Infallibility

[Vinayaka]

By all means in your investigation leave no stone unturned. That is a very commendable act.

Thank you. As a non-Baha'i. I'm under no obligation to read Baha'i only, and I'm glad you see that. It shows a degree of tolerance. In Hinduism, our own Bhagavad Gita as about 50 translations, some differing substantially. I've never read the Gita personally, but if I did, I'r read a few.

It's interesting that your main scripture never got a full English translation until 1982. It would indeed be interesting to see how an Iranian Muslim would make the same translation.

 

[Vinayaka]

Got any of those? I would be perfectly happy to read those.

Of course those would be biased, for obvious logical reasons.
They would be lies if the Baha'i Faith is the truth.
So the only question that remains is whether the Baha'i Faith is the truth or a lie.
Nothing else matters.

No need to get snarky, but if you wish.

 

[Trailblazer]

I never said Baha'i sources weren't valid. You extrapolated falsely. I just said I like to read both sides. If there is more than one translation, for example, why not read both? One of the problems with Baha'i 'investigation' is only reading Baha'i sources. So it's programmed confirmation bias. But continue on.

So what do we do when translations are completely opposite to one another?
We have to suspect that something is fishy on one side. I suppose one word could be mistranslated but when it is a lot of words we have to be suspicious.
There are Baha'is who can read and understand the Persian and Arabic. Would you consider their opinions?

I think we have to use our logical minds and look at possible motives on both sides. We have to look at more than just the Writings and ask ourselves what makes the most sense, given the entirety of the religion.
What reason would the Bahai Faith have to misrepresent what Baha'u'llah wrote? What would be their motive?
What reason would those outside the Bahai Faith have to misrepresent what Baha'u'llah wrote? What would be their motive?

 

[CG Didymus]

There is a lot to discuss in your post, but I will address some of them, and hopefully later more.

First, why do you think that if the Book has symbolic verses and story, it would be lie?
You are saying that, it has no indication that they are symbolic. But in my view a clear heart would recognize they are not literal. Why? Because a pure heart is not after miracles according to Jesus. The book has many indications, that God does not do miracles to convince a people. If you read the story of Christ, He rejected doing any miracles for them, and said to them, only a wicket generation asks for a miracle, no miracle will be given. Thus those other miracle stories of Jesus would be symbolic, otherwise Jesus would have contradicted Himself, which is impossible for God.

Now, if someone wants to learn about the ways of God, he would from this same story, easily accept, that all other miracles would not have happened literally, right? But when people do not learn about the ways of God from the Book, he would get mislead. But whose fault is it? The prophets or the people who do not want to understand the book? Likewise there are many other indications in the other books of OT, which would teach God speaks parables, figures and metaphors.
Moreover, suppose, the scientific levels of people of old times was not high enough to know the Sun standing still is impossible scientifically, and perhaps took these symbolic expressions literally. After all, everyone is answerable towards God, with regards to their actions. God still loves those who are kind, generous and forgiving. He would not punish anyone for not being able to know what is beyond their knowledge, but when He reveals the Truth in this new Age, and teaches the True meaning of symbolic verses, it would be now blameworthy to deprive ourselves from the truth.

Here's the quote from Matt 16:4

A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.​

It doesn't help the Baha'i cause to not only take verses out of context... but to change words in it to make it say what you want it to say. It was his enemies that wanted him to show them a "sign", not a "miracle", and he called them a "wicked and adulterous generation". Then, he gave them a "sign"... the sign of Jonah. Which alludes he what? Him being buried three days and coming back to life. Which, I guess, you could call a miracle. But, you say God doesn't use miracles to convince people? So no one got convinced by Christians telling them that God raised Jesus from the dead? That's the most convincing thing about the Gospels. They believe Jesus conquered death and is alive. And, because he's alive he has proven he has the authority to forgive them of their sins.

I question it, but I question everything. I think it's possibly nothing more than embellished mythical stories. But, if there is a being like the one described in the Bible, an all-powerful Creator, then anything is possible. And miracles performed by Jesus would show that he was sent from that all-powerful God. To do what? Convince people that he is who he says he is... the Son of the living God.

