How are these Great Beings explained?

[Vinayaka]

Moral and political corruption were two main reasons, identical to today’s world in many ways. Excessive military spending and taxes and failing economies all the signs of today’s world which you claim is a form of Utopia. I beg to differ and I trust time will vindicate my argument that we are on the verge of collapse and Baha’u’llah appeared at the right time with the right solution - an entirely new world order.

When did I ever say today's world is a form of utopia? I don't even believe in utopia as a concept. You're free to think as you want to. But certainly evidence points against it.

 

[Vinayaka]

He gave warnings about their fate but the most important thing is why? He wanted them to stop oppressing their people, over taxing them and sending them to war and thus impoverishing them. He wanted all humans to be treated with dignity and respect not as slaves.

Most likely all kinds of people warned them. Again, what makes Baha'u'llah unique? How many others talk about dignity and respect? Tons of people do. The problem is that when Baha'is talk about it, the message always has to include Baha'u'llah. It seems the Baha'is beleve that man cannot respect other people unless he accepts Baha'u'llah. The truth is anyone can do it directly, without religion at all.

 

[siti]

I reply to no-one in particular but if anyone did happen to have an evidence-based argument to refute the clear evidence that has been presented against interpreting Baha'u'llah's vague statements as specific prophecy, please post that rather than wishy-washy affirmations of Baha'i blind credulity.

Regards to all Siti

 

[Dawnofhope]

So you're saying Baha'u'llah wasn't infallible?

As far as avoiding certain terms in an interfaith discussion, I would avoid lots too. But this isn't really an interfaith discussion, it's just a Baha'i discussion, with non-Baha'is participating. So I think the discussion of infallibility is totally appropriate. Are you saying, 'Let's discuss Baha'i, but all the controversial aspects are off the table?'

This thread certainly has morphed into a Baha'i verses non-Baha'i. I'm not entirely comfortable with that but it is what it is. As stated on several occasions I am here to learn about other faiths and so have been meaning to check out a few details about Saivite Hinduism. I'll post about that soon.

This thread is in the general debate section. We discuss what we want to, controversial topics included. That's fine as long as its respectful and courteous.

If you want to discuss infallibility, no problem. Its not as black and white as it sounds IMHO, and I'll share my views soon.

 

[Vinayaka]

This thread certainly has morphed into a Baha'i verses non-Baha'i. I'm not entirely comfortable with that but it is what it is. As stated on several occasions I am here to learn about other faiths and so have been meaning to check out a few details about Saivite Hinduism. I'll post about that soon.

This thread is in the general debate section. We discuss what we want to, controversial topics included. That's fine as long as its respectful and courteous.

If you want to discuss infallibility, no problem. Its not as black and white as it sounds IMHO, and I'll share my views soon.

If you go back to the OP, it seems pretty clear it was intended to be an explanation of the Baha'i belief system as regard to 'Great Beings'. The question was just a set up for later Baha'i explanation. (or an excuse to proselytise) So I don't think it has morphed at all. Perhaps the only mistake was to put it outside of the Baha'i DIR, which just invites opposing views. And yes, that is what LH got. I welcome opposing views as then you can tell people aren't just blindly following some dogma.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So you don't know then! I mean since it is not possible to count precisely from the "days of Adam" to 1844 you have no idea when the "sixth millennium" started or ended? This is quite possibly the most preposterous Baha'i explanation I have seen so far - sixth millennium indeed - what the heck happened to progressive revelation and the adoption of scientific knowledge?

Obviously that is not what I said, and you seem you have not understood my post.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

What is this "who you say"? Kaiser Wilhelm I died at the age of 90 - that is a matter of historical record. Your reinterpretations of history are more hysterical than historical.

Dear siti, you do not seem to have understood the point I made. I meant, if we read the Tablet to the Kaiser, Bahaullah states " I will be patient with you". Now think how compatible is "being patient with him" , and long life of Kaiser! But in other cases Bahaullah did not tell them, He will be patient, rather He told them, soon God cease you, or soon you return to dust, then notice, they died fairly soon and unexpectedly! Do you see what i mean?

