How Can we know that either Christianity or Islam is right?

[BruceDLimber]

Christianity teaches that God has made man for himself and to have an intimate relationship with him, as in a personal one on one relationship....

Islam on the other hand teaches that man cannot know God that intimately because God is too far beyond man. That man can only know God through the message of the messengers.

Also Islam teaches as opposed to God making man for himself and desiring to know man that God does not need man. That God is free from needs.

How do you reconcile such a contrasting difference?

Rather easily, in fact!

God does indeed have an intimate relationship with humanity even though humans can't themselves directly comprehend God through their own initiative. That's why God periodically sends Divine Messengers: to teach us about God and His desires and laws for us.

And it's quite true that God has no needs Himself.

The Baha'i scriptures explain all this as follows:

“O SON OF MAN!

“Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image, and revealed to thee My beauty. “
―The Hidden Words, Part One, #4

"Upon the inmost reality of each and every created thing [God] hath shed the light of one of His names, and made it a recipient of the glory of one of His attributes. Upon the reality of man, however, He hath focused the radiance of all of His names and attributes, and made it a mirror of His own Self. Alone of all created things man hath been singled out for so great a favor, so enduring a bounty."
―Gleanings, XXVII, pg. 65

""O SON OF BEING!

"Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant."
—The Hidden Words, Part One, #5

Best!

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

1. Each religion was revealed for a specific Age, and each Age has its own unique circumstances and requirements--and hence differing laws and teachings. The central spiritual essence doesn't change.

Your first point violates the tenets of both religions, so you're not really saying they're both right; you're saying that both are wrong in a fundamental way.

Not at all!

As I said, spiritual teachings are universals and don't change over time.

Social teachings, in contrast, are intentionally temporary and may be altered or abolished by any later Divine Messenger (though not by us). A good example is Christ's altering Jewish law during His Sermon on the Mount; this is also why laws such as marriage, divorce, fasting, and funerals change from Age to Age (read "religion to religion").

Thus there's no problem whatever with each religion having different social laws.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[F0uad]

There are certain doctrines in the Bible and Quran that even destroys abrogation as an argument.

Christianity:
Concept of a trinity (What Bahai reject)
God Incarnate (What Bahai reject)
Sins are forgiven by the sacrifice of Jesus(p)'s life (What Bahai reject)
Believing that Jesus(p) died for your sins is the only salvation (What Bahai reject)


Islam:
Revelation for all humankind (What Bahai reject)
Mohammed(saws) being the last prophet and messenger (What Bahai reject)
No crucifixion of Jesus(p) OR death (What Bahai reject)
Islam is the only religion accepted by God (What Bahai reject)

 

[BruceDLimber]

Granted, Baha'is are not a wheel horse for either Christian or Muslim doctrines as stated today, but you would clearly do better to look at what Baha'is accept and teach--and why--rather than go on about what Baha'is reject, the more so given that some of your items about the latter are clearly wrong!

Bruce

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not at all!

As I said, spiritual teachings are universals and don't change over time.

Social teachings, in contrast, are intentionally temporary and may be altered or abolished by any later Divine Messenger (though not by us). A good example is Christ's altering Jewish law during His Sermon on the Mount; this is also why laws such as marriage, divorce, fasting, and funerals change from Age to Age (read "religion to religion").

Thus there's no problem whatever with each religion having different social laws.

Peace,

Bruce

In Christianity, Jesus is God. In Islam, Jesus is not God.

These are not "social teachings", and since they're mutually exclusive, it's impossible for both to be right.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Not only that, but both religions teach exclusive truth. Christians use a verse in John to attempt to say only Jesus saves. The Koran says the following, paraphrasing-

If a man bring a religion other then Islam, never will Allah accept it from him, and in the last day he will be among those who lose all spiritual good.

 

[idav]

They have a lot in common after all. They both claim to be the only true religion of God. They both claim that Abraham and the patriarchs were Christians or Muslims respectively. They both claim to be children of Abraham. They both claim that if you leave their religion to become any other religion you'll go to hell. Christians claim that if Christians become Muslim they're going to hell, and Muslims claim if a Muslim leaves Islam for any other religion they're hellbound. Which is actually true?

