• 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 you think you know of something good, should you not share it with others? Nobody forces anybody.
No. Everybody thinks they know of something good. But we who don't proselytise also know that other people know of something good. So we leave them alone, for many reasons:
We don't want to cause undue confusion.
We respect their right to be left alone.
We respect that they're adults and have made decisions that work for them.
We don't see our faith as better than theirs, just better for ourselves as individuals.
We don't want to hurt or injure families by causing disunity in a family unit.
We encourage them to get strong with their own faith.
It can be intrusive and rude, and we don't want to be rude.

So you see, there are just so many wonderful reasons not to proselytise. It's just so against the fundamental human value of respect for other's opinions and beliefs. Of course this is all just 'negative ' to the Baha'i. Trying to convert is the 'positive' and 'humane' thing to do.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
No. Everybody thinks they know of something good. But we who don't proselytise also know that other people know of something good. So we leave them alone, for many reasons:
We don't want to cause undue confusion.
We respect their right to be left alone.
We respect that they're adults and have made decisions that work for them.
We don't see our faith as better than theirs, just better for ourselves as individuals.
We don't want to hurt or injure families by causing disunity in a family unit.
We encourage them to get strong with their own faith.
It can be intrusive and rude, and we don't want to be rude.

So you see, there are just so many wonderful reasons not to proselytise. It's just so against the fundamental human value of respect for other's opinions and beliefs. Of course this is all just 'negative ' to the Baha'i. Trying to convert is the 'positive' and 'humane' thing to do.
But what if you see someone seems to be asking for information? Or in your case, you provided a link about Muhammad, asking if the information in the link is all wrong. Now, I thought I know of a correct source about Muhammad. Why should I not share it here? Just as you shared another view, which they seem to think is true, and you also seemed to believe it to be true. So, why should I not share what I think is true?
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Apologies, but that looks like a well rehearsed understanding.

I'll take it as I find it.

Those responses to the same question are from years of research and an attempt to understand the Message of Baha'u'llah.

I edited the post and just posted the link to the talk so you could read both views.

But, Yes you must do your own searches.

Regards Tony
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
So you see, there are just so many wonderful reasons not to proselytise. It's just so against the fundamental human value of respect for other's opinions and beliefs.

I like Rabbi Blue's ideas about this.

Everybody should be banned from telling anybody else about their religion or faith.
They have to live by their faith, and only if somebody approaches them and says something like, 'I've been watching you live your life and I am so impressed. Tell me.... what is your secret?'
Only then may the believer be permitted to explain their faith or religion.

Clever guy, that Rabbi.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
But what if you see someone seems to be asking for information? Or in your case, you provided a link about Muhammad, asking if the information in the link is all wrong. Now, I thought I know of a correct source about Muhammad. Why should I not share it here? Just as you shared another view, which they seem to think is true, and you also seemed to believe it to be true. So, why should I not share what I think is true?
You've conveniently switched the context. That's different. We've all mutually agreed to share stuff on a debate forum. It's not the same as proselytising, even though this thread was set up as an excuse to proselytise. It's good of you, however to present your ideas on Muhammad as a theory not as the truth. That's a step in the right direction.

I'm not interested in getting into some debate on the merits or not of Muhammad. Others have been doing that ad infinitum. You jumped to a false conclusion about which side I am on. As I said before, I'm neutral. Of course to you, that means I'm not on your side. This is just more dualistic, 'us versus them' thinking. In that mindset, one simply cannot be neutral. there is no place for it. For me, the outcome of ISIS is enough proof that the information was vague enough for people to be violent. So too was the outcome of the Islamic invasions of India, and the Christian Crusades. To me, if a scripture is to be fully recognised a scripture of peace, the words should be foolproof, with no room whatsoever for misinterpretation. That's also why the Bhagavad Gita isn't my choice for Hindu scripture, as it opens a scary can of worms that could be misconstrued, and in fact has been.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I like Rabbi Blue's ideas about this.

