How are these Great Beings explained?

[Dawnofhope]

I'm thinkin'...... seriously.


When Bahauallah was a Babi here were no Bahai writings. Think about it.


Yep.
I don't want three wives.
But Bahauallah did........ Think about it.


A Babi marriage probably took as little-time as one minute, if cut to the bone.
The Babi law was the Babi law, writ large, the Divine Words of God as passed through his Ordained Prophet, if what you claim is true.

This, like so many other issues discussed upon this thread, is mostly about the meaning, the integrity and value of various Great Beings.

I have learned a lot about Bahai on this thread, but I honestly don't think that Bahai has shown itself in any good light here.

You have claimed Baha'u'llah broke Babi law in regards to marriage. You are yet to quote any verses to specify what the Bab said about marriage in the Bayan let alone prove these laws had come into effect. To the contrary, I have demonstrated the laws in the Bayan were conditional on the endorsement of Him whom God shall make manifest (Baha'u'llah).

Baha'i marriage laws were not just for Persia but for a worldwide community. They need to be enacted in each country with due consideration to the legal requirements. Perhaps in some countries you can get away with backroom marriages that have no legal jurisdiction, but in most you can't.

 

[siti]

I think we should read more carefully the statements of Bahaullah

I absolutely agree! Here are a couple of pointers to help you...

1. The words you say Baha'u'llah wrote to Czar Alexander II were actually in a section of the tablet addressing the "proud ones of the earth" generally and not the Czar specifically. And what did he actually say except what is common knowledge to every human: that the accumulation of wealth is ultimately pointless because all too soon our life ends and the wealth passes to someone else. If that's a specific prophecy I'll eat my hat.

2. The words he wrote specifically to Queen Victoria were a recommendation of democracy - a repeated theme throughout Baha'u'llah's writings, making the point that the power of monarchs is derived from their people. You should also read the more general remarks in Queen Victoria's letter addressed to the Kings of the earth and giving a stern warning about their amassing of arms etc.

Note, in particular what he says in the general section of Victoria's letter:

"We see you increasing every year your expenditures, and laying the burden thereof on your subjects. This, verily, is wholly and grossly unjust. Fear the sighs and tears of this Wronged One, and lay not excessive burdens on your peoples. Do not rob them to rear palaces for yourselves; nay rather choose for them that which ye choose for yourselves. Thus We unfold to your eyes that which profiteth you, if ye but perceive. Your people are your treasures. Beware lest your rule violate the commandments of God, and ye deliver your wards to the hands of the robber. By them ye rule, by their means ye subsist, by their aid ye conquer. Yet, how disdainfully ye look upon them! How strange, how very strange!"

There is no question that this applied as much if not more to Victoria's vast Empire than any other country in the world. Indeed, it was British policy in the late 19th century to maintain a navy that had at least as many ships as the next two greatest naval powers on earth combined.

You can't have it both ways - if the words addressed to the "proud ones of the earth" in the Czar's letter were a prophecy specific to the Czar then the condemnation addressed to the "kings of the earth" in Victoria's letter also applied specifically to her - and vice versa.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"If the whole world should arise to deny this cause, we must not fight. Our only role is to spread the teachings. If it be accepted, all is well; if not, leave the people to God."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 41

What is the point of spreading the teachings if you leave it up to god?

 

[Dawnofhope]

That's a shoddy request. Surely you've seen a dispute (you on the outside) where both sides declared the other side wasn't giving it any thought. It's meaningless emotional reaction of attachment.

"If you only looked into MY religion in a serious way, you'd see how wonderful it is."

There is no option of standing back and just looking at things dispassionately from a distance?

I'm not expecting either you or OB to gaze affectionately at the Baha'i Faith. You've made your intent clear.

I'm simply defending my faith from misrepresentation. You wouldn't want the Baha'is misrepresenting your faith, would you?

 

[siti]

Now, year 1844 marks the end of the sixth Millennium

Oh really? The sixth millennium of/from what exactly?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I am not 'people' and I have never viewed Moses as a murderer, nor Jesus as illegitimate. It's not for me to advise you but I would never so insult either name. Further to that there is no evidence that Moses murdered when he killed........ you mess with words, Sir.

Yet if the text of either the story of Moses or Jesus were taken at face value, then Moses could have been seen as a murderer, as He was by the Egyptians, and Jesus could have been seen as illegitimate as He was by the Jews.

It's all about integrity of person, of word, and, of course, of religion.

Yet you recently called Paul a psycho and remove most of the NT books to give Christ an utterly different character from that intended.

 

[Vinayaka]

Do you really think Bahaullah was not a real person? What about God Shiva? Do you think God Shiva is a real person?

I think Baha'u'llah was a real person who managed to convince a few people he was perfect in every way.

In Saivite Hinduism the terms Shiva and God are synonymous. So Shiva isn't a person. The anthropomorhised versions aren't part of my sect.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm not expecting either you or OB to gaze affectionately at the Baha'i Faith. You've made your intent clear.

I'm simply defending my faith from misrepresentation. You wouldn't want the Baha'is misrepresenting your faith, would you?

No. Nobody wants that. Most of the quotes people use when talking about Baha'i, however, are from Baha'i sources themselves. I don't really see what there is to defend when someone just says, 'Well, I disagree with that." Can you point to anywhere where I tried to distort Baha'i teachings? When we say things like women aren't allowed to serve on the UHJ, that's true, isn't it?

 

[siti]

Yet if the text of either the story of Moses or Jesus were taken at face value, then Moses could have been seen as a murderer, as He was by the Egyptians, and Jesus could have been seen as illegitimate as He was by the Jews.

If the story of Moses is taken at face value, Moses was a mass murderer, guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing who makes the likes of Saddam Hussein and Radovan Karadzic look tame by comparison.