You know them by their fruits. Matthew 7:20

 

[hola!]

that's the thing, we can't know. it is a matter of opinion, not set-in-stone fact. there is no real way to 'know' which religion, if any, is the true one. they all claim that they are, they all offer some evidence, none of it is remotely conclusive.

why are christianity and islam the only options here anyway? there are thousands of other gods out there too, each claiming just as strongly to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. why don't they qualify?

bottomline...

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Actually Christianity and Islam are the only two I've ever seen claiming to be the only truth.

 

[cocolia42]

the issue is not the religion (christianity vs islam) the issue is the interpretation of the books. they both contain the right path for those who seek the truth. but most don't seek, they just listen to what their priest, pastor, imam, whatever tells them. our God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy. period. calling yourself a christian or muslim is not going to sway God's vote. seek Him with all of your heart and He will guide you down the path that He has chosen for you.

 

[arthra]

The question was- how can we know which religion is truly God's religion? Christianity or Islam? They both make similar claims except Christians believe in the Trinity, atonement, etc.

In my view there is only one religion of God that has manifested itself over times to humanity.. so both Christianity and Islam have a divine origin.. Christians accept Abraham, Moses and of course Jesus.. Muslims accept Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad...

The doctrinal issues that developed later in Christianity were specific to that religion but in my view, they should not be taken as the essential part of the revelation. You can always find variations that are largely due to say cultural and historical circumstances..

The Gospel:

16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

(King James Bible, Luke)

5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

(King James Bible, John)


In the Qur'an:

3 He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 3 - The Family Of Imran)

In my view both the Gospel and the Qur'an were universal dispensations...

24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

(King James Bible, Matthew)

 

[BruceDLimber]

In Christianity, Jesus is God. In Islam, Jesus is not God.

These are not "social teachings," and since they're mutually exclusive, it's impossible for both to be right.

In fact, the Bible itself affirms the Baha'i Faith.

And there's another way to view this which you're ignoring:

The Baha'i scriptures make clear that Divine Messengers aren't God, but rather perfect individuals sent to guide and educate humanity, and to renew religion.

But they also state that given that They represent the Face of God on earth, it's OK to refer to Them as God even though they in fact aren't God! I quote:

{161}t is evident ...that the Bearers of the trust of God are made manifest unto the peoples of the earth as the Exponents of a new Cause and the Bearers of a new Message. Inasmuch as these Birds of the Celestial Throne are all sent down from the heaven of the Will of God, and as they all arise to proclaim His irresistible Faith, they therefore are regarded as one soul and the same person. For they all drink from the one Cup of the love of God, and all partake of the fruit of the same Tree of Oneness. These Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is the station of pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, if thou callest them all by one name, and dost ascribe to them the same attribute, thou hast not erred from the truth. Even as He hath revealed: 'No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers!' For they one and all summon the people of the earth to acknowledge the Unity of God, and herald unto them the [river] of an infinite grace and bounty. They are all invested with the robe of Prophethood, and honoured with the mantle of glory. Thus hath Muhammad, the Point of the Qur'an, revealed: 'I am all the Prophets.' Likewise, He saith: 'I am the first Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus.'... Sayings such as this, which indicate the essential unity of those Exponents of Oneness, have also emanated from the Channels of God's immortal utterance, and the Treasuries of the gems of divine knowledge, and have been recorded in the scriptures. These Countenances are the recipients of the Divine Command, and the day-springs of His Revelation. This Revelation is exalted above the veils of plurality and the exigencies of number. Thus He saith: 'Our Cause is but one.' Inasmuch as the Cause is one and the same, the Exponents thereof also must needs be one and the same...