Everybody should be banned from telling anybody else about their religion or faith.
They have to live by their faith, and only if somebody approaches them and says something like, 'I've been watching you live your life and I am so impressed. Tell me.... what is your secret?'
Only then may the believer be permitted to explain their faith or religion.

Clever guy, that Rabbi.
Totally concur, and practice it to the best of my ability.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
A few are;

Kaiser William I
Sultan 'Abdu'l-'Aziz, ruler of the vast Ottoman Empire
Alexander II Nicolaevitch, Czar of all the Russia
Nasiri'd-Din Shah, king of Persia
Kaiser Wilhelm I died of natural causes in 1888 three weeks shy of his 91st birthday...and was succeeded by his son Frederick III who died of cancer 99 days after acceding to the throne...the German Empire continued until 1918 under Frederick's son Wilhelm II. None of this was predicted by Baha'u'llah.

On the other hand, in 1897, Otto von Bismarck had warned Wilhelm II about the potential for mutiny and accurately predicted: "Jena [a battle in which Napoleon I defeated Prussia] came twenty years after the death of Frederick the Great; the crash will come twenty years after my departure if things go on like this" - Wilhelm had forced Bismarck to resign in 1890 and Bismarck died in 1898. The "crash" - the downfall of the German Empire came in November 1918 - twenty years after Bismarck's death just as he had predicted.

And Wilhelm II was not backward in uttering prophecy either - in a letter to his sister in 1940 he wrote ""The hand of God is creating a new world & working miracles... We are becoming the U.S. of Europe under German leadership, a united European Continent" - how's that for prescience - and from the uninspired pen of a divinely discredited fallen monarch at that?

Similarly for Alexander II - although he himself was assassinated (not an entirely unprecedented outcome for a Russian Czar) in 1881, his dynasty continued in power until 1917 under his son, Alexander III and grandson, Nicholas II.

I don't know about the other two but since we have now strayed into the realms of dynastic succession, what about Abdu'l Baha's prediction that Shogi Effendi's heir would become the Guardian of the Baha'i faith? Shogi Effendi, of course died childless. Oops!
 
Last edited:

siti

Well-Known Member
Imprinting. I wonder if it affects humans?
I definitely think you could be onto something there. I don't know much about the psychology of imprinting but what you say seems to fit the "religious" attitude - following meekly in the footsteps of the "Great Being" like a recently-hatched duckling stumbling haplessly after the mother duck. I guess its kinda the same thing that makes the first car we owned the best that was ever made - even though it was a rusty old jalopy of a thing that nobody else would have been seen dead driving. You know its a heap of old "pickled cherries", but you persist in defending its honor as you would your own mother's.
 
Last edited:

siti

Well-Known Member
It all depends on Who Baha’u’llah is. IF He is a Manifestation of God then He speaks truthfully and should never be doubted.

As you don’t accept He is a Manifestation of course you doubt.

It all comes back to resolving whether or not He was the Promised One foretold in the scriptures of all religions or not.
This is precisely the same circular reasoning that supports all blind faith...

First you choose a religion and declare its founder infallible. Then you examine the writings to see if it has anything that might look like a prophecy. Then you look for any possible correspondence between the prophecy and known historical events. If you find it that proves the infallibility of the founder, if not it simply means either it hasn't happened yet or we lack the faith and spiritual insight to interpret it correctly. Either way the founder remains infallible. Christians have been going round this circle for 2000 years. Baha'is have got a very long way to go yet. I wonder if they'll have the same stamina.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
Kaiser Wilhelm I died of natural causes in 1888 three weeks shy of his 91st birthday...and was succeeded by his son Frederick III who died of cancer 99 days after acceding to the throne...the German Empire continued until 1918 under Frederick's son Wilhelm II. None of this was predicted by Baha'u'llah.