And if you want me to administer the coup de grace to your argument here are Baha'u'llah's further words to Queen Victoria - not to other kings according to your interpretation...

"O ye rulers of the earth! Wherefore have ye clouded the radiance of the Sun, and caused it to cease from shining? Hearken unto the counsel given you by the Pen of the Most High, that haply both ye and the poor may attain unto tranquillity and peace. We beseech God to assist the kings of the earth to establish peace on earth. He, verily, doth what He willeth.


O kings of the earth! 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!


Now that ye have refused the Most Great Peace, hold ye fast unto this, the Lesser Peace, that haply ye may in some degree better your own condition and that of your dependents.


O rulers of the earth! Be reconciled among yourselves, that ye may need no more armaments save in a measure to safeguard your territories and dominions. Beware lest ye disregard the counsel of the All-Knowing, the Faithful.


Be united, O kings of the earth, for thereby will the tempest of discord be stilled amongst you, and your peoples find rest, if ye be of them that comprehend. Should any one among you take up arms against another, rise ye all against him, for this is naught but manifest justice. Thus did We exhort you in the Tablet sent down aforetime, and We admonish you once again to follow that which hath been revealed by Him Who is the Almighty, the All-Wise. Should anyone seek refuge with you, extend unto him your protection and betray him not. Thus doth the Pen of the Most High counsel you, as bidden by Him Who is the All-Knowing, the All-Informed.


Beware lest ye act as did the King of Islám when We came unto him at his bidding. His ministers pronounced judgement against Us with such injustice that all creation lamented and the hearts of those who are nigh unto God were consumed. The winds of self and passion move them as they will, and We found them all bereft of constancy. They are, indeed, of those that are far astray."

And we all know what happened to the "King of Islam" aka the Sultan Abdul Aziz don't we!

So your argument that Queen Victoria's letter was positive and prophesied the continuation of her kingdom fails miserably. If you take it the same way you are taking the Czar's letter, there is both commendation and condemnation in both. And Queen Victoria stood to suffer a fate every bit as ignominious as the Sultan of Turkey and the Czar of Russia if she disregarded the counsel of Baha'u'llah. She did disregard it - she did not suffer the immediate penalty. Neither did the King of Berlin, Emperor Franz Josef or the Pope.

Quite frankly, I think this whole prophecy thing is clutching at straws to shore up an outmoded faith that can no longer be sustained in the light of scientific discoveries and the unfolding of 20th and 21st century human history.

I do believe that Baha'u'llah wrote some incredibly sensible counsel to those Kings - especially about democracy and the profligacy of warfare - but these were neither new ideas (revelations) nor prophecies. If you take out the supernatural rubbish and admit that the religion is syncretic you have a reasonable set of principles on which to build a 21st century religion. But you would have to admit that Baha'u'llah was, at best, a wise man and that his thoughts are part of the progressive 'revelation' of human, not divine, wisdom. But you tarnish both the religion and the humanness of its origins in your desperation to bolster your founder's reputation with spurious claims of prophecy fulfilled. He didn't even write them as prophecy as far as I can tell, just counsel and warnings that were almost universally ignored.

Deat siti, a prophetic statement talks about future.
It usually has the word 'shall', or 'will'. It may also be expressed in the present or passed if it is a prophetic vision. None of the ones you quoted above from the Tablet to Queen is prophetic. Thus the point remains that in the general parts of the Tablets IF there is a prophetic statement it will be applicable indirectly to the particular king the Tablet is written for. The parts you have quoted also contains warnings to the Queen indirectly, because the Queen did not do anything to cause harm to the Cause of Bahaullah, neither she said she rejects it directly, that is the reason Bahaullah did not rebuke her or warn her directly and harshly, neither He prophesied her kingdom or her life ends soon!