{191}We have already in the foregoing pages assigned two stations unto each of the Luminaries arising from the Daysprings of eternal holiness. One of these stations, the station of essential unity, We have already explained. 'No distinction do We make between any of them.' The other is the station of distinction, and pertaineth to the world of creation and to the limitations thereof. In this respect, each Manifestation of God hath a distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission, a predestined Revelation, and specially designated limitations. Each one of them is known by a different name, is characterized by a special attribute, fulfils a definite Mission, and is entrusted with a particular Revelation. Even as He saith: 'Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others. To some God hath spoken, some He hath raised and exalted. And to Jesus, Son of Mary, We gave manifest signs, and We strengthened Him with the Holy Spirit.'

{192}It is because of this difference in their station and mission that the words and utterances flowing from these Well-springs of divine knowledge appear to diverge and differ. Otherwise, in the eyes of them that are initiated into the mysteries of divine wisdom, all their utterances are in reality but the expressions of one Truth. As most of the people have failed to appreciate those stations to which We have referred, they therefore feel perplexed and dismayed at the varying utterances pronounced by Manifestations that are essentially one and the same.

{193}It hath ever been evident that all these divergences of utterance are attributable to differences of station. Thus, viewed from the standpoint of their oneness and sublime detachment, the attributes of Godhead, Divinity, Supreme Singleness, and Inmost Essence, have been and are applicable to those Essences of being, inasmuch as they all abide on the throne of divine Revelation, and are established upon the seat of divine Concealment. Through their appearance the Revelation of God is made manifest, and by their countenance the Beauty of God is revealed. Thus it is that the accents of God Himself have been heard uttered by these Manifestations of the divine Being.
[continues]

 

[BruceDLimber]

[continued]
{194}Viewed in the light of their second station - the station of distinction, differentiation, temporal limitations, characteristics and standards, - they manifest absolute servitude, utter destitution and complete self-effacement. Even as He saith: 'I am the servant of God. I am but a man like you.'

{196}Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: 'I am God!' He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world. Thus, He hath revealed: 'Those shafts were God's, not Thine!' And also He saith: 'In truth, they who plighted fealty unto thee, really plighted that fealty unto God.' And were any of them to voice the utterance: 'I am the Messenger of God,' He also speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth... For they are all but one person, one soul, one spirit, one being, one revelation. They are all the manifestation of the 'Beginning' and the 'End,' the 'First' and the 'Last,' the 'Seen' and 'Hidden' - all of which pertain to Him Who is the innermost Spirit of Spirits and eternal Essence of Essences. And were they to say: 'We are the servants of God,' this also is a manifest and indisputable fact. For they have been made manifest in the uttermost state of servitude, a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain. Thus in moments in which these Essences of being were deeply immersed beneath the oceans of ancient and everlasting holiness, or when they soared to the loftiest summits of divine mysteries, they claimed their utterance to be the Voice of divinity, the Call of God Himself. Were the eye of discernment to be opened, it would recognize that in this very state, they have considered themselves utterly effaced and non-existent in the face of Him Who is the All-Pervading, the Incorruptible. Methinks, they have regarded themselves as utter nothingness, and deemed their mention in that Court an act of blasphemy. For the slightest whispering of self, within such a Court, is an evidence of self-assertion and independent existence. In the eyes of them that have attained unto that Court, such a suggestion is itself a grievous transgression. How much more grievous would it be, were aught else to be mentioned in that Presence, were man's heart, his tongue, his mind, or his soul, to be busied with anyone but the Well-Beloved, were his eyes to behold any countenance other than His beauty, were his ear to be inclined to any melody but His voice, and were his feet to tread any way but His way.

—(The Book of Certitude, pages 152-154, 176-180)
[end quote]

Indeed, Baha'u'llah Himself says:

“When I contemplate, O my God, the relationship that bindeth me to Thee, I am moved to proclaim to all created things ‘verily I am God!’; and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!”
—Baha'u'llah, p. 2

Peace,

Bruce

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In fact, the Bible itself affirms the Baha'i Faith.

And there's another way to view this which you're ignoring:

The Baha'i scriptures make clear that Divine Messengers aren't God, but rather perfect individuals sent to guide and educate humanity, and to renew religion.