To Kaiser William I, Emperor of Germany, Bahá'u'lláh addressed these words in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas:


Say: O King of Berlin! Give ear unto the Voice calling from this manifest Temple: Verily, there is none other God but Me, the Everlasting, the Peerless, the Ancient of Days. Take heed lest pride debar thee from recognizing the Dayspring of Divine Revelation, lest earthly desires shut thee out, as by a veil, from the Lord of the Throne above and of the earth below. Thus counselleth thee the Pen of the Most High. He, verily, is the Most Gracious, the All-Bountiful. Do thou remember the one whose power transcended thy power, and whose station excelled thy station. Where is he? Whither are gone the things he possessed? Take warning, and be not of them that are fast asleep. He it was who cast the Tablet of God behind him, when We made known unto him what the hosts of tyranny had caused Us to suffer. Wherefore, disgrace assailed him from all sides, and he went down to dust in great loss. Think deeply, O King, concerning him, and concerning them who, like unto thee, have conquered cities and ruled over men. The All-Merciful brought them down from their palaces to their graves. Be warned, be of them who reflect.
We have asked nothing from you. For the sake of God We, verily, exhort you, and will be patient as We have been patient in that which hath befallen Us at your hands, O concourse of kings! 2



In the above passages, Bahá'u'lláh refers to Napoleon III as the 'one whose power transcended thy power', and summons the Emperor to heed His call. But it was a call which remained unheeded.
The decline in the fortunes of William I and of his grandson William II was then set in motion, culminating in the dissolution of his Empire and the establishment of the Republic. In another passage in the same Book, Bahá'u'lláh reveals this remarkable prophecy which now after two World Wars is clearly seen to be fulfilled:



O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.3

On the other hand, in 1897, Otto von Bismarck had warned Wilhelm II about the potential for mutiny and accurately predicted: "Jena [a battle in which Napoleon I defeated Prussia] came twenty years after the death of Frederick the Great; the crash will come twenty years after my departure if things go on like this" - Wilhelm had forced Bismarck to resign in 1890 and Bismarck died in 1898 - the "crash" - the downfall of the German Empire came in November 1918 - twenty years after Bismarck's death just as he had predicted.

The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volume 3, Chapter 8
I don't think by 'Crash' he meant 'death'.


Similarly for Alexander II - although he himself was assassinated (not an entirely unprecedented outcome for a Russian Czar) in 1881, his dynasty continued in power until 1917 under his son, Alexander III and grandson, Nicholas II.

I think you can find the explanation for that prophecy in the link as well:
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volume 3, Chapter 8

I don't know about the other two but since we have now strayed into the realms of dynastic succession, what about Abdu'l Baha's prediction that Shogi Effendi's heir would become the Guardian of the Baha'i faith? Shogi Effendi, of course died childless. Oops!
Abdulbaha did not predict such a thing. He did not say it shall come to pass. He formulate it by stating that Shoghi Effendi must choose the next Guardian after himself who must be his son. In another passage of His will Abdulbaha also wrote when something happens and you need farther guidance you must refer to the Book of Aqdas. What happened was that, Shoghi Effendi did not have a child, so once Shoghi Effendi passed away, Bahais realized that since he did not have a son to be the next guardian, then according to the statement of Abdulbaha Bahais must refer to the Book of Aqdas for additional guidance. There is a passage in the Book where it can be clearly seen that Bahaullah had already ordained that after Them, Universal House of Justice must be elected and take over the leadership of Baha'i community. Now as regards to the formulation of Abdulbaha, there was a Wisdom in it, which can be discussed. It is compatible with theology that Bahaullah taught before. Thus Bahais do not think that Abdulbaha did not know this will happen, but they understand there is a wisdom for it...

Once a Person comes to believe that signs of divinity was manifested from Bahaullah, then there is a trust in Him. So, when we know Bahaullah's ability to reveal Books was not through any training or practices, and we also see He fulfilled Prophecies of passed Religions, and we also see how upright He was, and How spiritually powerful and wise He was, and that He was willing to sacrifice all His life for guiding people to the right path, even though He could have a comfortable and noble life, yet He accepted to be imprisoned and exile for guidance of humanity, we than know He was who says He was, and in such cases that you are referring, the Bahais realize and can believe there was a wisdom.
 
