also idle talk isn't good and if the talk is not of good intention, then it's best not to talk at all. Bahai view on speech. I know there is a lot to learn on RF, but @loverofhumanity , what was the purpose of the thread if not letting people who disagree with you clarify what Bahai beliefs about the great leaders compared to their religion in which the rest of us follow?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Do you even know what sarcasm is?

I asked questions like this and haven't got an answer/post at all. I wish @Tony Bristow-Stagg stop seeing conversations as negative. It would really help move the conversation on without sounding rude.

Well, in general, I guess. Bahaullah does say Bahai should be silent and be focused on deeds. @adrian009 is it more of a balancing between what to say or is it guidance in person that silence and action are better than speech?
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
To reject or insult any Messenger of God is to insult and reject all those that have sacrificed thier lives for God and Faith, so we can have this conversation today.

Indeed may people who fought those very wars you complain about were thinking they were sacrificing their lives for God. Both sides thought that, in many wars. Neither side was able to see the irony. The Hindu belief is to not reject anyone. I am rejecting the Baha''i definitions of who they were. I did that back in this thread at about post 6. Hindus don't reject your right to believe whatever you wish. I'm not rejecting Baha'u'llah as a soul. He was emanated from God, just as you (I mean the soul 'you, not Tony the person) just as you and I were.

But Baha'i' (some Baha'i') somehow get to reject all non-Bahai' beliefs as incomplete, not accurate, Godless, etc. I see the irony. Do you?
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
They did indeed.

Jesus of Nazareth the giver of the 'New Testament' was indeed the Christ, annointed of God.

Mirza Husayn-‘Ali, given the name Baha, was indeed Bahá’u’lláh (The Glory of God)

There names were their person, their character, their lives and their Word to us.

Yes, these are the Baha'i' beliefs. Not fact. Beliefs.
 
Top