But, if those verses that say Jesus performed miracles, like bringing people back to life and healing their diseases, and by he, himself, being raised from the dead, if those things didn't really happen, then that is deception. That is lying about what happened. That is lying about Jesus coming back to life and talking and walking with people. And, since Christians believe and teach that all those things are real, then they are the ones that are deceived. They are the ones that believed the lie and perpetuated it... for 2000 years. And, since they taught that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead right from the beginning, they have been wrong right from the beginning. They have never taught or understood the truth right from the very beginning of Christianity until now... if the Baha'is are correct.

And you ask if a "clear heart" would recognize they aren't literal? Or, is it that a heart that has accepted the Baha'i Faith as the infallible truth would believe they aren't literal, because Baha'u'llah said so? You sound like someone in need of a miracle right now. Can God go beyond scientific laws and heal you? I've got to believe that you would answer "yes" to that. Do you have friends and family praying for you, that God will perform a miracle and cure your disease? I'm sure you do. I know there is a Baha'i prayer for healing. Does it work? I'll bet there are some of us here at RF that are praying for a miracle for you. What if it happens? Sorry, but that would be very convincing that God is real. Maybe not for you, but for me it would. And you know what, I hope it does happen.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Thank you. As a non-Baha'i. I'm under no obligation to read Baha'i only, and I'm glad you see that. It shows a degree of tolerance. In Hinduism, our own Bhagavad Gita as about 50 translations, some differing substantially. I've never read the Gita personally, but if I did, I'r read a few.

It's interesting that your main scripture never got a full English translation until 1982. It would indeed be interesting to see how an Iranian Muslim would make the same translation.

Even us Bahá’ís are not supposed to only read Bahá’í books. I follow a much similar method that you outlined. I’ve heard but not verified that somewhere it says to read 10 non Baha’i books for every Bahá’í book.

In my Kindle digital library I have close to 30 Bibles, 20 Qurans and many different versions of the Buddha’s Words as well as the Gita. By cross referencing the many different translations I have found both words omitted and inserted which change the meaning significantly.

Where does the truth lie? I think it’s something that only the individual can decide for him or herself and we all must respect the decision of others even if their conclusion is not the same as ours.

 

[Trailblazer]

No need to get snarky, but if you wish.

That was not snarky. I was serious. I would be perfectly happy to read anything that is objective.
I want to know the truth, I do not want to live a lie.

I am not one to beat around the bush. I like to get straight to the point.
Of course those would be biased if they were written by ex-Baha'is or Covenant-breakers.
Of course those would be lies if the Baha'i Faith is the truth.
So the only question that remains is whether the Baha'i Faith is the truth or a lie.
Nothing else matters, to me anyway.

That is just how I think, true or false. It has to be one or the other because it cannot be both, logically speaking.

 

[CG Didymus]

Love cannot be forced. If we don’t feel love it’s useless too try and force it. So God too does not force us. But it does not matter. God loves us whether or not we reciprocate.

I know you don't believe the Adam and Eve story is literal, but God cursed them for disobeying him. He puts a tree in the middle of the garden and tells them not to eat the fruit from it. And he lets a talking serpent tempt them. What did God expect? They're like one day old. Do you think he's cut them a little slack? No. He curses them, the animals, the serpent, the whole Earth. And that's just one of the examples of God's love we have from the Bible. That's what I was trying to point out. If I'm a jerk to a woman and treat her like #*&%, why would I think she's going to love me? And then call what I'm giving her is love?

 

[Vinayaka]

So what do we do when translations are completely opposite to one another?

What reason would the Bahai Faith have to misrepresent what Baha'u'llah wrote? What would be their motive?

What reason would those outside the Bahai Faith have to misrepresent what Baha'u'llah wrote? What would be their motive?

In most multiple translations that I've seen, they're similar, but often you can tell the coloured glasses of the translator.

In each of the other two cases, one would stress the positive, ignoring the negative, and vice versa. That is if there is an agenda at all. For Baha'i translations, we know there is an agenda ... to present the positive. In non-Baha'i translations, we'd see either neutral and balanced, or, as you insinuate, the negative.