 

[siti]

If you go back to the OP, it seems pretty clear it was intended to be an explanation of the Baha'i belief system as regard to 'Great Beings'. The question was just a set up for later Baha'i explanation. (or an excuse to proselytise) So I don't think it has morphed at all. Perhaps the only mistake was to put it outside of the Baha'i DIR, which just invites opposing views. And yes, that is what LH got. I welcome opposing views as than you can tell people aren't just blindly following some dogma.

Exactly - and the last thing you want when you're busy proselytizing is some reasonably well-informed people butting in with inconveniently verifiable facts. No wonder some people are "not entirely comfortable".

 

[siti]

Dear siti, you do not seem to have understood the point I made. I meant, if we read the Tablet to the Kaiser, Bahaullah states " I will be patient with you". Now think how compatible is "being patient with him" , and long life of Kaiser! But in other cases Bahaullah did not tell them, He will be patient, rather He told them, soon God cease you, or soon you return to dust, then notice, they died fairly soon and unexpectedly! Do you see what i mean?


Deat siti, a prophetic statement talks about future.
It usually has the word 'shall', or 'will'. It may also be expressed in the present or passed if it is a prophetic vision. None of the ones you quoted above from the Tablet to Queen is prophetic. Thus the point remains that in the general parts of the Tablets IF there is a prophetic statement it will be applicable indirectly to the particular king the Tablet is written for. The parts you have quoted also contains warnings to the Queen indirectly, because the Queen did not do anything to cause harm to the Cause of Bahaullah, neither she said she rejects it directly, that is the reason Bahaullah did not rebuke her or warn her directly and harshly, neither He prophesied her kingdom or her life ends soon!

Where did Baha'u'llah say he would be "patient" with the Kaiser? Please provide a quote and/or reference. And how on earth do you suppose you know what the Queen may or may not have said about Baha'u'llah? He sent one letter to her and he got - how many replies - wait let's count - oh yes, that's right - none. My guess is that she completely ignored him - as I probably should have done if only I'd had a bit more sense!

 

[Vinayaka]

Exactly - and the last thing you want when you're busy proselytizing is some reasonably well-informed people butting in with inconveniently verifiable facts. No wonder some people are "not entirely comfortable".

The plan backfired. But lots of Baha'i plans backfired. Maybe this is just microcosm of the macrocosm. There were predictions of peace by 2000, huge increases in numbers, and many more. None have materialised. So now we're left with dwindling numbers, an ever increasing age demographic, and almost all of the resources being put into simply maintaining the buildings that exist. There is little energy left to do anything significant.

And that's sad, because some of the goals are quite legitimate towards a better harmony amongst the people of this planet. If only they could come to the conference table without the big blue sign that says, "I came to this meeting to bring the message of Baha'u'llah!" Everyone else is sick of that. I can have rather decent conversations with Baha'i on here about traveling, about weather, about scenery, about social woes. never ever mentioning even the name of my religion, but with the Baha'i, it always just has to come up. So rather than saying, 'What can we do together to help reduce unfair wealth distribution, and actually think about that, it always has to be ... "Let's see ... what did Baha'u''llah say?' So right away the agenda shifts from actually discussing the goals, to proselytising. I'm beginning to think that that IS the faith. The main activity of the religion is to convince others to join. Not about charity, not about inner striving, character development, helping others, and all those things.

 

[loverofhumanity]

He did - and not one of the rulers he addressed directly paid any attention whatsoever. So why do Baha'is interpret these general warnings and admonition about appropriate rulership as specific prophecies about the demise of one kingdom and the continuation of another?

This is a book regarding the warnings of Baha’u’llah to the kings outlining the times He made the statements and the historical situation at that time.

It might or might not clear explain things a bit better. But the reason behind it all was the oppression and injustices committed by these rulers and Baha’u’llah wanted it stopped.


Prisoner and the Kings

 

[loverofhumanity]

When did I ever say today's world is a form of utopia? I don't even believe in utopia as a concept. You're free to think as you want to. But certainly evidence points against it.