Last edited:

siti

Well-Known Member
I don't think by 'Crash' he meant 'death'.
Oh dear! Once again you are having difficulty with your reading skills IT! Here it is again with a little more explanation, color-coded and with my notes in square brackets:

"Jena [a battle in which Napoleon I defeated Prussia] came twenty years after the death of Frederick the Great [Frederick the Great died in 1786 and the Battle of Jena was fought and lost in 1806 - the Kingdom of Prussia was subjugated to Napoleon's French Empire until 1812]; the crash [meaning the fall of the German Empire] will come twenty years after my departure [meaning Bismarck's death by comparison with the first part of the statement which refers to Frederick the Great's death] if things go on like this"

Bismarck's "departure" happened in July 1898 when he died and the Empire fell in November 1918 when the military high command refused to fight for Wilhelm II and demanded Hindenburg's leadership instead. Interestingly, Bismarck had also predicted not only the time but the mutinous manner in which the downfall would occur. In the same year that he predicted the "Crash" twenty years after his death he also warned Wilhelm II:

"Your Majesty, so long as you have this present officer corps, you can do as you please. But when this is no longer the case, it will be very different for you."

Bismarck was, of course, no prophet and made no such pretensions - he was just a smart guy looking at the trajectory of current events and making remarkably accurate predictions based on his observations. And in regard to the fall of the German Empire, his predictions were both more accurate and more detailed than those of Baha'u'llah - but that stands to reason - Bismarck obviously knew a hell of a lot more about the German Empire. So much for divine inspiration!
 
Last edited:

siti

Well-Known Member
This is precisely the same circular reasoning that supports all blind faith...

First you choose a religion and declare its founder infallible. Then you examine the writings to see if it has anything that might look like a prophecy. Then you look for any possible correspondence between the prophecy and known historical events. If you find it that proves the infallibility of the founder, if not it simply means either it hasn't happened yet or we lack the faith and spiritual insight to interpret it correctly. Either way the founder remains infallible. Christians have been going round this circle for 2000 years. Baha'is have got a very long way to go yet. I wonder if they'll have the same stamina.

Abdulbaha did not predict such a thing. He did not say it shall come to pass. He formulate it by stating that Shoghi Effendi must choose the next Guardian after himself who must be his son. In another passage of His will Abdulbaha also wrote when something happens and you need farther guidance you must refer to the Book of Aqdas. What happened was that, Shoghi Effendi did not have a child, so once Shoghi Effendi passed away, Bahais realized that since he did not have a son to be the next guardian, then according to the statement of Abdulbaha Bahais must refer to the Book of Aqdas for additional guidance. There is a passage in the Book where it can be clearly seen that Bahaullah had already ordained that after Them, Universal House of Justice must be elected and take over the leadership of Baha'i community. Now as regards to the formulation of Abdulbaha, there was a Wisdom in it, which can be discussed. It is compatible with theology that Bahaullah taught before. Thus Bahais do not think that Abdulbaha did not know this will happen, but they understand there is a wisdom for it...

You really do have a knack for proving my points IT! A God-given talent perhaps? "Henceforth, O Son of thy Father, shalt thou be constituted Our faithful interpreter. Whatsoever words proceedeth from Our flowery Pen, shalt thou faithfully proceed to establish proven beyond any shadow of doubt by thine obstinate but futile attempts to prove false the true and verify the plainly bloody ridiculous." (from the Book of the Pickled Cherries of Religious Credulity by Siti, 2017)
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
In terms of an individual's character or ability to be a decent citizen of the planet living in peace with your fellow man, just how does the belief in an infallible prophet help with that? To me, it seems the two concepts are totally unrelated. Does that belief make you more honest? More compassionate? More tolerant? Just what does it do for you, that other sources can't, other than for you to say 'I believe in an infallible prophet.' If that's all there is to it, it sure doesn't seem like much.