 

[Vinayaka]

Of course those would be biased if they were written by ex-Baha'is or Covenant-breakers.
Of course those would be lies if the Baha'i Faith is the truth.
So the only question that remains is whether the Baha'i Faith is the truth or a lie.
Nothing else matters, to me anyway.

That is just how I think, true or false. It has to be one or the other because it cannot be both, logically speaking.

The ex-Baha'i's I've read are a mixed lot. Some are just sad. like the gay people, for not being able to be accepted, others are Meh, neutral, recognising it as a phase they went through in adolescence or youth, and yes, there are those that are seeking revenge. They feel a heartfelt duty to warn others. Some were also once in high standing in their respective Baha'i communities.

I don't think in those terms of black and white, true or false. Another difference between paradigms. It's all in shades of grey to me. To label all ex-Baha'i as liars is vastly simplistic overgeneralisation.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Here's the quote from Matt 16:4

A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.​

It doesn't help the Baha'i cause to not only take verses out of context... but to change words in it to make it say what you want it to say. It was his enemies that wanted him to show them a "sign", not a "miracle", and he called them a "wicked and adulterous generation". Then, he gave them a "sign"... the sign of Jonah. Which alludes he what? Him being buried three days and coming back to life. Which, I guess, you could call a miracle. But, you say God doesn't use miracles to convince people? So no one got convinced by Christians telling them that God raised Jesus from the dead? That's the most convincing thing about the Gospels. They believe Jesus conquered death and is alive. And, because he's alive he has proven he has the authority to forgive them of their sins.

I question it, but I question everything. I think it's possibly nothing more than embellished mythical stories. But, if there is a being like the one described in the Bible, an all-powerful Creator, then anything is possible. And miracles performed by Jesus would show that he was sent from that all-powerful God. To do what? Convince people that he is who he says he is... the Son of the living God.

But, if those verses that say Jesus performed miracles, like bringing people back to life and healing their diseases, and by he, himself, being raised from the dead, if those things didn't really happen, then that is deception. That is lying about what happened. That is lying about Jesus coming back to life and talking and walking with people. And, since Christians believe and teach that all those things are real, then they are the ones that are deceived. They are the ones that believed the lie and perpetuated it... for 2000 years. And, since they taught that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead right from the beginning, they have been wrong right from the beginning. They have never taught or understood the truth right from the very beginning of Christianity until now... if the Baha'is are correct.

And you ask if a "clear heart" would recognize they aren't literal? Or, is it that a heart that has accepted the Baha'i Faith as the infallible truth would believe they aren't literal, because Baha'u'llah said so? You sound like someone in need of a miracle right now. Can God go beyond scientific laws and heal you? I've got to believe that you would answer "yes" to that. Do you have friends and family praying for you, that God will perform a miracle and cure your disease? I'm sure you do. I know there is a Baha'i prayer for healing. Does it work? I'll bet there are some of us here at RF that are praying for a miracle for you. What if it happens? Sorry, but that would be very convincing that God is real. Maybe not for you, but for me it would. And you know what, I hope it does happen.

If you look at the statement of Christ within the context, it must be about the Jews asking Him to perform a miracle. That is what sign means in this case. What kind of a sign would they ask for, if not a miracle?
It can be easily noted from the whole story that Christ apparently did many miracles, and not just one sign. And if you say, the Authors of Bible meant to say that Jesus wont do miracles for His enemies accept for His own resurrection, then why after He was resurrected, He did not go to His enemies telling them, here is the sign I was talking about? Moreover, why would Jesus uses allusion to the sign of Jonah? Why not explicitly saying to them, He will rise after death? I mean, let's think about it, if Jesus is not willing to perform miracles, why would He even say, I perform one miracle?

Bahaullah told us if we get sick, we should go and see a good doctor. He did not say, when we get sick, just say a healing prayer. I think the healing prayers were revealed at the request of some Bahais. I am not saying it does not work, but i never found anything in Bahai scriptures saying, God will break the physical laws to heal someone. There are spiritual powers within us, which would manifest its effect on the body, but that does not mean it changes the laws of physics. It works in parallel perhaps. As Abdulbaha said, the healing prayer does not always heal a person, otherwise one could live for ever, or a very long time.

 

[Trailblazer]

In most multiple translations that I've seen, they're similar, but often you can tell the coloured glasses of the translator.