Maybe I misunderstood. Ok point taken.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Most likely all kinds of people warned them. Again, what makes Baha'u'llah unique? How many others talk about dignity and respect? Tons of people do. The problem is that when Baha'is talk about it, the message always has to include Baha'u'llah. It seems the Baha'is beleve that man cannot respect other people unless he accepts Baha'u'llah. The truth is anyone can do it directly, without religion at all.

Baha’is base their beliefs on their understanding that God is All Knowing and so His Words, Counsels, Advice and Teachings have a special mystical potency that ours don’t. That His Words are creative.

It is precisely because we believe God and man are not equal that we support the idea that God’s Words have a very special effect upon reality that ours don’t.

 

[siti]

the reason behind it all was the oppression and injustices committed by these rulers and Baha’u’llah wanted it stopped.

That much I understand - and that explains his annoyance with France, Germany, Austria and Russia who had all, one way or another, interfered and intervened in the affairs of the crumbling Ottoman Empire (of which he was a prisoner and an exile from his native Persia) for their own nefarious purposes - and perhaps his hope that the Queen might turn out to be more even-handed and sympathetic towards the plight of oppressed minorities in the region. But it didn't turn out that way at all. Ultimately, the Turks sided with Germany against Britain and her allies (principally France and Russia) and most significantly, British double-dealing with the Arabs etc. left the region more divided than ever and with a legacy of unfulfilled nationalist dreams that have ultimately turned into the 20th and 21st century's worst nightmare and cost the lives of millions of the very people Baha'u'llah wanted protection and justice for.

If you are calling it prophecy you can't then limit the outcomes to what may or may not have been known to a mid-19th century Persian prophet in exile. If it was from God, it should have anticipated the reality of the entire process in context, not just make vague predictions about the passing of certain rulers some of whom fell and some of whom did not.

Anyway, I honestly think I have already made my point quite clearly on the prophecies to the Kings thing. I am utterly unconvinced by this aspect and nothing that has been said in response - which honestly does not amount to much - has made me even slightly more convinced that Baha'u'llah was anything more than a reasonably intelligent follower of current events.

 

[siti]

Obviously that is not what I said, and you seem you have not understood my post.

OK then please explain - when exactly did the first millennium begin and with what event? The creation/appearance/manifestation of Adam? What am I missing?

If the seventh millennium began in 1844 CE then I presume the first millennium began exactly 6000 years before that which would be the year 4157 BCE if we count according to the current calendar would it not? So what happened in 4157 BCE?

And if that date is not known precisely, as all the Baha'i documents I can find explaining the concept of universal cycles seem to indicate, how can you then claim that 1844 marked the exact year of the culmination of the 6th millennium and the start of the 7th?

 

[CG Didymus]

Come over to the safely and paradise of New Zealand. We can jam together, eat vegetarian food, drink non-intoxicating herbal tea, and talk philosophy/religion as much or as little as you want.

Is that the view from your house? I'm on my way.

 

[CG Didymus]

Differences of opinion about religious truth between friends.

Friends? You know they think you're deceived and going straight to hell and saying that Baha'u'llah is a false prophet. So no, it's more than just a difference of opinion.

 

[CG Didymus]

What a nice place

Regards Tony

Okay, let's see your place. Is it something like Crocodile Dundee's place?

 

[CG Didymus]

Disgraceful post.
Total distortion...............
In Post 15697 I wrote about a perceived Historical distortion, thus:-
After this last week of new information I will not listen to Bahai stories again about how nice the Babis were, and how nasty Persia was, alone.
It's fake news!

...and you have attached the term I used, 'Fake News' to a Current Situation about conditions today in Iran.

What's sad is it seems like you're getting pushed further away from the Baha'i Faith... By the Baha'is.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Okay, let's see your place. Is it something like Crocodile Dundee's place?

Over near the water tower I live

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...stralia-gulf-savannah-gulf-of-carpetnaria.jpg

http://aicf.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Normanton02-900x300.jpg

Regards Tony