The basic wisdom of morality is all over the place, after all.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
Oh dear! Once again you are having difficulty with your reading skills IT! Here it is again with a little more explanation, color-coded and with my notes in square brackets:

"Jena [a battle in which Napoleon I defeated Prussia] came twenty years after the death of Frederick the Great [Frederick the Great died in 1786 and the Battle of Jena was fought and lost in 1806 - the Kingdom of Prussia was subjugated to Napoleon's French Empire until 1812]; the crash [meaning the fall of the German Empire] will come twenty years after my departure [meaning Bismarck's death by comparison with the first part of the statement which refers to Frederick the Great's death] if things go on like this"

Bismarck's "departure" happened in July 1898 when he died and the Empire fell in November 1918 when the military high command refused to fight for Wilhelm II and demanded Hindenburg's leadership instead. Interestingly, Bismarck had also predicted not only the time but the mutinous manner in which the downfall would occur. In the same year that he predicted the "Crash" twenty years after his death he also warned Wilhelm II:

"Your Majesty, so long as you have this present officer corps, you can do as you please. But when this is no longer the case, it will be very different for you."

Bismarck was, of course, no prophet and made no such pretensions - he was just a smart guy looking at the trajectory of current events and making remarkably accurate predictions based on his observations. And in regard to the fall of the German Empire, his predictions were both more accurate and more detailed than those of Baha'u'llah - but that stands to reason - Bismarck obviously knew a hell of a lot more about the German Empire. So much for divine inspiration!
I already discussed this. Even let's suppose a person predicted in this case such a thing, which still is arguable (but I don't have too much time to refute it), I had already said that, many people may say many things, some of them come true, some fails. But what matters is to predict 20 things, and none of them fails. Now you attribute this to his knowledge, whereas it could be completely accidental. But Bahaullah clearly predicts all those Kingdom Falls, except in case of Queen, He said her kingdom is given strength and remains. And for obvious reason it cannot be said it was accidental, but it is clear evidence of the knowledge of future. Moreover, the coming of such a Person was prophesied by Previous Prophets to come in such a year, and such a country, and living for forty years from beginning of His mission. They had even said He comes to city of Akka. Now, out of so many cities, they had said He comes to akka, and we see how Bahaullah was exiled to Akka.
 
Last edited:

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
You really do have a knack for proving my points IT! A God-given talent perhaps? "Henceforth, O Son of thy Father, shalt thou be constituted Our faithful interpreter. Whatsoever words proceedeth from Our flowery Pen, shalt thou faithfully proceed to establish proven beyond any shadow of doubt by thine obstinate but futile attempts to prove false the true and verify the plainly bloody ridiculous." (from the Book of the Pickled Cherries of Religious Credulity by Siti, 2017)
How is this even a serious reply to the points I am referring to? You know, I am interested in intelligent discussions my friend.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
In terms of an individual's character or ability to be a decent citizen of the planet living in peace with your fellow man, just how does the belief in an infallible prophet help with that? To me, it seems the two concepts are totally unrelated. Does that belief make you more honest? More compassionate? More tolerant? Just what does it do for you, that other sources can't, other than for you to say 'I believe in an infallible prophet.' If that's all there is to it, it sure doesn't seem like much.

The basic wisdom of morality is all over the place, after all.

We get to know what is from God and what is from our own selves. Thank God for the Great Beings.

Regards Tony
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
In terms of an individual's character or ability to be a decent citizen of the planet living in peace with your fellow man, just how does the belief in an infallible prophet help with that? To me, it seems the two concepts are totally unrelated. Does that belief make you more honest? More compassionate? More tolerant? Just what does it do for you, that other sources can't, other than for you to say 'I believe in an infallible prophet.' If that's all there is to it, it sure doesn't seem like much.