In each of the other two cases, one would stress the positive, ignoring the negative, and vice versa. That is if there is an agenda at all. For Baha'i translations, we know there is an agenda ... to present the positive. In non-Baha'i translations, we'd see either neutral and balanced, or, as you insinuate, the negative.

I have only seen a few translations of a few Writings that were diametrically opposed to the official Bahai translations. I have not seen multiple translations that were similar. Are those available online?

It makes no sense to me that the Baha'is would have an agenda and try to distort what was written in the original languages when translating the Writings into English. Why would anyone want to portray Baha'u'llah as someone He was not? This conspiracy theory that some people have makes no logical sense to me because what would Baha'is get out of it? We sacrifice our time, some of us all our time, for this Cause. Many sacrifice what they might want to be doing otherwise to serve on assemblies and follow the laws and also donate money to the Cause. Why would they do all of this for a false religion?

So the only other possibility is that we have all been duped by the Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ. But what would be their motive for duping people? They sacrificed their entire lives for this Cause. The only other possibility is that they were duped and thought they were doing right by God. But who would have duped them? It would have had to be Baha'u'llah, but what would have been His motive?

I have heard it all from atheists I posted to on other forums over the years. Some say that Baha'u'llah was a con-man, some say He was a psychotic, a man who heard voices. But the problem is, there is no evidence of this, and it makes no sense, given what Baha'u'llah actually wrote and did in His life. Con-men get something for themselves, adoration, money or power. What did Baha'u'llah get? He lost everything and He suffered for 40 years in prison, exile and banishment. Con-men don't do that. How could a psychotic do all that He did, write what He wrote? It makes no sense, so I have to discount it.

It makes sense to me that if the official Baha'i translations into English were really distorted, the Baha'is who speak Persian and Arabic would know that and they would say something. After all, there are many Persian Baha'is who speak those languages. Also, from what I understand, copies of the Writings in their original languages are in libraries in the Middle Eastern countries for everyone to read. If they said the atrocious things that I have seen in the some of the translations, one would think that Muslims would be the first to say something about that and capitalize on it to defame the Baha'i Faith.

I just try to reason these things out. It makes no sense to me that anyone would want to be living a lie. Who would want to "believe" in a religion that was based upon lies? Not me, I ran away from the Baha'i Faith for 42 years. I did not come back just to live a lie. If someone could prove that Baha'u'llah had some motive other than what He claimed, I would be out of the Baha'i Faith so fast you would not even see my shadow.

But I see no reason to believe ex-Baha'is and Covenant-breakers because they have an obvious motive. If they could prove what they were saying I would believe them though. I just do not see any proof, only accusations, accusations that make no logical sense and have no backing. Maybe they can convince some people to follow them, people who do not bother to think or do any research of their own, and maybe that is what they are hoping for. You have to ask why they would even bother to speak out against the Baha'i Faith, if it is of no significance? Why not just walk away and live their lives? If the Bahai Faith is of no significance and there is no God behind it, it will die out on its own, just as all cults have done, but that is not what we see happening. Only time will tell what happens in the future. We will not be alive to see it.

 

[Trailblazer]

The ex-Baha'i's I've read are a mixed lot. Some are just sad. like the gay people, for not being able to be accepted, others are Meh, neutral, recognising it as a phase they went through in adolescence or youth, and yes, there are those that are seeking revenge. They feel a heartfelt duty to warn others. Some were also once in high standing in their respective Baha'i communities.

I don't think in those terms of black and white, true or false. Another difference between paradigms. It's all in shades of grey to me. To label all ex-Baha'i as liars is vastly simplistic overgeneralisation.

I do understand your perspective. When it comes to people, it is never black and white, so we cannot label groups of people and say they are all lying or all telling the truth. There are just too many variables, too many things that happen to people, too many possible motives. Some ex-Baha'is might be very sincere and trying to help people, believing they have found the truth, but that does not mean that they have found the truth. We all think we have found the truth, that what be believe is true; otherwise, we would not believe it. But what people believe does not determine what is true.

