If we ask God for Proof we must be content with one proof.

[TransmutingSoul]

Jesus did not write anything. And who said there must be prophets or messengers? Maybe religions claiming that there must be prophets and messengers are false and religions claiming that God communicates directly without any messengers are true? Or religions claiming there are many gods are true. Or ideologies claiming that there are no gods at all are true. According to you, one has to explore each of the infinitely many claims that had been made or are being made in depth before coming to a conclusion, correct?

Maybe this is the proof you could ask for from God?

All the best, Regards Tony

 

[sayak83]

Maybe this is the proof you could ask for from God?

All the best, Regards Tony

As I have said, I have already had experience of that which you call the divine. I don't require proofs or books or messengers to convince me of anything. They are secondarily useful for
a) Learning the language by which the spiritual sense can be articulated in words
b) Create a confidence in that the religious or spiritual path is not a one off, but has been travelled by many with shared experiences and understanding
c) Create an integrated knowledge structure that makes sense of all aspects of secular and spiritual lived reality.
d) Developing the spiritual praxis by which the experience and wisdom within the tradition can be deepened.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

As I have said, I have already had experience of that which you call the divine. I don't require proofs or books or messengers to convince me of anything. They are secondarily useful for
a) Learning the language by which the spiritual sense can be articulated in words
b) Create a confidence in that the religious or spiritual path is not a one off, but has been travelled by many with shared experiences and understanding
c) Create an integrated knowledge structure that makes sense of all aspects of secular and spiritual lived reality.
d) Developing the spiritual praxis by which the experience and wisdom within the tradition can be deepened.

All the best with your chosen path towards the divine.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

A quandary for us all CG. The same thing said when Jesus came, the same thing said when Muhammad came and now the same thing said by the masses when the Bab and Baha'u'llah came.

The Truth, given by God, when God so chooses, some will have embraced it and be sharing it, knowing it is what mankind needs, many will flat out say they are wrong and continue to offer that negitive response without any real effort to search the evidences and proofs given that would confirm that what they beleive, has been validated in the New Messenger.

That's Faith.

Regards Tony

Yes, the same thing is said every time somebody makes a claim that they are from "God" and are the "Promised One", because some people weren't.

Again I mentioned Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Baha'is reject his claims. Baha'i give their reasons why they reject his claims. Yet, he has a bigger following. Why is that? If the Baha'is are right about him, then he's a false prophet. But I wouldn't be surprised if his teachings are making people more spiritual, believers in God and that they are doing lots of good things... in other words. His religious teachings are working.

For me, Mormons are another example. I don't believe that story about the Angel Moroni and the Book of Mormon. But they too have a greater following than the Baha'is. They too have spiritual people doing good things. Of course they had that problem with multiple wives, but Baha'u'llah had several wives too.

But now let's look at Jesus. Bring a book? He didn't. Fulfill the Messianic prophecies? He didn't. And again, all those things that Baha'is say are not true... Satan, hell, casting out demons, inheriting sin from Adam, and rising from the dead and ascending to heaven. If Baha'is are right, then all those beliefs are false... making Christianity in the way it is believed and practiced, a false religion... not to mention that they made Jesus God.

Yet, it's caused a lot of people to believe in God and do good things. So, does it matter what a person believes? As long as the result is to get them to believe in something greater than themselves that wants them to be good and to love others? That's why some religions are so much like Santa Claus. Tell the kids that Santa is watching and knows when they've been good or bad... and if they are good, Santa will reward them.

That sounds a lot like the Jesus message. So, even if it's a fairy tale... even if it has all kinds of crazy beliefs... if the intent is to get people to become more spiritual and do good, it will work.

And now we get to the Baha'i Faith. You know... if all of us follow the teachings of Baha'u'llah, good things probably will happen. But is there a chance of corruption and abuse? Why wouldn't there be? Every religion that has had complete control, and all the power and authority in the hands of a few, have had problems with abuse of power. Religions with a lot of laws are never going to be able to get all the people to obey those laws unless they impose strict enforcement.

The Baha'i Faith is one of those types of religions. Lots of laws and the power and control in the hands of a few men at the top. What are the Baha'is going to do if there is a problem? And, like I said, the track record of the past religions looks pretty bad.

 

[CG Didymus]

Every Messenger brings God's Word, that is why they are Prophets/ Messengers.

Telling a story about a "messenger" is a good way to get a message across. But is the story about the messenger true? But then the various messages vary so much, how can they all be true?

That is a huge problem for me with the claims of the Baha'i Faith... "progressive" revelation doesn't seem to fit the reality of what we know has happened.

Baha'is, when they talk about progressive revelation, never bring up the religions of the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Chinese and so many other people and cultures. Baha'i focus on only the major religions, and even with them, there are major differences.

I know it's no problem for Baha'is, but how do you get from Hinduism and Buddhism to Judaism and Christianity? it's not a progression. They are completely different.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Telling a story about a "messenger" is a good way to get a message across. But is the story about the messenger true? But then the various messages vary so much, how can they all be true?

That is a huge problem for me with the claims of the Baha'i Faith... "progressive" revelation doesn't seem to fit the reality of what we know has happened.

Baha'is, when they talk about progressive revelation, never bring up the religions of the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Chinese and so many other people and cultures. Baha'i focus on only the major religions, and even with them, there are major differences.

I know it's no problem for Baha'is, but how do you get from Hinduism and Buddhism to Judaism and Christianity? it's not a progression. They are completely different.

In this age we have the bounty of recorded history CG. First hand accounts of those who were the witnesses, who recorded it themselves, or by a person who had heard and recorded their accounts.

Luckily early beleivers saw the bounty in doing this and the "Dawnbreakers" ( Nabils Narrative) was published.

The DawnBreakers - Nabíl's Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá'í Revelation

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Again I mentioned Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Baha'is reject his claims. Baha'i give their reasons why they reject his claims. Yet, he has a bigger following. Why is that?

That is because he piggybacks of Islam, other faiths and off the teachings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, which he was given a trunk of books on. It is not an independent revelation, he was educated in religions and prided on that knowledge.

I offer this link again.

Interaction with The People of Bahá: A response to Ahmadi Answers

This is the third response in the series of responses to a video by Ahmadi Answers attacking the Bahá’í Faith. To read the first piece, click here. To read the second piece, click here. To re…

bahaipen.wordpress.com

Sorry, off to work, did not get time to read replies in detail.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

Again I mentioned Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Baha'is reject his claims. Baha'i give their reasons why they reject his claims. Yet, he has a bigger following. Why is that?

You know I have been thinking of this question for some time. My "guess" is, that Mirza was more learned than Bahaullah, Baha or Effendi. Also, he successfully sided with the British Raj so he had political support unlike the predecessor who had opposition and they were a rebellion in origin. Also, Mirza wrote FOR the religion. I also am guessing that Mirza learned most of his self claims from the Bahais. He makes most of their exact claims about himself. So he was more successful. But this is not a scholarly analysis, just my guess based on what we read in both of their writings. So I could be wrong.