The basic wisdom of morality is all over the place, after all.

You know. I finally got to go to a Dharma talk in person and more specific meditation guidance. They finally built a temple near me too. I just thought Buddhism is So not a god/creator religion. I guess that wont be well understood without going pass book knowledge and interpretation of one person's teachings from the lens of another.

Shrugs.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
I already discussed this. Even let's suppose a person predicted in this case such a thing, which still is arguable (but I don't have too much time to refute it), I had already said that, many people may say many things, some of them come true, some fails. But what matters is to predict 20 things, and none of them fails. Now you attribute this to his knowledge, whereas it could be completely accidental. But Bahaullah clearly predicts all those Kingdom Falls, except in case of Queen, He said her kingdom is given strength and remains. And for obvious reason it cannot be said it was accidental, but it is clear evidence of the knowledge of future. Moreover, the coming of such a Person was prophesied by Previous Prophets to come in such a year, and such a country, and living for forty years from beginning of His mission. They had even said He comes to city of Akka. Now, out of so many cities, they had said He comes to akka, and we see how Bahaullah was exiled to Akka.
Bismarck's comments to Wilhelm II were a matter of historical record before the fall of the German Empire. But it was no great feat of prophecy to predict the fall of a kingdom in the 19th century. In terms of Germany, the 18th century had seen a succession of wars fought to establish rulership over the main bits of what later became the German Empire - i.e. Prussia and Austria. The Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia both fell in 1806 and a fair amount of "Germany" came under Napoleon's Confederation of the Rhine until 1813 (Battle of Leipzig) after which the German Confederation was set up in 1815. That was interrupted during the revolutions in 1848 and fell apart altogether after the Austro-Prussian war in 1866 fragmenting Germany into several Kingdoms that were brought together again in 1871 in the German Empire. It was this "Empire" (still in its infancy, being only a year or two old) that "The King of Berlin" Kaiser Wilhelm I ruled to whom Baha'u'llah sent his warning letter. The "Kingdom" he was referring to had "fallen" 3 times and "risen" 3 times in less than 70 years when he wrote that letter. It would be almost half a century before the Kingdom "fell" again in 1918.

The way you interpret Baha'u'llah's "prophecy" suggests that he was making predictions about the unexpected fall of well-established Kingdoms that nobody thought would ever fail and the long-term stability of wobbly monarchies that everyone else expected to collapse at any moment - but the history of the period shows that nothing could be further from the truth. The monarchs of Prussia, France and even Russia were in constant fear of invasion and war from outside and violent revolution or assassination plots from within.

By contrast, Queen Victoria's realm had been ruled by the same family for over 150 years with only a brief skirmish on British soil with a handful of Spanish troops way back in 1719 at the Battle of Glen Shiel to threaten the security of Britain's borders. Around the time of Baha'u'llah's 'prophesying', a brief outburst of republican sentiment had given way to sympathy for the monarch when the Prince of Wales (the current Queen's great-grandfather) became dangerously ill and an Irish militant waved an unloaded gun in front of her. I don't believe there was anything like the same expectation that the monarchy of Britain would fall. While the Czar of Russia feared to venture forth for fear of assassination, the complaint in Britain was that the monarch was not seen enough in public.

The rise and fall of monarchies was not an unusual event in the fractious 18th/19th century history of Europe - it was the norm. Throughout that period, Britain was an exception. Baha'u'llah was clearly no slouch when it came to interpreting the trajectory of history - he saw the trends and extrapolated - taking care not to be overly specific. He knew that kingdoms don't last forever but that some last longer than others and "prophesied" accordingly, but Napoleon III was the only one whose kingdom actually fell in his own lifetime, as had those of most of about a hundred of his predecessors as "Head of State" in the eighty-odd years between the French Revolution and the fall of the Second Empire. It was hardly a surprise.
 
Last edited:
Top