I always look at motives first because that is what drives a person to do what they do, say what they say. If someone dropped out of the Bahai Faith because having sex as they want to is more important than what they believed to be the truth from God, that says to me that what they want is more important than God. However, if a homosexual was mistreated by someone in the Bahai administration, that is another matter altogether. If someone who was in high standing drops out because they lost their standing, then we have to look at what happened. If that happened because they challenged the Bahai Faith administration and they lost, that could well mean that they had a problem with their ego. It could mean that what they wanted for themselves was more important than what they believed about God, or maybe they never really believed in Baha'u'llah in the first place, and this was a test of their faith. However, if someone in the Bahai Faith administration did something that was unjust, that puts another spin on it.

What I was saying is that the Bahai Faith is either true or it is false. Baha'u'llah was either a Manifestation of God or not. There are no shades of gray, it is black and white.

 

[Marcion]

What I was saying is that the Bahai Faith is either true or it is false. Baha'u'llah was either a Manifestation of God or not. There are no shades of gray, it is black and white.

I've heard evangelical born-again christians say similar things about Jesus and the christian gospel.
They by the way also had a psychological problem with nature's variations in sexual orientatien.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I've heard evangelical born-again christians say similar things about Jesus and the christian gospel.
They by the way also had a psychological problem with nature's variations in sexual orientatien.

It is the same God they are talking about. It is God's Laws they try to uphold.

Thus it is as I see it as well, it is black and white.

It is truth or it is not. That is the fairest way to have it, if we are to be judged for our actions in this life.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Black and white philosophy promotes 'I'm right and you're wrong' and is just too narrow minded for me for me. Arguing with it is pointless. I did that once before, so this time I'll be out sooner. No wonder folks like Jim struggle wit other Baha'i. One cannot move people stuck in dogma.

Best wishes.

Editted ... I believe this problem arises because of the belief in infallibilty itself, what this thread is supposed to be about. Because some Baha'i's believe their prophet is infallible, and what he said is infallible, they also think they themselves, by quoting infallible stuff, are also infallible. The arrogance of that is overwhelming.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Black and white philosophy promotes 'I'm right and you're wrong' and is just too narrow minded for me for me. Arguing with it is pointless. I did that once before, so this time I'll be out sooner. No wonder folks like Jim struggle wit other Baha'i. One cannot move people stuck in dogma.

Best wishes.

Firstly I assume you are not here to move anybody. That would go against all you have said.

The world reflects black and white. It is a way to understand and appreciate all that can be seen.

This does not deny all the colours in between.

We have Light the opposite is darkness.

We have Truth the opposite is False.

Within all this is understanding. We do not have to see it as negative.

All this defines Infallibility.

RegardsTony

 

[Trailblazer]

I've heard evangelical born-again christians say similar things about Jesus and the christian gospel.

And they were right. Jesus was either sent by God or not. This is logic 101 stuff.

They by the way also had a psychological problem with nature's variations in sexual orientatien.

That is a red herring.
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.
Red herring - Wikipedia

 

[Marcion]

Black and white philosophy promotes 'I'm right and you're wrong' and is just too narrow minded for me for me. Arguing with it is pointless. I did that once before, so this time I'll be out sooner. No wonder folks like Jim struggle wit other Baha'i. One cannot move people stuck in dogma.

It does all seem rather too much of an irrational way of thinking for me personally.
I feel Baha'i and evangelical christians are on the wrong track there.
As they are with their basic misunderstanding of the value of Eastern spiritual philosophies.
But there is indeed no use in trying to talk people out of dogmatic belief systems.

 

[Marcion]

And they were right. Jesus was either sent by God or not. This is logic 101 stuff.

That is a red herring.
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.
Red herring - Wikipedia

I added that especially to show that irrational superstitious or more mythical belief systems may also lead to the rejection of natural phenomena that cannot be changed. In both these religions this seems to be the case. It could be coincidence but I don't think so, fundamentalist Islam is no different.
Tantra is more in line with rationality, science and working with nature instead of trying to ignore or oppose it in an unnatural way.

 

[Trailblazer]

Everyone has their own beliefs and reasons for those beliefs.
Everyone has reasons why they do not like someone else's beliefs.

What we believe does not matter. The Truth about God is determined by God.
All we can do is discover that Truth or fail to do so.
We cannot change it because we are not All-Powerful.