 

[Dawnofhope]

How many times have you talked about all the wrong beliefs Christians have? So with Jesus, Baha'is say all sorts of nice things about him, but they don't accept the Christian beliefs about him. So what do you call those beliefs? Like the resurrection? False? Fantasy? How about Satan? False? Fantasy? How about the Christian belief about creation? False? Fantasy?

The Baha'is while respecting the exalted station of Christ are clear we do not believe He literally rose from the dead and was not God incarnate. Nor do we believe Satan literally existed. However Baha'is also recognise beliefs about the resurrection, divinity of Christ, and Satan are very important to many Christians so we avoid using words like fantasy.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The point was... The world is still crumbling. The things in Revelation appear to still be happening. Therefore, Jesus hasn't returned yet.

Actually the world is a much safer place with less wars and conflicts between nations than the twentieth century, not that there isn't a great deal of work to be done for further improvements.

8 Deadliest Wars of the 21st Century

 

[Dawnofhope]

No. Nobody wants that. Most of the quotes people use when talking about Baha'i, however, are from Baha'i sources themselves. I don't really see what there is to defend when someone just says, 'Well, I disagree with that." Can you point to anywhere where I tried to distort Baha'i teachings? When we say things like women aren't allowed to serve on the UHJ, that's true, isn't it?

My original comment was directed to OB.

See posts #15855, 15856, 15857, 18858, and 15874.

I have no problem with criticisms based on factual information. For example Baha'u'llah had three wives or No women on the Universal House of Justice These are irrefutable facts.

The discussion with OB is about what the Baha'i writings say regarding polygamy. The Baha'i writings are my area of expertise and thus far OB is yet to produce a single verse to support his contention that Baha'u'llah acted illegally in having three wives.

 

[Vinayaka]

My original comment was directed to OB.

See posts #15855, 15856, 15857, 18858, and 15874.

I have no problem with criticisms based on factual information. For example Baha'u'llah had three wives or No women on the Universal House of Justice These are irrefutable facts.

The discussion with OB is about what the Baha'i writings say regarding polygamy. The Baha'i writings are my area of expertise and thus far OB is yet to produce a single verse to support his contention that Baha'u'llah acted illegally in having three wives.

I personally don't care if he had 3 wives or not, or whether he broke Baha'i law or not. The whole thing seems rather trivial to me. Basically, with the doctrine of infallibility, in the eyes of Baha'i he could do no wrong anyway. He could make up laws as he went along.

 

[CG Didymus]

Where did you get the idea that the dragon is Abbasids?

From Adrian post 13009 "The second beast was the 'Abbasid dynasty. The Abbasid dynasty came to power by conquest on the ruins (earth) of the Umayyad Empire. Its rulers gradually became Turkish beginning about 840 AD. The second
beast had two names (horns) of "The Caliph" and "The Sultan." " and in post 13231 "The red dragon is the Abbasid Caliphate that followed the Umayyad."

Do you think it's easy remembering all this? I took notes, though. So is he right or you? Or neither?

 

[CG Didymus]

I'm not expecting either you or OB to gaze affectionately at the Baha'i Faith. You've made your intent clear.

I'm simply defending my faith from misrepresentation. You wouldn't want the Baha'is misrepresenting your faith, would you?

Testing and questioning and doubting the validity of the Baha'i Faith is all part of investigating it. Do you expect everyone to "see the light" immediately? Trouble is... there's some darkness and obscurity. I think we're all just trying to shine a light into the darker side of the Baha'i Faith to see what's lurking in there.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yet if the text of either the story of Moses or Jesus were taken at face value, then Moses could have been seen as a murderer, as He was by the Egyptians, and Jesus could have been seen as illegitimate as He was by the Jews.



Yet you recently called Paul a psycho and remove most of the NT books to give Christ an utterly different character from that intended.

What character does Paul give Jesus? Do you agree with all of it?

 

[CG Didymus]

If the story of Moses is taken at face value, Moses was a mass murderer, guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing who makes the likes of Saddam Hussein and Radovan Karadzic look tame by comparison.

Moses was not responsible for all those killings. How dare to say that!!! God was.

God ordered the killing, so like a soldier taking orders from a superior, Moses obeyed.

Okay maybe Moses was guilty of killing the Egyptian, but even then, God killed some Egyptians with plagues and then drowned the whole army. So Moses one, God thousands. That's not so bad... comparatively speaking. You can check it out. It's in all the history books... okay maybe it's only in the Bible, but that makes it the truth. Except, unless you don't believe in the Bible or are a Baha'i and believe it was a symbolic drowning and killing. Then maybe Moses isn't guilty either. He only "symbolically" beat the Egyptian to death.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Baha'is while respecting the exalted station of Christ are clear we do not believe He literally rose from the dead and was not God incarnate. Nor do we believe Satan literally existed. However Baha'is also recognise beliefs about the resurrection, divinity of Christ, and Satan are very important to many Christians so we avoid using words like fantasy.

If Christians believe them, and they aren't true? Then what are they?

 

[CG Didymus]

Actually the world is a much safer place with less wars and conflicts between nations than the twentieth century, not that there isn't a great deal of work to be done for further improvements.

8 Deadliest Wars of the 21st Century

Safe? Maybe in New Zealand. But we got mass murderers, terrorists, hurricanes, wild fires and Trump. I'm telling you... It's coming to an end.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If the story of Moses is taken at face value, Moses was a mass murderer, guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing who makes the likes of Saddam Hussein and Radovan Karadzic look tame by comparison.

At face value, I agree. I think you should ask your friend 1Robin to explain why Moses was actually carrying out God's will.


Charles Manson