But they also state that given that They represent the Face of God on earth, it's OK to refer to Them as God even though they in fact aren't God! I quote:

Yes, I do tend to ignore irrelevant things.

Saying that Jesus is not God is incompatible with Christianity. Saying that it's okay to refer to Jesus as God even though he actually isn't is incompatible with any form of Islam I've ever heard of.

You're still not getting us to "both Christianity and Islam are true." What you just said just goes right along with what I said before: your argument implies that both Christianity and Islam are wrong in fundamental ways.

You're not reconciling Christianity and Islam (and the Baha'i faith) with each other; you're co-opting and twisting Christianity and Islam to make them fit Baha'i beliefs. It would be a lot more honest if you didn't do this, but instead argued openly that these other religions got important things wrong.

 

[BruceDLimber]

You are most welcome to your opinion.

Ours is very, very different!


Bruce

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are most welcome to your opinion.

Ours is very, very different!


Bruce

It's fine if you think that. What would not be fine would be if we disagreed, but you told me that deep down, I actually agreed with you... as you've effectively done to the Christians and Muslims here.

You've said that Jesus is not God. In this respect, you've implicitly told Christians that they're wrong. You've said that calling people who are not God "God" is okay. In this respect, you've implicitly told Muslims (and Christians too, for that matter) that they're wrong as well. In no way does a message of"you're both wrong" equate to "you're both right."

You seem to have issues with the distinction between "you believe 'X'" and "you ought to believe 'X'." At least the latter is honest in what it is attempting to do: to get the other person to adopt a new position.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It's fine if you think that. What would not be fine would be if we disagreed, but you told me that deep down, I actually agreed with you... as you've effectively done to the Christians and Muslims here.

You've said that Jesus is not God. In this respect, you've implicitly told Christians that they're wrong. You've said that calling people who are not God "God" is okay. In this respect, you've implicitly told Muslims (and Christians too, for that matter) that they're wrong as well. In no way does a message of"you're both wrong" equate to "you're both right."

You seem to have issues with the distinction between "you believe 'X'" and "you ought to believe 'X'." At least the latter is honest in what it is attempting to do: to get the other person to adopt a new position.

I think our basis should be the Books and recorded sayings of those Prophets to see who they said they are.

With regards to Muhammad:

Recorded saying of Muhammad: "I am He and He is I, save that I am I, and He is He"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahl_al-Tustari

Also “In truth, they who plighted fealty unto thee, really plighted that fealty unto God.” Qur’án 48:10.

With regards to Jesus:

Jesus said: “I and father are one”
“Whoever has seen Me, has seen the Father”

With regards to Moses:

"Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet." Exodus 7:1

"He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him." Exodus 4:16

With regards to Baha’u’llah:

“When I contemplate, O my God, the relationship that bindeth me to Thee, I am moved to proclaim to all created things ‘verily I am God!’; and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!” Baha’u’llah


“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For ... through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world.... And were any of them to voice the utterance, “I am the Messenger of God,” He, also, speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth.... Viewed in this light, they are all but Messengers of that ideal King, that unchangeable Essence.... And were they to say, “We are the Servants of God,” this also is a manifest and indisputable fact. For they have been made manifest in the uttermost state of servitude, a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain....” Baha’u’llah

 

[oldbadger]

I tried to follow the Bahai debater's threads here, but whereas they seem to be saying that Christianity and Islam are both 'fine', in a Bahai World, Bahai's would rule, and neither Christians nor Moslems of any denomination, sect or following would be allowed a vote or any decision in how the World would be run. Wolves in Sheep's clothing?

 

[Gui10]

Wolves in Sheep's clothing?

Sheeps in wolves.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I tried to follow the Bahai debater's threads here, but whereas they seem to be saying that Christianity and Islam are both 'fine', in a Bahai World, Bahai's would rule, and neither Christians nor Moslems of any denomination, sect or following would be allowed a vote or any decision in how the World would be run. Wolves in Sheep's clothing?

It's true that Baha'is believe Jesus and Muhammad were True Prophets, but I would say you misunderstood the Baha'i view about voting or decision making.